Zimmerman. George Zimmerman, by Mike Gold – Brainiac On Banjo #334 | @MDWorld
July 22, 2013 Mike Gold 3 Comments
Even though I have come to respect his work as an activist, I think Al Sharpton is on the wrong track with his call for demonstrations in 100 cities to encourage the Justice Department to go after George Zimmerman.
Then again, I’m not opposed to the feds going after Zimmie. I’m talking strategy and tactics here. The man we love to hate really isn’t the issue. The issue is, we have these laws on the books in a number of states that allow people to shoot and kill those folks by whom they feel threatened. That’s not self-defense. That’s dangerous nonsense. It’s a license to kill.
The Zimmerman case brings this to light, and demonstrations in 100 cities should focus on the real problem. Trying to undue the jury verdict is not going to bring Trayvon Martin back to life. Focusing on the law that set Double-O-Zimmie free will help prevent future Trayvon Martin situations.
I’m also not opposed to Martin’s family suing the begeezus out of the guy. After all, that was a sweet revenge tactic when it was applied to O.J. Simpson, so it would be fair to use it on a white guy as well. More important, it would be interesting to see George Zimmerman be forced to testify under oath. The rule against self-incrimination only applies in criminal cases. If the court would permit it, even Fox News would broadcast that one live. If he screws up, Zimmerman won’t have to steal back his sports trophies to get himself incarcerated.
The jury (I’ll admit I don’t get the “six person jury” thing) did not rule on whether Zimmerman is a racist, nor was it their place. They said the two got into a physical altercation and George ended it with extreme prejudice. How would they know what was in Zimmerman’s heart? He wasn’t asked this question in court, standing on his Constitutionally provided right to avoid the possibility of self-incrimination. And that’s a good rule, no matter whose ox is being gored. Or whose son was gored.
Would Zimmerman have acted the same way if his victim were white? We don’t know, and it’s possible Double-O Zimmie doesn’t know either.
Zimmerman’s lawyer Mark O’Mara said that if his client were black he wouldn’t have been charged. This makes O’Mara either a very dangerous man or, if he actually meant what he said, a nincompoop. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, he could be both. The idea that Florida officials are resistant to the concept of arresting black people doesn’t pass the taste test.
Zimmerman’s brother echoed much the same thought, condemning him as a malicious bigot as well. But both are right about one thing: Double-O Zimmie’s going to be looking over his shoulder for the rest of his life. There are equally dangerous people out there who are not the least bit sanguine. Some folks have long memories.
In fact, they feel threatened by George Zimmerman’s existence.
Hmmmm.
Mike Gold performs the weekly two-hour Weird Sounds Inside The Gold Mind ass-kicking rock, blues and blather radio show on The Point, www.getthepointradio.com, every Sunday at 7:00 PM Eastern, rebroadcast three times during the week – check the website above for times and streaming information. Gold also joins MDW’s Marc Alan Fishman, Martha Thomases and Michael Davis as a weekly columnist at www.comicmix.com where he pontificates on matters of four-color.
George Haberberger
July 29, 2013 - 9:01 am
”Excuse me, but if some armed white guy kills a unarmed black teenager in the USA and the Police lets him go, it would take a extreme right-winger to not expect racism to have played a part in the situation. That in this specific situation there was little or no racism is exceptional. So, please, don’t act like we all should have known better.”
No, it wouldn’t and yes, you all should have known better. I am not racist and I don’t presume other people to be racist. Even if the police were racist, letting a killer go because of racist opinions would NEVER be allowed to stand and they would KNOW that. The least bit of investigation about Zimmerman would have revealed that race had nothing to do with the shooting. Why wouldn’t Sharpton try to find out a little about Zimmerman before he commits himself, if not for supporting his livelihood? You would think he would be more cautious after Tawana Brawley.
People were wanting to believe the shooting was race-based. Isn’t that attitude racist in itself? Martha Thomases herself said in her column on this subject that, “Zimmerman had a head full of stereotype and bigotry.” I guess that is easy to believe if you listen to CNN, NBC, ABC and Al Sharpton.
And why would the president involve himself? It was a local story and it should have remained a local story. Back in 2009 Obama was asked about a black Harvard professor who was arrested for disorderly conduct. He could have deferred explaining he wanted to wait until the situation was resolved before he gave an opinion. Instead he said the police had acted stupidly. Even if that was true, it was a misstep for someone who is supposed to be politically savvy.
I noticed he did not comment about the Kermit Gosnell trial even though the woman and babies Gosnell was charged with killing were black. Could that be because he voted 3 times against the Born Alive Act when he was an Illinois senator? Killing babies that were born alive is exactly what Gosnell was doing.
George Haberberger
July 29, 2013 - 3:17 pm
“People didn’t “want” the shooting to be race-based. People expected it and supposed it was, quite naturally.”
My default setting for people is for them to not be racist and I don’t assume they are until they give me evidence that they are. Is that naive? Maybe so but that’s the example my father and the nuns at my school displayed.
By not investigating Zimmerman and assuming the shooting was “quite-naturally” race-based, Sharpton and the most of the media gave me that evidence.
I see more racism on the left than anywhere else simply because they believe that their high moral ground makes them immune. I always liked this quote from C.S. Lewis:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
“I also think most people would be correct to expect Islamic terrorists to be behind it, even if they’re too PC to admit it
And
.“…with the nasty exception of the evil lefties who hate all whites.
Did you see this from Salon last April?
“Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American”
http://www.salon.com/2013/04/16/lets_hope_the_boston_marathon_bomber_is_a_white_american/
The writer’s justification for writing this was white privilege would keep the government from some sort of retribution that would not be the case with any other group. That is case for wanting the bombing to be race-based.
Neil C.
July 30, 2013 - 2:27 pm
Rene,
How can you have a better grasp of America than Americans (you weren’t born here, right? If that’s not true, still good job, not that you need my validation).
George Haberberger
July 30, 2013 - 4:01 pm
Wow, implying that racism is not the sole liability of the right seems to have touched a nerve.
C.S. Lewis did not claim to like the tyranny of robber barons. He only opined that their actions might not be a constant because their greed could possibly be quenched where those who believe they have the high moral ground have no such limit. And in my opinion those who believe to have the high moral ground are found on both sides of the political divide.
I have never sung the praises of Limbaugh or Beck. Their appeal to a faction on the right is a result of the idea that many feel they do not have a voice in the political debate. It is that fractious atmosphere that has made them rich but that atmosphere already existed. They just benefitted from it.
”Most people in the Left seem to be vaguely embarrassed by Sharpton.”
So embarrassed that MSNBC gave him his own show.
Neil C.
July 30, 2013 - 4:57 pm
”Most people in the Left seem to be vaguely embarrassed by Sharpton.”
So embarrassed that MSNBC gave him his own show.
So….does that mean everyone on the right agrees with Beck and Limbaugh using that comparison?
George Haberberger
July 31, 2013 - 9:36 am
I have no idea what “everyone on the right” thinks. I do know that because Sarah Palin is both loved and hated by people on the right, that they are not homogenous in their opinions.
Beck has his own TV network and he syndicates his radio show, as does Limbaugh through his own EIB network. Sharpton has been hired by MSNBC.
Neil C.
July 31, 2013 - 12:31 pm
And neither is the left. And all those people at one time worked for Fox or another corporate media, hence in your logic, all the right agrees with them.
George Haberberger
July 31, 2013 - 8:38 pm
Rene,
I certainly can agree with your most of list of problems the left has; “cowardice, confusion, self-loathing, (well not enough of that obviously), an excess of political correctness, contradictions”.
It was not my intention to say ALL bad things come from the left, just that the left seems particularly blind to the log in their eye. And that this blindness exists because they believe, as C.S. Lewis said, what they do is for our own good. Of course the right believes that too. I may have been a bit hyperbolic in some posts in this thread, but most posters here held the position that Zimmerman needed to be punished for defending himself. And the media was complicit in misrepresenting the facts of the case and Zimmerman’s character. But of course they did that for the greater good.
I am usually the only poster on these boards who challenges the group consensus, (Russ Mahares is another), which prompts me to ask you this: You have mentioned twice in your last few posts about visiting internet sites with a different group consensus. “I’ve seen a lot of nasty comments in the Internet, painting Zimmerman as the great hero of the white race…” and “if you hang around places in the Internet of a more Conservative bent…” Do you post on these sites and engage in the discussion? I usually only post here where I am decidedly outnumbered. I read PJ Media and the Breitbart sites but I rarely post there because it just seems… unnecessary. Why add to the list of posters agreeing with the author? Here I am challenged and have to defend my position. So, are you similarly engaged on conservation sites? If so, is it worth it?
George Haberberger
August 1, 2013 - 2:54 pm
I may not be as conservative as I thought. I’ve never heard of the conservative sites you mentioned, (Eric Raymond or Dan Simmons). And I have not heard of The Bell Curve.
I read Breitbart and PJ Media as I mentioned.
Your description of Dan Simmons as a writer who started out as a liberal but became a conservative sounds similar to the playwright, David Mamet. He got a lot of grief after he wrote an article in the Village Voice titled: “Why I Am No Longer a Brain-Dead Liberal.”
Thanks for your indulgence.