Comments about ‘Charles Krauthammer: There is a touch of sanity in the Zimmerman case’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, July 21 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
samhill
Salt Lake City, UT

Amen. I completely agree with Mr. Krauthammer.

bookemmarko
west haven, UT

Really Charles I’m a little shocked that even you have taken the Liberal Media bait. They keep inserting the Stand Your Ground law issue into the equation of this Zimmerman case. Stand Your Ground had nothing to do with this case “NOTHING”. Zimmerman’s defense was absolute defense against death or serious bodily injury. The liberal media keep inserting this issue, why is no one asking why? What is their agenda for doing this when it has nothing to do with it. Why are you foolishly falling for it ,you’re smarter and more political savvy then this. Is the liberal media doing that out of ignorance or intentional?

Furry1993
Ogden, UT

As usual, Krauthammer and the truth have no acquaintance with each other. Sad.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

I love how folks like Charles talk about how we aren't ruled by mob rule and that justice was done. Yet, when it comes to a certain court ruling a few weeks ago they were complaining about how judges overruled what the majority (aka mob rule) wanted.

So which is it? Do we do what the majority wants of are we ruled by judges, laws, and procedures?

Alfred
Pheonix, AZ

@bookemmarko:
"Stand Your Ground had nothing to do with this case 'NOTHING.'"

Oh yeah? What is 'stand your ground' if it's not being required to back down and flee when someone threatens or attacks you? It sounds to me like self defense and stand your ground are the same things.

There are those who say you shouldn't be able to 'stand your ground' i.e., pull out your gun and shoot someone when/if you're threatened.

Of course, if you do shoot and kill someone because you thought you were threatened, you'll need to show strong evidence that you were, in fact, threatened or a jury will send you to prison for much of your life for killing someone... (unless you're Black and have a Black jury).

Badgerbadger
Murray, UT

There are clearly political forces ready to jump on this story to further their agenda.

There are the NAACP/Sharpton type who make a grand living pumping racism.

There are the democrats, like Holder, who will use it to push to take guns away from citizens so they can have more government control.

The president seems to be in both those camps. Why no condemnation of beating people who look white while saying 'that is for Trayvon'? It is clear enough that beating people based solely on their color is completely wrong and racists. But instead he promotes understanding for those who beat on whites in a fit of anger. The message I hear is the president thinks it is ok for blacks to be angry and beat up whites. He is wrong.

But no press coverage for the facts of the case and common sense. And the masses seem to pick sides based on feelings rather than truth and facts.

WestGranger
West Valley City, Utah

"Mob rule" is not allowing a person to have access to their constitutional rights. Zimmermann was acquitted by a jury. Now we are upset because those with a rabid lynch mob mentality were not satisfied with their own biased and pre-determined verdict? Elitist opinion does not control. This is not an PC run oligarchy.

to comment

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