The Smiley Smile Message Board

Justice has prevailed. The prosecution was ill-prepared for this. They most likely would have gotten away with a manslaughter charge if they filed one.

I feel that there was a lack of evidence, while I may not agree that morally the verdict was right, it was certainly the right move by the jury.

Justice has prevailed? Really? Please explain how being able to shoot an unarmed child dead and get away with it, even being waved home by the cops that night, is in any way an instance of justice.

There was a lack of evidence because the cops are bigots too, and had no interest in prosecuting the case. If there hadn't been a media outcry they might never have done. I mean, the cops were so blasé they sent George Zimmerman home that night after perfunctory questioning. Everything about this sucks.

TRBB, you really are a rightwing parody, aren't you? At least now u know yr right to shoot children is enshrined in the law now. Man, fuckin humanity.

:rock

That was the closest thing I could find to applauding.


Edit: I withdraw my contempt toward The Real Beach Boy.

While I agree, calling this "justice" is a joke in itself...
This case proves that Florida needs to take a good look at it's judicial policies.
Zimmerman, in Florida, was not guilty, but ONLY because of their RIDICULOUS self-defense laws. 

I said "justice has prevailed" specifically because there was no way to prove Zimmerman was guilty of second-degree murder. There was a much better chance of proving his guilt of manslaughter instead of second-degree murder. I am not defending Zimmerman by any means. Yes, he was clearly wrong.

And "At least now u know yr right to shoot children is enshrined in the law now." is such a straw man I don't even know where to begin.

If you're not defending Zimmerman, don't say 'justice has prevailed!' When he gets off. You can see the confusion?

Posting on the phone, but my last point could essentially be summed as 'murder is essentially legal in the state of Florida with this ruling.' And as FOTM says, that's down to their ludicrous gun laws.

Justice, as a system, has prevailed, as terribly flawed as it is.

Morally, this is pretty disgusting.

I said that specifically for three reasons. Firstly, justice absolutely goes both ways, which leads to my second reason - there was no way that the prosecution could prove second-degree murder with the presented evidence. They absolutely should have gone for an aggravated manslaughter charge, not a second-degree murder charge. Aggravated manslaughter? He absolutely would have been found guilty. And he didn't even use "stand-your-ground" laws as part of his defense. The prosecution leapt too far. The outcry was so great; I can't blame them.

Zimmerman is by no means a winner. Not by a long shot. He'll end up being taken to civil court and he'll very easily lose. This brings me to my third reason. While he may not go to prison, his life is effectively over. And he'll have to live with what he did for the rest of his life.

The state's case was a total disaster from the start.  George Zimmerman is a douchebag.  Florida is a joke.  No one wins in these situations, but it would be nice if the media would shift their outrage about the death of one black teenager in Florida.  Where is the wailing and gnashing of teeth at the never-ending string of murdered black teens and young adults in Chicago?

He was tried by a jury of his peers. The jury was instructed on what they could consider when determining guilt or innocence. Opinions mean nothing. Based on the facts presented by the prosecution, the jury came to a verdict of not guilty. No justice system is perfect, but I for one would not want to be tried in any other fashion. The jury did the job that they were sworn to do.

(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/p320x320/67905_652117641483147_658006640_n.jpg)

Black vs black shootings in the inner city don't bring in big ratings though.

This entire incident was a disaster: Zimmerman disregarding nearly every rule pertaining to conceal/carry. NBC editing the f*cking 911 call making Zimmerman look like a complete racist. The prosecution going for the big catch instead of a reasonable charge. The justice system prevailed, though I do not believe justice prevailed.

Many of us have probably been on a jury, some of us have had to decide whether a man spends a good chunk of his life behind bars - when the prosecution doesn't give sufficient evidence or overblows the charges there is nothing the jury can do.

Jeez, you folks on the left sure are bloodthirsty! On the other hand, calling the 'justice system' anything other than a horrible joke is itself a horrible joke. Any system where the police, the lawyers and the judges work for the same side (the state) is obviously absurd. A system where putting someone either to death or in a cage is somehow justice for anyone, including the victim and family, makes no sense.
Of course Zimmerman should be made to pay for killing another individual, but how about actually recompensing the injured parties?
Since no one can bring the dead back to life, Zimmerman should instead pay the family a sum of money equal to the potential earning of the deceased over what would have been his natural lifetime plus whatever other amount a third party arbitrator finds acceptable. At least then the family would have something for their loss and Zimmerman would pay a real price, besides the obvious ostracism that come with being a known killer.

I take it that you are not from this country or you would know that a civil case can address what you state at the end of your post. This all comes down to the difference between criminal "Reasonable Doubt" and civil "Preponderance of Proof" cases. The civil case can only come about if the family files a civil suite.

I am indeed 'from this country', I just find this 'country', and frankly all countries, to be ass backwards when it comes to government being the arbiter of anything. How can an organization that is defined by being a monopoly on that which it prevents all individuals from doing (force being its primary tool) ever be anything but a joke?
Gotta go to work but look forward to more later!

Huh? What government in this world has nothing to do with their country's justice system? Even a civil or small claims court case has government involvement. You cannot have kangaroo courts meating out justice. You can't have vigilante groups doing that either. In our country, the government is the body that makes laws, and they enforce that those laws are carried out and followed.

Justice has not prevailed because Zimmerman has walked away scott free. The charge should have been for manslaughter which he would have been nailed on. Instead the Courts, media and the family and it's lawyers all attempted to portray Martin as a racial martyr and go for broke with a second-degree murder charge. No doubt that racist clown Jesse Jackson is getting himself worked up into a lather over the verdict.

The real lesson here is that roaming Neighbourhood Watch groups are an accident waiting to happen and this stuff should be left to the Police.

The jury was instructed that they could go with the lesser charge of manslaughter and still the prosecution could not prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. Neighborhood Watch Groups are good, but you can't have those volunteer people carrying guns. The optimal word there being, Watch. You watch and report, not confront, and/or take action. That Florida law allowing guns needs to be repealed, or this type of thing will most definitely happen again.

You are right, if Zimmerman thought the kid looked suspect he should have gave the word to dispatch and left it at that. In fact he was told not to aproach Martin but thought he was Charles Bronson. OK so anywhere else a manslaughter charge would have been a given but it seems Florida is second only to Texas in 'shoot first, ask questions later' culture.

My first thought when I heard the verdict would be it would probably be best for Zimmerman to apply for a passport asap and move to some foreign country.  It may be his only chance at some relative privacy and sanity given the fact that if he remains anywhere in the United States he will be continually hounded by the media and those crying outrage at the moment.  My second thought was the outrage.  In cases like this my personal feeling has always been that unless you are directly affected by the outcome of the trial, you really need to concern yourself with you and yours.  I'll never understand the throes of people who take to the streets wasting valuable days of their lives hollering and shouting about something which at the end of the day has very little bearing on their day to day life.  Others may disagree but that is how I see it. 

Pretty good perspective on the Justice for Trayvon rallies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sL2f0PoqME (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sL2f0PoqME)

bloo-bloo-bloo rip traybon, all he wanted was skittles a-bloo-bloo-bloo.

(http://i.imgur.com/fyCiGHf.jpg)

The real story isn't Zimmerman or Trayvon.

The real story is...
Why we know about it.
Why it got politicized.
Why NBC edited the tape.
Why Zimmerman was called a "white"hispanic.
Why the President said "if I had a son, he'd LOOK like Trayvon.

Why the prosecution bungled the case.


This is what will be studied in history classes 100 years from now.  
NOT whether Zimmerman was standing his ground or being an aggressive douche.
NOT whether Trayvon was a punk or just out enjoying some skillets (as Al Sharpton calls 'em).
NOT the intricisies of Florida's conceal/carry.
NOT the hoodie.
It's not the hoodie.



WHITE HISPANIC.
LOOK LIKE TRAYVON.

Stay focused... We're in this together.  Because we're all Americans.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/15/ny-daily-news-trayvon-martin_n_3597797.html?ir=Politics&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

I think everyone here should have BIG problems with this.

Trayvon Martin and Emmitt Till probably shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence. At least Zimmerman was put on trial..

To be fair, Trayvon Martin should not be listed among any of those individuals.

If you're going to kill a black person make sure you are also black, then other black people won't care.

Not just black people, but people in general. You think white people give a damn about black-on-black crime? HELL no.

I agree. What happened to Trayvon is truly sad and the fact he got away free is infuriating.

However, just because he is African-American doesn't mean this was as important as the struggles of civil rights figures

White people hardly care about white-on-white crime as well.

This brings up a point I've always had. White people don't care about gun control until some asshole shoots up an area in white suburbia. They don't give a sh*t when it happens in the inner cities. The only reason gun control is "popular" now in the U.S. is because one asshole broke white suburban America's one rule - NIMBY, or "NOT IN MY BACK YARD".

Yeah, that is gross.  This is the disgusting reality of the modern race-industry.  It's hard to watch this, when you know step-by-step what they're doing, but can't stop it.

I'm not sure why people want racial tension to persist (I have theories and ideas -- money, power, control) but it is sad to watch this.  It's sad to read people's comments.  It's sad to see these riots: where people who say they want justice, feel that terrorizing others and destroying property is how it's done.  It's sad to see all these people played like cheap whores -- used for other people's greedy desires -- duped into thinking they're making a difference and standing up for good.

That's a huge crime in my book -- stealing people's charity, hijacking their goodwill.  It crushes me to see this happen.  It's quite demonic.  It hurts.

But "they" (the race industry) does want this, believe it or not.  "They" do have a reason for creating social unrest.  It makes no sense to rational, thinking human beings who want love, peace and all the rest -- but this is their game.  It's simply the next move on their chess board.  And it was all planned...

Yeah, the ability to take advantage of people is nothing new.

Unfortunately we are a reactionary society of Kool-Aid drinkers that have lost the ability to think rationally or objectively to matters like the Zimmerman trial.  When this story went national, you knew exactly what position every group of people were going to take.  No surprises, no one attempting to look at both sides of the story. This story should have been about two individuals making poor decisions one evening that led to an unnecessary death...nothing else. 

Yeah, I understand.

lately, I find it helpful (for my own sanity) to try not to blame people for not caring here or all-of-the-sudden caring there.  It is helpful to point that out, yes -- but only if it illuminates in them their emotional inconsistency and perhaps that its source is not native to them in the first place -- but rather a social reaction.  If they can understand that, that they're herded this way by their "leaders," and their "propaganda/media" -- it's a relief (to me and them) to know that they aren't inconsistent themselves.  If they accept this as a possibility, it will resolve them -- free them from this social-emotional slavery.

Until then, they're trapped.  Pawns.  Used.  And that pisses me off.

Well said.  I've been thinking about why this happens.  I made mention of it in my last post -- social-emotional slavery.  But we all experience this phenomenon in little ways.  For example, if I was to be in the same room as Brian Wilson, my ability to think would be impaired -- I'd be in awe.  It's mental physics.  In space larger bodies have physical effects on their surroundings -- bending light, gravitational pull.  Even bending time.

Extrapolating that out to societies -- or masses of organisms, peoples gathered together -- it explains mob mentalities.  Their judgement is impaired by the space-time warp.   ;D

Just having fun... but I'm also making a point.  We now live in a society where larger media bodies can bend and shape our thinking.  Coupled with your point -- about the inability to think for themselves -- well, they call that checkmate.  The tools for ration thought are honed in schools.  And schools are now teaching social issues and social conformity -- not critical thinking.

And the ole trusty "morality" and "common sense" toolkits are ridiculed first in the social conformity camps of pubic education.  (yes I said pubic for a reason.)

It’s called Flori-duh for a reason

 :afro

Sitting on a jury is not like sitting in a chair in front of the tube and determining whether someone is innocent or guilty. Though, what drives me crazy is that when a California jury supposedly got it wrong in the O.J. Simpson trial, I don't remember seeing people taking to the streets because Nicole Brown-Simpson and Ron Goldman didn't get justice.

I think a good way to explain that is this:
1) Zimmerman (from what we're told) picked the fight that wound up to Trayvon's death because he was a black kid. He picked him out and followed him.
2) O.J. didn't kill those people because they were white.

Yet, I just listened to a juror who was interviewed saying that they, the jurors never saw that it was racially motivated.

Because Nicole Brown-Simpson and Ron Goldman were not members of a race that have been longstanding victims of institutionalized racism, in which the law has played a vital role. Of course it "drives you crazy" - those who are in the dominant class don't actually have to consider these particular issues and are astounded by the reactions of the people who are faced with them every single second of waking life.

Well, what about OJ Simpson, himself? I don't see institutionalized racism affecting his outcome. Seriously, if this was strictly about a person as a victim I could understand, but as I stated in my last post, even the jurors didn't see it as racism and both Martin and Zimmerman are minorities.

I don't think you understand what I mean when I say "institutionalized racism" nor are you aware of how it works.


You're shifting the goal posts. You asked about why the public reacted the way they did, and I answered. I wasn't responding to anything regarding the Trayvon Martin case nor was I making a comment on the status of minorities in general.

oooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooo institutionalized racism

As usual, talking with you is like talking to a brick wall. If I am not mistaken, this thread's header begins "George Zimmerman...". I have never run into someone, that at least at some point, I can have a normal conversation with, but we never in all this time have gotten that far. That I am truly amazed about. :) I'm done in here!

This post alone should indicate why I find it impossible to have a normal conversation with you.

Then don't!

I wouldn't call this normal.   ;D

Boy, if the term elicits this kind of reaction, it must not exist!  ::)

Let me try one:

oooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooo cultural Marxism

Hey, it works!

So, Zimmerman's need to "fear" young black men trumps Martin's wish to remain alive?

Appeal to emotion.

All in all a real tragedy but the media misrepresented the facts to drive their own agenda. Due to this its almost a miracle that Zimmerman
isn't still imprisoned. Stretching the truth and trying to deceive the public, withholding facts blew this story way out of proportion.
NBC should have the pants sued off of them and many others should be hanging their heads in shame.

Right, the media portrayal of this story was a complete disgrace and travesty.  Neither Zimmerman nor Trayvon deserved to be vilified or lionized.

You said it brother.  With NBC, we have an actual case, in black-n'white (pun intended), of institutionalized you-name-it.  In a sane world NBC would have the protests outside of their office.  But no... the soulless, mindless tools of the Left will be punishing innocent people.  Cuz that's what they do.

Good news if you're a Marxists though.  They get hard for this kind of stuff.  They bust out the KY and get all silly watching this chaos.  "Yeah, yeah, bust those shop windows... yeah... fck those capitalist pigs, fck them hard -- uh!!! they're ex-ex-ploiting the w-w-w-w-wooooorkers!!"

 :lol

Delete.

An astounding discovery!  :lol

.

True, but I was thinking of the Floriduh prosecution staff, which seem to have the intelligence of the average mollusk!
They really couldn't be bothered to put on a case.

This point is unassailable!

Are you sure about that? The bald prosecutor claims this was only his 2nd loss in over 300 criminal cases. CNN was heaping all kinds of praise on the prosecutor who did the rebuttal on the final day of trial. To me, after having sat on a Grand Jury for 5 months, I find that the real issue are the instructions that the jury must follow. They can be very tricky to navigate. When we make up our minds when following a case, we can listen to evidence and make judgments without rules hindering our outcome. Not so with jurors. As we have now heard, during deliberations, three jurors did  not agree with a not guilty verdict. It took time and more questions to arrive with an unanimous verdict. Also, there is nothing like having a great defense attorney.

Honestly TRBB, I was not going for an emotional argument.  I was just weighing one against the other.

I mean, this bloated moon-faced imbecile Zimmerman insisted on carrying a gun, and because of that someone else is dead.  What kind of jerk goes driving around in his SUV with a loaded gun in his hand?

He was hyperaware of suspicious people due to break-ins in the neighbourhood. He largely considered Trayvon Martin suspicious, in his words, because he was walking in the rain and looking around...

The defense called a young white mother who had been robbed in the neighborhood months before the shooting. The witness, Olivia Bertalan, testified that she had cowered in her closet, baby in her arms, as two African-American males burglarized her home.  What did that have to do with Trayvon Martin? The prosecution never asked.
JEEZ
I call that incompetence.

Serious question for you. How would you suppose that he be tried? Do you really think that one defense witness made all the difference? When everyone cried foul that Zimmerman was not arrested and insisted that he be put on trial, I was crying right along. That day came and a jury accquitted him of the crime. We have to be satisfied that he was put through the justice system. We should not be acting like vigilantes and exact our own justice or revenge because we did not agree with the outcome.

Yeah and if I had wheels I'd be a wagon.


It's not illegal to carry a gun.  There are millions of people that own guns and somehow manage to get through each day without having to kill anyone. 

Convenient how people continue to gloss over the fact that Trayvon spent the last few minutes of his life pummeling Zimmerman's head into the ground.  Of course this doesn't justify his death, but I can't imagine it was the wisest strategy to attack an armed man.

What is the wisest strategy, particularly if you've already tried running away, and the guy with the gun kept pursuing you?

Racial stereotyping is disgusting, we should all know this, and agree that Zimmerman should never be allowed to suspect anyone based on race.

HOWEVER.

In this case, the neighborhood had been targeted by (this is fact, not stereotyping) several African American burglars.
You tell me,after dealing with several
robberies, wouldn't you want to make sure he was under control?

My take on this: Zimmerman was dumb to follow him, but I can understand why he did. I believe he only shot because he was attacked.
Many say he created the conflict but... We're not sure. I think this is why he was declared not guilty.

Was he right to shoot? No.

Was he right to follow? Well, under the law, yes.

Was he right to suspect him? Maybe not, but you couldn't even tell me that some of us wouldn't have a thought in the back of our minds.
Gangs do exist,I know that could be considered a stereotype, but sometimes it's better to be safe then sorry.

A few years ago I was held at gunpoint by two individuals who robbed me right at the parking lot of my apartment.  At no point during this did I think it would be a good idea to fight back.  They had the advantage; I didn't.  I let them steal what little I had on me and I remain alive.  As for Trayvon, I'm not entirely clear that he was even aware Zimmerman had a gun on him initially.  But if Zimmerman was so intent on killing Trayvon, why the hell did he phone the police first?

Exactly. Very scary story, I'm glad you're alright!
But I think everyone is ignoring this fact about zimmerman:
"Three weeks prior to the shooting, on February 2, 2012, Zimmerman called police to report a young man peering into the windows of an empty Twin Lakes home. Zimmerman was told a police car was on the way and he waited for their arrival. By the time police arrived, the suspect had fled. "

He was probably just making sure that didn't happen again!!

Martin's father's girlfriend lived there. He was "allowed" to be there. It's not like there were 15 people living in this gated community - it had 260 townhouses, where 20% of the population was black. If I lived in a neighbourhood where there were robberies committed by white people and then saw a white person walking around at night, my first instinct wouldn't be to assume that they are dangerous.

Well, people do react differently. I probably would have done what you did, and consider it the smarter decision, but I also wouldn't necessarily blame someone for trying to defend themselves against a guy who has repeatedly pursued me at night.

As to your second point, I am not necessarily suggesting that Zimmerman was bloodthirsty. Nevertheless, despite calling the police, he was certainly happy to try to take matters into his own hands as he continued to pursue Martin even after the police told him not to so he was certainly prepared to take action with or without the police.

You're over-looking an important fact.  He took "matters into his own hands" because Trayvon was on top of him, beating his head into the ground.  Would Zimmerman still be happily firing away at Trayvon had he not been attacked?  Doubtful.  But thanks for proving my initial point!

Don't bring your fists to a gun fight? No doubt in another State without Stand Your Ground laws GZ would be seeing a good deal of jail time. However, the law in Florida says it okay to defend yourself. Maybe if GZ had not been armed Martin would be alive behind bars facing murder charges, he was not the skinny little kid the media falsely portrayed him to be and could have killed Zimmerman with ease.

No - he took matters into his own hands well before that, which is the crucial point. He took matters into his own hands when the dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was pursuing Martin when Martin was running away and when Zimmerman said yes, the dispatcher told him to stop but he kept going. So the question that you're asking is the wrong question, in my opinion because it seems to me that despite being told to do otherwise by the police, Zimmerman quite eagerly entered into a conflict in which he was already very much prepared to "fire away" as you put it.

I don't dispute Zimmerman should have stayed put after the phone call and let the police deal with it.  The conflict could have very much been avoided.  Had the prosecution not over-charged the case, Zimmerman probably could have been proven guilty.  But there is no evidence in this case that Zimmerman had any initial intent to use his gun on Trayvon.  Because again, he wouldn't have phoned the police in the first place.  He would have just shot him.

Maybe this is a matter of debate, but to me, when you walk around your neighbourhood with loaded gun, it suggests to me that you do intend to use it whether you call the police or not. Personally, I think the call was more of a matter of, "I just wanted to call you so that we're clear that I am saying in advance that this guy I am about to shoot is suspicious looking, therefore under the laws of this state I am legally within my rights to do what I'm about to do." Without that call, there would have been far more question as to whether Zimmerman suspected there to be an unlawful threat so it certainly worked in Zimmerman's favour. But, I am well aware that that's interpretation on my part. But it is as much an interpretation as your own statements regarding the police call.

I realized this seconds after my post and edited it.

Also, in this world it's sometimes smart to assume most strangers are dangerous.

No one would ever call the police before intending to shoot someone. Unless they are doing it for a reason, and intend to take the blame.

Well, I disagree with that sentiment, personally but I can certainly see how in the United States that viewpoint circulates significantly. I don't have time to go into too much detail about it tonight, but I will say quickly that the United States is probably quite unique in terms of industrialized countries in for the level of paranoia and fear of others. It is a country of people who have largely been conditioned, mostly through state and media propaganda, to be constantly afraid. From an outsider's perspective, the level of fear that emanates from the country is bizarre and would be amusing if it weren't so consistently dangerous.


Quite on the contrary. People often call the police before shooting home intruders. Take a look at this story:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/01/oklahoma-mother-calls-911-asks-for-permission-before-shooting-intruder-dead-video/ (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/01/oklahoma-mother-calls-911-asks-for-permission-before-shooting-intruder-dead-video/)

In fact, here is a wiki on how to deal with intruders which suggests that very procedure:

http://www.wikihow.com/Deal-With-an-Intruder-in-Your-Home (http://www.wikihow.com/Deal-With-an-Intruder-in-Your-Home)

pretty good read:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/1idm1y/til_george_zimmerman_was_a_democrat_voted_for/cb3nna5 (http://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/1idm1y/til_george_zimmerman_was_a_democrat_voted_for/cb3nna5)

"Zimmerman claimed to be trying to follow from a safe distance just so police would have a chance to question Martin. There had been break ins and what George did really isn't any different than what other neighborhood watches have done in the past. Martin didn't like being followed so he gave Zimmerman the slip, hid in the shadows, waiting for Zimmerman to pass, and then Martin approached Zimmerman from behind, initiated the confrontation and broke Zimmerman's nose. No evidence or testimony has ever contradicted this."

A pretty good read, but I think the poster is going a little overboard in suggesting that Zimmerman was completely innocent.  I agree with the verdict given to him but, as discussed in this very thread, he could have packed it up and went home after alerting the police.  No one would have died and no one would have idiotically compared Trayvon to Emmett Till.  In any case, I don't believe either individual should be entirely praised or scorned for their actions that night.  Frankly I'm rather indifferent to either individual.  My frustration lies in the circus that followed when this story went national; once again we get bombarded with more irrational, unobjective and overly emotive bloviating from the same predictable political and racial sheep.  Nothing new, and no step towards any true progress as a people.

Ironically, you could very well make the same case with just about any country.  Except maybe Canada.  :-)

It is true, most people outside of the US probably have a very different view of this situation...

But bullshit is bullshit and should be called out as such when it gets too thick, and that's what this post is about. Paranoia and fear of others...what? Before going too far, let me add a few items that just happened in my general area, for consideration before we start into another teeth-gnashing session on America's unique conditioned paranoia and fear of others and all of that crap.

First, some good news: There is a teen from the Lancaster area named Temar Boggs who is being hailed rightfully so as a hero for something he and a friend had done. This is Temar:
(http://images-cdn.lancasteronline.com/722091_190.jpg)

This is the story of what he did, with links to the follow-ups:
http://lancasteronline.com/article/local/872026_Lancaster-teen-Temar-Boggs-hailed-as-a-hero-in-5-year-old-s-abduction.html (http://lancasteronline.com/article/local/872026_Lancaster-teen-Temar-Boggs-hailed-as-a-hero-in-5-year-old-s-abduction.html)

To sum up, he and a friend were helping move a couch in an apartment complex when a man asked if they had seen a little girl who had been missing from the area. They said no, then noticed a lot of police cars and activity in the neighborhood, people searching for the girl.

In his words "We got all of our friends to go look for her. We made our own little search party", and began looking for her in the area. Eventually Temar got on a bike someone else had been riding and he and his friend began biking around, thinking it would be better to search that way.

He did not know the girl or her family.

So eventually they see a car...driving suspiciously. When the car started to approach an area where there were police set up, the driver turned around, and instead began turning down back streets.

Temar and his friend must have realized something was wrong with this scene, it was suspicious and the driver was driving the car in a suspicious manner, so they began following him on their bikes.

Eventually they caught a glimpse of a little girl in the car with what looked like an older man.

The older man after driving through various cul-de-sacs and smaller streets saw Temar and his friend following him, and they made eye contact. He pushed the girl out of the car, and drove off.

The girl ran to Temar, asking for her Mommy, and Temar began to bike back toward the place he was staying, but then decided it was safer to carry her, so he gave the bike to his friend Chris to steer back as Temar carried the girl back to where an emergency worker could be called.

The driver of that car who had abducted the little girl turned out to be a convicted sex offender who had served 20 years in prison for committing a crime on another little girl with some of the same eerie details such as taking her for an ice cream. He was released after those 20 years and was required to register under Megan's Law.

Yet this piece of sh*t couldn't avoid his old ways and committed basically the same crime with the same details as the one he had just served 20 years for committing. The girl identified him and kidnapping/sexual assault charges were filed against him:

http://lancasteronline.com/article/local/873103_Sex-offender--73--charged-in-kidnapping-and-sexual-assault-of-5-year-old-girl.html (http://lancasteronline.com/article/local/873103_Sex-offender--73--charged-in-kidnapping-and-sexual-assault-of-5-year-old-girl.html)

Temar and his buddy Chris are legitimate heroes, the girl's family calls him "an angel" for doing what he (and they) did to save the girl.

They were alerted that a girl was missing, they went searching for her. The search went nowhere on foot, so they hopped on bikes, forming their own search party.

They saw a car driving suspiciously around their neighborhood, one that was out of place and driving in an odd manner. So they began following that car. That pursuit eventually led to making eye contact, startling the driver, and led to him pushing the girl out, which unfortunately did not save her from a vicious assault, but could have saved her life if not more suffering at the hands of this piece of sh*t sex offender guy...who is now in custody and won't be harming another little girl.

If I could do something for Temar and Chris, I would, even if it were a handshake and a "well done, thank you." They are the heroes.

But consider that, those reading who have kids or grandkids or nieces/nephews they love, such so-called American "paranoia and fear of others" is sometimes necessary in cases where young children like this poor girl are targeted, abducted, assaulted, and too often murdered by the likes of all manner of 'convicted sex offenders' like the driver in this story who took this girl from her own neighborhood. So if taking an extra step in telling your kids that there are some really bad people out there who might want to hurt you, and being extra careful with your kids in public places or even in your own front yard means us Americans are being too paranoid and untrusting of our fellow man, which is somehow "dangerous", then I for one will accept any label those who seek to judge as "paranoid" can apply.

Or perhaps such trust in the goodness of man is best applied afar in a classic sense of "do as I say but not as I do". Or perhaps they or anyone close to them have never been the victim of a crime and have not seen firsthand the fear such a crime can create and affect in that person for years to come, as some of us have.

So if that's the case, the willingness to trust in the goodness of our fellow man and stop all of the dangerous paranoia that we as Americans have been "conditioned" by the grand conspiracy of the corporate-run media will go down as yet more ideological horseshit that is far from the reality many of us paranoid Americans face or have faced personally.

Oh, and consider that these two teens whose action of taking the initiative to search for a missing girl they did not know and following a suspicious person driving in their neighborhood potentially led to saving her life and arresting the man who had taken and assaulted her.

And, the big morality question hypothetically asked in conclusion: If that driver who turned out to be a sex offender, fearing that his life was in danger being followed by two teenagers on bikes, whether he had the girl or not, had somehow attacked them physically or even somehow tried to run them down with his car, but the two teens had fought back and beat the sh*t out of him in self-defense, who would then be facing the assault charges related to that specific confrontation?

This story turned out positive if not uplifting because these two teens did a great thing here, yet what many might think was the wrong thing to do by following the car instead of simply "calling the police".

Great story, and this just proves my point.
Fear is a natural, healthy response. These kids sensed danger and acted, saving a life. Your point at the end is interesting, I'd say that they would be fine considering the circumstances surrounding the situation. However, you really do need to let authorities act, a huge mistake on Zimmermans part. In his situation I can understand why he acted though, and these kids probably had one chance to save her so they acted.

All in all, the American "fear" is more than healthy, it's vital. Suspicion can be racially charged, but it doesn't have to be. It's always safe to be extra careful with strangers.

What could Zimmerman be charged with? The poster admits that getting out of the car could've been poor judgement, but according to the facts/testimony, Zimmerman did not break any law.

That's entirely untrue. The United States is unique in constructing since WWII a forever-changing enemy that is out to destroy American life as we know it - from the trumped up fear mongering that surrounded Cold War propaganda to the weapons of mass destruction of Saddam Hussein, the US citizen has been made to live in fear of a largely manufactured threat. Despite the fact that the US has a larger military facility than just about every country in the world combined, they nevertheless feel in danger by countries like Grenada, whose population at the time was roughly 100,000. Reagan justified his illegal attack on Nicaragua on the grounds that they were a two-days drive from Texas and therefore could very easily undermine security. Illegal wars were essentially fought out by the pretense that the target of the war would get us eventually so we just had to get them first. And this goes on and on - today, illegal domestic spying is carried out in the name of preventing possible threats from outsiders. Gun culture too is driven by this same notion of fear - fear of both the criminal element and fear of a tyrannical government.

Someone above suggested that this type of fear is healthy. I would put it in slightly different terms - it is not so much healthy but rather crucial for those who are in power so that they can maintain that power. For just about everyone else it is both dangerous and disempowering.

Not necessarily innocent, because everything that he did up to the actual shooting was legal. We all confront people in the street constantly whether in a good way and in a bad way sometimes. It's those judgments that we make that determine the good or bad outcomes. In either case, those judgments are not illegal to make. So, criminally,  all that he could be charged with was the shooting and nothing more. This is why I keep stating that the jury instructions are what helped Zimmerman get acquitted. Those instructions were only for the possible illegal actions, i.e. the actual shooting.

You're leaving a crucial bit out, which is that that Boggs and Garcia began following the man after spotting a girl "who matched the missing child's description." I assume the missing girl's description was more than simply "white female." I agree that this was indeed a courageous and heroic act by Boggs and Garcia and as a father of a nearly 3 year old girl, I am overjoyed that at the very least this girl was spared from what was probably a far worse and more grisly fate. But identifying a victim of a crime and proceeding is an altogether different kettle of fish than seeing a man walking in the rain and assuming from that that he's "up to know good." One is based on evidence, the other is based on paranoia.

Well considering recent *COUGHSOCIALISTCOUGH* reforms, we have a good reason to fear certain people in power...  ::)

Fear? To what end? To the point where we assume that they are tyrannical Stalinists? I agree that recent government acts have been heinous and worthy of serious investigation. But to characterize them as something they are not (which is typically what happens in the discourse - see any of Bean Bag's posts) can only serve to undermine what could be serious investigations.

Take my comment as a joke based in fact, I understand that it's a big proposition to state that any leader could be guilty of such a radical act, but recently it's beginning to go too far... The "Completely Equal" States of America..."

Fair enough.


It isn't really. Here, we might agree. Power seems to carry with it, inherently, violence and force. Therefore, the more powerful, the more violent and the more forceful. This seems to be historically accurate. What you see as "beginning to go too far" has really been always a crucial aspect of power and while there are matters with the Obama administration that are truly troubling, I do not think the facts are there to suggest that he's uniquely different in this regard.

To that I definitely agree, he's certainly not alone in these regards. However, he is taking "two steps forward, no steps back" as far as this policy, which can almost clearly be defined as a socialist reform.

I'm not certain which policies you're referring to. There is certainly one policy I can think of where that's correct - namely, the Holder v. Humanitarian Law project.


It can almost clearly not be defined as socialist reform, if you are at all familiar with what socialism is.

Great story Gfool.  It's may be impossible to know what was in GZ's heart and how it all happened -- which is why the right verdict was met, based on the ridiculous charges -- but it's the PARANOIA that has emerged (right on cue!) in the aftermath is what is clearly evident.

(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/p480x480/1001481_10151691306988459_1337005859_n.jpg)
Who's paranoid now b!tches!

(http://cdn2.ricochet.com/var/ezwebin_site/storage/images/media/images/zimmerman-riot/4295315-1-eng-US/Zimmerman-Riot_lightbox.jpg)


The reason for stoking and manufacturing the above paranoia is what intrigues me most.  Being played for fools, the country is.  By whom?  And to what end?   ;)



Despite the rhetoric of the modern day Left cooughcough  ;) -- the great American spirit is not one of paranoia.  We're brave and we take matters into our own hands.  Because we understand reality.  Reality is tough stuff.  And it's a cold, hard fact -- the police CANNOT PROTECT YOU.

Sorry, I worded that wrong...

I'm referring to the Affordable Care Act, which is defined as a Socailst policy.

Defined by who? I ask because the Affordable Health Care Act is about as far from socialism as you can get. Again, knowing what socialism is is instructive here. But certainly a policy which largely placed heath care under the umbrella of power controlled by private corporations (namely private insuarance companies and Big Pharma) cannot be seriously called socialist. As author Paul Street put it, the Obama health care plan (largely a re-writing of Mitt Romney's own state health care initiative, itself based on the proposals of the conservative Heritage Foundation), ensured that "the corporate and financial oligarchy" were "free to extort massive profits that drive health care costs to the breaking point for individuals, families, communities, non-profits, small businesses, and government." The mischaracterization of this very clearly right-wing pro-Big Business health care plan is a striking example of the kind of fear mongering I've been talking about.

I left nothing out. Read this from the original link:

They walked through some nearby woods and along a creek where they were told the girl might have gone.

When Boggs and his friends returned to Lancaster Arms on Jennings Drive, they saw more police officers and TV news crews.

"The whole block was filled," he said.

That's when, Boggs said, "I had the gut feeling that I was going to find the little girl."

A friend asked Boggs to hold his bike. Boggs figured the bike would help him search for the girl.

So he and another friend, Chris Garcia, rode on area streets — Michelle Drive, St. Phillips Drive, Gable Park Road — looking for her.

That's when a maroon car caught his eye. (He had gotten a bit ahead of Garcia.)

The car was on Gable Park and turned around when it got near the top of a hill toward Millersville Pike, where Boggs said several police officers were gathered with the kind of cart used to carry an injured football player off the field.

The driver, an older white man, then began quickly turning onto and out of side streets connecting to Gable Park, Boggs said.

The neighborhood is something of a maze; many of its streets are cul-de-sacs.

Boggs got close enough to the car to see a little girl inside. Garcia was nearby.

The driver looked at Boggs and Garcia, then stopped the car at Gable Park and Betz Farm Road and pushed the girl out of the car. The driver then drove off, Boggs said.

Boggs said he didn't see where the car went.

"She runs to my arms and said, 'I need to see my mommy,' " Boggs said.

(End Quote)


With that narrative, again copied directly from the initial newspaper link, Boggs and Garcia noticed the car driving suspiciously in the neighborhood, most obviously turning around to avoid an area where police had been set up as part of the search. The driver began turning down side streets, again something that looked suspicious, something that seemed out of place on those streets.

They saw the driver, after the car's actions caught their eye, and they escalated their observations and pursuit. They did not know the girl was in the car until they got close enough to the car to see her. As with most kids under 6, sometimes you cannot see them sitting in a car because they're not tall enough so you can see them through the window.

So the suspicion, the feeling that this driver wasn't acting normally in their neighborhood, and the decision to pursue the car and investigate further happened before they knew the little girl was in that car.

Again, that's in the first link. If the wording or the timeline is unclear, let's email the author for a clarification so we get it straight. But I did not in any way conveniently leave out a key part of the story, and it definitely doesn't change the outcome nor what I see as a takeaway from the whole thing.

The idea of following someone who seems to be out of place or acting suspicious in a neighborhood is not as unusual nor as barbaric a concept as I've seen some try to present it. In fact, in this case there were two teens who did take matters in their own hands and acted on the initial suspicion that something just wasn't right, and their actions - immediate gut-level decision making far beyond their years or experience - turned out to be correct and helped save a little girl and take a very bad person off their streets.

And the story again illustrates how the notion of closing the windows and doors and letting the authorities handle everything may seem like a good policy in theory but in practical application (i.e. reality), such a mentality may have cost a little girl her life if these two teenagers had instead decided to go back inside their apartment after they saw the authorities were "on the scene", and who knows where the driver who had the girl would have gone had he not been scared off by realizing the two teens had seen him with the girl.

And there was another hypothetical x-factor involved that neither teenager seems to have had a cel phone, or if they did they didn't call police through 911 after seeing the suspicious car driving erratically. Perhaps if they had, they would have been advised to not follow the car in any way (in fact we can almost be certain that's what 911 dispatch would have told them), but to wait somewhere for police who would get the description of the car.

In a matter of seconds, the car could have made a certain turn and disappeared with the girl...the immediate reaction of these teens to follow it, acting on a gut instinct is amazing.

And the positive outcome is the best part of the story for all parties involved.

You are correct, ObamaCare is a socialist policy... or it aims to get there.  Which is why the Heritage Foundation quickly abandoned the idea that Romney implemented in Mass (of which is nothing like ObamaCare).  Heritage realized the folly of the idea, since companies would just pay the fine and drop people from their plans (or cut back to part-time, so they aren't required to provide coverage anyway)...

Thus leaving millions and millions and millions and millions of uninsured people with the painful choice of either paying their own hefty Federal fine for being uninsured (the unconstitutional bit), buying an expensive evil private plan or just simply hop on the federal death panel plan.  And bingo... Social healthcare!  yeah!!!

Even the first link you posted omits the crucial information that is in the second link. Here is what the above is saying:


Here is what the second link says:


Now the second article suggests outright that they saw the girl first and then followed the man. The first article that you rely on doesn't necessarily say that and is, in fact, constructed to suggest otherwise but reading it carefully appears to confirm what the second article suggests. Boggs was away from Garcia both when the car was spotted and when the girl was identified. The sex offender pushed the girl out when he saw both Boggs and Garcia. It seems to be fairly clear that they followed the car after confirming that this was indeed a criminal. The idea that this was done without the police is also a fantasy, since the police were already on the scene and it was indeed the police who apprehended the criminal not Boggs or Garcia. Again, what Boggs and Garcia did was heroic though I think you are manufacturing this to be something that it's not.

I will take a temporary break from my self-ban on communicating with you, only because you are dedicating yourself to lying in order to discredit my points.


How? Socialism is quite simply the common and egalitarian ownership of the means of production. How does a health care policy which works to empower the big six private insurance corporations "aim to get" to the point where the means of production are placed into the hands of the workers?


Define quickly? A year into Romneycare, the Heritage Foundation wrote about how the new health care act was already showing signs of progress and gladly posted a video on their website in which Romney touted Heritage support in created the health care plan. Heritage only shifted gears on the idea when it became Obama's plan. But while it was up and running under Romney, they were supportive.


Explain how it is different.

Socialsim: Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.[1] "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.[2] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[4]

Okay, so I read this. So even if I hadn't known before, now I DEFINITELY do...

So right away, this is social ownership, as it forces EVERYONE to get healthcare from certain cooperative enterprises.

"A shared responsibility requirement, commonly called an individual mandate,[17][18] requires all individuals not covered by an employer sponsored health plan, Medicaid, Medicare or other public insurance programs, secure an approved private-insurance policy or pay a penalty, unless the applicable individual is a member of a recognized religious sect exempted by the Internal Revenue Service, or waived in cases of financial hardship."

It also forces business to provide healthcare to full time employees, so basically, the poor (the people largely considered to be benefiting from this) will actually be LOSING hours and jobs.

It controls production, owning the means of producing is a Marxist idea, however CONTROLLING it, is a socialist idea.  

EDIT:
Okay, I see people are backing me up here, just had to clarify why I believe it. I've got family in HR and government, so this is a pretty big thing for all of us right now.

EDIT AGAIN: worded badly...

The government is nationalizing those six private insurance corporations. That is Socialism.

No, you DEFINITELY don't. What the above definition that you rely on fails to take into account is that people who have called themselves socialists operated in strict opposition to the principles of the theory as laid out by Karl Marx in the Communist Manifesto. Marx specifically says that in a properly functioning socialist society, there can be no "state ownership" since there can be no political power in a socialist society. Indeed the definition of what socialism is has been perverted to the extent that it has, because the leading propaganda systems of the 20th Century, namely the United States and the Soviet Union had a vested interested in keeping the public confused on the matter. But if we are to agree that the definition of a philosophy is established by the philosopher (and why wouldn't you?) then we quite simply cannot by any means accept the above as a legitimate definition of the term.

You're telling me that WellPoint, Cigna and the others are now state owned? I'm sure that's news to their share holders. Perhaps you should break this news story that you entirely just made up to them.


Even if it were true (and it's not), it wouldn't be.

There are discrepancies between some of the national accounts of the story and the way the local paper of record for the area reported it - again, if clarification is needed to better put this article into context, email the reporter for that clarification. I'm not shaping it in any way other than what I'm reading, and maybe the first article(s) I read which were local did differ from what CNN or the AP wire services for example have posted.

Another article note the lines in bold:

Boggs said he and a friend were moving a couch in the neighborhood where the girl was abducted, when a man came up to them and asked if they'd seen the girl.

A short time later, Boggs, Garcia and about six of their friends "formed our own search party," Boggs said.

Boggs and Garcia rode their bikes on area streets — Michelle Drive, St. Phillips Drive, Gable Park Road — looking for the girl.

That's when a maroon car caught Boggs' eye, he said

The two teens followed the car, and Boggs spotted a girl inside with an elderly white man.

Boggs said the man looked at him and Garcia, stopped at Gable Park and Betz Farm roads and pushed the girl out of the car.

She ran into Boggs' arms, and he carried her home.

full article: http://lancasteronline.com/article/local/873231_Mother-of-abducted-5-year-old-says-girl-is--doing-pretty-well-.html#ixzz2ZPoHneu5 (http://lancasteronline.com/article/local/873231_Mother-of-abducted-5-year-old-says-girl-is--doing-pretty-well-.html#ixzz2ZPoHneu5)

How much more clear does that need to be? Again, if the problem is in the wording, follow the newspaper link and email the reporter for a clarification if it means that much to this discussion.

And this is an interview with Temar himself, given to the newspaper where all those links came from. If the wording is in question, again it's something to take up with the reporter(s) writing it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fd31e02l3jk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fd31e02l3jk)

Temar's exact words:
"...and so I saw this, like, suspicious car, and I looked into the passenger seat and it was a little girl and I said I think that's her and so we followed it for about 5 minutes and then we noticed that it was her and so we chased it for like 15 minutes, chased the car for 15 minutes..."

Again...they spotted a suspicious car acting/driving erratically, got closer to the car and saw a girl, according to Boggs he said he thought it was her and they followed for 5 minutes, *then* they noticed it was her and chased the car for 15 minutes before the guy let the girl out of the car.

When they saw a little girl, the instinct was it was the same girl. But at that point what if it were a grandfather with his granddaughter in the car? It could have been someone other than the missing girl.

The point where they thought it was her led them to follow for 5 minutes, the point where they noticed it was her (Boggs' own words) led to them giving chase for 15 minutes.

I'll stand by my opinion that had they called police after that initial "thought" that it was her, prior to them following for 5 minutes, they would have been advised to stay where they were and officers would come to get the description according to standard procedure. Instead after it seems they noticed or confirmed it was the missing girl, they gave chase for 15 minutes.

So you have two teens on bikes chasing a guy in a car with a kidnapped girl around a neighborhood full of cul-de-sacs, side streets, and the like...with a heavy police presence and various TV news crews helping in the search in that general area, and...wait for it...

(I need to put this in caps for emphasis, no offense intended) ...TWO KIDS FOLLOWED THIS CAR ON BIKES FOR 20 MINUTES AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD BEING SEARCHED AND NO POLICE WERE THERE TO EITHER NOTICE THIS "CHASE" OR TAKE ACTION TO HELP SAVE THE GIRL

The kids saved the girl, no police were there. Temar carried her back to where the police were staged for the search, again they were nowhere significant around either Temar and Chris or the kidnapper with the girl in his car for 20 minutes during the search.

So taking action on their own initiative and going on their gut instinct to follow the car when police were simply not there nor able to help for 20 minutes as they chased the car directly saved the little girl and helped police later apprehend the kidnapper, who got away despite the heavy presence of police in that area that day.

And I do think, opinion only, that the way a lot of outside observers think "calling the police" is sufficient enough for people faced with these split-second decisions in abnormal situations does not always work for every situation as much as some think it does or should work in theory, and people like Temar and his friend on bikes managed to do what the police were not there to do and somehow did not observe despite being in that same general area searching the perimeter for the girl...for 20 minutes as the teens gave chase.

And the procedure on the books had Temar or Chris called 911 to report this would have had the 911 dispatcher telling them not to follow the car, and to stay where they are and wait for police. At that point, not only the car and driver would have gotten away but the missing girl would have still been in the car as he got away. Seconds matter in these cases, again these kids specifically Temar Boggs who acted immediately, are real heroes.

Again, though, isn't this circumstance a bit more obvious than simply a guy walking in the rain looking around? Do you honestly think that both are equally suspicious cases?

Temar's quote "so I saw this, like, suspicious car" is a point to consider around the term "profiling", a term which I think too often gets a negative connotation attached to it - in some cases it is a valid negative connotation but when the entire process of seeing something suspicious and acting on it from a gut-level reaction is being called out as reckless or even considered a bad course of action in general, it's important to note that the process itself isn't as flawed as the cases where individuals have taken their reactions too far, or acted for the wrong reasons.

For a teenager to observe and react as he did is still incredible to me. Those entering the field of law enforcement, military, criminal justice and similar fields are given intense training and psychological screening based around these actions and reactions. This is basically a kid who isn't old enough to vote seeing something that struck him as suspicious and acting on his instincts.

Anyone is free to consider this story and interpret it any way they choose, I'm suggesting the fact that a teenager in effect "profiled" a car in his neighborhood which seemed suspicious to him, which eventually led to those suspicions being confirmed as he was able to see that the girl was in this suspicious car, is the kind of immediate reaction which saved the girl. The reaction of seeing something suspicious and acting on it based on an initial feeling or profile of that something (in this case a car driving erratically in a neighborhood) is not in itself a dangerous or negative thing. In this case, it was the key to saving the girl.

They saw something suspicious with the car (in law enforcement terms they profiled the car, really), acted on it, and those reactions and suspicions were confirmed. Just because cases do not always work out that way, or some profile for the wrong reasons or react to produce a deliberately negative end result, does not mean that the practice of seeing something that looks suspicious (profiling) and acting on it based on a feeling that "something just isn't right about this..." is wrong and should always be discouraged.

And I'll repeat again, the fact that there were no police there around the teens on bikes and this car for 20 minutes as the chase ensued through this neighborhood despite the area being the subject of an intensive search operation with heavy police and emergency response shows that calling the police is not always the ultimate solution in these situations.

This whole scenario ended well, however I can't help but think the potential was also there for something to go horribly wrong had as much as one variable been changed. And that variable could have been a decision to call 911 and wait somewhere rather than follow, or ignore that initial profile these teens seem to have made of that car as suspicious, and ignore it rather than looking further at that car.

I want flowers first...

(http://th08.deviantart.net/fs70/PRE/f/2012/176/f/7/rarity___hmph_by_thehellbean-d54sdas.png)


(http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120917230703/degrassi/images/3/37/Oh_no_you_didn't.gif)

No, wrong again.  Zimmerman "took matters into his own hands" when he left the comfort of his SUV with a loaded gun.  He had no business doing that.  If the fat bloated  Zimmerman STAYS in the vehicle no one dies.  What PART of this don't we understand?  Hmmm?  GEEZ

Well, a good prosecutor could/should have tried him for manslaugter only and not grandstanded by piling on murder 2.

Granted, the "kill and carry" law in FLORI-DUH imposes problems.

This point is completely unassailable by any reasonable person!   8)

Great story, but you realzie that if Zimmerman saw this going on he would have assumed Temar was stealing the couch and shot him.  Just sayin'.

oh ok I'll stop now

Bingo!

Wait... as was pointed out, the prosecutor was pretty experienced.  They were experienced enough to at least know what you know, for example.  So... there's that fact.  Any other theories on why this was brought to trial as it were?   :tiptoe

Again, you're cutting off the quote at a very convenient spot. He did not just see a suspicious car but a little girl inside it at a time when a little girl went missing. Therefore, given the evidence of the time, Boggs and Garcia could have objectively said without being at all questioned, that they could have been looking at a crime. George Zimmerman, on the other hand, could not say that because under no circumstance could a person simply walking and looking around be a crime. Boggs and Garcia had every reason to follow the car - not out of paranoia but because there was actually a valid reason to assume a crime was taking place. If the standard is that one should be suspicious when a little girl in a community goes missing and you see a person behaving erratically with a little girl with him, then I'd be on board. However, if the standard is that one should be suspicious because you see a person walking at night, then I'm not. And I find it nothing short of astonishing that anyone should correlate both of those reactions.

Well perhaps “socialism” as defined by that nutjob Michele Bachmann…… "She and her ilk" aren’t interested in facts or real discussions.  They are all in the pay of the Koch Brothers.  They are the Real Opressors!

GEEZ

So you're telling me that countries like Afghanistan, North Korea and Iran have open and honest media and governments that don't use propaganda on their own people???

Has anyone here seen the Godfrey Cambridge film The Watermelon Man?

He plays the lead character, a white bigot who one day wakes up and discovers his skin color has turned black.  The next day, gets up to work. Things start out well at first, until he is accused of "stealing something" while trying to eat at a restaurant for whites only. The policeman assumes that, since he is a black man, he must have stolen something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watermelon_Man_(film) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watermelon_Man_(film))

No. I'm telling you that the level of fear in relation to the level of threat is unique to the United States. I'm not certain how paranoid people who live in Afghanistan, North Korea, and Iran are, but they certainly live under a much higher threat of danger than people who live in United States do.

Again, since it didn't register for you the first time around, it is not illegal to carry a gun.  There are millions of responsible gun-owners out there that probably never have had to use one to defend themselves.  Zimmerman broke no laws having a gun on him.  And again, there is no evidence anywhere in this case that Zimmerman had any initial intent of shooting Trayvon.  Evidence does however conclude that it was Trayvon that started the violence; he threw the first punch and broke Zimmerman's nose.  It was only after this happened that the gun actually came into play.  

And before it is disputed, I'm not exactly criticizing Trayvon for trying to defend himself.  However it turned out his decision to confront Zimmerman with violence turned out to be a fatal one for him.

If you have a license to carry, then you absolutely can. Many people in fact do. You can't try people for being stupid if it did not break the law. Juries cannot convict on stupidness and bad judgment, you have to know that. Also, manslaughter was on the table as the lesser crime and they still failed to convict on that, as well. The rules or instructions are very rigid and they are that way for a reason. Enough people are already convicted of crimes that they did not commit. If it happens that way now, can you imagine what would happen if they lowered the standard? It's a very scary thing in my mind.

Yes AM, agreed, I did see your post & it's NOT illegal to carry a gun.  (Perhaps I was overly snarky.)

But, in most states manslaughter is a crime.  I find it odd that Mr. Martin was not allowed to "stand his ground".  He was, afterall, being persued and harrassed by a suspect (GZ) with unknown intentions.  The State and the Prosecutor blew this one.  My guess is they didn't want to win.

I'm no expert on the law, but I don't think "Stand Your Ground" applies when you throw the first punch.  To make that argument work, the prosecution would have had to proven that Zimmerman started the violence or made specific threats toward Trayvon. 

Whether in a good or bad way, it is not illegal to interact with anyone in a common area. What Zimmerman did was very stupid, and most people would have just reported it and let the police handle it. With all that being true, it still was not illegal.

These may or may not be solid points, but you use them to rationalize and accept that a person died, needlessly.  You may not care about that person, but well........... his family might have.

Well, nevertheless, Zimmerman was armed, he instigated the conflict instead of walking away.  As I said earlier, and really without emotion, Zimmerman’s need to fear outweighed Martin’s need to live.  Just.  Ice.  This bloated, doughy pork-fed mooned-faced male bimbo Zimmerman will live to fight another day, apparently.  According to the comics, GZ will be wearing a hoodie now LOL

Life seems cheap these days.  The 2nd amendment is more important than people, I guess.

What would you like done? We have been doing it this way for 237 years. Do you want someone to go shoot him to get YOUR justice?  So, you want someone to break another law to enforce justice for this one? You are a vigilante? It was a terrible thing that happened. I know of no other way than the justice system to try people for crimes committed.

I'm simply trying to look at this case objectively, something you and countless others are failing to do.  No one is applauding the death of a teenager nor is anyone praising Zimmerman's actions.  But because no one seems capable of keeping their emotions under control these days, this story has taken a life of its own and various groups of people (political and racial factions) have used it to further their agendas.  It's not unfair to criticize Zimmerman for how he handled the situation, but did he *really* deserve NBC deliberately editing the 911 phone call to make him look racist?  Do you applaud the actions of those, including filmmaker Spike Lee, who attempted to post Zimmerman's home address (which turned out to be the address of an elderly couple named Zimmerman) on Twitter?  And you wonder why there's so much division in our society.

When you say 'edited the phone call to make him sound racist', do you mean 'they played the parts where he's being racist'?

It's obvious if you spend 20 minutes reading anything about Zimmerman not created by the mainstream media that he isn't a racist.

He killed a kid, he was keeping an eye on a kid who looked like a threat, the kid attacked, he shot. He went to trial, and was declared not guilty.

Guess what, he's not going to jail, tough sh*t. Just because it's right doesn't mean its happening, even in Kate-land things don't always go "peachy-keen"

Let me know when you can get a gallon of gas for less than a fu*cking meal, every country has problems, the death of one kid who attacked a man he called a "creepy ass cracker"
on the phone to his little friend minutes before attacking him isn't going to end the world. If anything, the kid is a racist and he shouldn't be a "hero" for attacking a stranger.

Find me one line, literally just one WORD that sounds even mildly racist in that call. It's funny because, until after he leaves the car, he wasn't even able to confirm Martin was black.

Well, seriosuly, what is your proof of this?  I've heard this accusation made about NBC (by people who watch Faux Gnus), but I've not seen the proof that NBC did this.  Let's hear it.  GZ's comments were basically racist,  right?  So it's hard to believe that any "editing" was needed.

No, I am also trying to look at the case objectively, perhaps you have your own agenda?  One person dead; one alive.  Just. Ice.

Did anyone even listen to the call? Seriously?

"they all get away" right?

I understood that he used the F-word and code words for.......?

I listened to the whole call, I heard the first one that has nothing to do with him being black, he's referring to the last times people robbed a house, and easily got away before police arrived.

When did he say the other quotes?

I don't think so. Certainly not the latter in any version I know.

I haven't listened to the call since the furore started over a year and a half ago, but he blatantly called him a 'coon'. I heard that plain as day. I remember it clearly, and I took that away with me. And you know I don't get NBC.

I also really don't trust Zimmerman's testimony anyway because he makes Trayvon sound like an actor in a B-movie in the words he attributes to him. And this testimony is coming from a guy who was obviously paranoid based on the evidence from the police, who said he'd made similar phonecalls about 'suspicious people' in his neighbourhood with absolutely no basis in fact other than to G. Zimmerman, and was stalking a teenager who went to the corner shop apropos of nothing.

If you say (as others have)  'well, apparently his neighbourhood had been robbed by black kids before', that ABSOLUTELY does not give you the right to suspect every black kid you see of robbery. What the f***. That is racist.

I don't want to get into base name-calling with you, mate. Although I don't think much of Kate Middleton either...  ;D

Okay, you could be right, but as I understand the call was heavy on profanities and also "they all get away" is basically code for..... , well, we know what that is.

But, I'll try to keep emotions in check.

"Kate-land?????"

He is trying to be funny with regards to The United Kingdom, my place of birth/residence  :)

Oooh, I don't know. I know what you're talking about but I think it's really difficult to know for sure what he's saying there.


There is definitely something to that. Whether or not Zimmerman was thinking to himself "all black people are inherently suspicious" is hard to say though I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt even though he is on record as saying blatantly that all Mexicans are violent, so it certainly wouldn't be too far outside of his own previous statements. Nevertheless, the generally racist construction of black men in America more than likely led to Zimmerman's assumption that Martin was dangerous enough to call the police, despite the fact that Martin was just walking and looking around.

"I couldn't possibly comment!" -- Francis Urquhart

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/56/Francis_Urquhart.jpg/200px-Francis_Urquhart.jpg)

I remember the backlash being that he was saying 'punk'?

But yes, regardless of that quibble, and it is one - posting in haste, it's what i took away from the audio i heard - he is on record being racist as you say. And again, he clearly thought a black kid in a hoodie was enough of a threat to follow in his car and then approach with a gun.

Yes, that's the certainly the part of it that I find problematic too.

Okay, whew calmed down I was a bit tense lol... sorry 'bout that.

But anyway, I think a fine line between racism and stereotyping needs to be drawn. Racism can be stereotyping, but stereotyping isn't always racism.

It's cool.  :)

No stereotyping isn't always racism but if a particular race is conventionally stereotyped as dangerous, then I would call that racist.

It is when a white male who has been racist on record calls 911 because a black teenager is walking slowly down a street.

Or, half of mine and half of rockandroll's post...

He is not white, he is hispanic, just like President Obama is black and not white.

'Besides referring to his former fiancée as the “ex-hoe” Zimmerman made disparaging remarks about Mexicans living near his hometown of Manassas, Virginia, calling them “soft ass wanna be thugs” and accusing them of being car vandals. He even went as far as to say that every “Mexican” he saw held a knife to his throat. What these comments suggest is an “all or none” pattern of thinking, where he applies stereotypes and broad generalizations to ”every” member of a group or class.'

From... http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/07/16/zimmermans-old-myspace-account-reveals-racist-sexist-violent-behavior/#ixzz2ZRS1htR7

If you're not going to bother to read that, Zimmerman's attorney confirmed it was his account. So I don't know whether that defence flies? He was clearly, clearly bigoted.

One's a race and the other is an ethnicity. He can be both.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans#cite_note-U.S._Census_Bureau-17 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans#cite_note-U.S._Census_Bureau-17)

My apologies too. heh heh "You may think that but I couldn't POSSIBLY comment..."

(watching House of Cards)

I don't care what that says. Very few hispanics call themselves white. Whether it is race or ethnicity, they still use it as to identify themselves. You know that too. See, this is why we never get along and argue all the time. I work with Cuban-Americans who are as white as me and they don't call themselves white. They say they are Hispanic.

Zimmerman did not make any racist comments in his 911 phone call.  Here is the evidence of the NBC controversy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qywt1ds7bSM

Here is the full transcript of the 911 call:  http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html


Being objective requires you to put your personal opinions and feelings aside and listening to all sides of the story.  If you are really trying to be objective, taking pot shots at Zimmerman's weight and appearance isn't exactly working in your favor.

Notice that he never answered my questions in post 128. I assume that he has made his mind up and no fact or truth or justice system will convince him otherwise. If Zimmerman is killed by some person exacting revenge, it will be by someone with the same kind of thinking who takes it a step too far.

Yo Awesoman, that really doesn't disprove the fact that he was following him and called 911. Why is he following him? Because he's walking around? He does look black, mind. That's the only reason your supposedly damming youtube video shows. Of course, what they don't acknowledge at all is that Zimmerman felt threatened by a kid walking down a street, and confronted him with a loaded gun.


I mean, he called 911 about a TEENAGER walking through his neighbourhood and that he 'looks black'. Jesus.

There are no good guys or bad guys in this case, just humans that made bad choices.

That's fine and I accept that. I do think that people should be able to self-identify as whatever they want. I'm white, but it's not necessarily how I want to be identified (I'd rather be identified as "father" or "Beach Boys fan"- and I mean that quite seriously!). So I do respect that. However, it also doesn't make what hypehat says wrong.

What has he identified himself as? I was referring to him being called white in here. Honestly, I called him hispanic, but really I never heard what he refers to himself as either.

It wasn't intended to disprove Zimmerman had followed Trayvon.  When was that in dispute?  


Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions.  Do you *ever* have anything remotely rational or even logical to say??

dr beachboy,

Wiki says that he was Hispanic (and you'd better believe that sh*t isn't constantly checked at this point in time), but that doesn't mean he can't discriminate against other minorities just because he belongs to a different one himself.

How am I assuming anything? He was following a black teenager in his car because he was walking through his neighbourhood. He then called 911 because a black teenager was walking through his neighbourhood (and promptly accused him of robbery, when all he was doing was walking through the neighbourhood). When prompted by the 911 caller, he said the teenager was black.

Your shocking youtube video doesn't exonerate Zimmerman, it just confirms that George Zimmerman really did know he was pursuing a black man when he approached him with a loaded weapon.

I never said he didn't. They just couldn't prove it in court. So, what would you like to be done now?

Well, I hear the Federal Court might have a go on hate crimes...

Good question. I have no idea.

Jesus, man.  No one is disputing that Zimmerman followed Trayvon.  No one is disputing he was suspicious of Trayvon.  And describing a person's ethnicity when asked point blank by someone on the other end of a phone call--exactly how is that considered racist?  Was Trayvon *not* black?  Are you that desperate to cling onto your astonishing level of narrow-mindedness?   


Quit dodging the main point here.  I was asked to provide evidence that NBC edited the 911 call to make Zimmerman look racist.  I did.  The clip shows the NBC news segment where they clearly edited it down to make Zimmerman look unfavorable in the public eye.  Several NBC producers were fired over it.  Zimmerman's team is taking them to court.  Those are facts. 

All your youtube does is show that Zimmerman knew exactly what he was doing - he had no doubt that he was following a black man. He decided to follow him of his own accord, before calling the police. And Zimmerman is on record as being racist. That's the important part. It adds considerable motive, or hate crime status, to stalking  a kid with a gun. What does the removal of the dispatchers question have to do with it? It doesn't alter his intention in any way.

I missed this, where on record is he a racist?

Again...*who* is disputing he was following Trayvon?  What is your point?


Zimmerman is *not* on record as being a racist.  The FBI investigated this case and concluded there was no evidence of racism in play here.  Don't believe me?  Click here (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/07/12/155918/more-evidence-released-in-trayvon.html#.UeifdZnD9aS).  

Hype, it's pretty obvious you really have no clue what the word "racist" means as you so carelessly and irresponsibly throw the term around when you can't produce any credible argument.  

This whole saga hinges on George Zimmerman (white hispanic :lol) being a racist.  Without that, the whole thing attracts more flies than Obama's face.

So what we're witnessing is folks stretching their groins out to make this about Trayvon's skin color -- cuz that's all that matters when people only see race. You get Racism.  And, I have to admit... they're doing a good job.   :-\  

It's fascinating to watch.  My favorite came from this bully...

(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y214/ultramagbrion/GOOFY-FUNNY/if-obama-had-a-son-2_zps77b0f8df.jpg)

What would he look like sir?  Do tell...

People need to realize that racism is about ACTUALLY BELIEVING YOU ARE SUPERIOR.

There's like... 10 racists in the world now who actually know what it is and believe it (oh, and china.) JKJK

Martin being shot had nothing to do with racism. Hell, Zimmerman is ON RECORD being outraged at a white lieutenant who beat a black homeless man....THAT'S NOT SOMETHING A RACIST PERSON DOES. Zimmerman gets irritated that his neighborhood keeps getting burglarized, confronts a black teenager after he hides in the bushes of his neighborhood...that's it...he wasn't driving around looking for a black man to kill.

Seriously, I've had it with this race bullshit when it comes to Zimmerman. It's making life here in America a bit more unbearable than it already is, and to see more people jump on this train is sad and ridiculous. There is enough ACTUAL racism in this country; we don't need to add this pitiful allegation to the list.

A large chunk of black people in the US seem to have this incessant need to try turn everything into a race related issue. And some stupid media group is always more than happy to oblidge them.

You asked what I'd like done DRB, so here it is:  Actually, nothing!  I think the courts should be done with this.  They tried.  They failed (in some people's opinion).  That's it.  Done.  I think the endless protests are pretty meaningless at this point.  And having the Feds get involved is also meaningless.

Not exactly sure why you're accusing me of being a vigilante?  Where did I ever encourage law breaking?  I clearly said the comics were having a field day with GZ having to wear a hoodie now LOL.  I take offense at your remark, SIR!  (LOL)  :lol  The expression "Just. Ice." was directed at GZ, as he's clearly the vigilante here.  Maybe you don't agree?  No I am not a vigilante?  LOL

GEEZ get a grip will ya DRB?

Well whatever I said to cause offense or insult I apologise for it.  Maybe I should go back to the Bloo Board……

Mea Culpa

IAmADork

Don't apologize for having an opinion. We may not agree here but you're not doing anything wrong by voicing your thoughts.  :3d

Well, true.  But I do apologize to you and DRB for being overly "snarky" or whatever.  (No I won't go back to the Bloo Board that place is HORRIBLE.)

Honestly, I think the case ran its course.  Ironically, GZ "got away with it" which is what he said on the phone.  We can agree or disagree with the outcome, but it's done.  The Feds should have better stuff to do than worry about this.  People can protest if they like, but if it leads to violence... that's just hooliganism.  Most of the protests have been peaceful at least.

Yes, because nothing says "justice for Trayvon" like looting.

I didn't call you a vigilante, only asked if you were, is all. Please notice the "question mark (?)". I would never presume such a thing. Hopefully, one day you will sit on a jury an experience what it is like to hold the power of life and death. I know of very few people who take it lightly. No one should. It bothers me that so many people take what this jury did as being wrong. They did exactly what they were supposed to do. If you really want to be pro-active about this case, lobby to have the "Stand Your Ground" law reversed. I have a grip. Always have. I don't take things of high importance lightly, the law being one of them.

Watch the interview, jeez...is this really coming down to this kind of scrutiny? I don't have time to transcribe and type out the entire interview, which is why I linked directly to and therefore anyone can watch the YouTube clip and take it on your own initiative to sort it all out. If you either can't see or simply don't believe that these kids saw a suspicious car driving erratically before being able to get close enough and *then* realizing there was a girl in that car, and the car's actions piqued their suspicions about what that car was doing in their neighborhood, then that's something you need to sort out. It's just plain silly to go back and forth like this. And no comment on the fact that police were seemingly oblivious of anything that was happening between kids chasing a car on bike around a neighborhood where an "intense search" was in progress for the little girl in that car? That's the astonishing part.

I won't go into it again, but this tactic about challenging the way the person is re-posting this stuff and his/her motives rather than looking at the big picture is infuriating, and I blame myself for not remembering this is part of the same playbook that unfolds in nearly every discussion on this sub-forum involving politics. The issue isn't about watching and analyzing the facts, it becomes twisted into challenging how much or how little of something is clipped and posted, despite at least three full links, and a full uncut video interview with the actual person involved available for all to view? Yet the practice of NBC News clipping, editing, and repeatedly airing part of a 911 call to directly influence public opinion in an active *criminal case* is brushed aside or ignored?

Go on with the delusions, I really at this point regret even entering this bullshit fest because a basic discussion of some hot topics was not the ultimate goal, rather it again became a case of "winning" in some absurd way by focusing on the branches on a sapling on the outskirts of a larger forest while ignoring the forest itself.

The point of the story is that people in a neighborhood "getting involved" and acting on something they think is suspicious in their neighborhood is not in itself a bad thing, as some in the wake of this case may be suggesting.

Doing the opposite reminds me too much of the insidious "don't snitch" mentality which has infected many communities and has led to a situation where no one who could potentially help solve or break a criminal case by reporting something they witnessed due to fear of reprisal or being branded a "snitch" in their community is leading to a lot of death, injury, and misery in communities that simply cannot take any more of that misery.

But, again, make sure to look for and be outraged by the discarded recyclable soda can perched on top of the pile of toxic waste, that's a helpful tactic when trying to evade any semblance of the bigger picture.

"Trayvon Martin could have been me, 35 years ago." - President Barack Obama

I am getting really sick and tired of this president.

And ultimately I wanted to post all of that from Pennsylvania because it's a positive story that had a fantastic ending and put the focus on a few teens who did the right thing, took action, and saved a little girl before the authorities searching for her could make it there. The narrative of the political influences in America and in the media parroting certain narratives if not outright promoting those narratives doesn't stay on a story like this for too long because, to be brutally honest, there is nothing in the story to help further the narrative they think gives them better ratings and gets more attention. "If it bleeds, it leads..." is the old adage in the news business, I'd add to that after this past week "If it incites, it leads..." because it's been surreal if not absurd to watch certain things play out.

Retrying the Zimmerman-Martin case as some are doing here is ultimately an exercise in futility. The verdict is in, it's a done deal, it cannot be reversed nor under the laws of the US can someone be retried for the same crime after being found innocent by a jury. "Double Jeopardy" in other words is not allowed in these cases. So now we wait to see if the Martin family files a suit in civil court, or if the D.O.J. tries to file civil rights charges in federal court. But the criminal trial itself is over, it cannot be changed.

But what can be at least addressed by the case I highlighted here is the fact that getting involved and acting on something suspicious is not wrong, nor is it bad in any way to do such a thing in a neighborhood. The Martin case showed where that notion went too far, and it certainly was a shame that it had to happen that way.

But for folks to start peering into these communities where various Town Watch organizations, or in cities where a citizen group like the Guardian Angels may be on the streets, and declaring that the entire notion of keeping an eye on things, reporting suspicious activity, or in general getting involved at all, is by nature a bad thing or indicative of a paranoia based on fear and racism, or worse, is totally counterproductive to having a community where people are looking out for each other.

And if any practice or any program or anything in everyday life involving those other than ourselves is to be judged based on the abuses or the negative results of those abuses rather than the overall effect, in other words focusing on the trees rather than seeing the forest, I'd estimate 99.9% of all programs and activities we engage in every day would be declared a failure if not worse based on the abuses and damages some individuals have caused by their own actions.

And yet those failures are amplified if and only if the failure can be played into a larger sociopolitical narrative being promoted by whoever has something to gain by using it.

Someone needed to stoke the fire.  May as well be the community dis-organizer... I mean Prez.

OBAMA: 'TRAYVON COULD HAVE BEEN ME'
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/07/19/Obama-Trayvon-could-be-me

What I find funny is to think about where Obama actually was 35 years ago.  From Wikipedia (before someone changes it to look like he was living on the south side helping lost, hungry teens)

In 1971, Obama returned to Honolulu to live with his maternal grandparents, Madelyn and Stanley Dunham, and with the aid of a scholarship attended Punahou School, a private college preparatory school, from fifth grade until his graduation from high school in 1979

Could have been him...  Could have been him...  :lol

Got it, and yes, sorry! I reacted wrongly to your post.

Coincidentally enough, I have a Jury Summons for July 30.  I will show up.  Perhaps wearing my “Hang ‘Em High!” T-shirt.  (However, we don't have "Stand Your Ground" here in California.)

Question DRBB, so.... did you agree with the OJ jury that found him "not guilty" of those murders?  I, myself, did not!

Not all juries are worthy of respect.

Sort this out for me: Do you consider walking to be a suspicious act? Or, if taking your claim as true, do you consider walking to be as suspicious an act as driving erratically. And I ask this seriously because I want to make sure that the next time I leave the house that I have left enough time so that I can follow anyone who I see who happens to be walking around and looking at things.


Who is suggesting that? Not me. I've already calls these kids heroes, what more do you want from short of total agreement? I don't even think there should be a "police force" so I don't know what you want me to say.


Well, then, let's try a thought experiment. Say, no one had heard of the Zimmerman/Martin incident - it wasn't a widely circulated news story. You start a thread specifically about this Pennsylvania news story in order to champion what these kids did. A poster then decides as a rebuttal to post the relatively obscure story about the Zimmerman/Martin case to undermine your position. Would you at all consider that to be a legitimate response?

Yes, all juries are worthy of our utmost respect! It is the laws that are the issue. Luckily, we can change laws that do not conform to what they were made for. No, I did not agree with the OJ verdict, but I accepted it and did not go ape sh*t in the streets yelling that a black man got away with killing two white folks. Oh, them gloves! "If it doesn't fit, then you must acquit."

Extortionist Extraordinaire, Jesse Jackson called Florida an "Aparthied State." 

(http://madamepickwickartblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/shark1.jpg)

Racism has become an industry in the United States. It keeps morons like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton in business.

It's amazing how most of the people who say that are part of the dominant class.

I'd recommend a book and documentary called "Slavery by Another Name: The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War II" by Douglas Blackmon.

An eye opener.

Speaking for myself (as opposed to someone else??) I don’t find it unusual that The Prez empathized wi/ Trayvon.  BHO did say that he himself got “the treatment” when he was younger, being followed in stores, people assuming he was there to steal something, etc.  In this case, I take BHO at his word.

In fairness to BHO, he fully supported the jury decision.  Maybe Breitbart didn’t print that quote?

People like Jessie Jackson may be “way past their expiration date” but the USA has quite a virulent history of racism, which some of us would like to ignore.

BTW I think this case was more about “Stand Your Ground” than race.

Familiar with the protection rackets? It's the umbrella term for a con game, a swindle, but it is based on basic human psychology and usually preys on groups of people who are made to feel helpless in their situations, yet a solution arrives in the form of a symbol of trust and power who shows up in their time of need and despair...and helps them for a fee which they pay in regular installments.

In the earlier 20th century, it played out when gang leaders and various mob types would prey on primarily immigrant neighborhoods and business owners. It went something like this: They'd pick out a prominent or visible business which was known to the residents of that community, gather up some of their goons-for-hire who were just anonymous enough not to get caught or ID'ed, and they would target it with vandalism, or violence either against the business itself or the owner and employees. The police would be called, and if they bothered to show up it would be a case of not being able to do anything about it due to many reasons, including "lack of evidence, lack of witnesses..." etc.

Soon after you'd see usually a well-dressed, overly-confident and self-assured man (able to speak the language of the community) usually with an imposing presence of some kind go into the neighborhood and start talking to other shop owners. "Did you see what happened to Joe's butcher shop last week?" "Oh, it was a terrible thing, and the police said there was nothing they could do for us." And that man would convince them that the police and authorities didn't care about the community, or whatever group of immigrants lived and worked there (Irish, Italian, Chinese, Polish, Jewish...etc.), "they don't care about you at all, you're powerless, etc."

Convince by example that there is no hope, no power, no recourse through the law, all of that...people will look for something to feel safe behind, give them a sense of power or at least some defense against those against them.

So the man would offer the "services" of his employers in order to protect that business or that block. "Paying protection" in other words, you give me 30% of your business every month, and I'll make sure what happened to Joe and the butcher shop doesn't happen to your store. We're there to protect you, we know what you're feeling, the cops won't protect you, they don't care, we share the same background and bloodlines, we're family, etc.

We are here to help.

But if you don't pay, we can't help, and whatever happens to your store you're on your own.

Bingo. Get people convinced no one has their back, that no one cares, that there is a conspiracy against them or whatever else, offer a sense of security and a touch of power by association, and all that is required is a payment every month, and perhaps a few favors on the side if we come calling.

And both the guys who broke up the butcher shop and beat the owner, and the self-confident powerful man who came in offering help to the downtrodden and fearful were paid by the same bosses, who orchestrated the whole plan.

Then, as time goes on, the people paying start feeling safe, they have an envelope ready to be collected every month, and if it means giving a few free meals out or some free shoe repairs to certain men, that was fine...we fell safe, someone has our backs! Someone who cares about us!

However, eventually another store on the block would be attacked and vandalized, another shop owner would be beaten up...what happened? We pay every month! Where was our protection?

Cue another self-confident guy in a suit coming in to the neighborhood, this time asking 45% each month and more free services in return for better protection...the endless cycle continued.

And the same folks who orchestrated the whole shakedown scam to begin with continued to rake in more and more of the people's money, people convinced that they were hopeless and trusting in small increments that paying back a larger entity to feel more safe and secure was their only recourse against such powerful interests stacked against them.

It continues today. Watch for reports of specific kinds of violence in cities or areas heavily populated by immigrant-owned businesses. Various "mafias" in certain cities, the so-called "Chinese mafia", the "Vietnamese mafia", they're still playing the same game that we saw fictionalized in the old gangster and tough-guy movies going back to the 30's.

They're shaking people down, people who are most vulnerable or those made to feel helpless to put up any kind of a fight.

And if you want to draw a connection to where this is going, it's the state of American politics and the reasons why certain people do certain things and certain political parties and interests act the way they do regarding certain groups of citizens. And the reason why we only hear certain events reported a certain way versus other events or stories which don't support the larger narrative.

With the old protection racket schemes, they counted on people's fear and relied on convincing those people that protection and power was within their reach - for a price. Look at what the new "price" may be and who is offering the protection versus who is being asked to pay up, and the rest falls into place.

Answers will vary based on political ideology.  :)

I hope I am misunderstanding you because what I'm familiar with is the far more pervasive tactic of the dominant ideology who very nobly and earnestly pity the poor Other who is unable to understand that they are being swindled. As always, the one group who can see through what's going on are precisely the dominant members of the society, who very patiently and with great and noble intentions, can explain to the ignorant others what reality is really like. There is a voluminous history where you can essetnially find the sentiment that no one knows what the black situation was like in America better than white people. What the slaves didn't understand, according to their slave holders, was that black people were far safer and better off as slaves because they being very well looked after because they were property, so for that reason alone they were probably being treated better than anyone else in the country. This is a familiar record that gets re-played again and again, over and over and it's not merely restricted to race relations but is pretty much a standard in any power relationship. Just look at the discourse on labour - workers are being swindled by unions, say the company owners - you just need to listen to us and we'll set you straight. It's such a familiar tactic - and an outrageous one at that - that's it's difficult to know how to react that anyone even takes it seriously anymore.

And as we know, peonage, debt slavery and incarnation labor were all completely legal, in the Southern states specifically, until SCOTUS got off its collective bum and outlawed such practices in the 1940’s.

Let's take a look at some of the dominant class...

(http://images.politico.com/global/2012/01/120116_jesse_jackson_reuters_328.jpg)
(http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/barack-obama-re-elected-as-us-president-pg.jpg)
(http://holdingouthelp.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/abcnews.jpg)
(http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/5db9b9146e399c494cb3b100/update-us-malls-cancel-cell-phone-tracking-after-pressure-from-chuck-schumer.jpg)
(http://blogs.etruth.com/businessbeat/files/2013/05/NBC.jpg)
(http://www.innerspaeth.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/20090120nytimes.jpg)
(http://images.politico.com/global/2013/02/04/120927_kathleen_sebelius_ap_605.jpg)
(http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Big-Journalism/2012/MSNBC/sharpton-bullhorn-ap.jpg)
(http://www.visitingdc.com/images/hollywood-sign-address.jpg)

I can go all day...

And what was it exactly that made those running the protection rackets target certain neighborhoods and communities over others?

Or conversely, what kept them out of some neighborhoods or prevented them from intimidating certain businesses and areas into paying them the money?

If you cannot convince someone that they are or will be a victim who needs to be protected, the scam falls apart before it even starts.

And those whose game was offering the protection for a price would be irrelevant and unnecessary if they didn't have a group of people who felt unsafe and desperate enough to require that kind of help and were more willing to pay.

And the only way Sharpton, Jackson, and any number of other charlatans and opportunists stay relevant, keep their names and images in the media, and stay needed (and continue earning millions of dollars in salary) is to continue to convince people that their services are required...

...which in turn requires that those people believe that they are in fact dependent enough or lacking enough of something to require such services.

Remember the Three Stooges episode where they're in business as exterminators, but they don't have any clients or business? Their solution was to sneak into a mansion, where they knew there was money to be made, and then open up bags and boxes containing various pests like mice during a house party. So they ring the front doorbell offering their services, and the person answering the door tells them "But we don't have a pest problem in this house!". And right on cue one of the mice they had brought into the house earlier in those bags shows up, which makes the pest killing services offered by the Stooges not only necessary but essential so the party guests don't find out there are mice running around.

More people need to catch the likes of Sharpton and Jackson actually carrying those bags of mice into the houses before they're convinced to hire them for pest control after the bags have been opened.  :)

I don't think anyone is trying to ignore history, but at what point do we learn to move past this and progress as a society?  What needs to transpire before everyone feels they have the same opportunities as everyone else?

AH NOW I'm starting to relate!!!!!  You are finally at MY level!  :lol

:lol See, and my mother said I'd never learn anything watching those three knuckleheads.

Would you say the same was true of Martin Luther King? Or Gandhi? Or George Washington?

Or, if Sharpton and Jackson are particularly unique contemporary examples of "charlatans and opportunists" who have "convinced people that their services are required" then how do you explain the shift amongst African-Americans towards more so-called moderate political positions from more traditionally radical positions that they conventionally expressed from the 1950s through to the 1970s. Of course, to be fair to your position, Jackson and Sharpton are themselves more moderate leaders - typically espousing fairly centrist viewpoints - for the African American community but that only becomes relevant if you are to assume that African-Americans have always been suckers and that they are unique in that they are always duped by leaders (rather than the possibility that their leaders' position is reflective and representative of the community's position as a whole).

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0f/George_H._W._Bush%2C_President_of_the_United_States%2C_1989_official_portrait.jpg/220px-George_H._W._Bush%2C_President_of_the_United_States%2C_1989_official_portrait.jpg)
(http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4834725508024957&pid=15.1)
(http://d3.yimg.com/sr/img/4/ed9a2556-2ea5-35b0-920e-4d885b3eacd6)
(http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4981364238387361&pid=15.1)
(http://ts4.explicit.bing.net/th?id=H.4741155338192255&pid=15.1)
(http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4875093909702594&pid=15.1)
(http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4801473868792466&pid=15.1)
(http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.5066099642991200&pid=15.1)
(http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4953721845058836&pid=15.1)
(http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4959593074330469&pid=15.1)
(http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4808539083637865&pid=15.1)
(http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4713925250517098&pid=15.1)
(http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4924035030516739&pid=15.1)
(http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.5054816771574770&pid=15.1)

 :lol :lol :lol :lol

You're way off Alex!

(http://laughingsquid.com/wp-content/uploads/popeyelee_0003_725_max.jpg.jpg)

And I guess those who express similar sentiments in the black community are just race traitors, right? It's not uncommon. Of course I'd argue that Maxine Waters (who might be as intelligent as dog sh*t) might actually be worse than them. She thinks everyone who isn't black should pay reparations for acts we never committed.

I lost it at Scrooge McDuck.  :lol

Sharpton and Jackson are concerned with promoting themselves and profiting from dividing people on racial lines, and the fact that people still fall for their schtick surprises me.

I sincerely feel, in light of following them in the news since the 80's, that they would be out of a job and declared irrelevant if there ever were a deeper feeling of racial harmony in the US. And in order to keep those jobs and that higher media profile, they deliberately inflame and I'd say incite along racial lines rather than trying to improve race relations for the most part.

If race relations in the US improve *too much*, these two will have nowhere to hawk their goods.

And with my views on Sharpton, it goes back beyond the recent years: I don't know who remembers it or who had access to New York television in the late 80's, but he and a few associates managed to stoke racial tensions in New York nearly to the temperature of a blowtorch with his lying and meddling in the Tawana Brawley case.

And until recently my image of Sharpton as perhaps the most articulate and engaging candidate in the Democrats' primary debates smoothed over a lot of the negatives I held from the 80's, but his television show and some of his actions recently struck me as the old Al, for which Howard Stern had a theme song called "Al Sharpton To The Rescue" which was set to the tune "Jim Dandy To The Rescue" which would play every time Stern reported on Sharpton's activities when he was still based mostly in New York.

Sharpton did seem to have mellowed out on being a firebrand for a time leading up to those debates in 2008, but for a myriad of reasons we can try to guess "why now", in the past few years even before the Martin case he seems to have fired up the inflammatory rhetoric which had only been smoldering since the 80's.

As far as Jackson, I don't have much else to say other than I don't trust this Reverend, a religious leader and spiritual adviser who thousands would look to for moral guidance and direction, who had a child with his mistress and tried to cover it up by paying out hush money in the form of cash, gifts, and other goodies. There are just things that someone in a position of spiritual authority and influence should not do, especially when their life's calling centers around advising their followers how to better live their lives.

And, I mean this seriously, it always seemed to cheapen the message he may have legitimately had when Jesse would show up for a protest seemingly whenever someone or something in the public eye didn't go as Jackson thought it should have gone, and therefore he'd organize a protest on demand wherever the "wrong" took place.

And when the 'wrong' he'd take to the media to protest was something trivial like the firing of a football coach, it made him look like an opportunist and a media-hungry gadfly more than a leader of any substance. There is a difference between leading, and simply complaining when something doesn't go as you think it should, I'm sorry if that offends anyone reading this.

The first five were supposed to be serious.   :lol :lol

You mean this guy?

(http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4658232380491604&pid=15.1)

You're forcing it Alex! -- just relax!

(http://cdn-media.hollywood.com/images/l/dumb-and-dumber1.jpg)

Society will need to "pass" this feeling of guilt from it's system.  Completely "flush" it out.  As long as people feel guilty, the race hustling dominant society will be exploiting and using people (and the American society) as their personal toilet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cVlTeIATBs

I can't wait for Dumb and Dumber 2.  Though, I'm expecting the worst.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57594906/george-zimmerman-helps-save-family-from-overturned-suv/

As terrible as it is, I'm laughing my ass off. This seems to unbelievable to be true.

CBS forgot to mention the race of the people in the SUV!!  What kind of journalism is this!?!  Where they black?  White?  White hispanics?!  God-forbid if they were one of the last two.  We'll never know!  And why did it take the media a week to report this?  Where's the PRESIDENT?!?!!?!  We need him to lead us through!!!  HELP US!!!


Barrack Obama:  "If I drove an SUV, it would NOT have looked like that."  Ahh, there he is.  Whew... thank you, sir.  I was getting worried -- unsure of how the nation would pull together, or split apart I mean.

(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02461/Obama-fly_2461808b.jpg)
For you Bean Bag... anything.  You're a great American.

How did the SUV overturn? Did it try to navigate a gentle turn at more than 30mph?

Can you imagine if the people in the car had been black? For a cheap laugh Zimmerman could have pretended to reach into his coat pocket for a gun in front of them.

Oh I know.  There's too many jokes here.

Given Zimmerman's notoriety I feel the need to add the following as a disclaimer -- of course nobody's making light of Trayvon's senseless death -- just those exploiting it.  We're making light of the curiously devoid of rational thought "social politics" that tried to have a man convicted for something nobody could prove; the bizarre media lock-step circus that followed the left's lead and made this man the most hated man in the world; the "here we go again" grotesque racist/witch hunt used to gain political leverage for the dominant ruling class; and the sad state of racial relations as a result of their hunger for power -- not too mention the mind-numbed, riotous lengths the left's fruit-bearers will go to keep them in power.  This roasts for you Barry!

Top 10 funny things Zimmerman could have said... (drum roll please)

#10: "Don't worry... I'm not armed."
#9:  "I'd help, but... you know."
#8:  "OMG! Is everyone all white -- I mean, is everyone alright?"
#7:  "Heeeeeere's Georgie!"
#6:  "It's okay... I'm white."

#5:  "Overturned SUV?  I thought it was a black kid."
#4:  "Help you?  Phhtt... wait for the cops jerks!"
#3:  "Don't worry, you're safe.  NBC will never know about this."
#2:  "George Zimmerman?  Nooo, I'm just an illegal alien."
#1:  "Please, I need to know... does anyone in the vehicle look anything like Barrack Obama?"

(http://rack.0.mshcdn.com/media/ZgkyMDEzLzAxLzIyLzhiL09iYW1hTGF1Z2hpLjdlYmIyLmpwZwpwCXRodW1iCTU2MHg3NTAKZQlqcGc/2cdb1498/960/Obama-Laughing.jpg)(http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/517cab156bb3f7617d000001-3769-2826-400-/barack-obama-whcd-speech-2.jpg)(http://images.theage.com.au/2012/04/29/3256348/art-Obama-laughing-420x0.jpg)

Buried underneath the actual event that happened, with the family of four overturning the SUV and Zimmerman being one of those bystanders who helped pull them out of the wreck, is the reaction from some pundits including Stephanie Miller and pundits appearing on the radio show of Bill Press who have suggested the whole thing was staged! So let's suspend logic, then, and assume that someone would have a family including his two kids in the car deliberately roll their SUV at a specific time and place so Zimmerman could be there to help get them out? Or ask "where are the photos and video?" to suggest not that it was staged, but that it didn't happen at all!

Only a complete idiot would go public with that kind of conspiracy theory. Especially in light of the 911 tapes of people reporting the crash being released. But anyway.

I also heard someone ask, seriously, "who carries a fire extinguisher in their car???" after the reports said Zimmerman had a fire extinguisher on the scene as the vehicle apparently was smoking.

I, for one, have had a fire extinguisher in the trunk of every car I've owned, as did my dad who was a volunteer firefighter for decades and who also kept one in his cars. And one time I actually had to use it when a fire flared up under my hood. So I guess that's unusual? (Side note: I'd recommend everyone buy a small extinguisher for 20 bucks or so and keep it in their car trunk just in case.)

The reaction has been absolutely unwarranted, ridiculous, and coming from the likes of Press's guests and Miller to name two, it is sad to think that people who are so-called "educated" and rational would suggest this family deliberately crashed a car or faked the entire incident including I assume faking a series of 911 calls in order to change the opinions of Zimmerman.

People need to call that kind of thing out, and those making such ridiculous conspiracy accusations, even hinting at them, should pay some kind of consequence for being so blind with either political ideology or anger that they can't see how ridiculous they sound. I hope those with common sense hearing those comments about staging accidents and the like will reject them out of hand, yet I fear many are believing the same line of crap.

Seriously.

Race Relations Have Plummeted Since Obama Took Office, According to Poll
http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/25/race-relations-have-plummeted-since-obama-took-office-according-to-poll/

This is the kind of stuff I love posting.  Not the fact that it's happening -- but that the fact that the people who claim to champion the little guy -- are the problem.  Read it and weep liberals/leftist/socialists/etc. -- you're busted!!!

All those who thought voting for Barrack Obama would somehow finally assuage you of your need to prove that you weren't racist -- that you want to be forgiven for the sin of slavery, racism, Jim Crow -- forgiven for all of America's evils towards minorities -- read it and weep.  I knew race relations would get worse.  It was obvious.

'Course this poll isn't the official ruling -- reality should have dictated that to you -- but it's great to see this stuff get reported.  It's happening guys.  Bury your head in the sand if it helps.  But you're still wrong about this guy and his ideology and the Democrat Party.  Things are not going to get better in this country until we can become a better judge of character.  If we can't spot a huckster... we're gonna lose the farm.

(http://www.michaelwosnick.com/CancerResearch/wp-content/uploads/snakeoil.jpg)

"Public attitudes about race relations have plummeted since the historic election of President Barack Obama, according to a new poll from NBC News and the Wall Street Journal.

Only 52 percent of whites and 38 percent of blacks have a favorable opinion of race relations in the country, according to the poll, which has tracked race relations since 1994 and was conducted in mid-July by Hart Research Associations and Public Opinion Strategies.

That’s a sharp drop from the beginning of Obama’s first term, when 79 percent of whites and 63 percent of blacks held a favorable view of American race relations.


...The National Association for the Advancement of (LIBERAL) Colored People, which steadfastly supports the Obama administration, distributed pro-Obama election flyers in 2012 with lynching and Ku Klux Klan imagery."

 :lol

Obama?

Ohh Yes, he's the great dee-vi-der -- Ooo Ooo, Oooh, Oooha

quite the pretender too, I might add.  :smokin

The NAACP has become a fucking joke. They need to be taken about as seriously as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson - meaning not seriously at all.

Barry Loves You!   ;D   :lol

(https://sphotos-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s851x315/301680_273739939427348_591874410_n.jpg)

I know Barry loves me... and by voting for him (and telling people that I voted for him) I feel like I'm letting the myself (and the world) know that I'm one of the good white people.... even though the Democrat Party is the party of slavery, racism, Jim Crow, bigotry, sexism, Segregation and the KKK.  I don't care!  The party's different now!!  I know they're the party of high taxes, regulation, socialism, communism, Marxism, anti-liberty, anti-freedom and anti-individualism.  But I still don't care!!  Because I'm one of the masses!  A worker!  I'm a number!!  I've surrendered my identity and my manhood and I watch sensitive, feminized TV!  I care!! I'm letting the world know "I love!, I'm tender! I'm not gonna fight!  Take my money!!!  I surrender!!!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT3D3Xc68oQ
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PB1Ut7qZC8I/Tk7ZHXqYAHI/AAAAAAAAIBY/TY2oAMIoVt4/s400/artiefufkin.jpg)




Back to you Stuart...

(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18j5eub92yzchjpg/k-bigpic.jpg)

Did anyone catch this weeks South Park? One of the funniest things I have seen in a long time.

After the not guilty verdict, Zimmerman decided that having now been given a second chance, he would prove to the world that he is a good person.



...or maybe he'll beat women.

http://jezebel.com/surprise-george-zimmerman-arrested-on-domestic-violenc-1466839003

A good few weeks-plus, and still no big slogan from President Obama about this.  Don't women matter anymore?  Remember when Obama said "if he had a son, he'd look like Trayvon?"  Well, he has a wife... did she not look enough like Michelle?

Well... what about the "War on Women" ad-campaign?  Doesn't that come into play -- Oh, that was to make idiots hate Romney?  Got it.  You know, for a second I believed him, about stuff.

Well, anyway.  I'm still waiting.  I'm curious to know what the President thinks of Zimmerman's female-violence rap.  What about the connection that he is "White Hispanic?"  That's a lead.  Probably something to investigate there, right?

Perhaps, saying too much about Zimmerman's women-hating, makes him look less racial -- and more like "crazy-guy with anger issues."  And that would make the whole national race parade (which spurred riots) look less than accurate.  Maybe even insincere.  As a result -- making an issue of this would only weaken the race-card market.  That's not wise for a Party that needs anger and hate to succeed.

(http://media.washtimes.com/media/community/viewpoint/entry/2013/07/10/Sharpton.jpg)

REally?

Bean, I respect the hell out of you but I think Zimmerman really has messed up his life without Obama being a factor.

The Trayvon Martin case wasn't an issue because of race.  That was definitely a factor but it was mostly about how Zimmerman obviously killed him with zero motive and somehow got away with it.  Maybe the jury wasn't racially biased but they were definitely biased in some way, there is absolutely no reason why Zimmerman should not be in prison right now.

Is your head seriously so far up your own ass that you even make beating a woman a political issue to attack liberals from?

That's utterly disgusting.

Well there is and that's that they tried to pin a racially motivated murder one charge on him rather than going with the manslaughter charge he was clearly guilty of.

O' boy.   :lol  What I find endlessly fascinating is one's ability to blame me for the disgusting things that others do.  Never ceases to amaze me.

I didn't make anything a political issue.  They did.  Obama and the Leftwing hate machine used the Trayvon case to gear up the race-machine, Bubbly.  It's called the Race-card.  You've heard of it, correct?  It's a political device.  A very powerful one.  And it was deployed, very systematically (as detailed throughout this thread by myself and others) for the Trayvon case.

However, it was a botched operation.  And a very teachable moment as a result.  Basically, things began to unravel from the start -- when it turned out that Zimmerman was not white but... hispanic?   :o  So the media went into rescue mode, dreaming up one of the saddest (yet comical, to me) rescues ever.  They just called him a "white hispanic."  Wow.  Brilliant!  Maybe people wouldn't notice.

Bubbley, seriously -- all joking aside.  I could never, in my life, come up with something so banana-brained as that.  "White Hispanic."  :lol  So please, when you talk about heads being up azzes... please, don't.  Not today. 

Nevertheless... the whole charade continued.  NBC edited the 911 tape.  Got busted doing so.  Obama came to the rescue:  "If I had a son...he'd a looked like Trayvon."  Which only implicated the Left's motives in the game.  It was a farce.  All the King's horses couldn't make Zimmerman a race-monster.  The case was blown, literally.  Zimmerman actually walked, beat his gal.  And... silence.  No concern for the woman.

:ahh

This. The public outcry made the prosecution go full mentally handicapped person. If he was charged with some form of manslaughter, he would easily have been found guilty. But murder? Nope. Justice WAS served when he was found not guilty of second-degree murder. It just wasn't the justice the angry mob wanted. Now, if he had been found guilty of manslaughter, justice still would have been served, but it wouldn't have been the justice the OTHER angry mob wanted...

When court cases because a cause celebre, it effectively becomes impossible to keep an objective position. This is like the O.J. Simpson case of this generation. Mired in controversy and legal baloney.

Sure, yeah, opinions and viewpoints and whatnot.

Just tell me that you know what he did to that woman was wrong.

It's obvious, Mr.Z beat her up as an act of self defence, he clearly feared for his life and so had no choice but to 'stand his ground'.

I'm not a big fan of Obama either but I'm not sure I see what was wrong with his statements on Trayvon Martin.  I actually thought it was a great speech.  You know he would have been chastised by the media if he hadn't made such a statement.  People all over the country were distressed with how the Florida law was treating this case, I don't see why the President shouldn't weigh in.

Not guilty by reason of inanity???

 >:D

But Trayvon looking like the son Obama never had has f*** all to do with anything and he should have known better than trying to drag the case down to such a personal level.

Yes.  But I can see both sides.  He probably shouldn't have said that, but that's only if we're talking about an off-the-cuff remark.  That's an important distinction.  Someone in his position needs to keep "off-the-cuff" stuff in check -- I agree with that.  A President's words have resonance.  And consequence.

But it's also not completely weird for him to think that.  He doesn't have a son.  And maybe that's a very personal thing to him.  So, if it was an off-the-cuff, emotion-got-the-better-of-him, thing.  Then yes.  Shame on him for breaking character and interjecting himself so personally in an open investigation -- AS PRESIDENT.  Not at all professional -- but understandable, to a human degree.

However.  I don't think it was off-the-cuff.   ;)

Usually, very little gets said in a Presidential press conference (of much value) that isn't on message.  Not with this turkey.  Everything is test-driven and wiped by the azzes of forty people.  He's a very on script President.  Hence the teleprompter jokes.  Which aren't jokes about his intelligence or speaking ability -- they're about his repetitive mannequin rigidity, reliance to script, which leads to a lack of honesty, trust and transparency.



Here's why I think he said it.  He needed to make it about him.  He was running for President in 2012.  And didn't have a positive agenda.  No Hope posters.  Yes We Can?  Naah.. not this time.  But exploiting racial unrest would allow him to mine the vein of white guilt.  Like butter, white guilt greases the ballot box.  So, the plan was to stoke racial strife for Obama's reelection.

Sad as that is, it actually gets funny.  I suppose someone at campaign headquarters, assigned some grub to comb newspapers, big and small, in the South.  Think swing state.  And they came across a headline one morning and said "BAM!  We'll use this.  Call NBC."  Assuming Zimmerman was white (his name was Zimmerman).   :-D   (Sorry... I'm laughing at the DNC idiots who think like this.  And dream this stuff up.  And the dotes they pay to do this stuff).

Anyway, the story was found and the narrative was set.  Some guy named George Zimmerman committed a racial hate-crime against an African American.  In the South.  Period.  Film at 11. They ran with it.  The campaign of Hope was now the campaign of Hate.  The machine was off n' running:  NBC edited the tape, like good soldiers, to make it sound like profiling.  Obama, on cue, inserted his ugly mug in the story "that was my son!"  BAM.  Done.  His son.  Killed by America's sin.  Surreal and unsettling, I agree... but there it is.  White guilt for Obama.  However...


Americans don't naturally want to believe their country is this bad.  Not like this.  This is gross.  Not a positive, feel-good story.  And Obama's comments gave away the goose.  Even if people didn't put two-and-two together, they still found Obama's comments unsettling and strange.  And the story just started to fall apart.  Then NBC got busted with the tape edit.  And it was OVER.

Feeling it was his job to save the dying narrative, Obama then dropped this turd:  "It could have been me, 35 years ago."  Remember that one?  That was embarrassing.  I was just as surprised as everyone that he continued to put his face on this.  Especially as the charade was crumbling.  But he was desperate, and wanted to win that election.  Racial riots are just part of the price.  America at war with itself is just a small price to pay for his political victory.  Because, he needs power.  Likes power.  Wanted that job with the power.

Americans be damned.  Racial harmony -- damned.  You -- damned.  Me -- damned.   :lol

(http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/assets_c/2012/05/forward%2C%20not%20back%20richmond-thumb-500x375-47072.jpg)

Anyone who knows a single damn thing about US foreign policy going back, oh, 50 years knows very well how rotten their country is, yet it took you until Obama came along to get a clue. Congrats pal! ... Oh, but I keep forgetting: anything awful that Obama had nothing to do with doesn't matter at all. My mistake.

I can't wait for him to leave office so your posts will stop completely because I'm SURE you have better things to do...... I'm sure.....

Hey Pinder.  What do you mean "Us foreign policy?"  Other than to change the subject -- What does Left Wing self-stimulation of its racial-riot gland (to create Domestic Unrest, leading into the 2012 Presidential Election) -- have to do with US Foreign Policy?  (Please don't answer)

One trait I share with Communists and Progressives and Leftists is this:  Even after Obama's done admiring himself in the White House mirror -- I will still feel compelled to diminish my adversaries.  Our methods will differ, of course.


That's just not true.  Awful things -- are awful.  While I'm sure Obama wishes to be responsible for all of them, he's just not that gifted.  Ha.  Regardless of who's involved, I may certainly find something interesting to add and comment on.  I try not to echo common sentiments that are being circulated by the media/sheeple.  However, my comments may certainly be directed at the media/sheeple phenomenon -- which I believe is the beating heart of the Left's War on America.

edit: eh, not worth it

Agreed

Besides, he's just one more religious fundamentalist kicking at shadows. But at least he's chosen the least effective place (a Beach Boys messageboard) to "diminish his adversaries"  .... So yeah, no need to bother.

I enjoy kicking shadows, yes -- and that makes you my adversary?  :-D  

Fellow Beach Boys fans have to be adversaries here on a Beach Boys message board just because you are a right wing extremist and not everyone else is?  Yeah, that's really mature.

But you can accomplish nothing of your goal except just appearing more and more foolish with each passing day. And it has nothing to do with your "politics" which you couldn't care a damn thing about anyhow. You just enjoy being a bully and having imaginary  "adversaries" to "diminish" because you obviously get zero such fullfinment in the real world... If there was a new civil war, you'd be the first idiot to grab a gun and go shoot your brother or cousin because he's a "lefty" or some such nonsense....

I think you were closer the first time -- that I enjoy kicking shadows.  I really don't care about the cr@p... and kind of enjoy picking apart the cockamamie, twisted reality that is incessantly forced on society -- by a "ruling class" nonetheless, for their own protection, all to keep society preoccupied while they take advantage.  It's fun, like a puzzle.  And yes, for my own amusement.

I mean, c'mon -- white hispanic?  Reeeeally?  Is there anybody else curious -- or with enough of a sense of humor, to pull that string and follow it to some sort of logical conclusion?  I know I'm not the only one.  But, until someone comes up with something better, I'm sticking with my hypothesis.

But yours was good too, Pinder.  ::) What was it again? -- I'm ready for the "civil war" -- I'm a "bully," and a "religious fundamentalist."  Toss in the "grassy knoll" while you're at it.

Hey, I enjoy kicking apart the enforced, twisted reality that is imposed on us too. I guess the only difference is, I don't just blame "Liberals".... and leave it at that. Though I understand how much time and effort you can save in doing so...
And I doubt you're old enough to have been on the grassy knoll, though I wonder if OSD was.....