MICHAEL DAVIS WORLD

You can't make this stuff up, so we don't!

Zimmerman. George Zimmerman, by Mike Gold – Brainiac On Banjo #334 | @MDWorld

July 22, 2013 Mike Gold 3 Comments

Brainiac Art 334Even 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.

 

Previous Post

Next Post

Comments

  1. Neil C.
    July 22, 2013 - 7:24 am

    Kind of a fitting punishment for him, is it not. And I have no love for guys such as Sharpton since the Tawana Brawley incident. To me, he’s MSNBC’s answer to Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, a huckster. But I do have a former coworker who was stopped for DWB because he was driving a nice car on his way to cover a basketball game in Oyster Bay, Long Island. Or a current coworker who was telling me that everything Obama spoke about last week he had lived through as well.

  2. Vinnie Bartilucci
    July 22, 2013 - 8:20 am

    As you say, Zimmerman the White Hispanic (and if someone isn’t writing a filk to the tune of “Rudolf the red-nosed Reindeer”, I may have to) wasn’t in court for the crime of racism, even though effectively that’s what everyone wanted him to be found guilty of.

    “Self-defense” is a perfectly reasonable defense for murder, manslaughter, what have you. Always has been. So much so, that I don’t know how necessary a separate law is. I can only assume it’s to codify the various things that people THINK is the law – it’s okay to shoot a person robbing your house, or just on your property, it’s only self-defense if the bullet goes in the front, not the back, etc. But the idea of a law that says if you shoot and/or kill someone, you can walk off without even being brought to the station for questioning, that’s certainly hard to justify.

    This case is an elephant, and everyone discussing it is a blind man, seeing what they want to see in it. Some say the best way to fight this (or “honor Trayvon’s memory”, like they care) is to get rid of the various stand your ground-esque laws. Some say it’s cause of all those guns out there (of course, George’s gun was legally obtained, so those against gun control maintain it’s another “They’re cumin fer yer gunz” scenario), and some claim it’s a case of racism and no more.

    Here’s the problem with Zimmerman being a racist, and why so SO many people were keen to see that disproven. Zimmerman did not go “hunting”. He did not scream epithets and paint himself as a hide-bound racist that everyone could safely distance himself from that night and say “Yeah, HE’S the problem, terrible, terrible.” His racism (if any) extended as far as seeing a black guy he didn’t know, and being worried about him. Something that a lot of people consider a PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE RESPONSE. If they successfully proved (by dint of a guilty verdict, tho it proves no such thing), a lot of people would have to face the possibility that the act of keeping an eye on that guy walking down the street, maybe clutching your handbag a little tighter and walking more quickly, could now be seen as an act of racism, and not a mere act of “exercising caution”.

    Thanks to the statements of Star Witness Rachel Jeantel, we also know that Trayvon had the idea put in his head that Zimmerman might have been a rapist. The various conservative sites that are repeating the statements are amending that to “gay rapist”, inferring the adjective by Ms. Jeantel’s clarifying statements about “Anyone who’s not that way” wouldn’t want to be raped. Thankfully, no one else has interviewed Ms. Jeantel, so her opportunities to say anything else stupid has been curbed.

    This new news (which was either missed by everyone in her time on the stand, or was wisely ignored to keep the case from taking a mad veer off in a random direction) gives the defenders the chance to claim “Hey, George wasn’t a racist, TRAYVON was a homophobe!” And in many cases, not saying it as if that’s bad, but in the exaggerated “that thing you say is so bad” tone of voice. We’ve heard lots of “yeah, the blacks are ALL homophobes” statements in comment sections across the Internet, never quite realizing they’re not quite helping.

    It was a series of poor choices that resulted in one guy being dead. It’s only its newsworthiness (defined as “the amount the story can be exploited for ratings”) that made it any different from the hundreds of people that get killed every day.

    THAT’S the tragedy of the story, if you want to find one other than “there’s a dead person now”.

  3. Motu
    July 22, 2013 - 8:21 am

    “Zimmerman’s lawyer Mark O’Mara said that if his client were black he wouldn’t have been charged.”

    Really?
    I was arrested for pulling a fake gun on two very drunk white people who were attempting to beat my head in. There is a video tape backing up every word I say, yet the D.A. went full steam ahead with a charge of ‘assault with a deadly weapon.’

    California, believe it or not, is a stand your ground state yet I was arrested and charged with a fucking crime for defending myself with a PROP.

    Clearly it was not because I was black.

    Clearly.

  4. Vinnie Bartilucci
    July 22, 2013 - 10:04 am

    Your brain is a lethal weapon, Michael.

    You attempted to out-think a pair of drunk white men.

    I’m amazed they didn’t go for the death penalty

  5. Mike Gold
    July 22, 2013 - 12:27 pm

    I had the same problem with Al Sharpton and the Tawana Brawley situation. Because of the civil action against him he was rather restricted in his response, but finally Chris Rock, on his HBO talk show, asked him about it. Rock politely held Sharpton’s feet to the fire, and he came out with the reason he took on the cause. “Because I believed her.”

    I bought that. He came off as sincere, and Rock was… a rock. It was a good interview. There’s no reason to question his sincerity, unless you’re a racist right winger who strictly believes uppity Negros must be liars and opportunists. He could not, and I believe still cannot, comment on his current opinion about Brawley’s veracity due to the civil suits.

  6. George Haberberger
    July 22, 2013 - 1:28 pm

    It was a series of poor choices that resulted in one guy being dead. It’s only its newsworthiness (defined as “the amount the story can be exploited for ratings”) that made it any different from the hundreds of people that get killed every day.

    That is exactly correct. This shooting would never have become a national story if not for the people who profit from sensationalism and racial division. They needed this case to be about race and it just wasn’t.

  7. Vinnie Bartilucci
    July 22, 2013 - 2:09 pm

    George – I disagree – it was about race, at least to a degree. You’d be hard pressed to suggest that Zimmerman’s decision on Mr. Martin level of suspicion was entirely free of bias, either based on past evidence, or purely personal opinion.

    On acts of racism, on a scale of one (asking a tall black guy if he plays basketball) to ten (stringing up a black guy in the churchyard for tipping his hat to one of our women), it’s about a four. Bad, something that’s unwarranted, something that’s enough to get an apology, maybe even win a lawsuit if the person who did it owned a store or dining establishment. That it escalated to a death is unquestionably a tragedy. The whole mess STARTED as a result of, well, as Patrice Oneal used to say “Not racism, but raCIAL…”

    The news media took the spark of racialness in the story and fanned it to a flame that they could do something with. If George looked more like his Mom than his Dad, this would have been a story about a Hispanic guy making the same wrong assumption about Trayvon, and they wouldn’t have had enough to go with. But he looked like his Dad, hey were able to promote him to “White Hispanic”, and they got their story.

    What happened was sad. The way it’s been exploited by everyone involved is sadder.

  8. George Haberberger
    July 23, 2013 - 5:41 am

    Vinnie,
    It is of course impossible to know George Zimmerman’s heart, but I really think that anyone, (white, black or Hispanic, as the dispatcher said when asking for information), walking in the rain would have seemed to be a cause for alarm in a neighborhood that had a series of burglaries recently. The race of the individual is a very distant second to the circumstances of their presence. And, as the neighborhood watch captain, Zimmerman was familiar with the residents. He did not know Martin because Martin was visiting his father’s girlfriend.

    There is also much evidence that Zimmerman is not a racist which FBI’s investigation revealed and as I posted on Martha Thomases current blog.

    And seriously, is asking a tall black guy if he plays basketball racism? Yes, it is bowing to a stereotype, but I think of racism as ascribing unfavorable traits to a class of people. I have friend who is 6′ 4″ and I’ve been with him when strangers walked up and asked him if he plays basketball.

  9. Rick Oliver
    July 23, 2013 - 6:07 am

    George: The case became national news because originally Zimmerman was not arrested or charged with any crime. It was initially more about the repercussions of stand your ground laws rather than race relations. And Zimmerman probably would have been convicted of a lesser offense, but the prosecution over-filed. (And there’s no law in Florida about carrying a gun while stupid.)

  10. George Haberberger
    July 23, 2013 - 7:32 am

    “George: The case became national news because originally Zimmerman was not arrested or charged with any crime.”

    And why was that exactly? The Sanford police did not believe the case warranted charging Zimmerman. And I doubt Zimmerman had a very good reputation with the police. He called 911 forty-six different times since 2004 and had was involved in a protest over beating of a black homeless man by the son of a white Sanford police officer.

    It did not become a national news story because he wasn’t charged. He was charged because it become a national news story. And then only after people whose livelihood depends on racial division got involved.

  11. Rick Oliver
    July 23, 2013 - 8:24 am

    “It did not become a national news story because he wasn’t charged. He was charged because it become a national news story.”

    Those two sentences are completely unrelated. The second is certainly true. And the crux of the national news story was “The Sanford police did not believe the case warranted charging Zimmerman.” And the reason they came to that dubious conclusion was their uncertainty in light of Florida’s “stand your ground” law. Zimmerman called the police, and they very specifically told him to desist. Yet he continued to pursue Martin and provoked the incident that led to Martin’s death. After refusing to do as instructed by the police, “what was in his heart” doesn’t seem terribly relevant. As I stated previously, Zimmerman would probably have been convicted on a lesser charge, but the national media spotlight fueled by mostly irrelevant racial overtones made it highly unlikely for the prosecution to do anything but go all in — but without that national spotlight, the entire problem with the interpretation of “stand your ground” laws would not have become a national public debate. Now it is, and even John McCain says states need to take a second look at those laws.

  12. George Haberberger
    July 23, 2013 - 9:37 am

    “Zimmerman called the police, and they very specifically told him to desist. Yet he continued to pursue Martin and provoked the incident that led to Martin’s death.”

    That is a bit of an over-statement, What the dispatcher said was, “OK, we don’t need you to do that.” That can be construed as a suggestion implying that he didn’t NEED to put himself out. At any rate, it is not a specific order to desist.

    The explanation that Zimmerman gave, and of course it is his version so, yeah, it casts him in the best possible light, was that he lost sight of Martin and was on his way back to his truck. Martin jumped him from behind, knocked him down, broke his nose and was beating his head on the concrete. Martin noticed Zimmerman’s gun and started to grab it so Zimmerman pulled it and shot. Zimmerman had no expectation that Martin would hesitate to use the gun given he had already said, “You’re going to die tonight.”

    The “Stand Your Ground” law was mentioned in the jury instructions but it was not a factor in Zimmerman’s case. His defense team did not bring it up.

  13. Neil C.
    July 23, 2013 - 11:40 am

    We are all the heroes of our own stories. Even when we’re being cast by our defense attorney as Paul Bart:Mall Cop’s slightly more incompetent brother. All they needed was Zimmerman to ride in on a Segway.

  14. Vinnie Bartilucci
    July 23, 2013 - 7:27 pm

    “And seriously, is asking a tall black guy if he plays basketball racism?”

    Well, there’s a reason I made it a one on the scale.

  15. Vinnie Bartilucci
    July 23, 2013 - 7:37 pm

    “There’s no reason to question his sincerity, unless you’re a racist right winger who strictly believes uppity Negros must be liars and opportunists.”

    Um…

    Let me put it this way.

    A LOT of people believed her when it first came out. Mainly because they believed it COULD happen.

    As the story began to fall apart, I do not recall Sharpton, Mason and Maddox (or as Alan Colmes used to call them “The Three Stooges”) ever distancing themselves from the young woman, backing away from their statements, or in any way attempt to defuse what was nothing more than a scared young woman coming up with an outrageous story to get out of being yelled at for coming home late.

    They doubled-down. They ended people’s CAREERS in their zeal to whip the public into a frenzy. I do not recall a single apology about the things they said about the police department, or any the members of the government. They turned New York City upside down, and walked off with new positions as the media-awarded spokesmen of the black people.

    I am perfectly willing to believe he rallied to her cause because be believed her. But he went to great lengths to avoid discussing it when it became progressively clear there was nothing to believe.

    They’ve gotten better at this now. Now, when it turns out that a story has no…story, the talking points change to “Even tho nothing happened here, we must remember that there are OTHER places where something COULD be happening, and we must remain ever vigilant”…and please forget that nothing happened here.

  16. Rick Oliver
    July 24, 2013 - 10:30 am

    Anyway you look at it, Zimmerman was basically stalking Martin and essentially provoked the deadly incident. If I leave the gate open to my outdoor pool and my neighbor’s four-year old wanders over, falls in, and drowns, I’m liable for that. If I’m completely sober but accidentally run a red light and kill someone, that’s vehicular manslaughter. But apparently it’s okay for some wannabe cop to stalk someone and not suffer any consequences when it all goes sideways.

  17. George Haberberger
    July 24, 2013 - 10:48 am

    When does someone abrogate their right to self-defense? If you take a walk through Central Park in NYC at 3 AM, (an admittedly stupid thing to do), are you obliged to let happen whatever might befall you?

    Zimmerman was not brandishing his gun. He was being beat to death. Martin discovered the gun and attempted to grab it. Your position seems to be that Zimmerman should have let himself be killed.

  18. Doug Abramson
    July 24, 2013 - 11:28 am

    George,

    Your first example is somebody doing something potentially stupid, but minding their own business. If they had a carry permit (Most of the country won’t let you carry a loaded gun around with out one) they would be in their rights to defend themselves. Zimmerman, however actively went looking for someone he felt was dangerous, after being instructed not to by the 911 operator. His actions caused the altercation. If he had not went looking for Martin; Martin makes it home with out incident. This has been my problem with the case the entire time. Here in California, his actions would probably resulted with a manslaughter conviction, maybe even murder two; because Zimmerman actively went looking for trouble while armed. Sounds like a text book case of indifference to bodily harm, to me. Martin’s actions should not be an issue. He wasn’t looking for trouble. He was trying to get home with a snack for his brother.

    Before anybody wants to chime in, saying that California law doesn’t count because we’re “anti-gun”, keep this in mind. In California, the castle doctrine extends to your front yard. This is case law. You can shoot someone in your front yard because you feel “threatened”. Not because you’re being attacked. Not because someone is approaching you while brandishing a weapon. Just if you feel threatened by the behavior of someone on your property. You can shoot them from your front door; instead of locking up and dialing 911.

  19. Neil C.
    July 24, 2013 - 12:39 pm

    Doug,

    You really have to stop with these pesky things called ‘facts.’

  20. George Haberberger
    July 24, 2013 - 1:10 pm

    Doug,
    Zimmerman saw someone suspicious. He knew the people who lived there but he did not recognize Martin who was visiting. Zimmerman, who was the Neighborhood Watch captain, was “minding the neighborhood’s business”.

    “If he had not went looking for Martin; Martin makes it home with out incident.

    And if Martin had simply approached Zimmerman and said, “Dude, what’s your problem?” Martin makes it home without incident. Instead, he knocked him down, broke his nose and beat his head against the pavement, apparently for 45 seconds, until the gun was discovered. I believe, and this is speculation on my part, that if Martin had stopped when he saw the gun, Zimmerman wouldn’t have shot.

    He wasn’t looking for trouble. He was trying to get home with a snack for his brother.
    Well, that’s one version. The “snack” was an interesting combination. I mentioned on the thread over on Martha Thomases column that “Martin was not the angel that he has been portrayed as. I will not list them here out of deference to the dead…” Martin’s previous actions or his tweets or the reason he bought what he bought are of no consequence because those things did not get him killed. Attacking Zimmerman got him killed and Zimmerman, who also wasn’t doing anything illegal, had a right to defend himself, which is what the case was about and what the jury concluded.

    Something I find ironic is that so many people reading this blog think Zimmerman was wrong and are ready to believe the worst, (racist, looking to kill someone, wannabe cop), rather than a man attempting to help keep his neighborhood safe. It’s ironic because this site is run, written and read by comics people. You know, people who read stories about vigilantes who believe that whole “great power, great responsibility” line.

  21. Rick Oliver
    July 24, 2013 - 1:24 pm

    I find it amazing how far people will go to defend irresponsible actions when guns are involved. Zimmerman’s “job” of “minding the neighborhood’s business” ENDED WHEN HE CALLED 911. And his version of the subsequent events wouldn’t even make a plausible B movie plot. The only thing missing is Martin saying, “Before I kill you, let me explain the details of my plan to destroy the universe!”

  22. George Haberberger
    July 24, 2013 - 2:45 pm

  23. Rick Oliver
    July 24, 2013 - 5:05 pm

    And this supports your position how exactly? Maybe it’s the “These assholes they always get away.” That certainly makes Zimmerman’s intent in the subsequent actions seem benign, doesn’t it? Oh, wait. No, it doesn’t.

  24. Doug Abramson
    July 24, 2013 - 7:18 pm

    George,

    The only thing that I’m calling Zimmerman is a fucking idiot. As Rick said, his neighborhood watch duties ended when he called 911. Neighborhood watch is not supposed to engage suspicious people. Hell, neighborhood watch aren’t supposed to be patrolling alone. These are national standards that are explained to people when they join. The main reason is to protect the volunteers from getting hurt. The secondary reason is to prevent a volunteer from accidentally injuring someone that isn’t breaking any laws. Zimmerman was reminded that he was not to engage his “suspect”. He ignored the rules and a teenager, who was not breaking any laws at the time, wound up dead. As for his “attack” on Zimmerman; I can’t blame him. I was raised to never resort to physical confrontations; but when I was a teenager, I might have confronted the strange man following me.

    The verdict is the verdict. It won’t change and I don’t think that the Feds can prove a civil rights case. Doesn’t change the fact that Florida has some very badly written laws and a man that would have been going to jail in most of the country got off. Oh, and George; liking and/or working on superhero comics doesn’t mean any of us want to see costumed vigilantes in real life. I enjoyed The Man in the High Castle, doesn’t mean that I wish the Axis Powers had won WWII.

  25. George Haberberger
    July 24, 2013 - 7:21 pm

    Had you read the transcript before? I didn’t post the link because it necessarily supports Zimmerman. I posted it because I suspect many people only believed what was reported: that Zimmerman was actively looking for trouble and that he volunteered the info that Martin was black.

    My position is pretty much what Vinnie posted above that I agreed with:
    “It was a series of poor choices that resulted in one guy being dead. It’s only its newsworthiness (defined as “the amount the story can be exploited for ratings”) that made it any different from the hundreds of people that get killed every day.”

    I think the transcript illustrates that it was a series of poor choices. Zimmerman could have waited for the police, but Martin appeared to be running away, (nothing suspicious about that), and no arrests had been made in the series of neighborhood burglaries, so to Zimmerman it might have appeared that an opportunity to solve those cases was being lost. (“These assholes they always get away.”)

    Martin could have kept running and not waited to attack Zimmerman. Or Martin could have confronted him directly. Instead he attacked him. Why did he need to do that?

  26. Neil C.
    July 24, 2013 - 10:50 pm

    Why did Zimmerman need to shoot him? I’d be pissed off, too if someone was stalking me.

  27. George Haberberger
    July 25, 2013 - 4:46 am

    Why did Zimmerman need to shoot him? I’d be pissed off, too if someone was stalking me.
    Have you read the rest of this thread? He shot him in self-defense. He was being beat to death. Zimmerman did nothing to warrant that.

  28. Doug Abramson
    July 25, 2013 - 5:55 am

    George,

    If someone is being beaten to death, they will require hospitalization; not first aid.

  29. Neil C.
    July 25, 2013 - 6:11 am

    “If Woody had just gone to the police, none of this would’ve happened.”

  30. R. Maheras
    July 25, 2013 - 6:41 am

    If someone suddenly confronted me in the dark, knocked me down, and then started banging my head on the ground, the last thing that would be going through my mind during those fleeting seconds would be, “Hmmm. What is his motivation here? Is this a case of mistaken identity? Is he just having a bad day? Is he drunk? Is he high?”

    No, the mind of most people in such a threat scenario is on autopilot. I know, because, being a city kid, I’ve been there multiple times. And if I wasn’t armed, I’d be looking for the nearest object I could use to bash my assailant’s head in.

    Race wouldn’t be an issue, nor would a hoodie.

    During the 1990s, a friend of mine was approached from behind by a homeless man who grabbed his shoulder. Without hesitation, he turned and decked him. When my friend told me the next day what had happened and what he did without a modicum of remorse, my first thought was he was cold and he overreacted.

    Then I thought about some of my own experiences, and experiences of other friends, and I realized, when something like that happens, if one underreacts during the split seconds such an event is unfolding, they could very end up injured or dead.

    As I think I mentioned before, when I lived in LA, the place was crawling with certified loons. For example, when a young man stabbed to death an older man on the Purple Line subway I frequented — for no particular reason — the young man said to the people around him on the crowded train, “Why didn’t anyone stop me?”

    I walked around at night there always on alert; always scanning those around me; always positioning myself so I could defend myself, if attacked. People joke that no one takes public transportation in LA, but the reason many people don’t use it is they are scared to — although, if they are liberals, they’d never admit that fact in a million years.

    What happens in 10 years or so when I won’t be able to defend myself against anyone if I’m attacked? I may apply for a permit to carry a gun. That ain’t being paranoid; that’s being realistic.

  31. R. Maheras
    July 25, 2013 - 7:29 am

    I knew I should have gone back and Googled the case before I mentioned it.

    The subway stabbing in Los Angeles occurred on the Red Line, and it didn’t unfold the way it was related to me in a social setting. In reality, a guy my age apparently swung a plastic chain at a younger guy. The younger guy pulled out a knife and stabbed the older guy. The younger guy fled, and the older guy died.

    The younger guy was later arrested, and said he acted in self-defense.

    Did he? You tell me.

    It certainly didn’t get national coverage and 24-7 coverage during the trial. Hell, I can’t even find out if there WAS a trial. In fact, I couldn’t find any follow-up information about the incident except that the murdered man’s mother (in her 70s or 80s, I guess) filed a lawsuit, on behalf of her dead son, against the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (surprise, surprise!).

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/08/red-line-stabbing-suspect-arrested.html

    Another Red Line stabbing occurred a few months later, and, no surprise in LA, a clown was involved: http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Two-Stabbed-Metro-Red-Line-Station-132998358.html

  32. Neil C.
    July 25, 2013 - 11:41 am

    R. If you were stalking the person who knocked you down, would the situation be an different?

  33. R. Maheras
    July 25, 2013 - 1:15 pm

    Neil — Define stalking.

    If it’s late at night and a stranger is standing outside my house on public property, and I go outside to ask them who they are and what their business is, am I stalking them?

    If they are civilized about it, and have some sort of explanation, then nothing would happen. However, if they told me to f**k off, I’d call 9-11. But if, after telling me to f**k off, they attacked me, the exchange would cease to be civilized, and it’d be every man for himself.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s what happened, right? Martin attacked, and he attacked first.

    Some people are saying Zimmerman “asked for” the confrontation by “provoking” Martin. But if Martin attacked first, none of that stuff washes. Such arguments remind me of people who try and blame rape victims by saying, “Oh, she asked for it because she was dressed provocatively and was walking home in the dark drunk.”

  34. Rene
    July 25, 2013 - 1:16 pm

    I find it funny that George says that, since we’re comic book fans, we must sympathize with vigilantes. Quite the opposite. I know it doesn’t work like that in real life. I don’t want an impulsive hothead with a gun patrolling my neighbourhood.

    I don’t think Zimmerman was a racist, not even in the “every white person is a racist deep down” way (a favorite theory of the Left that I don’t subscribe to). I do believe, though, that Zimmerman was a hothead with a story of violence. Should he have let himself be beaten to a bloody pulp by Martin? No, absolutely not.

    Doesn’t change the fact that he was a fool that got himself in a no-win situation. Don’t confuse cowboy bravado with heroism. It’s not a case of criticizing someone who was risking his neck to protect his neighbourhood. Because, in the particular situation that developed, there was no sensible reason for Zimmerman to risk his neck. It was not as if Martin were doing something terrible that had to be stopped right now.

    The Left should stop trying to paint Zimmerman as a racist. The Right should stop trying to paint Zimmerman as someone doing something noble. Or, to very precise, he was doing something noble in a completely foolhard way, and more than one tragedy began with that.

  35. George Haberberger
    July 25, 2013 - 3:51 pm

    Rene,

    I find myself agreeing with most of what you said. Zimmerman did get in over his head. His family reports that he was nauseous and crying for days after the shooting. He clearly did not expect to kill anyone.

    My point about comic fans was not that we must sympathize with vigilantes but that vigilanteism is often portrayed positively in popular culture, (not just comics). It is the image of the individual standing up to circumstance where others fall in line. Yet most people here condemned or ridiculed his “wannabe cop” aspirations as stupid or naive. That just seemed to be a contradiction. I too, can separate fantasy from reality, but on some level that attitude is admired or we wouldn’t read that kind of fiction.

    Here is what I think Zimmerman probably thought. The guy he saw was responsible for the neighborhood burglaries. He would be instrumental in helping the police capture him. His actions would be seen as admirable and aside from a possible mention on the local news no one in the country would ever hear of him. It didn’t happen that way and aside from Martin;s family and friends no one regrets that more than Zimmerman.

  36. Neil C.
    July 25, 2013 - 4:42 pm

    Then you’re saying he was a moron with a hero complex.

  37. George Haberberger
    July 25, 2013 - 5:29 pm

    I didn’t say he was a moron but a hero complex? Sure, don’t we all to a certain extent? By the way, you seem to have penchant for calling people names.

  38. Neil C.
    July 25, 2013 - 6:15 pm

    Because it works, sorry if it hurts your feelings.

  39. George Haberberger
    July 25, 2013 - 6:51 pm

    It doesn’t work. It’s just your best tactic.
    And you’re not sorry.

  40. Neil C.
    July 25, 2013 - 7:14 pm

    If I don’t let you have the last word, this will go on forever, so have at it! 🙂

  41. George Haberberger
    July 25, 2013 - 7:29 pm

    You tried the tactic of obliging me to either not respond or respond as though I am doing what you predicted once before, here:

    https://mdwp.malibulist.com/2013/04/terrorism-is-as-terrorism-does-by-mike-gold-brainiac-on-banjo-323-mdworld/#comments

    It didn’t work then either.
    Rest assured I give your opinion all the weight and consideration that all anonymous posters deserve.

  42. Neil C.
    July 25, 2013 - 8:33 pm

    Considering my name is on it, this is a new definition of the word ‘anoymous.’ And your responses are pretty predictable, too.

  43. George Haberberger
    July 26, 2013 - 3:28 am

    This may be a predictable response but am I to assume that C is your last name?
    I think a first name and initial is effectively anonymous.

  44. Rene
    July 26, 2013 - 10:19 am

    George,

    The problem is that popular culture often says that the only thing you need to be a good cop is guts. Actually it takes special skills, preparation, and a certain kind of personality to be a good policeman. Plus guts. Zimmerman had only guts.

    I don’t find that attitude admirable. I also don’t find admirable if some joker walks into an operation room and decides he wants to be a doctor, and then he kills the patient because he lacks medical training.

    Because that is what Zimmerman did.

    Now, if there were no doctors available and the patient was dying anyway, then sure, that would have been admirable, taking a chance like that. I would have a more positive view of Zimmerman if he did something foolish while walking into a hostage situation or something. But there was not pressing going on, no emergency.

    By your own account Zimmerman was a local gloryhound, not a hero. I agree with you.

  45. Rene
    July 26, 2013 - 10:21 am

    I meant, there was NOTHING pressing going on.

  46. Neil C.
    July 26, 2013 - 11:24 am

    Rene,
    Thanks for bringing it back on topic, since George has become obsessed with what I’ve written in the past and who I am. Zimmerman was a clown who killed someone because he was a cop-wanna-be. He probably had more of a police record than Treyvon Martin, whose family has handled the situation with class.

  47. George Haberberger
    July 26, 2013 - 8:15 pm

    Zimmerman shot Martin because Martin attacked him and a fight ensued. Nothing else either party did before that is relevant. It was self-defense. That’s what the police determined before the media storm. That’s what his lawyers argued at trial. That’s what the jury concluded.

    And Neil C., sorry to bring up what you’ve written before. If I were you I wouldn’t want to be reminded of it either. Maybe you could claim it was written be Neil Cavuto or Neil Conan.

  48. Neil C.
    July 26, 2013 - 10:54 pm

    George,
    Your obsession with me is charming.

  49. Rene
    July 27, 2013 - 7:02 am

    George,

    If Zimmerman’s cause hadn’t been taken by the Right, and Martin’s by the Left, you wouldn’t say something so short-sighted as “nothing either party did before was relevant”. Do you really believe that? That both were, like, teleported from nowhere, right to the moment of the fight?

    That Zimmerman had zero responsibility for what happened? I don’t believe even Zimmerman himself believes that.

    What the police, the lawyers, and the jury determined are the legal aspects of the case. As a Catholic you should know that life is more than legal aspects. Heck, as a human being you should know that. Or do you believe abortions are okay now, because US laws say so?

    I also would like to say something about the racial aspects of the case. If it’s true that many in the Left are stuck in the 1960s and see racism everywhere, it’s also true that many in the Right are stuck even further back, in the 1860s.

    I’ve seen a lot of nasty comments in the Internet, painting Zimmerman as the great hero of the white race, that should have gotten a medal for shooting a nigger that was invading his territory. They’re the folks that take their worldview from Gone with the Wind. They’re paranoids about blacks, blacks are moochers and parasites that come with their gangs and lazy ways to harass white folks and destroy their way of living, aided and abetted by Liberals (formerly they’d called yankees).

    I saw a LOT of comments with that tone. Even if Zimmerman isn’t a racist, some of his defenders are.

  50. George Haberberger
    July 27, 2013 - 12:20 pm

    If Zimmerman’s cause hadn’t been taken by the Right, and Martin’s by the Left, you wouldn’t say something so short-sighted as “nothing either party did before was relevant”.

    What I meant by “nothing either party did before was relevant” was any run-ins with the law or drug abuse allegations. Zimmerman had been charged in 2005 with assaulting a police officer and an ex-girlfriend had a restraining order against him and he against her. Martin had similar issues that I have refrained from mentioning. Those are the things I meant by “nothing either party did before was relevant”.

    I don’t remember Zimmerman being supported by the right until he was demonized by the left. CNN reported that Zimmerman had said “fucking coon” to the 911 dispatcher on 3/21/12. What he said was “fucking cold” and CNN had to issue a retraction two weeks later. On 3/27/13 NBC broadcast an edited version of the 911 tape to make it appear that Zimmerman was eager to identify Martin as black when in reality the dispatcher asked him, “Is he white black or Hispanic?” Zimmerman is currently suing NBC for that bit of prejudicial reporting. On 3/28/13 ABC claimed that the “video taken the night that Trayvon Martin was shot dead shows no blood or bruises on George Zimmerman.” ABC had to retract that 4 days later.

    All of these false and inflammatory reports were broadcast in the space of less than a week. The narrative was set. A white guy stalked and killed a black boy for purely racial reasons. They did not report that Zimmerman took a black girl to prom; that he was raised along side two black children. He has Black/Peruvian relatives. That black neighbors testified that he was the only person of any race or color who introduced himself when they moved into the neighborhood. That when a homeless black man, (Sherman Ware), was assaulted by the son of a Sanford policeman, George Zimmerman was so outraged that nothing was being done that he printed flyers publicizing the assault until the cop’s son was charged with the assault. The press either chose not to report any of this or they didn’t feel it necessary to investigate Zimmerman’s background.

    Then the president decided that Trayvon Martin looked like the son he never had. Why the most powerful man in the world saw fit to involve himself in a local shooting incident seems outrageous. It appeared that only those who benefit from racial division, were skewing the facts of the case. That is when the right took Zimmerman’s side.

    None of the commentary I’ve read on the internet has been as terrible as what you quote in your post Rene, but I most assuredly to do not agree with that kind of hateful rhetoric.

    ”I saw a LOT of comments with that tone. Even if Zimmerman isn’t a racist, some of his defenders are.”

    No doubt, but there are racists defending Martin also. The Black Panthers have a $10,000 bounty on Zimmerman.

    Finally this: ”What the police, the lawyers, and the jury determined are the legal aspects of the case. As a Catholic you should know that life is more than legal aspects. Heck, as a human being you should know that. Or do you believe abortions are okay now, because US laws say so?”

    Abortions are not okay because the law permits them. But we have to work within the system to change those laws. That “life is more than legal aspects” is exactly why the Pro-Live movement condemns bombing abortion clinics and killing abortionists. The left had their day in court with Zimmerman. There may be more days coming. A civil rights case from the Justice Department appears unlikely because Zimmerman has already been investigated in that regard. Perhaps a wrongful death civil suit from the parents but then other aspects of Trayvon Martin will come out that may make that case unwinnable also. Zimmerman’s suit against NBC is still out there but that will probably be settled out of court with the damages sealed.

Comments are closed.