Published: Friday, July 19 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
"The reason is pure and simple — and racist. It is because of skin
color." -- Ryan PhillipsThis 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
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.
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.
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.
Moderateyou are completely wrong self defense laws exist in all
states in some formthe prosecution didn't even make an issue of
Florida's stand you ground lawsAl Sharpton and Eric Holder
didn't make it a cause because they thought it was a bad lawThe New
York Times did not make up silly terms like "white Hispanic" because it
was a bad lawNBC did not racially edit tapes because it was a bad lawit was only about race
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.
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.
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.
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
Re:CounterIntellWrong 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.
@ModerateWhat evidence do you have that Zimmerman started the fight?
Post it right here -->
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
@Moderate "Why didn't Martin have the right of self defense?"He did. Where is your evidence that Zimmerman was the aggressor?Right here -->
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments