Amen PN. YOU are so right. Racism is not dead no matter how much Conservatives claim it to be. Even some of the Black Conservatives on these pages refuse to believe it still exists. I do not know if it is a matter of self loathing or just ignorance on their part. It's astonishing!!! To me at least.
Conservative Icon Ann Coulter, conservative lunatic writer, that is so far right that she makes Mitch McConnell look like a pinko-commie-F$G, tweeted: halileueah upon hearing of the verdict!
Evidently some conservatives cannot imagine the depths that race hatred, not just prejudice, run and permeate within some caucasion minds and even other ethnicities.
It is NOT the time to loosen the laws regarding minorities and rights, as recently done by the Supreme Court, its time to keep the boot on the snakes head, especially Jim Crow.
A Black male in todays America is treated much more harshly by the criminal justice system than a white male. And I am frankly astounded that I, a white southern male, is somehow more cognizant of that FACT then some of the Black folks on these pages!
Even Zimmermans attorny's acknowlged this fact while guests on the View yesterday and suggested that that is where we need to take this discussion following the Zimmerman verdict.
The issue is much deeper than this latest verdict.
....except that he was the one on top smashing the other guy's nose and pounding his head into the ground.
The racial problems in this country down through history are well documented. But the facts in THIS particular case as they related to murder or manslaughter don't fit, and even an FBI investigation disclosed no evidence of racial motivation or profiling on the part of Zimmerman - so the jury HAD to acquit.
If Zimmerman didn't have a gun, I wonder what the world would be saying (if anything) at Trayvon Martin's trial for the aggravated assault, manslaughter, or murder of Zimmerman. It certainly wouldn't have gotten the publicity or "rabble-rousing" that this one has received from the Al Sharptons of the left.
Like it or not - given this particular fact pattern - JUSTICE WAS SERVED.
@Sebekm- Justice wasn't not served. It's amazing how you are so quick to condemn people (al sharpton;etc) for standing for what's right but you didn't have a problem with Paula Deen fans- boycotting networks, taking over social media and calling it unjust...why is it when blacks stand up for themselves it's a riot or rabble rousing..
I am always quick to condemn Al Sharpton because he is nothing but an opportunist who looks to inject race into every possible situation for his own aggrandizement and personal/political/financial benefit. His history is well-documented.
I have never supported Paula Deen on ANYTHING, and your contention that I "didn't have a probelm with, etc., etc" is right out of the Twilight Zone. Don't MAKE STUFF UP. I don't. I state what I know to be the facts.
...and JUSTICE *WAS* SERVED - because the jury came up with the only verdict possible given the fact pattern in the case.
Those who feel otherwise are seeing something that's not there and are trying to create an issue. You have to look at the evidence the way a jury does. THAT'S WHY THE DA DIDN'T WANT TO BRING A CASE AGAINST ZIMMERMAN IN THE FIRST PLACE: THERE *WAS NO CASE*.
Hence, you get an acquittal. If you look back at the blogs written when this case first hit the headlines, you will see that I predicted an acquittal then - given the fact pattern that was being published in the news.
@Sebekm-you may want to go back and review your post under my Paula Deen blog...You never condemned the boycotting and social media take over..You tone was different. However, I feel good about the dialogue. Were talking about an issue that's usually taboo. I appreciate the open dialogue but I hope at the end of the day something said or done helps you to see things different.
I know what I said. Not condemning something DOES NOT EQUAL supporting it. As a matter of fact, I was indifferent to the whole deal because I thought it was just another stupid, thoughtless remark by somebody of "public prominence" who the media wanted to clobber. I had no problem with the clobbering. I had plenty of problems with the "n-word" - as my several posts on several blogs demonstrate.
THIS CASE IS NOT ABOUT PAULA DEEN. It has nothing to do with anything Paula Deen said or did not say; or did or did not do. This case is about FACTS - and that is ALL I am commenting on.
I repeat: those who see this case as some kind of a statement about race relations or racial profiling are seeing what they want to see. The jury rendered the only verdict it could given the facts in the case. By definition that means that JUSTICE WAS SERVED.
A little background on my point of view: in my former life I worked in various Army legal offices for 26 years. This included 10 years of work in the Army criminal justice system - both in pre-trial and post trial processing of criminal cases. For several years I taught military justice classes to Army AIT students; these classes included the drafting of technical charges and specifications for judicial and nonjudicial actions in the Army military justice system. Back in 2006, I served as jury foreman for a murder trial here in Hinesville.
I am looking at this case from a purely factual viewpoint as it relates to the events on the night in question (as reported in the news); the charges against Zimmerman (as reported in the news); and the outcome of the trial (as reported in the news). I am also relying on the FBI investigation which disclosed no evidence of racial prejudice or profiling on the part of Zimmerman, based upon numerous interviews with people of all races and backgrounds who were questioned in connection with this case.
My judgment is: Zimmerman was acquitted because that was the only verdict an honest jury could have arrived at. Juries are not supposed to consider the status of race relations in the country or the views of Al Sharpton in coming up with a verdict in a case. They are charged to apply the law as given to them by the judge to the facts in the case. That's how it works.
And that's exactly how it worked in this case.
Now I'll let you have the last word on this blog - since it is YOUR blog and I've said everything that I need to say on this matter.
But the jury in the Zimmerman case had the REAL "last word" - as far as the outcome of that case is concerned. Just as O.J. was acquitted at his criminal trial - a finding of responsibility in the civil trial DID NOT MAKE HIM GUILTY OF THOSE TWO MURDERS. The verdict in this case is history.
As they say, it's all over but the shouting.
It's not over because he may face Federal Charges. Also, the juror during her rounds on television.. lied..her husband went to school with the defense attorney and she was handpicked for the jury. Her husband is an attorney in the town..and also knows Judge Zimmerman..(3) jurors wanted to find him guilty..she was prep for a year to sway the jury...He would have been found guilty...
This will be my last post in reference to the Zimmerman Trial. Yes, Zimmerman was acquitted, but justice was far from being served an unarmed teen was killed. Zimmerman supporters will support him no matter what, and the same for Trayvon's supporters. As for the jury, the case was determined before it began. Hey it was just another thug (black man) that was murdered. Do I believe that Zimmerman is a racist, no. Do I believe that he profiled the victim yes. Do I believe he shot in self-defense yes, but after provoking the young man. Hey we will never know if Martin was acting in self-defense. We do know for a fact that Zimmerman started the whole tragic nightmare. We can all say that this trial was not racially motivated and we all know the answer to that. Zimmerman may have been acquitted, but he will never be free. He will now become the victim of his own demise, meaning he will be profiled, judged, and running for his life. He will now experience how Trayvon must have felt.
P.S. I wonder if we would all be quick to judge if it was our son, brother, or friend. But hey like I said it was just another young black thug, and I will quote Zimmerman by saying "THEY ALWAYS GET AWAY."
MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON US ALL!!!!!!
The discussion IMHO should now move on to how the criminal justice and law enforcement deal with Black Males. The Z-Man verdict is over. I personally would like to see JUST ONE Black contributer to these pages tell me they think they get an even shake by the system. Just One.
The problem with Black Conservatism is its joining at the hip with Tea Party Exclusionary Policitics and their blindness to it in the name of Economics. As if identifying with the fiscal policies of the right somehow "justifies" their preposterous position on Social and Cultural issues.
I find it to be an insane connection.
I'll say this little bit and then shut the heck up about all this. Let me be the devil's advocate here for a moment and pretend that TM was a gangsta thug. He regularly engaged in B&E, he was racist, he did and sold drugs and any other crimes you can think of. The fact was this teenager was walking down the street. A street he had every right to walk down. GZ saw him and didn't recognize him from the neighborhood and immediately decided he was up to no good. GZ had no way to know anything about the TM except his clothing. Should have called the police and let them handle it. To classify TM as a criminal and to follow him smacks of rapists who say she deserved it because of the way he was dressed. Even if TM was a criminal, GZ was out of line and is morally responsible for what happened. Does the evidence meets the level needed for a conviction? No. What we need to do now is to make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen again.
Yes up2. you are right. The question now is: Do Blacks get the same shake as White Folks get in the light of the US criminal justice system???
I am just looking for ONE Conservative Black to tell me that they believe they do. Just One.
JM, did you forget about this fact about blacks within the criminal justice system, as stated by Larry Elder from “Obama will make blacks vote Republican” Five years into his presidency, Obama has picked up and dropped down the race card more times than a three-card Monte hustler on the street corner. When a black Harvard professor irresponsibly accused a Cambridge, Mass., police officer of racial profiling, Obama sided with the professor, saying, "The Cambridge police acted stupidly." Obama could have started a discussion about the false assumption that widespread racism remains within the criminal justice system. He could have cited a 1999 Justice Department study that found that, no, a black criminal is not punished more harshly than a while defendant with an identical background and record.
George Zimmerman, a "white-Hispanic" Florida neighborhood watch volunteer, shot and killed Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black 17-year-old. Before one word of testimony, Obama irresponsibly weighed in by suggesting that Martin's death was motivated by race. "If I had a son," said Obama, "he would look like Trayvon." Hint, hint: Travyon Martin was racially profiled.
Obama even thinks the tea party is racist.
There is a great discussion of this case on Charlie Rose (SC ETV) right now. Both the legal and social issues are being discussed. The Charlie Rose program is usually replayed the next day at 10:00 p.m.on Bloomberg TV (channel 353 on DIRECTV), so you can catch it tomorrow. Good panel: Dan Abrams, Professor Charles Ogletree, and Noah Somebody (I keep missing his name).
It's Noah Feldman. Both he and Ogletree are with Harvard University and Abrams is with NBC as a legal correspondent. As I recall, he also covered the O.J.trial(s) in that capacity. All the issues and points discussed in the recent "Zimmerman blogs" on this site are discussed. It's the first 30 minutes of the program, ane if they follow the usual pattern they will replay tonight's show at 10:00 the next night - being Wednesday night at 10.
Spot on. I wabted to say that about Juror 37, but I was not sure. Something was telling me that she was a Stealth Juror. You had 3 Jurors viting for a conviction, one for 2nd Degree Murder, two for manslaughter, and now, all of a sudden, a full unanimous decision to acquit? Investigation is a craft that I am very good at. I would have love to interview those three jurors who voted to convict Zimmerman to find out what gappened in jury dilberations. I believe Juror B 37 is as diabolical as they come. But I firmly believe that when the DOJ conclude their examination of this case, George Zimmerman will be indicted on multiple counts of civil rights violation, and this time, George Zimmerman will be found guilty, spending the rest of his natural life in Federal Prison.
Funk my friend, This is not about BHO, the Tea Party, or Republicans or Democrats. I am asking a very plain easy to understand question that you and others are attempting to obfuscate: Are Black males treated the same as White males within our criminal justice system? Don't give me stats, talking points, Sean Hannity focus groups and a host of other inanities. If nothing else, sir, I will settle just for YOUR opinion. I want to know what is in your heart.
"I believe Juror B 37 is as diabolical as they come But I firmly believe that when the DOJ conclude their examination of this case, George Zimmerman will be indicted on multiple counts of civil rights violation, and this time, George Zimmerman will be found guilty, spending the rest of his natural life in Federal Prison."
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen, Sporty. I urge you to watch the Charlie Rose show to better understand how the process works - both in the instant case and in any prospective federal prosecution. (Hint: The panel of experts which included a black, obviously "liberal" professor from Harvard unanimously state that this jury reached the only verdict possible, given the facts of the case and especially the actions of BOTH men involved. The panel also discusses the extreme unlikelihood of any federal prosecution in this case - as the federal statute they would bring the case under would involve "hate crimes," and you just don't have the evidence for a conviction in this instance.)
As to whether Juror B37 is "diabolical," I'll pass along my own experience as a jury foreman here in Hinesville as an example:
The case I mentioned above was tried in 2006 and involved a Hinesville woman who was charged with murder following the death of her 3-year-old daughter. The death occurred on November 12, 2003, and trial was held during the first week of April 2006. One thing I mentioned above in connection with the Zimmerman case was the reluctance of the prosecution to charge due to lack of evidence. The Hinesville murder case took nearly 2 1/2 years to bring to trial - here in the relatively small jurisdiction of Hinesville. Based upon my experience, this indicated a problem from the get-go. As the trial proceeded, the facts bore this out. The prosecution had a lot of forensic evidence and "expert" testimony, but nowhere did they present sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the mother either killed - or was directly responsible for the death of - her child. The evidence just was not there. Notwithstanding this, when we as a jury went into deliberations, it became clear that roughly half of the jury (out of 10-12 total) wanted to pull the trigger for a murder conviction. As I recall, the racial makeup of the jury was about 60-40 white to non-white, and the preliminary votes to convict were generally split along racial lines. I wasn't surprised by this, but I took this opportunity to focus the deliberations on the elements of the offense and how the government had to meet each and every element beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict. After a very long day, the final vote was unanimous to acquit. (Oh – by the way – the defendant was black.)
In that case, I totally believed that the prosecution DID NOT HAVE IT. They had not proved their case as required, and that there was significant reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant as to the elements of the offense charged. From my position as jury foreman, I was able to steer the discussion and focus the members on our duty - and NOT on personal prejudices, predetermined notions, or frivolous ideas of the meaning of "justice."
I am certain that - even though our final vote was unanimous - some of my fellow jurors left with the feeling that I was "diabolical," but I knew my duty and the prosecution JUST DIDN'T HAVE IT.
I can fully understand from the media reports that Juror B37 experienced the exact same feelings as I did. The prosecution just didn't have it. It was obvious to me from the press reports; it is echoed in the comments of the panel on the Charlie Rose show.
...and here's a preview of the show @ "Deconstructing the George Zimmerman Verdict::
...and according to this web page, the program will re-air tonight at 8 and 10 p.m. If you are interested in the facts and informed opinion about this case, taking 30 minutes to watch the first part of this show would be - IMHO - time well spent.
(BTW: I think the entire show will be available on several web sites and youtube in the near future, for those who are unable to watch it because they can't get Bloomberg TV.)
"Do Blacks get the same shake as White Folks get in the light of the US criminal justice system???"
In the case I was directly involved in "they" did. That's how it works - one case at a time. You can not answer a blanket "yes" or "no" to your question. I've seen cases where it appeared obvious that a black defendant did the crime, but the results were an acquittal. Same goes for white defendants. To try to generalize an answer to this question - and this issue - only serves to facilitate the "talking points" that people use to advance their personal agendas one way or the other. That's my experience.
I disagree emphatically Sebe. Surely people are capable of forming a view of the whole World. Their views, in turn, lead to discussions of specifics.
YOU are an Independent by your own declaration. My question is aimed at Black Conservatives and you ain't in that category. Funk can take care of himself.
I respectively ask that you allow him to answer the question. I am not querying white Independents here.
I am seeking a Black Republican Conservative's OPINION HERE! The question has validity and deserves discussion.
I am not speaking for Funky. I was responding to your question - quoting above:
"Yes up2. you are right. The question now is: Do Blacks get the same shake as White Folks get in the light of the US criminal justice system???"
You later specifically asked for "one black conservative" to respond, but I don't see where your question EXCLUDED everybody else. I think I have a right to comment on a blog comment just the same as anybody else - no?
You know that I have a great deal of respect for you. I understand your plight in regards to you being a jury foreman. You opportunity to serve this County as juror is duly noted. But how many times has you served as a juror? I am quite sure minimal. I on the other hand was a Police Detective whom investigated numerous of criminal cases, especially violent crimes against persons. I have countless arrest, and have testified in District Court, Circuit Court, and United States District Court. It did'nt take me to listen to too much media to determine that this was a great manslaughter case. The elements were not there to convict on a 2nd Degree Murder charge, but indeed it was enough elements to charge for manslaughter. He, Zimmerman should have beeb charged from the get go. No matter how weak the prosecution presented it's case, Ray Charles could have seen this as manslaughter. I have seen how juruors attempt to bully other jury memebrs into a verdict. I'm saying that Juror B 37 did that, but as vocal as she was, and as quick to get a book deal out of this, it really makes me wonder did she push the envelop on the three jurors who voted to convict? Nevertheless the jury has spoken and Zimmerman is a free man. Or is he? Maybe in constitutional purposes, but in the scheme of it all, I believe that Zimmerman is now a fugitive to himself. He wont get a job because no one will risk their company to hire him, He will lose friends, he wont be alble to walk outside even to get a breath of fresh air, He wont be able to go any where for him not thinkng someone will try to do to him what he has done to Trayvon Martin. There are criminals out there or thugs out there will maybe even try to attempt to bring harm to his family memebers. All of this becuase of this crime that he was acquitted for. See Sebe, you may get by, but you wont get away. It always comes back to you. He who lives by the sword, often dies by the sword. The Lion is now sitting in tree watching and awaiting for it's prey.
No Sebe. I am not EXCLUDING anyone. So, it is that we have now heard from a white INDEPENDENT in yourself.
MY Liberal Democrat view shouts a LOUD NO!!! Black males do NOT get the same shake as White males do in the criminal justice system. Ya ever heard the term DWB: driving while black?
So now we have your WHITE INDEPENDENT voice and my WHITE LIBERAL Demo. voice.
What I am asking for is what is the BLACK CONSERVATIVE view?
Neither I nor you know that answer. But someone here that is a very prolific blogger and whom I hold in great esteem and respect, is in my opinion, one that CAN answer that question.
The silence, however, has become deafening.
Sporty: My service as a jury foreman wasn't a plight. I accepted my responsibility and did my duty. I understand your points as a detectice, and during my career the organizations to which I belonged partnered with law enforcement. I can assure you that my training and experience in the Army criminal justice system - while not identical to that of the civilian justice system - is very comparable because the systems are comparable. I understand how the process works and I have been involved in providing instruction on the process. The civilian and military systems are not that dissimilar - they both involve investigating a case, preferring charges, bringing the case to trial, trying the case, and executing the necessary post trial actions.
I also appreciate your opinion, but in MY opinion, the prosecution didn't have it. I know I sound like a broken record, but don't take my word for it: listen to people who have far more experience than the both of us on the Charlie Rose show tonight. Or wait until the show and transcript are posted online in the next few weeks. The Harvard professors explain much better than I can WHY this case was an acquittal from the beginning and why federal prosecution of Zimmerman probably won't ever happen.
I agree with everything you say about Zimmerman being a fugitive from himself, and how his life is wrecked. That's what he gets for being a wannabe law enforcement and patrolling the streets armed. But I'm talking about the elements of the offenses here and the facts that could be PROVED. This case was a loser from the beginning. I've worked in numerous prosecutor's offices and I know that they don't want to waste funds, time, energy, and all the rest if they don't believe a case is winnable. That's what we had here - their judgment was that the case was probably a loser because the facts just weren't all there to convict. And that's the way it turned out.
As I said, some other jury members may have thought I was "diabolical" in the way I went about "bullying" them into focusing on FACTS and exclude opinions or prejudices. But IMHO you have to focus on the ISSUES - reasonable doubt, the law, and facts - to do the job correctly.
Another opinion on the verdict:
...and as to incarceration rates (you know where I'm going with this I'm sure) - according to an article in American Free Press from April of last year:
"Blacks commit an excessively disproportionate number of crimes in comparison to other races. And many of these crimes are black on white. According to a 2005 Justice Department report entitled “Criminal Victimization in the United States,” black men raped 37,460 white women, while white men raped less than ten black females, for example. Blacks murder whites at a rate 18 times higher than whites murder blacks.
A 2005 report published by the New Century Foundation called “The Color of Crime” took these trends a step further:
• Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery.
• Blacks are three times more likely than non-blacks to use a gun in a crime.
• Blacks commit 75% of all interracial crimes; whites commit 15%; while others account for 10%.
• Blacks are seven times more likely to be imprisoned than whites.
To gauge these numbers, although blacks only comprise 13% of the U.S. population compared to whites at 65%, in 2010 blacks committed more murders (5,890) than whites (5,286). In this context, it’s not surprising that over 10% of all black males aged 25-65 currently reside in prison. That figure is a mere 1.4% for whites."
But as Jimmy and others (yourself included) point out, statistics by themselves don't tell the whole story. What we have here - and I have not addressed whatsoever before now - are social and socio-economic reasons why the crime rates are as they are. When you grow up in poverty with not much opportunity for "The American Dream," it is a tremendous struggle - according to the experts - to stay on the straight and narrow and away from the occasions of crime.
(...let's try that link for "another opinion on the verdict:
If it still doesn't work, go here:
Sebekm- we can go back and fourth all day with different articles and opinions on the verdict..The numbers presented are skewed. That study is based on the number of arrest. The number is high because blacks are more likely to get arrested for crimes than whites..Pull a study on cold cases...the majority of the cases involve whites..and the suspects are white..If you were to arrest/convict-solve those cases the numbers would be different.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), in 2010, 4,347 out of every 100,000 Black males were incarcerated in a state, federal or local facility. This number is seven times higher than the number of White males incarcerated.
In 2010, African-Americans, at 13.1 percent of the U. S. population, made up 38 percent of the total state prison population. Hispanic-Americans, at 16.7 percent of the U. S. population, made up 21 percent of the state prison population.
Compare those statistics to White Americans, at 78.1 percent of the U. S. population, made up only 34 percent of the total state prison population.
When arrest data are compared to prison data, the percentage of Blacks in the total arrest numbers (27.8 percent) is found to be 10 percent lower than the percentage incarcerated. This seems to indicate Blacks are more likely to be convicted and sentenced to time in prison than Whites.
Black convictions high
Similarly, an examination of felony conviction data shows Black felony convictions are more likely to result in incarceration than White felony convictions. According to BJS data for 2006, 39 percent of persons convicted on felonies were Black and 60 percent were White.
Conviction data show Whites who are convicted are less likely to be incarcerated (66 percent to 72 percent Blacks). For drug offenses, 72 percent of Blacks convicted were incarcerated in 2006 compared to 61 percent of whites. Only 59 percent of Whites convicted of drug trafficking were incarcerated compared to 70 percent of Blacks.
The mean maximum sentence imposed by state courts on White felons was 37 months compared to 42 months for Black felons. If violent offenses are isolated, the statistics show that the mean maximum prison sentence given to whites was 99 months, but the mean for Blacks was 108 months.
Regarding convictions, look at the fact that DNA testing has exonerated over 300 persons and 70 percent of the exonerations have been people of color.
"I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen, Sporty."
Maybe you are right. But as we speak and debate on this, the Justice are invesstigating this. If the DOJ decides not to charge him for civil rights violation, then sobeit. You can bet your last dollar that what he has done has not only wrecked his life but his entire family's life as well. It's been reported that The Parents have moved out of the State already. His brother, I don't know but you bet your last dollar that he is not in Sanford or Orlando Florida either. As for George Zimmerman, well you know where he stands with society as a whole. Right now, the most hated person in the United States.
Well done PN! Well done indeed!!
However, I am about to give up on hearing the Black Conservative view regarding your points made, and my question to the Black Conservative Republicans: Do Black Males get the same shake or treatment within the criminal justice system as White Males?
I am on record as a Liberal White Boy Democrat. Sebe is on record as an Independent White boy, and I now find myself waiting for the Black Conservative Republican view point.
The silence is deafening. Where is Funk or lholmes???
I am signing off for tonight.
Well Jimmy D,
I can't help you there. I am center that sways to the left sometimes. But these days more and more to the left. Point being, Trayvon Martin, and now changing my gun law views from the right to the left now. We need stricter gun laws now in the wake of all that has happened. That Stand your ground law needs to be repealed.
SF, GA also has a SYG law as do 18 other states (including California). The idea regarding SYG is if you someplace you have a right to be (ie walking down the street, driving your car, etc) and someone attacks you, you have the right to defend yourself. In the case where any reasonable person would be in fear of their life, deadly force can be used. Without this law, say a woman is in a parking lot and a man jumps out and tries to force her into his car. She knows she doesn't have the strength to physically win a fight with him and we can assume he isn't taking her to Pizza Hut for dinner. She should be able to use whatever force necessary to save herself, including bust'n a cap in his arse. It is these type scenarios which the SYG laws were meant to protect. So no they should not be taken off the books. The SYG laws did not apply in GZ's case which is why he didn't use it. SYG laws don't apply if you start a fight and find yourself on the receiving end of a butt whipping. Now GA differs from FL in that if you invoke the SYG law, you are not exempt from civil liability. I do agree that the gun laws do need to be changed.
"Do Black Males get the same shake or treatment within the criminal justice system as White Males?"
Come on Jimmy, you know they don't...
SF, so what would you put in its place or would you leave decent folk at the mercy of thugs? (Not being snarky, I really want to know.)
You dial 911 and report your problem to the police. What makes you think carrying a gun would guarantee you protection? Especially when many amewricans are not professionally trained in the use of firearms? Let the professionals handle it. If not, there will be a lot of Trayvon Martins and George Zimmermans around here. You protect your property, if someone break in your home while you are present, and the suspect has a weapon, and at that time you believe that your life or family member is in iniment danger of bodily harm, then the use of force meaining the use of your firearm is permitted. But to carry a firearm outside of your property on your person just like George Zimmerman did, I say no. Let the Police handle it. Look, no matter what use of force you use, you still have to call the Police anyway. So, I am against citizens carrying firearms on their person off their property.
So if I'm am attacked coming out of the Walmart and some guy is trying to drag me into his car to take me somewhere to do God-knows-what, I'm to say, hold it a second while I call the police for help? SYG, does not apply to the home, that is the Castle law. You cannot take some thing away and leave nothing there to protect honest people. So what law do you purpose to replace SYG?
he same as other states who do not have have SYG Laws. Call 911. Do you have a firearm? Do you have a permit to carry a firearm? Do you carry a firearm?
And what do they do SF? Whether or not I personally have or carry a weapon is immaterial to this discussion. I ask again, I am being attacked, how am I going to call 911? If I can break free and get away so I can call, then the SYG law does not cover me.
JM and Chief MVB, I'm recording the Charlie Rose show tonight at 10:00P and will watch it ASAP before giving my response based on real life experiences and the compelling facts that the Most Valuable Blogger has posted.
The reason I ask those set of questions is because during a physical altercation (grappling) most of the time, you would not have the opportunity to reach for a firearm anyway. It is material. To avoid altercations, you walk away, run away etc. Most violent crimes that occur, robberies, and aggravated assaults, where a firearm is involved and is brandished by the suspect, he already has the advantage on you. It only takes a fraction of second before he discharges a round. You would not have time to draw your firearm anyway to defend yourself. That's what I'm saying. My point is that you run, and get away from the threat. Call 911 and report. Now I know there are times that this may not be the case, but still, as a law abiding citizen, and if you did carry a concealed firearm legally, i seriously doubt that you could defend yourself in the manner as I stated earlier given those circumstances.
Bruce Springsteen dedicated this song to Travon Martin this week. It's a a great song...makes you think about Guns and Violence.."41 Shots"
Funky: I watched it again last night. I checked this morning for an online transcript but only found one for SALE at alacrastore.com. They used to post them for free on the Charlie Rose web site, but there aren't any there now - so I guess that has changed. Everybody has to make a buck. The only youtube posting I could find today is the link I posted above that is about a 2 minute excerpt of Professor Ogletree's comments. But I think it is a GREAT program; the discussion encapsulates all the arguments and angles, and also goes into the social/societal ramifications of the case (which I HAVE NOT addressed in any of my comments so far).
Sporty: I hear you. Zimmerman is toast. It should be a lesson to all wannabe law enforcers to leave the job of policing to the police. This case fully demonstrates that armed civilians patrolling the streets trying to compensate for perceived law enforcement inadequacies remains THE WRONG ANSWER.
PolNat: As to the stats, I suppose we can say that ALL stats are "skewed" - sometimes by the skewers. But come on - it's hard to explain away THESE numbers:
"Black men raped 37,460 white women, while white men raped less than ten black females"
"Blacks murder whites at a rate 18 times higher than whites murder blacks."
If that's "skewing" - it's a whole lot of skewing going on, that's for sure. And I seriously doubt that a large percentage of those 37 THOUSAND rapes turned out to be unfounded. PLUS - in the case of the murder rates, it's pretty hard to skew the numbers there - just count the bodies.
No - one can't just "skew away" the numbers. Here is a detailed study which generally backs up the statistics I provided above:
(....and some bloggers may not like the way this study begins, but I urge you to read the ENTIRE study. It includes statements like:
"Blacks are certainly more likely to be arrested than other groups"
but puts that statement in context of the entire criminal justice system.)
(...one other thing:
In the case of this study, one has to consider the source as it was produced by a private foundation who - like most private foundations - has an agenda which inspired their putting together the study in the first place. After further researching the "authors," I discovered that they (predictably) were condemned by organizations like the SPLC as being a "racist" organization. But the criticism - as far as my research goes - does not really dispute the stats upon which the study is based. The critics argue that the conclusions reached by the study are "racist.")
....and even Sir Charles "agrees" with the Zimmerman verdict:
Note especially that Barkley says: "But they didn't have enough evidence to CHARGE (emphasis added by me) him." This was my contention from the beginning. Mr. Barkley sometimes comes across as a "clownish" figure - but I think that's his schtick. I suspect he's made a lot of money with it. But when I've listened to his analysis of college and NBA basketball, he is invariably right on point - and sometimes he is the only one who predicts the winner and prognosticates the strategies that comes to pass.
It's interesting to see that his astute observations extend to the realm of criminal justice as well.
....and the "silence" from "black conservatives" may be "deafening," but here's what happens when one DOES speak out. (CAUTION - THIS LINK IS LOADED WITH OBSCENITIES):
Legally no. I believe that the state attorney over reached in charging for 2nd degree murder. However; my opinion stands and remains for manslaughter. No way Zimmerman should have been found innocent based on the manslaughter charge. But it's the world we live in. The jury has spoken. Sir `Charles Barkley has never been in the law enforcement community rather being arrested himself, so what does he know rather than to repeat what he heard someone says.
Regardless of what Barkley might "know" - he's correct, isn't he? Jimmy Carter wasn't in the law enforcement "community" either (other than being the chief law enforcement officer in the land as President of the United States) - and Carter basically said the same thing as Barkley.
Disproportionately arrested is based on the fact of Disproportionately being criminals. until that fact is faced there will be no solution to the problem.
Jimmy Carter, didnt say he should not have been convicted of manslaughter either Sebe. He only spoke of the 2nd Degree murder charge. Why don't you all get this? Why does it seems as if people are trying to use the legal loop hole of he was innocent of 2nd degree murder? This unarmed kid was shot and killled by this George Zimmerman person because he was black, wearing a hoodie, walking home through an exclusive neighborhood, and George Zimmerman profiled him. That my friend was ever bit of manslaughter. No doubt about it. What sickens me still is that people are making excuses for Zimmerman when they know Damned well what he has done was a crime. Yet as usual they spin it in such a way to make this teenager the suspect and Zimmerman the victim. You know why we still have a racial divide, it's because incidents, situations, and circumstances just like this. This case has set racial harmony back more than you could ever imagine. I have colleagues, friends, who are white that are mute on this subject now and wont touch this with a ten foot pole, other than when the verdict announced, and the aftermath or responses given by Juror B-37, all of their responses were "WOW"! You know Sebe, I'm gettimg myself so angry over this and I don't to be like this. The message that this has sent to the Nation is that you can be killed legally if you are black, for just walking down the street minding your own business, and person such as George Zimmerman see you. America hasnt changed one bit. They have just camoflauge everything. You just graduated from they lynching rope to a handgun. Blacks are still considered second class citizens and beast of burden to a lot of white americans. I am now more convinced that this is too big for you, myself, commumity activist, political leaders, and even the President Of The United States to change this for the common good for all human beings. It will take an act of GOD to eradicate this racial hatred. Until then, you can expect the same racial bigotry, racial bias, racial profiling, racial discrimination to continue. All simply because my skin color is darker than yours.
he was profiled because he was a walking around high on drugs covering his face (toxicology proved it). if he was walking normally, and not up into and between peoples houses no one would have looked twice at him. but i forgot, sharpton didn't tell you about the witness that seen him doing that before george spotted him. it was in the trial, not the news.
Here's exactly what Carter said:
"I think the jury made the right decision based on the evidence presented, because the prosecution inadvertently set the standard so high that the jury had to be convinced that it was a deliberate act by Zimmerman, that he was not at all defending himself."
“It’s not a moral question, it was a legal question, and the American law requires that the jury listen to the evidence presented,” Carter said. “The action that was taken in the courtroom was not to bring in the race issue at all. The prosecution avoided that subject quite clearly.”
...and rightfully so - IMHO. That's all I am saying. In my posts/comments I have not been commenting on the implication of the verdict or the significance of racial animus in this country. I have been commenting on the legal aspects and evidentiary matters of the case ONLY.
"he was profiled because he was a walking around high on drugs covering his face (toxicology proved it). if he was walking normally, and not up into and between peoples houses no one would have looked twice at him. but i forgot, sharpton didn't tell you about the witness that seen him doing that before george spotted him. it was in the trial, not the news."
You know what? You are incredibly STUPID!!! You have no sense of rationale what so ever. Your species of character is indicative of your inability read, and listen. If you are not a bigot, you sure sound like one. I don't know where you got your title of gacpl. But if it a acronym for Georgia Corporal, I sure hope that it has nothing to do with the Law Enforcement.
I just can't believe that the State Of Georgia would hire someone with the mentality of you. Your comment really isn't worth the time to refute.