Comments about ‘Florida cities on guard for any post-Zimmerman unrest’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, July 11 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

The verdict is the verdict.

What I want to know is... WHERE IS THE PRESIDENT?

He's supposed to be a "Leader". And he said he would be uniquely qualified (because of the race card) to help America overcome it's racial problems.

Be a LEADER! SAY something! Come out proactively and remind America that our whole society is based on the "Rule-of-law"!

That means... when the jury's verdict is in, it no longer matters what we think, or what the protesters think, or what Jessie Jackson thinks, or what Al Sharpton thinks, or even what the family thinks. All that matters is what the judge and the jury that heard the evidence thinks. That's the way our justice system works. You may as well throw our justice system out if we are supposed to trust the protesters over the jury.

I thought O. J. Simpson was guilty. A Jury of his peers disagreed. It's MY JOB to learn to accept the Jury's decision. It doesn't matter what the protesters think or do.

A President SHOULD be proactive and say something BEFORE this becomes a trigger-point for race riots.

George
New York, NY

@2bits

and as soon as the president does speak out the far right will accuse him of sticking his nose were it does not belong and be go off about his needing to focus on the economy. Give the double talk attacks a rest for once. not every thread on every subject under the sun needs to be about your destine for the president.

Mark B
Eureka, CA

We get it. If the President says anything on this matter, then he's interfering in state issues that are none of his business. But if he DOESN'T say anything, then he's not a leader.

Of course, neither 2 bits nor Florida has any plan for what could happen that might give the Zimmermans of the world an excuse to take up their weaponry and express their anger. Nope. All the danger, according to Florida and Fox News, is the other way.

ThornBirds
St.George, Utah

If Zimmerman is acquitted, this judgement lets America know it is just fine to profile a child or teenager walking in a neighborhood with their hood up on their sweatshirt.
An acquittal means a hothead gun owner can crank up his imagination, pretend to be a law enforcement official, and act out some violent film he has recently viewed.
An acquittal of George Zimmerman, a disturbed urban cowboy, sends a message that an individual is allowed to ignore the area's Police when a Police officer tell him, "Do not get out of your car and follow this individual, we will be right there".

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

George,
I think the far-right would welcome him saying something to DE-escalate the issue. I think they would be upset IF he used this crisis to escalate the race angle... like his instinctively siding with protesters and his "The police acted stupidly" comment when the Harvard professor was arrested. (a statement he later retracted and admitted was his instinctual response and was offered before he had all the info on the case).

I think IF he just reminded the American people that we are still a nation based on rule-of-law (meaning we accept even verdicts we don't agree with, and the Constitutionally required trial by a jury of your peers is what counts, not the opinion of a mob, protesters, riots, etc)... they would totally welcome that.

Do you REALLY think the far-right would complain about that?

I wouldn't complain if he took this opportunity speak to the people and try to do some teaching, and try proactively to exert his influence as President, and make a passionate plea to wind down the protests we KNOW are coming (instead of his usual reactionary style of leadership).

teleste
Austin, TX

I don't think George or Mark B understood 2 bits' first comment. 2 bits suggests that the President should speak out to all Americans to remain calm after the verdict and let the legal system function. Not race bait or remain silent as he has done in the past.

@ThornBirds
You are exactly wrong. Convicting Zimmerman would tell all criminals that neighborhood watch groups have no power to defend themselves or their property(from presumed threats) and that anyone/everyone is free game because if the citizens use (deadly) force to defend themselves, they'll become the criminal.

From the limited facts I know of the case (Trayvon on top...), I hope Zimmerman walks.

George
New York, NY

@2bits

"Do you REALLY think the far-right would complain about that? (instead of his usual reactionary style of leadership)." yes I do and I think the history of the past 5 years clearly shows they/you would.

Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

@teleste

What exactly in George or marks comments makes you think they did not understand 2bits? 2bits and your comments that include in part your need to claim the president has race baited in past situations clearly shows the bias that George and mark are talking about. Simply because George and mark disagree with your assertions and question your motivations does not mean they did not understand.

Mark B
Eureka, CA

There's almost no limit to the "right" to complain and whine, even when it makes no sense. I recall when Republican bigshots objected loudly both when the Clinton-directed bombing of Belgrade in the '90s began AND when it stopped. That was a pretty clear message on WHO they thought the real enemy was. It certainly wasn't the Serbs.

George
New York, NY

@teleste

I feel comfortable that I one understand his post and two have grounds to question the true motivations of both of you given the comments below that have been made on this thread let alone the long history of past comment threads.

"He's supposed to be a "Leader". And he said he would be uniquely qualified (because of the race card) to help America overcome it's racial problems."

"instead of his usual reactionary style of leadership"

"Not race bait or remain silent as he has done in the past"

why would I possibly be suspicious?

teleste
Austin, TX

@Tolstoy and all

I don't claim to be impartial. I voted against Obama twice and would again. I also stated above from what I understand of the case, I think Zimmerman should walk. Those are my biases.

IMO their responses didn't address 2 bits comments which is why I thought they perhaps misunderstood it. Why would it be bad for the POTUS to speak out to keep the nation calm (2 bits' actual suggestion)? George and Mark B's assertions that the POTUS would be hit by that from the GOP aren't a good enough reason for him not to the right thing (which 2 bits and I are suggesting is to speak out). Even if the GOP did that, it'd be to their detriment and show their shallowness, not POTUS'.

"Not race bait or remain silent as he has done in the past" -- I stand by saying that he has done this in the past. (Officer in the Harvard case anyone...?!?)

Why not speak out now? I hope POTUS does. It'd be to his credit even if the GOP gives undue heat.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

George,
What exactly has Barack Obama done or said in the past 6 years to help solve America's racial issues (as he promised)?

If you can point to ONE SPEECH, or ONE ACT... I'd like to hear it.

George
New York, NY

@teleste and 2bits

Should he speak out? probably. have you placed yourselves through your own words in a position to be taken at face value when you make such calls for action? no. All you are doing at this point is reaffirming the point that you will attack regardless so your calls to do something ring hollow.

teleste
Austin, TX

"All you are doing at this point is reaffirming the point that you will attack regardless so your calls to do something ring hollow."

Wrong. I have said I will support him for speaking out. That's what you want to make me out to be.

That said, I think you have good reason to believe that the political opposition will attack. It happens all the time and comes from both sides of the aisle. It isn't a good enough reason not to speak out.

"Should he speak out? probably."

Good. We agree.

LelandTC
West Valley City, 00

Racism is an interesting subject. I suspect it is due to fear. Mostly fear of the unknown, or of what has happened in the past. I am not sure if it belongs in a class by itself. It engenders a similar response to religious and ethnic steroetyping and prejudices. So rather than naming it racism why not simply call it prejudice? This would appeal to a larger group of people as an injustice than a more specifically named vice, and would not keep feeding the "different-than-you monster". I think the bottom line is, we all have fears. Whether it is about injustices, oppression, or even physical harm. We need to keep our emotions in check, to think beyond our inner-self insecurities. To protest real injustices, but hold in check imagined ones. We all want justice. A murderer is a murderer and is not wanted in society by anyone, but we all must be able to defend ourselves against those who would be violent toward us. Have faith in God that even if we get justice wrong, He will hold accountable those who have done wrong. Let's abolish the racism divide.

Linus
Bountiful, UT

George of New York City,

Because of where I live, peace will prevail in my community regardless of the outcome in the Zimmerman trial. There will be no demonstrations. There will be no riots. There will be no looting or shoplifting or destruction of property. If President Obama decides to calm the nation during and after this volatile verdict, it won't make any difference here.

If I were from New York City, I would be most anxious for President Obama to take a proactive leadership role. But, hey, if you don't see any value in it, go ahead and enjoy the consequences.

I admit, I have lived a life sheltered from racial conflict. My friends have included a mix of races including some who identify with every major racial group. Here, there is neighborliness among them all. My own children have performed missionary service in Canada, Scandinavia, Italy, Africa, Mexico, China and Japan, and friends from each of these missions have spent time in our home.

It is for you, George, and your neighbors, that I would like to see President Obama spread some healing oil on troubled waters.

Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

@teleste

"Wrong. I have said I will support him for speaking out. That's what you want to make me out to be."

"Not race bait or remain silent as he has done in the past' -- I stand by saying that he has done this in the past. (Officer in the Harvard case anyone...?!?)"

I think you have done a little more then simply support him speaking out, don't you?

"That said, I think you have good reason to believe that the political opposition will attack. It happens all the time and comes from both sides of the aisle. It isn't a good enough reason not to speak out."

I think he does have good reason as well seeing as you could not resist the chance to take a couple of shots at the President yourself.

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@linus

I lived in New York for several years (hence the screen name) and I have to say your comment does seem to show that you indeed did live a sheltered life that has lead to some unfortunate prejudices and condescending attitude towards a city and people you clearly know nothing about.

teleste
Austin, TX

"I think he does have good reason as well seeing as you could not resist the chance to take a couple of shots at the President yourself."

So?

It is not inconsistent for me (or anyone) to criticize him for mistakes in the past while promising to support him for doing what is right in the future.

Your nit-picking of my comments amounts to nothing, and actually didn't give any reasonable rebuttal to my primary argument.

I hope the president speaks out.

Ragnar Danneskjold
Bountiful, UT

Re: Tolstoy
"You are exactly wrong. Convicting Zimmerman would tell all criminals that neighborhood watch groups have no power to defend themselves or their property(from presumed threats) and that anyone/everyone is free game because if the citizens use (deadly) force to defend themselves, they'll become the criminal.

From the limited facts I know of the case (Trayvon on top...), I hope Zimmerman walks"

This is hilariously sad. You go on about what the implications of this case are, and then say "from the limited facts I know of this case" which appears to simply be that at one point Trayvon Martin was on top of Zimmerman, that you hope he gets to walk. Spouting off about things that you yourself admit that you know very little about is a favorite pastime of some people it seems.

I've got to hand it to people though. They can make anything political.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments