EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Transcript: Today's Live Q&A With NSA Leaker, Edward Snowden
- 'Tip of the Iceberg': Senators Warn Far More Data May Not Be Safe
- Playing the Obama Bumper Sticker Game
- Intentional and Evil: Court Marshall Sexually Assaults Woman, Then Arrests Her When She Protests
- David Brooks, Tom Friedman, Bill Keller Wish Snowden Had Just Followed Orders
- Transcript: Today's Live Q&A With NSA Leaker, Edward Snowden
- The Terror Con
- Remembering Satyajit Ray’s Hirok Rajar Deshe: On Edward Snowden, Resistance and Inverted Totalitarianism
- Pentagon Bracing for Public Dissent Over Climate and Energy Shocks
- Bank of America Lied to Homeowners and Rewarded Foreclosures, Former Employees Say
Popular content
Today's Top News
In Florida, Zimmerman's Crime Was Preceded and Followed by the State's
George Zimmerman's trial could be as divisive as OJ Simpson's
George Zimmerman is behind bars. Six weeks after he shot Trayvon Martin, the state of Florida has been pressured, from above and below, to at least contemplate the notion that a man who killed an unarmed child might have a case to answer. He has now been charged with second-degree murder.
The parents of Trayvon Martin, Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin, hold hands as they watch coverage of special prosecutor Angela Corey's announcement in Sanford, Flordia that George Zimmerman is to be charged. (Photograph: Evan Vucci/AP)
What follows from here has the potential to be every bit as divisive as the OJ Simpson trial and every bit as inflammatory as the Rodney King case – only this time there's a black president in an election year. Blacks and whites already understand this case differently. A recent Newsweek poll showed that 80% of black Americans thought Martin's death was racially motivated and 78% thought Obama's comments about the shooting were appropriate. The figure for whites was 35% and 28% respectively. In the caffeinated, disaggregated world of cable news and blogs, where people feel entitled to their own facts, the details that emerge will only deepen these fissures.
Given that it was political pressure that made the trial possible, it would be naive to suggest that, now Zimmerman is in the hands of the law, his fate is now merely a legal matter. The "stand your ground" law was political, as are the lax gun laws, and the issues of race that have propelled this case to international news. This is the state where the courts decided the presidency in 2000. The law is already politicised.
The Martins understand this, which is why they have been rallying the nation to their cause. Zimmerman understands it, too. That's why he was calling Fox News' Sean Hannity even as his former attorneys were struggling to get hold of him.
But that doesn't make it a show trial. Or at least in the hands of a competent prosecutor and a decent legal teams it needn't. The special prosecutor, Angela Corey, insisted: "We do not prosecute by public pressure or petition." For behind all the manoeuvrings and press conferences, there is a dead teenager who went out to the store and didn't come back. Until today, the state did not deem it necessary to pay much attention to why that should be, even though they knew who killed him."
So for the Martin family, this marks the end of the beginning. This is not justice. It is the chance for justice. But justice is not the same as conviction and conviction is no sure thing. Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty. He has claimed self-defence under the "stand your ground" law which states that anyone who perceives a threat to their life has a right to use a weapon. To convict him, they must prove that he did not act in self-defence. That's not easy. Least of all in the glare of a global spotlight.
Zimmerman may be behind bars. But it's the law itself that should be in the dock.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
48 Comments so far
Show AllI've been saying all along, "justice" in this case is two fold. The other part comes when the headline reads: Stand Your Ground Arrested, Charged and Repealed.
I think the "stand your ground" law was a bad idea. But I think it's just a further example how wealth and priveldge buys a separate and unequal representation in the courts.
Actually no. There have been about 150 applications of Stand Your Ground in Florida since it was approved, and most have been from bar fights and road rage. Not a rich person among the defendants. Most all SYG defenses work also BTW. Many defendants are black or Latino. The law is bad, but it has not worked out bad for any one group in particular.
Stand your Ground is the real criminal in this case.
And the NRA was a key player in getting those laws passed in states across this country. Never forget that guns don't kill people, the NRA kills people...
.
Agree -- the NRA kills people.
This is another KABUKI movement by the GOP which radicalized the NRA and used it to target not only liberals and moderates in the Democratic Party but liberals and moderates in their own party!
In that way, they moved both the Democratic and Repug party to the right as well as the Congress -- and eventually, the nation.
Rather, this is a liberal nation, with a RW that has arisen based on 50 years+ of political violence, stolen elections and lies/propaganda. Only way the RW can rise.
Every part of government has been corrupted and reeks -- from the White House down.
The corporate/fascist two party duopoly is over --
both parties are finished.
.
No, the police were for not even giving the court a chance to decide if the law applies.
I wonder why statistics are given for blacks and whites but not hispanics. Is George's ethnic background irrelevant? Did they have to include George's white heritage in his label "white/hispanic" in order to properly make the tragedy racially motivated? When Obama said Trayvon would look like his son if he had one, did he mean Trayvon looked "white/black"?
Additionally, why has no information surfaced about the directionality of the bullet? If it was shot from a position of lying down, George's story as corroborated by an eye witness holds a little more water. If George was standing up, I don't see how he's got a leg to stand on.
Finally, why only one charge? Isn't it often probable to have a range of charges in case the most serious one doesn't stand? Are they setting George up to be let off?
Zimmerman, a German name, does not lead you to think the bearer is Hispanic. If his name had been Rodriguez or similar, there would have been no need to identify his background.
This is the reason for using the term "white/Hispanic -- it clarifies that, in spite of his name, George Zimmerman has a Hispanic background as well as a "white" background.
As to the "racial motivation", the relevant factor is that Zimmerman is not of the same racial background as Trayvon Martin, and could therefore harbor prejudice against Martin on racial grounds.
The more important factor, given that, is that Zimmerman, like many Americans, may think that young African Americans are criminals. Indeed, his comments during the 911 call, though not explicitly racist, lead me to think that such was the case with Zimmerman.
Since I am in a similar position, with my name giving the impression that I'm an Eastern European Jew. The facts are that my mother's background was German/Puerto Rican. My first language was Spanish. I was baptized Catholic, i understand very well that, as my friend Betty Lawrence told me, "names don't mean anything". Betty is Chinese.
"This is the reason for using the term "white/Hispanic -- it clarifies that, in spite of his name, George Zimmerman has a Hispanic background as well as a "white" background."
No. Zimmerman was presumed to be white. When he turned out to be (half) Latino and visibly a "person of color", the term "white hispanic" had to be resorted to in order to maintain the original white vs black racism narrative.
Note: people don't call Obama a "white African American" because of the fact that his mother was white.
From what I have read, "stand your ground" came about because of the abuse of the previous law, which said before you take action (like shooting somebody) you must first try running away. Therefore in many cases where someone was attacked, attorneys were able to point out some point in the process where escape was possible but not tried. Of course, when a law doesn't work, make more laws that are convoluted and difficult to unravel to fix it! I have been debating on whether in this case that law even applies, because if George started it, how can he "stand his ground?" Did he start it? Perhaps these questions will be answered during the trial.
as i understand at this point, george was in his auto when he first spotted trayvon. if that's the case, i fail to see how leaving a secure place to chase down a "clear and present danger" fits "stand your ground".
Florida's "stand your ground" law goes far beyond any other states. Stand Your Ground in most states simply means you are not under obligation to "retreat" if someone breaks into your home or tries to rob you.
Floridas's law is bad simply because it allows a tragedy like this to happen, I would say it almost generates it.
Mr. Zimmerman's confrontational actions, his forcing the issue even while police were on the way doesn't appear to be the actions of someone in danger, but of someone who puts themselves in danger.
I must agree with you but Florida's law is simply a very bad one. There is nothing wrong with protecting people protecting themselves, but if you allow someone to go "hunting" for protection you encourage the ever present bully's to act.
..
Countermarch: Where I live (North Florida) there are a lot of wild deer, pheasants, and even pigs. It's not unusual to see (sadly) a dead animal on the side of the road. A young man in my neighborhood went bike riding one evening and was intimidated by two rednecks in a truck. He tried to get away from them and biked down a dirt road which turned out to be the driveway that belongs to our fire chief. The fire chief observed him, determined it was a burglar or would-be burglar casing out his home, and got into his truck, followed the guy and FIRED at him!
Ever since I read about the new law that lets people (likely angry men) take guns into state parks I think how easy it would be for someone to get shot, the shooter making use of the defense that he accidentally shot the individual while hunting for deer, and the entire matter being dropped. The "Green River Killer" liked to hunt down his victims in a state (or was it national?) park. How much easier could it be for rapists or serial killers to take their weapons into places where solo joggers can be located or hunted down?
I walk my dogs on rather deserted roads, and one derelict property was just renovated and a manufactured home put in. The new owner lets his dog loose, and there's no fence. One evening I got "into it with him" because of this idea that his dog can chase anyone who passes by. (I forget how many thousands of dog bites occur each year in this country.) That's still my favorite place to walk my dogs, but this "Stand Your Ground" law could mean that this sociopath could take aim at me and use that defense for his "standing."
It largely IS a license to kill. Since no psychiatric test is required to own lethal firearms in this Mars-ruled nation that worships them, honest people ARE put into dangerous positions.
Though I understand that the case of the (at the very least) wrongful death of young Trayvon Marin will be one of the most high profile cases in the early 21st century, on matters of civil rights, challenge to undue influence on the legislative process, and emerging broad based concerns in our society, I find myself appalled that it is placed on the same page as that of the Simpson case.
Trayvon Martin was in no way connected to the death of any human being prior to his being shot. He was in fact a a young man of achievement and engagement virtually any parent would feel dignified in their parenting. Perhaps the writer seeks to raise this for clarification in society.
I would call on the online community to articulate precisely the distinctions in the case and the potential for beneficial societal remedies and perspectives through the family's and society's attention and engagement through the process.
I hold the family in my prayers as we, as a society, grapple with the legacy of our history that must be addressed, that includes a massive influence of long ignored dynamics of both domestic and foreign policy, that includes economically driven presence of substantial portions of populations traumatized by military service, centuries of institutionalized racism, in ill begotten military occupations, and our struggle to make humane life the norm and standard.
Who did Nicole Simpson kill, exactly? I don't really think the internet population is in a position to articulate precisely the distinctions in the case, since we are not in possession of the facts. Much of what has been publicized has been tainted, edited, misleading, and speculation. I can't believe how many times I've seen descriptions including "obviously..." We don't know and shouldn't know all the ins and outs of the case until it goes to trial. Why not wait until the facts are available before we make our decision?
Why not wait until the facts are available?
That's a question better asked of the police in the case; a young man was killed, and the police took the role of Judge, Jury, and Emancipator Of The Killer. If Trayvon had been the one with a gun, this entire debate would have OBVIOUSLY, even for the most dense, been different and maybe not even "newsworthy". And the police would have been in pursuit of some "facts".
I can't find any clear cut evidence that this incident was racially motivated except the flat falsehoods that have been exposed from the media like NBC's disgraceful editing of the 911 tape. The old photos of those involved, the descriptions of the 6'2" teenager as "small". Calling Zimmerman a White/Mexican.
Rushing to judgement is often wrong. There are pletny of clear cut racially motivated killings in our country without manufacturing one. Let us wait and see what the truth is.
You can't find any clear evidence? How hard have you looked? Are you getting your information from corporate media?
Have you listened to the 911 tapes? Perhaps you will get a clearer idea of some of the evidence that will be used in this case if you listen to Democracy Now.
I did listen to the unaltered 911 tapes, did you? Exactly what evidence are you aware of that would lead you to think this was racially motivated?
The only thing that the 911 tapes make clear is the fact that at best the man is guilty of man slaughter. If you proceeded to act cometary to the instructions of a 911 operator that in this instance carry the same weight as if they came from a police officer, you are responsible for your actions after that. He did not have to get out of his car and could easily have kept the man in sight.
Actually, the dispatchers instructions not to follow Martin came AFTER Zimmerman had gotten out of his car to keep track of Martin's location and answer the dispatcher's questions.
Full transcript here:
http://bizsecurity.about.com/od/creatingpolicies/a/A-Transcript-Of-The-George-Zimmerman-Police-Call.htm
There is a clear distinction between being attentive to a case and what you misconstrue as "rush to judgment". You might want to consider becoming conscious of the extent to which you project falsehood - it is a major problem in our society which can be easily remedied. C- simply cease and desist; the honorable mode of restraint - I'm sure you are capable of contemplating others.
I took my cue from your mention of Civil rights when there is no evidence that this was racially motivated.
Nor do I consider this case to be anymore worthy of "National Outrage" than the case of the two black teenagers that poured gasoline and said "you are getting what you deserve white boy" as they lit him up. We haven't heard a word about that or others. Selective outrage is dangerous I think.
I guess the unwarranted charge of being racially motivated and the noxious presentation of doctored evidence and the clear effort to turn this in to something about race by the media (I'm sorry but calling him White/Mexican is blatant in its purpose), altering the 911 tape to make it seem like he was after him because he was black (he may have been, we just don't know) offends my sense of justice. To have the Black Panthers announce a $10,000 reward for his head SHOULD offend any decent human being.
But I do take your point about "being attentive to a case and what you misconstrue as "rush to judgment".in your case. I could have misconstrued your meaning, if so, my apologies.
Civil rights are not exclusively black, yellow, red, green .... what happens when presumptions of privilege point to one as a segue to judgment? - selective outrage - which prevents grounding
The so-called 'New Black Panthers' [w a grand total of 6 members] offered a $10,000 reward for a Citizen's arrest of Zimmerman! That's NOT exactly a call for a 'bounty for his head' [FYI: modern-day 'Bounty Hunters' called Bail Bonds-men do exist]. As far as I know, this was the 'most extreme' call to action coming from any Black people RE the arrest of Zimmerman- who's finally been charged w Trayvon's murder. Furthermore- Most in the Black Community either ignored or rebuked the so-called 'New Black Panther's' reward offer.
As far as the charge of a racial element to Zimmerman killing Trayvon- there are still allegations that Zimmerman likely referred to Trayvon as a 'F-c-ING COON' before he killed him!
This nonsense being repeated 24 hours a day on all of the right wing media - "we don't know if this was racially motivated" - is simply a way to muddy the waters and justify murder. That, in and of itself, is clearly racist. It is the response to this crime by the white community that is racist, that is the problem, and your commentary perrfectly illustrates that problem.
Racism is not a matter of indivisual personal feelings. It would be absolutely impossible under any circumstances to prove what is going on inside a person's head. So, to suggest that we must know what was going on inside the perpetrator's head before we can say or do anything about this crime is a dishonest way to say that nothing should ever be said or done about this crime.
The "rush to judgement" canard is another example of the racist response to this crime we are hearing from so many whites. Calling for justice is not a "rush to judgement."
You are repeating word for word the illogical and racist commentary being broadcast 24 hours a day on white supremacist radio. Shame on you for that.
Exactly what evidence do you find that this was racially motivated? Clearly racist? How. There is literally no evidence that we know of. None.
He called him black in answer to a question from the 911 operator.
He did not say "coon" as reported but clearly he was saying cold when you hear the unaltered tape.
"You are repeating word for word the illogical and racist commentary being broadcast 24 hours a day on white supremacist radio. Shame on you for that."
Horse Puckey. I am telling you what I see and so far I have seen no evidence that this was racially motivated. If that is what is being said by conservatives or white supremacist radio then it is the truth unless you know something I don't.
And I would never discount the truth just because someone says it I don't like or agree with. But if you do know something I don't, please tell me how you know this was racially motivated?
..
Good post, Two Americas. I've noticed that it's a particular LIBERTARIAN strategy to always make items in the news about ONE case, or otherwise turn discussions of matters of social importance into the stance of INDIVIDUAL preference. By these tactics, the general processes that characterize modern life can be turned into piecemeal with the exception intended to disavow the rule.
Because of the history of racism in this country, and because of several other recent cases where Black citizens were killed by police when they weren't even involved in any violent crimes, and because of the racial composition of the nation's prisons... it's important to recognize how the widescale CLIMATE inclines towards racially-motivated "justice" delivery systems.
Someone mentioned that Zimmerman first noted his would-be target from inside his auto. He was likely playing vigilante and hunted the kid down. If the young man sought to defend himself, sensing the will To aggression on the part of his assailant, that became the trigger used by Zimmerman to execute what he'd likely intended to do all along. That's a premeditated killing; and he targeted the young man because he did not fit the racial composition of the majority who lived in that little hamlet.
Racism is very strong in much of the South. The forfeiture of thousands of Black votes in the 2000 election is but another layer to the Florida drama... a window into what constitutes the law of the land.
.
George Zimmerman's history of racism will be a subject of discovery.
Possibly the Justice Department will additionally file "hate" crime charges?
Zimmerman seemed to be profiling "blacks" as criminals, in writing and in discussions without knowing anything about them -- as happened in the case of Trayvon Martin.
Indeed, at least one couple in residence in the Twin Lakes community described his visit to their home -- and possibly a Zimmerman e-mail to residents - which makes clear that to Zimmerman "blacks" were the criminals.
I trust this will be a pivotal case for Florida, for the SYG gun provisions/NRA and ALEC/Koch Bros. -- for racism in America and in Florida -- and to begin to understand the kind of thinking/behavior and individuals these new gun laws activate.
We should also recall that the Neighborhood Watch organization does not support any volunteer carrying a gun while observing the community.
And, the police volunteer who counseled the Neighborhood Watch group and volunteers -- including George Zimmerman -- specifically instructed volunteers that they are merely to "observe" and if they see something suspicious they are to call the police -- and "leave it to us." Even more specifically, she repeats that volunteers are instructed not to use this as an opportunity to act as vigilantes.
Between the time that Trayvon Martin's phone call with his girfriend was abruptly ended until the police arrived on the scene was but 5 minutes. Further, Zimmerman had been told by the police officer he was speaking with that "we don't need you to do that" re his pursuing Martin on foot and exiting his car.
Obviously, Zimmerman would not have pursued Trayvon Martin as he did had he not been armed not only with a gun, but with the new SYG law. .
And since he was armed, Zimmerman carried the greater responsibility to make clear to Martin who he was and that he was armed and that police had been called.
Rather, his pursuit of Martin was in itself suspicious and makes Zimmerman the aggressor.
What could Martin have been thinking about this guy other than he was deranged?
.
First, the state gets the dime, then they'll do the crime.
First, the poor do the crime, then they'll get the dime.
The stand your ground law might apply if Martin had had a gun and had shot or threatened Zimmerman. Martin was within his rights, Zimmerman was the aggressor, a predator challenging Martin's right to be where he was doing what he was. Martin had ever reason to feel his life was in danger and if he had been able to use his ice tea to kill Zimmerman it would have been justified.
It is not disputed that Zimmerman saw Martin, followed him, got out of his truck and confronted him.
Zimmerman was not arrested or even thoroughly investigated because of his connections, his father and their connection to the police and local politics.
As to the NRA and gun laws these issues are a distraction and a divisive argument. There are 10s of millions, probably a 100 million Americas with guns and every year a few nut cases misuse them. While there are thousands of gun deaths, there are also thousands of accidental killings by hospitals and doctors, and deaths on highways because we use automobiles instead of trams and railways. The broad social problem is complicated.
To rant on a bit, if we want a society with fewer murders, maybe we could decriminalize drug and treat misuse as a medical problem. If we want less violence, we could treat violence in media the way we treat nudity in media that is, don't show so much. If we want more peace in our homes, lets stop sending young people overseas and teaching them to kill people who look and act differently. We could insist that corporation not only make a profit but that they do so for the benefit of society and not at the expense of the health of the worker and the community. The New Testament is not about smiting people, too many Americans prefer the Old book solutions and reject the compassionate, forgiving and accepting New Covenant. Old Testament Christians are a contradiction in terms.
If Zimmerman had followed the law or the books, he would have kept his distance from Martin as long as Martin hurt no one or did not need help in some way.
Zimmerman chose to be an attack dog, his choice.
Elmwood --
Largely agree with your comments -- except these ...
QUOTE --
As to the NRA and gun laws these issues are a distraction and a divisive argument. There are 10s of millions, probably a 100 million Americas with guns and every year a few nut cases misuse them. While there are thousands of gun deaths, there are also thousands of accidental killings by hospitals and doctors, and deaths on highways because we use automobiles instead of trams and railways. The broad social problem is complicated. UNQUOTE
The ALEC inspired SYG gun provisions certainly should be the focus of new political action stemming from this case -- as well as those who made this possible -- the GOP/NRA and Koch Bros. funding.
This isn't a "few nut cases." Every year there are immense numbers of gun deaths and woundings. These new laws have already tripled "justifiable homocides" in Florida. Across the nation, there is a 25% increase in "justifiable homocides" and cop killings are up.
And while hospitals do have horrendous records re killing patients (100,000 every year) it is not a subject to be compared with or which in any way parallels gun ownership and gun killings -- nor car accidents.
This is better --
QUOTE -- To rant on a bit, if we want a society with fewer murders, maybe we could decriminalize drug and treat misuse as a medical problem. If we want less violence, we could treat violence in media the way we treat nudity in media that is, don't show so much. If we want more peace in our homes, lets stop sending young people overseas and teaching them to kill people who look and act differently. We could insist that corporation not only make a profit but that they do so for the benefit of society and not at the expense of the health of the worker and the community. The New Testament is not about smiting people, too many Americans prefer the Old book solutions and reject the compassionate, forgiving and accepting New Covenant. Old Testament Christians are a contradiction in terms. UNQUOTE
though you are missing the overall reality of what you're saying ...
From the highest perspective, all of what you are saying is related and relates to what we are saying about the fake/fascist GOPs/NRA -- .
The same thing as the fake/fascist Drug War --
The same thing as violence depicted increasingly in our mass media --
The same thing as the elite need for perpectual wars --
The same thing as using "god" for political ends and distorting Jesus' teachings --
It's all part of Capitalism -- corporate/fascism -- and its suicidal exploitations.
There is only one way the RW can rise and that's via political violence and we've had 50 and more years of that. In '63 our president and our people's government were taken from us.
True -- it also took stolen elections and the voting computers which have been with us since the mid-1960's. I'd question every election back to Nixon/Humphrey.
... and a mass media which has long been controlled and used to portray a violent America and to lie to the public on every issue. See: Operation Mockingbird.
Guns are an important part of this attempt to create a violent America -- a long time attempt by elites to create race wars and to turn America into a "battleground."
We now essentially have in Florida "shoot first" gun laws which exceed anything our police officers or soldiers can do.
This is the work of the RW. They radicalized the NRA and used it for political purposes targeting not only liberals and moderates in the Democratic Party, but in their own party as well. In that manner, they moved both parties and Congress to the right -- and they were able then in taking over government to move the nation's laws to the right. Recall that everything that Hitler did was legal -- i.e., The Nuremberg Laws!
.
Excellent post, Conscience. Not enough people in this forum see beyond their pet issues. You are one of the rare ones who connects a LOT of dots/issues. I feel mortified by the ways this country's leaders and influential groups are pushing the meme of violence every which way. Heck, it's even in the food (given the way animals are slaughtered) that most eat! If men didn't feel so powerless--based on the way they're treated like cogs in one big factory-machine, I don't think they'd identify with the gun, as phallic extension to the degree that so many do. (I don't recall any women going on gun-based public rampages, or any women serial killers, either.)
And it's a Catch-22, too. Just as the MIC and its weapons' suppliers ARM the world to insure that more violence will crop up, thus "necessitating" more war, so, too, is the arming of the nation's population a sure sign that violence will erupt here in the homeland thus giving all the increasing numbers of policing forces their raison d'etre.
It's violence feeding upon violence as its own self-generating rationale. Then, to my mind, to see IDIOTS show up in this forum attempting to justify all this... not as the result of very covert population conditioning, but rather alleged as an innate flaw in huMAN nature, it's outright diabolical!
These same "experts" refuse to open their minds to testimony to the contrary, massive scholarship based on earlier societal models that did not make war, macho shows of force, or violence their chief causes. To those who wish to retain a status quo that relies on destruction, the witness of other ways of living cannot be allowed. They would prefer to consign us all to hell, apparently cheering humanity's destruction.
"Many want oblivion, an end to it all," a trance medium once related to a group I attended. And because so-called Christians are ashamed to toss The Gift of Life back in Creator's face, they instead go about destroying Creation but convince themselves that their acts of desecration somehow reflect "God's will."
It's very tough to watch so much insanity play out... the Truth will not set those free who spit upon it.
conscience--
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I am in almost total agreement with your perspective. I also regard guns as a hazard to even have in ones home. Still my point about guns is that gun control is a wedge issue that divides progressives from people who otherwise share similar concerns. The RW recognizes this and exploits fears to maintain the divisions politically in society.
When liberals rail against guns, they sound like prohibitionists, like extreme PETA people, and the effect is to lose support needed to achieve our peaceful and humanitarian ends. True guns cause a lot of damage, and so doe alcohol, tobacco and drugs, but prohibition or the threat of prohibition does not solve the problem.
Tea party people, many fervent libertarians, believe in cooperation and community when it comes to floods, fires and such, and support mutual aid fire departments, so why can't they support mutual aid health care? The could and if the do, it could cost the predatory health care industry billions.
Our media, (tv and movies), maintain many myths and stoke many fears that protect the position of the RW and the 1% and these media are controlled by the 1% for just that purpose.
The 99% really have to unite on common issues to oppose the 1% or we will be subjugated by the plutocracy.
Thank you for your thoughts.
Was Keith Olbermann fired from Current TV for covering the story of George Zimmerman's Supreme Court Magistrate Judge father Robert Zimmerman influencing the police investigation of his son?
Olberman was the first (and only?) to air these details on TV ... days before he was 'fired' from Current. No other TV stations or major news sources have been reporting details about Zimmerman's father, the Judge- and how he was present during Zimmerman's police interrogation, present during the police reenactment of the crime, extremely well connected within Florida's legal system, and evidence of interfering with past police investigations on his sons behalf.
Is this part of a government spin campaign to downplay the whole Trayvon Martin murder? Obviously this issue has grown to the point of becoming in the governments eyes a 'dangerous' catalyst that could spark race riots along the lines of Rodney King- LA Riots 1992, or Watts 1965.
Has the government been directing a managed news control treatment of this event?
Have media institutions been directed not to discuss Zimmermans father, retired Virginia Supreme Court Magistrate Judge Robert Zimmeran, and his deep connections to Florida's legal community?
Did Keith Olberman disobey this directive? Is that why he was fired?
Are we seeing the not so hidden hand of the government censoring, pulling strings, editing stories, 'creating' stories, MANAGING PUBLIC PERCEPTION... to keep this whole event from become a full blown riot?
FAKE D: I don't watch TV so I missed all this; but I think your post raises an interesting question.
i think your worry about some kind of "directive" is far fetched.
George Zimmerman's father is, of course, a lawyer. That's a good reason for George to want him to be present for his interrogation.
But surely the matter is, as you say, not quite so simple. Judge Zimmerman is a "prominent" citizen of Sanford or nearby, and is no doubt part of the local elite. That's another good reason for George to want him to be there when he had to deal with the cops. Maybe his simple presence was a factor in their decision to let George go without being charged. Maybe it made no difference.
Who knows why Keith Olberman was fired? I don't. But speculating about Judge Zimmerman influencing the cops is not really fair. Any father would want to be present to give his son moral support. Why not Judge Zimmerman?
First of all Leezasky, let's get our terms straight. Robert Zimmerman is not lawyer, he is a retired Magistrate Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court.
Second, my idea about some sort of media 'directive' is not far fetched. Need I remind you of the "Saddam's weapons of mass destruction" directive? Fact is, governments govern and one of governments' worst fears is fire setting riots and revolt. I think that your dismissal of governments intelligence to govern is far fetched, they are not stupid as you seem to imply.
Third, where did I ever speculate that Judge Zimmerman influenced the cops? I did no such thing. I said that he was there during police questioning of George, and during the re-enactment of the crime. These are true facts, not speculation. He also talked to the media quiet a bit, influencing the framing of the incident. You are the one who is speculating that he was present to give moral support... and nothing else. I strictly stated facts... which led you to imagine things.
Here is some documentation for you.
http://www.examiner.com/liberal-in-baltimore/killer-of-trayvon-martin-is-son-of-retired-orange-county-magistrate-judge
Keith's departure from MSNBC was not ... amicable ... and I don't know what his departure from ESPN was like ... but once OUT of sports he's 2 for 2 in at least LOOKING like an egotistical prima donna.
Where'd you get the idea he is an egotistical prima donna? From the station that fired him? Sorta hard to hear his side now that they turned the mic off, isn't it?
"Where'd you get the idea he is an egotistical prima donna?"
Have you every WATCHED Keith?
By the way, first, did you notice that I said he's " ... at least LOOKING like an egotistical prima donna." ... ? YOU made the leap to "he is an egotistical prima donna ... " Also ... "his side" began to be available, from him, on the day this was announced, starting with him on Twitter within moments, and he has since made the "late night" rounds to sing his song.
I've watched Keith for a long time and I like a lot of what he does. Male hysterics can be a lot of fun to watch. Keith, as I pointed out, is now 2 for 2 on "less than amicable" partings and I'm beginning to wonder if the problem is inside his suit.
This "TSA" guy, knee-JERK authoritarian must have posted 50 posts on Naomi Wolf's article about the ways the state gropes us. What NORMAL person has a need to project their views to such a dominating extent? He knows I'm onto him, nor am I the only one. It's quite amazing how, like a game of whack-a-mole, as a virtual certainty as soon as the forum seems to shed one Koch Brothers' insider (be he an apologist for militarism, the Official 911 story, nuclear power, Monsanto & GM crops, the "wisdom" of voting within the established parties, or some other pro-establishment meme) another shows up, new name, "fresh" image, and all. Now the forum must tolerate another right wing windbag pretending to entertain an open mind, or less retrograde views than those that march lock-step to an uber: authoritarian state.
"We're taking all your rights away for your own good, Frauline. Loyal pledges of allegiance to the new Homeland Security State constitute The New Freedom!"
Given that this poster has already shown his hostility to me for OUTING him, "Permission to treat the witness as hostile" is engaged. By conflating the HONEST protestations of Keith O with "male hysterics," this practitioner of psy-ops seeks to discredit the man's testimony.. as IF the current direction of Amerika is anything but insane, immoral, and DEADLY to all sentient creatures.
To Jack Nelson... hardly a steward to life, that's just fine and dandy... because it's the voice of patriarchy that he's been conditioned to march in formation to uphold. He's like the character in the Monty Python skit who watches as the drill sergeant commands troop after troop to march straight off the roof... and each clone does so.
"Just following orders," may well be written on his tomb stone.
This is an edited comment:
What "NORMAL person" goes out of their way to butt into a conversation that wasn't WITH them and had nothing to do with them, and then spends over three quarters of their comment attacking one of the people who WAS in the conversation instead of actually "Replying" TO the remarks that person made?
What "NORMAL person" counts other people's posts, and interprets contribution to a conversation centered around someones's area of deep experience as "dominating?"
What "NORMAL person" considers such participation in terms of something covert they could be "onto," and what is the covert agenda implied?
What "NORMAL person" looks at the contents of comment threads and sees a conspiracy of "Koch Brothers' insider(s)" … "apologists" for a list of fantasied "conspiracies?"
What "NORMAL person" imagines a line of commenters, with changing aliases, appearing in sequence, advancing such "conspiracies?"
What "NORMAL person" must impute covert agendas to commenters who openly represent their experiences clearly?
What "NORMAL person" fails to take responsibility for hostility THEY went OUT OF THEIR WAY to introduce into the conversation, then imagines THEY have "OUTED" something when their hostility is met in equal measure?
What "NORMAL person" must try to characterize comments as psy-ops instead of simply replying to those comments in factual rebuttal?
The question is, would this have happened if Trayvon saw that Zimmerman carried a gun?
Probably not.
But in response to Geraldo Rivera and all those who said it was Trayvon's fault for dressing like ganga thug -- gee, teenagers were letting the badass delinquents set the dress style way back when I was a teenager, during the age of "bads" and "greasers," who were what everyone wanted to look like.
Quoth Zimmerman: 'This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about."
"Just walking around, looking about" when it's raining is a capital offense? He can tell by how someone walks around in the rain looking about that the someone is "on drugs or something"? Would he have made that assumption if it was a ghetto-dressed white kid (some of them will do that) "walking around, looking about"? What does a walking around looking about on drugs look like?
In my youth, many teenage boys dressed and groomed themselves like the "Jets" in West Side Story -- a gang of what were then innocently called "juvenile delinquents".
Many male adolescents in America think it is absolutely necessary to show "toughness" by wearing clothes and grooming themselves in certain ways. Some of this is based on a need to avoid even the slightest hint of being gay or effeminate, which attracts aggression from "tough" young males.
The deep, almost pathological insecurity many American males feel about their manhood is part of the reason for the obsession with penis substitutes like guns, hot cars, dressing and grooming like "thugs" or other 'outlaws", etc.
Well, look who's borrowed a message I've related how many times in this forum... even down to the way so many weapons LOOK like phallic extensions. Let's see if DROSERA, who was deeply offended by that observation some time ago attacks you for stating what I've previously stated. Ultimately, I'm glad you had the guts to point this out... because it's precisely this fear of not being "man" enough that has so many kids sign up for the MIC, and has so many conform to the violent environs they find themselves in, lest they be called sissies, girlie-men, or some other "curse." For in our Mars-ruled, uber: masculine culture of make-war, being LIKE a woman in any way is about the worst insult a man can give to another man.
It is largely this dis-owned aspect of the feminine that's caused the nation to veer in an unbalanced direction making war, not LIFE or BEAUTY or PEACE or LOVE its blood stained cause and signature.
Let's see if this message coming from a male is more acceptable than when it comes from a female like me!
I live in Florida, born here in the middle of last century. I went to school with Jim Crow. The KKK used to hold "meetings" in the pastures not far from my house.
Just background.
A thought problem: If Trayvon Martin was a 17 year old white kid walking around in the rain at seven o'clock that evening in February, do you think Zimmerman would have even noticed him?
There's the nub of the thing.