Quantcast
Opinion

Letters: Racism gets attention

Comments

Return To Article
  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    July 22, 2013 9:31 a.m.

    GREAT post!!! Spot on!! The race hustlers are out in force (Sharpton, NAACP etc...). Obama made some very puzzling and disturbing comments over the past week as well suggesting that had the races been reversed the black guy would have been convicted which is baseless ignorance but predictably Obama. How we all seem to forget the OJ verdict where a black murderer was allowed to walk free ...because he was black!!

  • the old switcharoo mesa, AZ
    July 21, 2013 6:07 a.m.

    I don't know who was screaming or who was on top of the fight. I do know that Zimmerman should have stayed in his car or have been carrying mace instead of a gun.

  • 4601 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 20, 2013 9:36 a.m.

    Lane Myer
    Salt Lake City, UT
    When your nose is broken and your head is being pounded into the pavement, one may not have the composure to think about an arm or leg shot.

  • Alter Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    July 20, 2013 1:19 a.m.

    @Moderate "My original post never mentioned Zimmerman."

    In the case under discussion, there was only one person who pulled a trigger and claimed self-defense. You know who it was, and everyone reading your post knows who it was.

    "...Stand Your Ground..."

    The Zimmerman defense didn't invoke Stand Your Ground. Their assertion is that Zimmerman was pinned to the ground and had no opportunity for retreat. In this circumstance, Stand Your Ground doesn't come into play. Their claim is that he acted in straightforward self defense.

    "I am worried about copycat-Zimmermans...."

    Then tell everyone to avoid being provoked. If someone merely approaches them, they should not respond by pounding him.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    July 19, 2013 5:58 p.m.

    What if had been your son or your daughter who was being beaten to death by Martin - for whatever reason? What if your son or your daughter used deadly force to stop the attack? What if a jury said that your son or your daughter was "not guilty"?

    Would you still demand that your son or your daughter be "investigated"?

    Would you still demand that justice had not been served?

  • Edgar Samaria, ID
    July 19, 2013 5:11 p.m.

    wrz said, "Zim got shot while Martin was on top of him." On what planet were you living when this trial was going on? Zimmerman got shot? Where were his wounds? If you think you're funny making up this nonsense then think again.

    So, back to the original argument. "Martin did the tracking. All Zim was doing was keeping Martin in sight to better inform the police re his location when they arrived."

    Can you explain this logic? Martin was doing the tracking but Zimmerman was just keeping him in sight? Martin's job must have been easy then if Zimmerman was staying close enough to keep him in sight.

    Here's the bottom line. Martin was walking through a neighborhood with no proveable ill intent. His only sin was being a black teenager. I could use the slur that George Zimmerman used but the monitor would go crazy. An armed neighborhood watchman tracked his actions and in the end, shot him dead. And somehow a large portion of our population wants to make Martin the bad guy.

  • Mr. Bean Pheonix, AZ
    July 19, 2013 4:33 p.m.

    @Lane Myer:
    "I just keep thinking about the parents. Their son went to 7-11 for a drink and skittles. He never came home."

    True. He stopped to smash someone's nose and bang his head on cement. Bad choice.

    "... how would I tell my son to act..."

    Tell him not to start fights... especially with someone who might have a gun.

    "Treyvon was not doing anything wrong when he was followed by Zimmerman."

    Trouble is, he did something wrong when he beat Zim up. Not a good idea.

    "He just did not know that the 'creepy' man following him."

    I think he said not only 'creepy' but added something about derriere and another name for a saltine. A racist term.

    "... why didn't George Z. just wound Martin?"

    Zim had no chance to aim since he was getting his face pummeled.

    @Moderate:
    "Why didn't Martin have the right of self defense?"

    He did, but apparently his fists (and a cement sidewalk) are no match to a gun.

    @atl134:
    "... Jeantel said that the last words she heard over the phone was Martin yelling 'Get off!'"

    She also said Martin started the fight.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    July 19, 2013 3:58 p.m.

    @Lane

    The physical evidence is clear that Martin was on top of Zimmerman when he was shot.

    I would love to hear from you how you aim to only injure someone who is on top of you and hitting you. In that state of being dominated and panicked, I think he was lucky to get a shot off at all.

    But if you can explain how that works, I will try to put that in my bag of tricks the next time I have to defend myself from being pummeled, while on my back, getting beat into the ground.

    With regard to racism, we need to address each act that is racist. But the blanket generalizations about any of this, are inherently racist, and accomplish nothing.

    So far, the only non-generalization act of racism in this case was Martin calling Zimmerman a cracker.

    The push to call Zimmerman racist is totally based on racism against him. This isn't a case for the DOJ, or the NAACP, or activist Sharpton, because it was not about race. They just happened to be different colors.

    Moderate - FYI Criminal courts don't put laws on trial.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    July 19, 2013 3:32 p.m.

    Let's roll things back. Let's assume that Martin had succeeded in killing Zimmerman. Testimony was given that Martin was pounding Zimmerman's head against the cement. Evidence showed that Zimmerman had been beaten. So, let's assume that Martin had succeeded. Let's assume that the jury returned a verdict of not guilty on Martin.

    How many posters would be demanding that Martin be brought to justice for killing a "white Latino"?

    How many posters would be telling us that race motivated the killing of Zimmerman?

    How many protesters would be marching in the streets?

    Would Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton be demanding that Martin be punished?

    Would Eric Holder be demanding laws be changed and that Martin be investigated?

    Would Obama tell us that if he had a son that he would be just like Zimmerman? Would he tell us that as a youth how he feared for his life in Hawaii?

    There is a double standard in America. Racism is clearly evident, but that racism is not coming from the Latino or caucasian communities.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    July 19, 2013 2:39 p.m.

    2 people hike up a mountain.

    1 person comes down.
    The other is dead at the bottom of a cliff.

    The one claims the other one "fell".
    The victim has no say-so at all.

    This is the dilemma of this case.

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    July 19, 2013 2:25 p.m.

    @Edgar:
    "So how did they come together in a scuffle that resulted in Zimmerman killing Martin?"

    Martin did the tracking. All Zim was doing was keeping Martin in sight to better inform the police re his location when they arrived.

    "I'm assuming you acknowledge there was a scuffle...

    Yes, according to the evidence... (1) eye witness and (2) Zim's bloody nose and scalp. Who did that? Zim did it to himself?

    "... because if Martin was shot from a distance, by someone just observing and reporting, then that definitely is a case of murder, or at least manslaughter."

    Zim got shot while Martin was on top of him. Did you not see the evidence presented in the trial?

    @Moderate:
    "Zimmerman got out of the car and approached Martin. That is aggression."

    That's not aggression. That's observation. He was the neighborhood watchman. I guess he was supposed to only watch so long as the watchee was in plain sight... then stop watching when he rounded a corner out of sight.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    July 19, 2013 2:23 p.m.

    "Zimmerman got out of the car and approached Martin. That is aggression."

    What terror when one exits the local Walmart. All those hundreds of aggressive people that get out of their cars and approach you. Such massive aggression.

    Approaching another person is not an act of aggression.

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    July 19, 2013 2:02 p.m.

    Nate / Alter Nate "You want a man sent to prison over a bunch of stuff you don't know"

    My original post never mentioned Zimmerman. You interjected that. My original post is about the law, not the man. I believe the current law is a perversion of the original intent of Stand Your Ground. I am worried about copycat-Zimmermans who will think they can get away with murder by provoking a response, killing, and then claiming self-defense. That law needs to be fixed. It does not make Florida safer.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 19, 2013 1:28 p.m.

    @redshirt1701
    "lots of criminals are killed as homeowners are defending themselves. Should all people who defend themselves against agressors be arrested too?"

    There's a difference between killing someone who invaded your home and killing someone you chose to pursue after the dispatcher told you it wasn't necessary.

    @Nate
    "Yes, after hearing a bump and some "wet grass" noises. And by this you are able to divine who the aggressor was?"

    You asked for evidence and I gave what there was. It's not like Zimmerman would say he was so there's not much left to use. It can still be that Martin threw the first punch, perhaps after grappling (which would explain the "get off" thing since that would suggest some continued contact from Zimmerman rather than a punch).

    @jsf
    "and the police could not arrest him until they investigated."

    That can't be true, otherwise police would never arrest say... a suspect involved in a domestic dispute on scene.

  • Alter Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    July 19, 2013 1:20 p.m.

    @Lane Myer "If you were planning on attacking someone, would you still be talking on the phone? Would you still be listening to music (his ear buds were still in, btw)?"

    Would you leave your earbuds in while talking on the phone?

    But what we're talking about here is a bunch of maybe's. You want to send a man to prison because of maybe? The prosecutor's job was to present evidence.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    July 19, 2013 1:06 p.m.

    "...If you had a black, teenage son, how would you have him act, walk, dress, etc?...".

    Like a missionary...

    Even that might not work in some communities.

    One thing seldom addressed, in a discussion about this tragedy, is the inevitable use of mental filters we all use to make sense of our daily life.

    We KNOW George Zimmerman's mental filter.

    George Zimmerman is convinced that whatever happened that night was justified...made perfect sense.

    Trayvon Martin is dead. We will never hear his side of the story. We will never KNOW what mental filter he used.

    So we are left with both sides claiming the high road...both sides claiming moral superiority...both sides claiming some insight as to exactly what happened...both sides claiming why it happened.

    With only one side able to report, the other side continues to have serious doubts as to the veracity of that report.

    One last question...

    Do ALL families, give their children, especially their MALE children, the same basic set of survival instructions, as those children go out into the world?

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    July 19, 2013 12:44 p.m.

    Last August, Wendy Dorival got a call about setting up a local neighborhood watch. As the volunteer coordinator for the Police Department here, she gets such calls regularly, and the city already had at least 10 active watch groups. So she thought nothing of this call, from George Zimmerman.

    She set up a visit at the Retreat at Twin Lakes, a gated community that had been dealing with a string of burglaries. She then gave a PowerPoint presentation and distributed a handbook. As she always does, she emphasized what a neighborhood watch is — and what it is not.

    In every presentation, “I go through what the rules and responsibilities are,” she said Thursday. The volunteers’ role, she said, is “being the eyes and ears” for the police, “not the vigilante.” Members of a neighborhood watch “are not supposed to confront anyone,” she said. “We get paid to get into harm’s way. You don’t do that. You just call them from the safety of your home or your vehicle.”

    Mr. Zimmerman was there, she recalled, and the local group appointed him their coordinator.

  • Alter Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    July 19, 2013 12:40 p.m.

    @Moderate "Zimmerman got out of the car and approached Martin."

    You don't know who approached whom.

    "That is aggression."

    That is the sound of your argument falling in pieces.

    "Martin chose fight instead of flight."

    You don't know that, either. You want a man sent to prison over a bunch of stuff you don't know.

  • dave Park City, UT
    July 19, 2013 12:29 p.m.

    Having a strong opinion based on what you see or read in the media is a dangerous thing. None of us were at the scene or on the jury. If you have a strong opinion than you have fallen into the trap of prejudice. Not necessarily racial prejudice but it is based on having no real knowledge.

    Both sides need to lighten up and stop perpetuating ignorance.

  • Alter Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    July 19, 2013 12:26 p.m.

    @silo "Zimmerman wasn't found 'innocent' he was found 'not guilty' due to a lack of evidence."

    Then why is everyone around here pretending they know what happened?

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    July 19, 2013 12:08 p.m.

    Nate

    Pleasant Grove, UT

    @atl34 "Martin's friend Jeantel said that the last words she heard over the phone was Martin yelling 'Get off!'."

    Yes, after hearing a bump and some "wet grass" noises. And by this you are able to divine who the aggressor was?

    ----------

    If you were planning on attacking someone, would you still be talking on the phone? Would you still be listening to music (his ear buds were still in, btw)?

    Just questions that we will never have answers to -

    If you had a black, teenage son, how would you have him act, walk, dress, etc?

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    July 19, 2013 12:08 p.m.

    To "Truthseeker" wrong. You don't have to be in your home for self defense. Under the Utah conceal carry laws, you only have to feel threatened or have cause for concern for your life or people around you.

    If you read the Utah Criminal Code 76-2-402, nowhere does it say that to defend yourself you have to be in your own home.

    Nice try, but the Utah laws do not agree with you, and I doubt most state laws would agree with you.

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    July 19, 2013 12:07 p.m.

    Nate
    Pleasant Grove, UT
    @Moderate "Why didn't Martin have the right of self defense?"
    He did. Where is your evidence that Zimmerman was the aggressor?

    Right here --> Zimmerman got out of the car and approached Martin. That is aggression.

    While you proclaim that is an innocent harmless act, your body would not react that way. A car following you would be suspicious. It would raise your tension level. When you see that person get out of the car, your body is going through "fight or flight" decision making. Its not normal for a car to follow a pedestrian. Its not normal for the driver of that car to stop and make his way towards you. My gut instinct - your gut instinct - would be that person might mean you harm. There are no positive signs to tell you "oh this person is friendly". Martin chose fight instead of flight. Zimmerman was the aggressor. Its not about who threw the first punch.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    July 19, 2013 11:55 a.m.

    @atl34 "Martin's friend Jeantel said that the last words she heard over the phone was Martin yelling 'Get off!'."

    Yes, after hearing a bump and some "wet grass" noises. And by this you are able to divine who the aggressor was?

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    July 19, 2013 11:35 a.m.

    "until they did an investigation the police couldn't have been totally sure he acted in accordance with (or outside of) the law." Zimmermon did not flee, he stayed in contact with the police, and the police could not arrest him until they investigated. I guess from a lot of these comments arrests should be made based on the feelings of the mob on any one day.

    Jeantel has subsequently said, that Zimmermon must have been a gay, and she was sure Travon was the first to attack Zimmermon. Get the feeling her testimony about facts is not quite solid.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    July 19, 2013 11:28 a.m.

    Re:Redshirt

    Most/many states recognize the right to defend oneself WITHIN one's home.

    "Stand your ground" laws go further--to include use of deadly force anywhere outside one's home.

    "A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."
    (Jury instructions page 12)

    Furthermore,
    The National Sheriffs’ Association, which sponsors the Neighborhood Watch program nationwide, is absolutely clear on one point: guns have no place in a watch group. Manuals distributed by the association repeatedly underscores the point: “Patrol members do not carry weapons.”

    Wendy Dorival, the Neighborhood Watch volunteer coordinator for the Sanford Police Dept said in an interview, "Using a gun in the neighborhood watch role would be out of the question."

  • Edgar Samaria, ID
    July 19, 2013 11:28 a.m.

    wrz said, "He wasn't 'followed and tracked.' He was observed and reported by a neighborhood watch ..."

    So how did they come together in a scuffle that resulted in Zimmerman killing Martin? I'm assuming you acknowledge there was a scuffle because if Martin was shot from a distance, by someone just observing and reporting, then that definitely is a case of murder, or at least manslaughter.

  • silo Sandy, UT
    July 19, 2013 11:19 a.m.

    @Nate
    "What evidence do you have that Zimmerman started the fight? "

    What evidence do you have that Martin started the fight?
    Answer: The guy who pursued and shot him said Martin started it

    What evidence do you have that Zimmerman only used the gun when Martin reached for it?
    Answer: The guy who pursued and shot him said Martin reached for the gun

    What evidence do you have that Martin pursued Zimmerman back to his truck?
    Answer: The guy who pursued and shot him said so

    What evidence do you have that Martin looked suspicious?
    Answer: The guy who pursued and shot him said he looked suspicious

    Zimmerman could have had his weapon drawn when he approached Martin. Zimmerman could have thrown multiple blows to start the whole scuffle. Martin may well have been defending himself and getting the upper hand on an aggressive adult that attacked.

    All we have is the testimony from the shooter, he has every reason to fabricate the details and no evidence can substantiate those claims.

    Zimmerman wasn't found 'innocent' he was found 'not guilty' due to a lack of evidence.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    July 19, 2013 11:08 a.m.

    "and a predetermined chip on his shoulder,
    and was activity looking for a reason to support his motivation."

    No the courts said not so. That was the intent of the prosecution, they didn't prove it.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 19, 2013 11:05 a.m.

    LDS Liberal The real question was not "Did this need to happen".

    Obviously it didn't "need" to happen. But turning that question into "was this murder"... just didn't work (for the jury).

    We can ramp up the partisan rhetoric all we want in these comments... but it's not productive. We all just need to think about how we would handle this situation if it ever happened to us... and go on from there. If we do that... we will all learn something from this.

    If we just keep bickering about whether Zimmerman could have prevented this or not... or if he had racism in his heart or not... or if he called Martin names or not... gets us nowhere. We need to learn something from this. What will it be?

    I intend to learn something that will prevent something like this from happening to me. Not just try to vilify Zimmerman or anyone who doesn't.

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    July 19, 2013 11:03 a.m.

    @Moderate:
    "That law allowed a bully to pick a fight, pull a trigger when he started to lose, and then claim it was all in self-defense."

    No, no. The law allows for someone to defend themselves with a lethal weapon if someone, without cause or provocation, smashes them in the face and beats their head on a cement sidewalk.

    "The jurors wanted to convict, but couldn't get around that law. It's a horrible law."

    It's a horrible law unless you're the one getting beat up by a teen punk... then it suddenly turns into a good law.

    @Midvaliean:
    "The outrage lies in the fact that Treyvon was killed, and no one was arrested for 40 days."

    Tell us about the arrests re the 9 thousand murders in Chicago since the Martin/Zimmerman incident. Apparently, the Black deaths in Chicago don't concern the Black community since it was mostly Black on Black.

    @Edgar:
    "... an armed citizen who followed and tracked an unarmed teenager..."

    He wasn't 'followed and tracked.' He was observed and reported by a neighborhood watch in an area were robberies were a common event.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    July 19, 2013 10:53 a.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" since when is wanting to protect your neighborhood from an unusually high number of breakins "a predetermined chip on his shoulder". If your neighborhood was suffering from high crime, would you start a neighborhood watch program? If you were on that watch program wouldn't you stop some of the unknown people roaming around your neighborhood just to make sure they were not going to cause any problems?

    Had you followed the court case, you would have seen that it was in fact Trevon that had the chip on his shoulder and did not require much of anything to provoke a violent response. Remember, Zimmerman didn't pull out the gun until AFTER being attacked.

    To "atl134" lots of criminals are killed as homeowners are defending themselves. Should all people who defend themselves against agressors be arrested too? According to the laws and jury in Florida, Zimmerman acted in self defense. So again, no laws were broken, so why arrest him? The state never believed it had a case and only arrested him because of mob pressure.

  • Joan Watson TWIN FALLS, ID
    July 19, 2013 10:32 a.m.

    There seems to be confusion regarding news reports concerning the heigth and weight of Martin and Zimmerman. Accoding to wikipeadia, Martin was 5'11" 158 lbs. Zimmerman was 5'7" 200 lbs.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 19, 2013 10:21 a.m.

    @Redshirt1701
    "why should somebody be arrested? Zimmerman was acting in accordance with Flordia law. "

    He killed a guy, and until they did an investigation the police couldn't have been totally sure he acted in accordance with the law. They seem to have just accepted whatever the killer was saying and went with that. It might have worked out in the end in this case, but that seems like an incredibly dangerous standard of practice to use.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 19, 2013 10:18 a.m.

    @Nate
    "What evidence do you have that Zimmerman started the fight? "

    Martin's friend Jeantel said that the last words she heard over the phone was Martin yelling "Get off!".

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    July 19, 2013 10:18 a.m.

    The only thing worse than a sore loser is a sore winner.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 19, 2013 10:18 a.m.

    Moderate I think I explained that. He does have the right to self defense... if Zimmerman threatened his life. But I don't think Zimmerman walked up to him and said, "I'm going to kill you".

    Martin did have the right to defend himself if Zimmerman threatened him. I think the jury believed that Martin was not acting Defensively. That's key.

    I don't think Zimmerman came up to him and said I'm going to kill you. He may have asked what he's doing, or said wait for police, or something like that. But none of these trigger the Stand Your Ground law (which requires reasonable fear for your life).

    So yes Martin had the same rights Zimmerman had. He just didn't have the reasonable fear for his life Zimmerman had.

    And before we go there... yes, it's Zimmerman's fault that the altercation occurred. He could have prevented it. But that doesn't make it Murder.

    You can go back in history in every tragedy and find a place where a different decision by anybody could have prevented what happened. Bad decisions before the incident doesn't make intent to Murder.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    July 19, 2013 10:16 a.m.

    @Moderate "Why didn't Martin have the right of self defense?"

    He did. Where is your evidence that Zimmerman was the aggressor?

    Right here -->

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    July 19, 2013 10:05 a.m.

    The real question remains --
    Did this need to happen?

    If George Zimmerman was in his house,
    and heard an intruder,
    and the intruder attacked - I would support him.

    If George Zimmerman was at Trolley Square or a Mall or School,
    and heard gun shots,
    and took action and out a lunatic - I would support him.

    BUT --
    George Zimmerman went out his home that night,
    with a gun,
    and a predetermined chip on his shoulder,
    and was activity looking for a reason to support his motivation.

    He didn't find one,
    so he created one.

    And the ONLY other witness to what really happened was dead.

  • Bifftacular Spanish Fork, Ut
    July 19, 2013 10:05 a.m.

    Edgar, I find it fascinating how much consternation is coming from those that DON'T agree with the verdict. They keep trying and trying and trying to make this a race issue when there is nothing in the evidence of the case or Zimmerman's background to suggest that race was a factor. Yet, people with an agenda to make race an issue whenever they can won't leave it along. I personally believe both parties were at fault. Zimmerman was overly zealous in being a neighborhood watchdog and probably should never have been carrying a weapon that night. And, I believe Martin violently attacked him. So what do you do with that situation? Send a man to jail for 30 years who clearly had no ill intentions and isn't a criminal? Especially, when there was AMPLE doubt in the case of his guilt? The verdict was correct. Was it entirely just? Maybe not but definitely correct.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    July 19, 2013 9:55 a.m.

    To "Midvaliean" why should somebody be arrested? Zimmerman was acting in accordance with Flordia law. He broke no laws. The only laws that were broken were broken by Trevon, and you really can't arrest a dead person. Had Trevon not died, he would have been arrested for assault or worse.

    To "Steve C. Warren" if it wasn't for the "Stand your Ground" laws, then a criminal can enter your home or come up to you on the street with the intent to hurt or kill you, and if you defend yourself, you can be put in jail for not fleeing. So tell us, which way is better, legally telling people they can stand their ground to defend themselves, or tell them that they must run and hide if threatened?

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    July 19, 2013 9:54 a.m.

    Holder' concept of defense: Someone just broke into your home, shot a family member, then you are duty bound to escape before returning fire. Under Holder's concept if you returned fire you would be charged with murder or attempted murder and have to prove escape was not possible. The prior shooting of a family member is irrelevant. Think it not so, just read all the postings that lack facts about this case. The new call for a new judiciary system, courts that convict on public sentiments not facts. And remember Obama is as white as Zimmermon.

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    July 19, 2013 9:45 a.m.

    2 bits "I tend to agree with the person who said, "Self defense is a right". I think our right to self defense it inalienable (not subject to political approval)."
    Why didn't Martin have the right of self defense?

  • 2 bit Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 19, 2013 9:23 a.m.

    Kayser,
    The Florida law does not say what you said.

    The law is 776.013. Google it. Read it. It doesn't say what you said (even if somebody on MSMBC said that's in there). You can read it for yourself.

    It's important to note that Martin also had the right to stand his ground and defend himself. He is protected by the same law if... Zimmerman threatened his life.

    But just asking you to wait for police is not threatening your life. From all evidence and witnesses accounts... the gun didn't come out till the beating started. Martin didn't have the right to start the beating just because Zimmerman asked some questions (no matter how inappropriate he found the questions). He would only have the right to jump on Zimmerman if Zimmerman was threatening his life. I don't think anybody's claiming Zimmerman walked up to Martin with a gun and threatened to kill him.

    Martin should have told Zimmerman to leave him alone and call 911. Zimmerman should have stayed in the car. Leaving the car isn't "Murder".

  • Steve C. Warren WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    July 19, 2013 9:16 a.m.

    Truthseeker and Moderate, you are absolutely right about the application of the "stand your ground" law in this case, and Counter Intelligence, you are absolutely wrong.

    Hopefully, the Justice Department can persuade courts to overturn these laws. Such laws provide an open invitation for someone with a chip on his shoulder to provoke an unarmed person. Then, when a fight breaks out and he's getting whipped, he can pull out his concealed weapon and open fire.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 19, 2013 9:08 a.m.

    Moderate,
    This may have had nothing to do with race for you, but if you think it has nothing to do with race for Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the protests they are organizing and the riots.... you have another think coming.

    I think we can all admit that it has something to do with race.

    I tend to agree with the person who said, "Self defense is a right". I think our right to self defense it inalienable (not subject to political approval). I think it's part of human nature, and something we are born with (not something the government gives to us).

    That includes monitoring your neighborhood to keep threats away, as well as defending our life when you are convinced your life will be over if you don't.

    Zimmerman made huge mistakes. He shouldn't have bothered Martin. Martin was doing nothing wrong. But I don't believe the only reason he watched Martin was race. I think he had other reason to watch Martin (the way he was dressed, the way he was acting, the smell of weed around him, etc).

    Race may have been one factor, but it wasn't the only factor.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    July 19, 2013 8:52 a.m.

    @Moderate

    What evidence do you have that Zimmerman started the fight? Post it right here -->

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    July 19, 2013 8:49 a.m.

    Re:CounterIntell
    Wrong

    In the mind of at least one Juror, "Stand your ground" laws did require they find Zimmerman not guilty.

    According to the judge's instructions to the jury, Zimmerman had "no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force" if he reasonably feared for his life or great bodily harm.

    The jury instructions DID include the definition of the "stand your ground" law, specifically on page 12.

  • Edgar Samaria, ID
    July 19, 2013 8:26 a.m.

    Counter Intelligence - Of course there has been outrage expressed by those who disagree with the verdict, In their mind a murderer has been set free. But just as passionate and even more continuous is the need to justify the verdict by those who agree with it. Why so much passion about a decision they agree with? Why do they feel it necessary to make statement they have no way of proving. Stating that George Zimmerman's story is, in fact, the facts is nonsense. It is simply his side of the story and the jury decided to believe it. So the case is over.

    And finally, instead of accepting the verdict as a victory, their need to justify it has turned them into name callers. Trying to use Martin Luther King's words to then call the advocates of black rights racist is just nonsense.

    When OJ Simpson was set free you didn't see the same thing from those who agreed with the verdict. Although I disagreed with that verdict I can't say I heard those who disagreed with me continuing the argument for weeks after. They won. Just accept it.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 19, 2013 8:25 a.m.

    Florida law actually states that if you start a fight, you cannot claim self-defense as an excuse. For some reason the jury was never informed of this part of the law.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    July 19, 2013 8:23 a.m.

    I just keep thinking about the parents. Their son went to 7-11 for a drink and skittles. He never came home.

    Was it because of his color of skin? Was it his age? Was it because he was male? Was it a combination of all of them? Probably.

    Now I ask myself, how would I tell my son to act if he had all of those traits so that they come home every night? Treyvon was not doing anything wrong when he was followed by Zimmerman.

    Was it because a seventeen year old boy wanted to be a man and not just run home? Did he turn around to "stand his ground" for the right to walk home without being stalked, followed and feel afraid? I can understand this too. He just did not know that the "creepy" man following him was armed and would use that weapon to kill him.

    And I ask myself, why didn't George Z. just wound Martin? Did he have to shoot to kill? Wouldn't a shot in the shoulder, arm, or leg accomplished the feat of allowing him to escape Treyvon's grasp? What a waste of life, time, and resources.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    July 19, 2013 7:37 a.m.

    The only proof of racism in this story is when treyvon used a derogatory and racist term to describe Zimmerman

    Shame on treyvon and others like him who think using racist terms is acceptable.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    July 19, 2013 7:19 a.m.

    Moderate
    you are completely wrong
    self defense laws exist in all states in some form
    the prosecution didn't even make an issue of Florida's stand you ground laws
    Al Sharpton and Eric Holder didn't make it a cause because they thought it was a bad law
    The New York Times did not make up silly terms like "white Hispanic" because it was a bad law
    NBC did not racially edit tapes because it was a bad law
    it was only about race

  • Edgar Samaria, ID
    July 19, 2013 7:00 a.m.

    I find it fascinating how much consternation is coming from those who agree with the decision in the George Zimmerman trial. It seems that a verdict of not guilty is not enough to make them happy. They continue to go on and on about the virtues of the justice system that has decided that an armed citizen who followed and tracked an unarmed teenager to the point that an altercation occurred leaving the unarmed teenager dead. And now it seems they want to put the unarmed teenager and those who are speaking out on his behalf are the racists, not the armed citizen who was recorded yelling a racial slur just before he shot and killed the unarmed teenager.

    A trial was held and a jury decided. What's wroing with just leaving it at that? Some of us will continue to have our opinions - like would I be safe visiting the state of Florida if I happen to be wearing a hoody and look a stranger in a neighborhood - but people have opinions about every issue. What's done is done. Let's leave it at that.

  • Midvaliean MIDVALE, UT
    July 19, 2013 7:00 a.m.

    The outrage lies in the fact that Treyvon was killed, and no one was arrested for 40 days. To the black community it seemed like another dead black man that the USA doesn't care about enough to even prosecute.
    Zimmerman is almost a side story, the real racism here is the Florida police department not caring enough about a dead black boy to even TRY to find out what happened until someone twisted their arm.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    July 19, 2013 6:54 a.m.

    I wonder why some cases are beat to death, Natalie Holloway, Laci Peterson particularly by Greta Van Susteren while others are mere footnotes on fox or only local news stories like they should be. Tragic but what makes them more newsworthy than others.

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    July 19, 2013 12:45 a.m.

    "The reason is pure and simple — and racist. It is because of skin color." -- Ryan Phillips

    This case wasn't about race at all. Its about a bad law. That law allowed a bully to pick a fight, pull a trigger when he started to lose, and then claim it was all in self-defense. For the bully, its a win-win. Either he picks a fight and wins, or he loses the fight and kills a man for free.

    Americans didn't tune in because of race. They tuned in because they hoped to see a bad law fail in court. The jurors wanted to convict, but couldn't get around that law. It's a horrible law.