Replies

You can’t be serious.

You bet, and I don't suspect you've thought about this seriously. So I'm offering this, not because I think I'll convince anybody, but to make those who read it think a little deeper.

Anything less than a murder charge would have both initiated a riot and carried the risk that a jury might render a conviction against Zimmerman on a lesser charge. I don't think there is any disagreement here that what Zimmerman in self-defense was not a crime. There is probably also agreement that there is no way this charge will stick, but it will assure that the evidence will be aired publicly over time. Zimmerman will be acquitted.

The rigorous thing to do, legally, would have been to announce no charges against Zimmerman at all. However, had he been permanently exonerated without charge as having acted in self-defense, the only story the public would know would have been from the MSM, Obama, Jackson, Sharpton, etc. Needless to say, the riot would have been immediate. Even Zimmerman would be at far greater peril then.

Not a few FReepers have the attidude, "Let 'em riot." Well, there's a problem with that, a problem probably already communicated to the DA by nearly every small businessman in the area: Innocent people would die, others would sustain lifelong injuries, property destroyed, businesses wrecked, jails and courts clogged... all to be rigorous. I have little doubt that, had the DA simply released Zimmerman without charge, the entire city government would have been tossed, not just because of the damage but because of the harm to innocents, and in that sense rightly so. It is one thing to commit the crime one self, it is still not exculpatory for a person in power to effectively abet crimes being committed when they had clear alternatives. To me, the cry for legal rigor I'm seeing here is exactly what Jesus meant by "righteousness like filthy rags," in that anyone who cannot broach any deviation from the most legally rigorous course apparently doesn't care about the obvious, avoidable, and definitely unjust outcome for those innocents harmed by a violent reaction to false information. Where are the "weightier elements of the law, justice, mercy, and faith," in the lack of concern for the likely damage to innocents? To ignore them is a position very similar to what the MSM has done with inflaming the case for ratings and to serve their Marxist agenda without a care as to the consequences to Zimmerman or anybody else. There is simply no practical benefit to a quick refusal to prosecute, no matter now legally rigorous that course may be.

Now one may argue that the benefit is to secure Mr. Zimmerman's rights as an individual. Yet in doing so, one must presume that just because Zimmerman is innocent of murder and acted in self-defense, he should bear no consequence. This is to conflate innocence of a charge to innocence in total. Zimmerman quite apparently took considerable pride in his neighborhood watch role. He clearly exceeded his authority in confronting Trayvon Martin unless he saw a crime in progress, which he has not reported that he did. Hence, there is some justice in putting him through some travail, albeit one won't find what he did in confronting Martin listed in the criminal code! He and those he meant to serve would have been far better off standing aside merely to observe.

Further, those who would commit to civil insurrection on the basis of the false information from Sharpton et al. that the government has violated Trayvon Martin's rights to life and liberty when he had committed no crime (until he assaulted Mr. Zimmerman), how far are they from those who would take to violence because of some other continuing usurpations and violations, similar to Waco or Ruby Ridge? It would seem that the principal distinction is the veracity of its basis, which is not as great a distinction as might seem, or does the term "Gulf of Tonkin Incident" mean anything? The people who ARE guilty of a crime are the media and the race hucksters, and that is inciting to riot. Unfortunately, I seriously doubt that the town has the financial wherewithal to take on the MSM, nor is it right to expect them to do so. Zimmerman has a clearer case.

If this blows into a full race war, I'm not so sure you are as ready as you think. Do you have three years' food and ammo stored in multiple remote locations? With backup in case that is stolen or destroyed? Do you have provisions for protection, evacuation, and harboring of the innocent? Are you members of a group with a command structure and communications that cannot be infiltrated? Do you have intelligence on your enemy, their supplies, their command structure, their plans and locations?

If you answered 'that's why we have the National Guard' they'll be rather busy given the logistical consequences of a race war. The ports of Los Angeles, San Pedro, Long Beach, Oakland, and Richmond are ALL isolated from their outlets by large black enclaves. Can you imagine the consequences to the rest of the nation's economy should trade from Asia be halted if AQ or Los Zetas take advantage of the said "race war"? They've been putting their logistical supplies in place for decades. Isn't this kind of chaos exactly what Bamster and the left want, a Cloward-Piven meltdown writ large?

You know very well that the less information there is the more the race hucksters can get away with inflaming the situation. Dragging this out and letting the information leak has slowly allowed those who might otherwise riot to lose interest. They are slowly finding that their "innocent young boy" was neither, the "vigilante gun nut" was neither, and the "racist" isn't. Hell, tutored black kids and he's part black himself! The more they learn, the more this won't fly.

Nope, call it "murder" to calm the crowd, leak the evidence while waiting for the trial, and take your lumps when you lose, knowing that the more the information gets out there, the less of a chance of violence there will be.

In many respects, that is exactly what happened in the Duke Lacrosse case, and I'd bet the lawsuits against those charging those young men were far cheaper than a full blown riot might have been. Nor do I think that outcome was lost on Ms. Corey or her superiors.

I'll be out of town for the rest of the week end. So flame away and maybe I'll reply. Or maybe not.

I think you are correct in the Prosecutor’s decision. She was perfect to step in because she does not have a balanced sense of justice nor a commitment to justice. She a “send a message” type kook with a history of sacrificing the citizen in front of her for her own greater cause (whatever that is from day to day). So, she would be the one to feed the mob some morsels through the unjust prosecution of Zimmerman.

By charging him with second degree murder, either she is doing her mad dog number to send an unjust, overkill message on self defense to gun users or she is knowingly overcharging to throw out the case or to try and get a manslaughter plea bargin out of Zimmerman. I wonder if she is aware of what happened to Nifong when he played this part with the justice system to stave off the race mob that threatened like this Sanford race mob in Durham.

In a just world, the Feds would handle the black racist mob leaders like they did the Klan. They would round up the inciters and prosecute them. They would arrest the NOI players and donars for putting a price on Zimmerman’s head and they would pursue every black racist who treatened zimmerman and his family and who murdered and beat whites around the country. They would show no patience with the racist mob and call them a dirty racist mob trying to overturn the justice system out of race hate for a man they claim is white but who isn’t even white. We would make diversity race hate taboo in schools and institutions.

That is the way to handle organized race hate and violence in America. We did it already. But, we handle the klan with the tan today like we handled the white klan in the fifties. We don’t want to set them off and like in the history of the KKK, the Dems benefit from their racial intimidation of society so they have large political power and protection.

So, we got through this threat in sanford (maybe)but what happens when we fail to confront the organized power of racism in modern America (the radical left within the Dem party) in the post segregation era? I am sure you are aware that the radicals are importing Muslims and recruiting Hispanics for racism, too, and that whites will be a minority in this country in the near future. What are we doing here by continuing to stick a binky in Al Sharpton’s racist mouth and permitting Dems to build up more power on more race scapegoating, envy, violence and hate? Soon, America is not going to have a big enough binky to soothe the radical’s savage beast.

The other thing that haunts me from reading diversity hate doctrines, is the common element of hate that runs through the Arab, Hispanic and Black groups is an envy and hatred of Jews. They have mainstreamed the NOI hate doctrines into African studies. Hispanics have their own sick brand of Jew hate steming from Jesus. We know about the Muslims.

You know, whites as a majority, who basically hold power in this country, have gotten real good and manipulating the diversty haters with a welfare scrap here and a illegal racial preference or Zimmerman scrap there and we have kept the peace in that way. We buy off Al and Jesse. We have been able to protect Jews by using our power to sideline the haters. Blacks murdered more white people between the 70’s-90’s than soldiers killed in the Viet Nam war. I don’t know how many have been murdered since.

So we have paid quite a price in blood to appease the angry mob and not do another civil war. Our time for pacification is running out and their visciousness and threats just keep getting more and more dangerous, rageful and hateful. Race envy and rage is actually destroying the black race and radicals are spreading it to other groups so they vote the right way. Look to Africa, Mexico and the Middle East to see our future of “unrest.”

The people who have bought into this mentality are corrupt. They are cheating in elections and stealing and discriminating when they have power. The rule of law means nothing to them and Holder explained to Congress that whites don’t have any civil rights - only his people do. It will destroy the whole country if we don’t bite the bullet and stop it soon. It’s going to go after Jews, in particular. We are going to lose control of it soon.

"Now one may argue that the benefit is to secure Mr. Zimmerman's rights as an individual. Yet in doing so, one must presume that just because Zimmerman is innocent of murder and acted in self-defense, he should bear no consequence. This is to conflate innocence of a charge to innocence in total. Zimmerman quite apparently took considerable pride in his neighborhood watch role. He clearly exceeded his authority in confronting Trayvon Martin unless he saw a crime in progress, which he has not reported that he did. Hence, there is some justice in putting him through some travail, albeit one won't find what he did in confronting Martin listed in the criminal code! He and those he meant to serve would have been far better off standing aside merely to observe.

I have not seen any credible evidence that Zimmermann confronted Martin. Admittedly, I don't know all the evidence - so I am forced to speak in hypotheticals. However, the evidence that I have heard is that Zimmermann started to follow Martin. At some point in this pursuit, he called 911. The 911 operator said he should halt pursuit. He did, and was returning to his van when he was attacked from behind by an indignent (and high) Martin.

Ok, leaving that aside - it is not and should not be the role of the justice system to punish behavior that is not criminal. That sets up the prosecution as judge, jury and executioner. Unless the prosecutor had a credible case against Martin he should not have been charged.

Appealing to the thought of the consequences of a riot (which you take as a given; I do not), you argue the lesser evil is to charge Zimmermann. Essentially, you have already surrendered to mob rule. The government, in your scenario, is acting out of fear of the response of the mob rather than in accordance with the law. By these little surrendars, bit by bit, the country will be abandoned to mob rule and the Constitution might as well be shredded. In which case, resign yourself to a socialist government. The mob will always pin the blame on their grievances on the wealthy and the successful. Rather than emulate the behavior of the successful, they will try to tear them down to their own level.

It is time for some patriots to stand up for the law - if a riot is so certain, call out the national guard in advance of an announcement and tell the world they have orders to shoot to kill any rioters, since as you admit, rioters cause a loss of innocent life. We need leaders strong enough to stand up and say "I will not be cowed by threats, by charges of racism, by political considerations. I will enforce the law."