We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Friday, July 26. 2013
The thought of having the event fade into the distant past must have been just galling to the editorial staff. "Whatever can we do?", they asked.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
These guys just suck. And I liked the part in the sub-header about "she and the others thought he was guilty", conveniently leaving out the entire aspect of "reasonable doubt". Nice post, Doc, and a nice job of including the other headlines. Really made this travesty stand out for what it is.
Better than that, she thought the charges were a political stunt... But he was guilty??? It sounds like she's angling for a book or movie deal. She'll probably get it in spite of her inconsistent thought process.
She's angling to avoid being the subject of death threats and possible violent attack.
Not including this thread, we count seven references to "Zimmerman" and two to "Martin" on the front page of this blog. Apparently, there's some interest in the subject here.
"there's there was some interest in the subject here."
Fixed that for you, race-baiter.
Good post, Doc. Zach, go fuck yourself. Or, better yet, get a job at CNN. You and Piers would make a great pair.
I have seen this "Zachriel" posting on other blogs. In one instance recently he lied outright, was caught at it, and it was verified by the "Forbes" article writer. But Zachriel kept right on posting, as if honesty doesn't matter.
Yes, Zachriel is a pretty despicable character. A race baiter? Absolutely, and as we see, there are plenty more like him.
But at least the Doc has got his number. Some of us do, too.
Here's what I just said to Bulldog in an email:
"Let me put it this way. I'd rather read ten Sarah Palin-bashing articles on DailyKos than to read another "You Yanks..." comment from some America-bashing foreigner. I view them as the scum of the earth and deserving of whatever bad thing befalls them."
In the world of trolls and sockpuppets, there is no mercy.
I've seen him elsewhere, too.
I've also seen him get banned from other sites. He uses this on his own website as 'evidence' that right-wingers can't stand "the truth". That is, the truth as he positions it.
Zach is undoubtedly a race-baiter and a troll. But I do give some credit when it's due. He's somewhat well informed. But he's shifty and slithery. He'll avoid getting pinned down simply by never taking a stance.
My father once told me there's nothing wrong with taking a stance as long as your open to opposing commentary, but it's dangerous to never take a stand because when the day comes to actually take one, you'll be caught in the crossfire as you try to make your mind up.
I think Maggie's has been pretty good about accepting opposing commentary (particularly from Zach). But Zach seems to think it's healthy to avoid putting his own particular views on display and rather simply snipe at others.
He's slightly more fact-based than the average troll. I used to make a habit of following his links and actually reading them, but I invariably found that they didn't say anything like the proposition he cited them for. If you try to bring that up to him in a specific instance, he slithers sideways, changes the subject, or retreats to banalities like "there are many problems and the field of study is complex." He doesn't seem to understand what's relevant to his argument and what's not.
Ultimately I concluded he either isn't interested in being taken seriously, or doesn't know how serious argument is done. And then, of course, "he" may simply be computer-generated. The posts have that cut-and-paste feel to them, as if they picked up on keywords without completely understanding the context.
>"Whatever can we do?", they asked.
Galling, indeed, doc. And I agree with KJW, above. If you'd just slapped the pic out there, ho-hum. But to see how the other news sites have moved on by now really brought the issue home. These people are simply disgusting.
My thought after reading your comment was, "What's the next word after 'disgusting'?" Even good ol' "racemongering" doesn't quite touch it at this point.
Meanwhile, the Guardian Angels are patroling the shopping area in Chicago known as The Magnificient Mile because "bash mobs" of teenage thugs are stealing cell phones, purses and packages from those walking the streets. Mayor Rahm Emanuel complains that the GAs should be in the neighborhoods protecting the children as they walk to and from school, not aware that they have been doing that (as well as providing safety on the el system) for 30 years.
AND mobs of young men are attacking women joggers in the lakefront parks down in Obama's old neighborhood; the women interviewed were all black. AND 2013 shootings in Chicago to date = 1,214 compared to total 2012 of 2,670. Number of 2013 homicides to date: 232 while 2012 equaled 535. http://crimeinchicago.blogspot.com
This is the land of Obama, Jesse Jackson and Rep. Bobby Rush (who was kicked off the House floor for wearing a hoodie while addressing his peers). Not ONE WORD from them about feral youth in their hometown, although Obama was a few miles SW of Chicago yesterday.
Don't forget Malcolm X, whoever he is, and of course Obama's Pastor/Mentor now never was Pastor/Mentor, Jeremiah Wright, although we're expected to pretend he never paid attention to the sermons and that his relationship was nothing more than a distant casual acquaintance.
This woman is the face of modern America. In paraphrase: I felt he was guilty, but after I went over the evidence and the law there was no way he was guilty. And she feels badly about it ... reason, common sense, are all dead in this world in which this woman lives. Glad I won't be around to see the nation's crash into savagery and chaos. "Oh, brave new world, that has such people in it." (apologies to the Bard.)
Even Zimmerman says he was not innocent in the death of Martin. Oddly enough, he actually ADMITTED shooting Martin! I know that's often shocking to people, when someone admits they did something so.....'wrong'.
It was 'wrong'. Killing anyone, even accidentally or to protect yourself, is still an option of last resort.
But being wrong is not a crime, particularly in this case. "Feeling he is guilty" is not the same as "He is guilty", and there is no proof, none whatsoever, that he is guilty of ANYTHING, let alone some stupidity.
But you could say the same of Martin.
Two stupid people colliding in a series of unfortunate and potentially avoidable events. Neither willing or able to take a step back and avoid confrontation.
That's called shared blame.
She should feel compelled - it was why she was on the jury, to make an assessment of the charges, evidence, and vote guilt or not.
Anything else is juror mis-conduct - she\they affirmed that by oath at their seating.
I agree - there is much guilt in this case (both parties, plus the official actions) , and there were ample bad decisions made by both\all parties (sic).
I would love to hear what she thinks is the most likely chain of events that evening given the evidence. Forget what the State could prove, what does she think actually happened?
Only the very worst case I can come up with in my head, which I think is unlikely in the extreme, would support finding Zimmerman guilty of a crime. That would be Zimmerman actively assaulting Martin first, which is not just unsupported by any evidence, but is contraindicated.
I think it is very possible that Zimmerman went looking to reestablish visual contact with Martin. It is also possible that he found him and approached him or even engaged him (I think unlikely), but to suggest that Zimmerman initiated the fight requires ignoring significant evidence. NONE of the other things he MAY have done constitutes a crime, much less makes him guilty (legally or morally) of murder.
The only remaining issue becomes whether Zimmerman needed to resort to deadly force, and I just find it hard to fault him. He had, from the preponderance of the evidence, been screaming for his life for over 45 seconds as he was pinned and beaten. Although neighbors had responded, none had been willing to intervene. One would have to presume that he was NOT in fear of significant injury while having his head banged into the sidewalk to question his eventual response.
I would be interested in hearing what SHE thinks happened which makes her say this.
Had I been pinned to the ground by Mr. Martin as he smashed my head into a concrete sidewalk, in between pummeling me with blows to my head after he had punched me in the face with enough force to knock me to the ground and break my nose, and I was able somehow during all this, to get to my belt, find the grip and get my finger through the trigger guard, I would have emptied the clip into him.
And you can kiss my ass.
I actually had a line in my comment about the amount of time and the single shot showing significant restraint, but took it out for brevity.
Best judged by 12 than carried by 6.
I hear ya, and agree - when you bacon is in jeopardy, and seconds count, the police are minutes away...
That's really become one of my favorite expressions of late. "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." Few phrases could sum it up better.
What she means is she went in wanting him to be guilty oh-so-much, just like O, the MSM et al. When her mindset was wanting it so much, the lack of evidence to support her craving must have been ultra-compelling.
I'm more of a 'John Wayne's America' kinda guy: most things are black and white — and I don't mean that in a racial way. Something is right, or it is wrong.
Zimmerman was right. Martin was wrong. From everything I've seen and read, that's all there is to it.
There is NOTHING wrong with trying to protect the neighborhood you live in. Nothing. The guy on the scene is the decision-maker, not a telephone operator sitting in a cubicle and giving vague advice.
Zimmerman is to be commended for taking more of an interest in his neighborhood than most folks would. He has undoubtedly reduced crime by his actions and by his vigilance. Really, is there any doubt?
I think most people in their heart of hearts would admit that they would much prefer having George Zimmerman as a neighbor, rather than Trayvon Martin. Who wouldn't?
So now we are set up for Act II, wherein the corrupt, gun-running Attorney General decides whether to pander — or to accept the jury's verdict. As a criminal himself, I expect Holder to come down on Zimmerman with the full force of the federal government. And don't hold your breath waiting for the AG to condemn the death threats against Zimmerman; he would undoubtedly be delighted if someone succeeded.
I sincerely hope I am wrong about Holder's next actions. Zimmerman is the victim of an official vendetta, as he has been since the police originally released him.
But at this point, it matters much less. The verdict is in, and whether or not the AG decides if double jeopardy is in order, the jury has already said "NOT guilty". And Martin's parents can go right ahead and sue. What will they get, except a prompt bankruptcy filing that discharges all debts? It's not like OJ, who had assets and an income stream to go after.
And the judge's preposterous charge of "perjury" for not listing public donations as private assets? Please. That only shows the extent to which the American judiciary has been corrupted.
When the Administration got Chief Justice John Roberts to flip on Obamacare, it was all over. Every judge in America can see the writing on the wall. By all accounts, John Roberts was the one certain vote against Obamacare. NO ONE expected Roberts to cave. But cave he did. Obviously, they had something on Roberts; what other explanations can there be? Most legal scholars agreed that his 'reasoning' in the case was specious nonsense.
So the Left now has the Media, the Courts, the military [Petraeus, etc.], and half the Republican Congress under control.
How would you like to be in George Zimmerman's shoes right now?
This has been a clear case of justifiable self-defense from Day 1. It's clear Zimmerman was jumped in his own neighborhood, where he had every legal and moral right to be, and was getting the crap beaten out of him by the "innocent child," and acted to defend himself. We know now from the trial the reason was because Trayvon thought he was white and gay (certainly a tempting target for a young gangbanger on the make). Unfortunately, the child Trayvon miscalculated and didn't realize Zimmerman could defend himself.
Zimmerman never should have even been indicted, and that's what the police and prosecutors had concluded until Obama and his race-baiter friends got involved and had the police chief fired and the case taken away and given to a Racial Inquisitor.
Will Saletan at Slate suggests that ABC stole a page from NBC's playbook (i.e. engaged in a little creative editing). Another opportunity for a GZ libel suit payday?