SteeleJoe

I of course stand with what I said.

Show me his police record. Show me the proof he was a member of a gang. Show me he was a troubled youth or adolescent. And why should anyone demand Treyvon be a perfect model of an adolescent? Let's be fair and let's be reasonable, even tho that is not the purpose of the gang of posters here so I suppose I'm talking to the wall on this point.

Did you ever write graffiti? I have. Many people have, in different situations and circumstances. When did scrawling graffiti become a felony crime?

Trevon Martin had a clean record.

These vile attempts to defame the deceased are, moreover, shameless.

The fact remains George Zimmerman should have respected the advice from the 911 advisor and not followed Trayvon. The fact is Zimmerman should have stayed in the car. But he pursued. What's a young black kid supposed to think when he has a strange looking weirdo following him, eyeballing him, suspecting him?

Zimmerman is the gunman.

Why is Zimmerman a "strange looking weirdo"?

People seriously need to get a grip.

The fact that Trayvon Martin wanted to be a pilot or was shot in the same part of his body as John Lennon was, is so irrelevant as to be laughable.

The fact that he smoked weed and painted graffiti is very nearly as absurdly without pertinence.

The efforts to smear Zimmerman with allegations - true or not - about his cousin or smear Martin with allegations about being an aspiring criminal are not only irrelevant but rather than funny, truly disgraceful. People should be embarrassed both for the way it maligns and for the way it highlights the paucity of their argument for their position.

1) NONE of you knows for sure what happened and why. People keep claiming they do and that they have sufficient facts to do so, but that is simply not true.

2) Evidence suggests that Zimmerman's story could be true or largely so.

3) Evidence does NOT prove that it is true - and doesn't have to - nor does it disprove another scenario in which Zimmerman's actions are illegal and/or immoral. (Or at best, that Martin attacked Zimmerman out of fear for his life - justified or not - and it was HE who was acting in self defense - in such a case, with an armed man, one would be justified in trying to beat that person as badly as possible - even to death: in which case it was a matter of poor judgement on both sides rather than either one out to do wrong).

4) The prosecution failed to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was guilty of what he was charged with.

5) The jury has not, with their verdict, told us that they believe Zimmerman did no wrong, merely that the state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did.

??????????? That is exactly my point. I would like to believe that most juries do the right thing regardless of racism so I actually answered your question and you proved my point.

I have tried many cases in areas such as Memphis, Tennessee, where juries are largely comprised on minorities and in every single case I represented large wealthy corporations, doctors, hospitals or nursing homes.

I have conducted many juror sciences experiments on actual high exposure cases where we did a mock trial and watched multiple juries deliberate on closed circuit camera and then had psychiatrists go in after deliberation and probe deep into the factors of their decisions so we would know how to argue cases before the actual jury.

I have faith in the jury system and have seen first hand how importantly people take this duty even in mock trial scenarios.

The jury in this case deliberating for what, 16 hours. They asked for the exhibits and exhibit list. They asked several clarification questions on the lesser included offense of manslaughter. I have nothing but confidence they discharged their duty appropriately. One juror reportedly was very emotional during rendering of verdict. They took this seriously and to suggest otherwise is perhaps offensive and hurtful to them.

That's all very interesting. And I certainly have no issue with it or any reason to doubt it. But it has nothing to do with my question(s). Let me help...

YOU: "There are two choices: (1) that the jury discredited that argument by finding regardless as to who the shooter was, this was no crime; or (2) you have to conclude that the jury was racially motivated white women. "

ME: "Isn't it (referring to posit 1) that the jury discredited that argument by finding regardless as to who the shooter was, the prosecution had not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that this was a crime?"

ME: "Since when is racism the only possible reason a jury can render an inappropriate verdict?"

By the way, I have already gone on record repeatedly as agreeing that the jury made the right decision so no need to bring up being offensive and hurtful to them.

" I would like to believe that most juries do the right thing regardless of racism so I actually answered your question and you proved my point."

You would like to believe it? Interesting way to put it. Well, look at the bright side - maybe what you would like to believe is actually the truth. I'm inclined to think so.

Sorry, I'm so dense but where did I prove your point and which point was it?

Wow, time wasting and resorting to dishonesty.

You cut most of that post out including the ONE SINGLE question those two (2) options you cite relate to or address. Not sure why you feel the need to be so deceptive.

The question (1) and (2) addressed are as follows:

"Candidly, the racist are the NAACP and everyone else bashing this jury. The prosecutors argued in closing that if you reversed the roles, Martin was the shooter and you would convict Martin, then you got to convict Zimmerman. There are two choices: (1) that the jury discredited that argument by finding regardless as to who the shooter was, this was no crime; or (2) you have to conclude that the jury was racially motivated white women. Option two is nothing more than reverse racism itself against jurors we don't know."

Then my attempt to clarify your initial misconstruction that you also conveniently deleted:

"Based on prosecution argument, the jury apparently did not believe that this was a crime regardless as to whether the roles were reserved. The NAACP and all of the above that I just mentioned are clearly reiterating over and over again that the jury would have convicted had the roles been reversed."

Why be a deceptive time waster? If you have a point or opinion, make it, but don't misquote me in the process,

You won't answer.

Got it.

Oh, and I didn't misquote you and I didn't deceive. It's all right there. But you know that. And my point is implicit in my questions (which you did not answer): simply, it seems you have mischaracterized what the verdict tells us about the jury's conclusion.

Twisting, dishonesty, and time wasting...yes, indeed. Lots of it.

??????????? That is exactly my point. I would like to believe that most juries do the right thing regardless of racism so I actually answered your question and you proved my point.

I have tried many cases in areas such as Memphis, Tennessee, where juries are largely comprised on minorities and in every single case I represented large wealthy corporations, doctors, hospitals or nursing homes.

I have conducted many juror sciences experiments on actual high exposure cases where we did a mock trial and watched multiple juries deliberate on closed circuit camera and then had psychiatrists go in after deliberation and probe deep into the factors of their decisions so we would know how to argue cases before the actual jury.

I have faith in the jury system and have seen first hand how importantly people take this duty even in mock trial scenarios.

The jury in this case deliberating for what, 16 hours. They asked for the exhibits and exhibit list. They asked several clarification questions on the lesser included offense of manslaughter. I have nothing but confidence they discharged their duty appropriately. One juror reportedly was very emotional during rendering of verdict. They took this seriously and to suggest otherwise is perhaps offensive and hurtful to them.

That's all very interesting. And I certainly have no issue with it or any reason to doubt it. But it has nothing to do with my question(s). Let me help...

YOU: "There are two choices: (1) that the jury discredited that argument by finding regardless as to who the shooter was, this was no crime; or (2) you have to conclude that the jury was racially motivated white women. "

ME: "Isn't it (referring to posit 1) that the jury discredited that argument by finding regardless as to who the shooter was, the prosecution had not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that this was a crime?"

ME: "Since when is racism the only possible reason a jury can render an inappropriate verdict?"

By the way, I have already gone on record repeatedly as agreeing that the jury made the right decision so no need to bring up being offensive and hurtful to them.

" I would like to believe that most juries do the right thing regardless of racism so I actually answered your question and you proved my point."

You would like to believe it? Interesting way to put it. Well, look at the bright side - maybe what you would like to believe is actually the truth. I'm inclined to think so.

Sorry, I'm so dense but where did I prove your point and which point was it?

Pres. finally released a statement, but it was a lame in that it focused more on gun control than anything. I am for gun control, but that is not the real issue here.

Candidly, the racist are the NAACP and everyone else bashing this jury. The prosecutors argued in closing that if you reversed the roles, Martin was the shooter and you would convict Martin, then you got to convict Zimmerman. There are two choices: (1) that the jury discredited that argument by finding regardless as to who the shooter was, this was no crime; or (2) you have to conclude that the jury was racially motivated white women. Option two is nothing more than reverse racism itself against jurors we don't know.

You're the lawyer - isn't it that the jury discredited that argument by finding regardless as to who the shooter was, the prosecution had not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that this was a crime?

I've no doubt you know the difference between your characterization and mine. Oh, and since when is racism the only possible reason a jury can render an inappropriate verdict? You sound like the people you rightfully deride...

??????????????? You either miss the point conceptually or intentionally.

Everyone has resorted to saying that this jury of 6 white women could not render a fair verdict in this case. That was what I was addressing.

Judge Mathias on the radio this morning, lawyers for the Martin family on the radio this morning, Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton on TV this morning, and NAACP spokesperson on TV this morning.

Based on prosecution argument, the jury apparently did not believe that this was a crime regardless as to whether the roles were reserved. The NAACP and all of the above that I just mentioned are clearly reiterating over and over again that the jury would have convicted had the roles been reversed.

Again, I have no reason to suspect racism played any role in the jury verdict. I am saying that it is racism to suggest it did (NAACP, Judge Mathias, Sharpton, Jackson et al), when they don't know the individual jurors and have no idea what formed the basis of their decision.

Twist and turn it anyway you like, but it will still be reality that you chose to ignore.

Speaking of twisting and turning, can you answer my question?

The rest of your post has nothing to do with me.

In the state of Florida you have the right to defend yourself with a weapon if you feel you are in danger of losing life or limb.

...

Actually I think its even looser than that. You just have to have a FEAR based on your perception that you are in danger of any harm. Nothing about losing life or limb at all in the law! That law is very flawed. One's person perception of danger is wildly different than another. They use the word what a reasonable person would think but do not define what that means! The Florida law is DEEPLY flawed and massively in favor or the killers vs. the victims.

Jingthing: I have read many of your comments and have to wonder if you have been in a situation where you believed that your life was in danger from an attacker. I certainly don't get the impression that you have and that you don't know what it is like to be in the situation of having to do what ever is necessary to survive. You do what you have to do, period!

I keep seeing people posting as if it is a given fact that the defendant's story is true. And yet we simply don't know that.

For the record, IF his story was true and Martin's actions are as you and others describe, I don't blame Zimmerman for shooting and killing. And regardless, as I've said previously, I think the jury made the right verdict.

I simply don't understand why people are so certain that his story is true.

Zimmerman has alraedy been found not guilty. He is not on trial either.

But he lives and the consequences of killing the unarmed boy that night, which is NOT disputed, are not finished as long as he lives.

OJ got off too but Karma caught up with him later.

... OJ was the aggressor and the jury ignored the law and let him off anyway, but in this case Trayvon was the aggressor and Zimmerman killed in self defence.

Those are YOUR characterization a. Neither of those things were proven. Different scenarios are possible and plausible (granted, not so much with OJ), but no one was able to prove any of them either.

Self defence rules out either charge.

No it does not.

Of course it does. They were sensible enough to realize that there is no way for them to know what Trayvon might have done if he was not stopped and self defence rules out either charge.

How is it you know that's the conclusion they came to or that that is the course of their reasoning?

Pres. finally released a statement, but it was a lame in that it focused more on gun control than anything. I am for gun control, but that is not the real issue here.

Candidly, the racist are the NAACP and everyone else bashing this jury. The prosecutors argued in closing that if you reversed the roles, Martin was the shooter and you would convict Martin, then you got to convict Zimmerman. There are two choices: (1) that the jury discredited that argument by finding regardless as to who the shooter was, this was no crime; or (2) you have to conclude that the jury was racially motivated white women. Option two is nothing more than reverse racism itself against jurors we don't know.

You're the lawyer - isn't it that the jury discredited that argument by finding regardless as to who the shooter was, the prosecution had not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that this was a crime?

I've no doubt you know the difference between your characterization and mine. Oh, and since when is racism the only possible reason a jury can render an inappropriate verdict? You sound like the people you rightfully deride...

No-one really knows what happened that night. Only 1 person, really.

I find it odd that so many people have picked a side in this case, when no-one could really know.

Actually, there is quiet a bit of evidence. A lot of cases involving death of another have no eyewitnesses and recorded 911 calls during the event. There is a wealth of corroborative and scientific evidence in this case compared to many cases involving death of another. I once reviewed a case where the primary evidence was a half burned shoe in a fire pit as defendants wrapped body in rubber, burned it in a 55 gallon drum, crushed up bones with lime and spread the ashes in a river bed.

.

"Actually, there is quiet (sic) a bit of evidence."

Indeed. As a lawyer and an intelligent person, you know that that does not equate to knowing everything with complete certainty.

" A lot of cases involving death of another have no eyewitnesses and recorded 911 calls during the event. There is a wealth of corroborative and scientific evidence in this case compared to many cases involving death of another. I once reviewed a case where the primary evidence was a half burned shoe in a fire pit as defendants wrapped body in rubber, burned it in a 55 gallon drum, crushed up bones with lime and spread the ashes in a river bed."

All true, I'm sure. And again, that doesn't equate to knowing everything with complete certainty. I don't have to tell you that what is required in court is - and must be - far short of that kind of certainty.

Ok, I do not believe the death was racially motivated. Yes, I believe that the case was politicized from the very beginning and the powers that be will are weighing their options so as to minimize political risk. Be that play one ethnic group off against another or simply defer. US politics is nasty, although you are trying to associate my observation and analysis of these events with my own personal views. Which is obviously quite cynical of a gubbamint that has lied to me since I was a small child in nappies.

]

I apparently wasn't clear despite isolating the part of your post I was referring to. Since you have bothered to reply, I feel obligated to clarify:

"The real question is, what does Holder and the DOJ do? Do they go after Zimmerman with civil rights charges and appease the black community while further alienating the white and hispanic community -or- does he abide by the ruling of the jury and piss off the black community."

My point was that to break things down by race to such an extreme degree (eg assuming any further action taken against Zimmerman will further alienate the "white community" - or that said "community" is already alienated) is absudly simplistic and objectively false.

I have not "tried to associate your observation and analysis of these events with your own personal views.", but feel free to show me where I have.

By the way, I happen to think race was a factor and a sad fact is that it would be so not without cause (I wish it weren't so, but to pretend that in many situations, for many people, a young black male isn't viewed with some degree of prejudice is foolish. And sadly there is a reason for that aside from racism).

I have no doubt the case "was politicized from the very beginning and the powers that be will are weighing their options so as to minimize political risk." Which is to be expected.

One last time Joe. My answer is yes, I believe this administration is capable of these actions. No, I don't agree with them. It is the political climate of the US today, which is a disgrace. So if you feel I am bigoted for my position, so be it.

There is a comprehension problem here. Perhaps I am an even worse writer than I realized. I am not talking about the administration. I am talking about YOU and your oversimplified characterization of the way society is partitioned into racial groups that determine how they view this case and what happens next.

You say, "yes" and then give me an answer to a question I never asked. I don't know why you keep talking about something else. Nor do I know why you keep pretending that I am accusing you of something that I have not.

No-one really knows what happened that night. Only 1 person, really.

I find it odd that so many people have picked a side in this case, when no-one could really know.

Isn't that a bit naive?

You can't pick a side?

How about this...

On your backside being battered to death... or on topside dong the battering and no end in sight if we remove the gun from the picture?

How's that for choosing a side?

There's nothing naive about acknowledging an objective fact: only Mr. ZImmerman has a chance of knowing exactly what happened and why.

Your emotive language and imaginative descriptions of what MIGHT be the truth don't change that.

An objective fact? What fact in particular that has not already been covered in the trial? Do you mean an objective display of indecisiveness? The fact is already etched in stone. The jury decided that.

Saying that one can't decide indicates a lack of information which would render one unable to choose a side. The trial and subsequent jury decision proved this. In the beginning they could not choose a side and subsequently could be described as naive. In the end they chose a side which we could then subsequently describe them as informed.

This poster is saying - after the fact of one side winning the trial - that no one knows.

If no one knows, then why was there a trial? Answer: There was a trial because one side chose to pick a fight and the other side had more proof that their side bore more weight!

There is nothing emotive about having your face bashed in and using any measure within your immediate means to end that bashing. I don't know of anyone in their right mind who would allow it to go on beyond the first painful contact.

You seem to be bright enough to understand what is written but you are so feverishly biased that you will abandon all intellectual honesty and twist things however you want. But I'll humor you (because it amuses me):

"An objective fact? What fact in particular that has not already been covered in the trial? Do you mean an objective display of indecisiveness? The fact is already etched in stone. The jury decided that."

* The objective fact I spoke of couldn't be more clear in my post. 'An objective display of decisiveness etched in stone'? What a load of obfuscatory irrelevance. As is plain in my post, I was not talking about the trial or the jury.

"Saying that one can't decide indicates a lack of information which would render one unable to choose a side. The trial and subsequent jury decision proved this. In the beginning they could not choose a side and subsequently could be described as naive. In the end they chose a side which we could then subsequently describe them as informed."

* The jury didn't "choose a side" - that's a preposterous characterization. They ultimately rendered a verdict, based on available information (NOT by any means the ability to know every single fact) and how it was presented, that shows the prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. ZImmerman was guilty of any charges made against him.

By the way, you don't know what "naive" means.

"This poster is saying - after the fact of one side winning the trial - that no one knows."

That poster is saying, what is an objective fact, that no one knows precisely what happened or why other than Mr. Zimmerman (and even he can't know it all). A trial did not and could not show that to a degree of certainty beyond what suffices for a verdict.

As it happens, I made no comment about the trial;as a matter of fact I am inclined to believe that, given the respective cases and how they were made, the jury made the right choice in legal terms and the one they should have made.

"If no one knows, then why was there a trial? Answer: There was a trial because one side chose to pick a fight and the other side had more proof that their side bore more weight!"

Your answer is correct. Your question, with its if clause, is nonsensical (drop that and it makes sense): you try so hard to make your conclusions appear to be a refutation of fact that you pretend that the fact there was a trial means that someone beside Mr. Zimmerman knows precisely what happened and why - but you know full well it means no such thing.

There is nothing emotive about having your face bashed in and using any measure within your immediate means to end that bashing. I don't know of anyone in their right mind who would allow it to go on beyond the first painful contact.

"There is nothing emotive about having your face bashed in and using any measure within your immediate means to end that bashing. I don't know of anyone in their right mind who would allow it to go on beyond the first painful contact."

Strawman. Nothing to do with what I posted.

The simple fact is that it may have happene exactly as you so desperately need to believe. It also may not have. Indeed it may have been quite different. You can not claim to know with certainty - not if you are rational and honest.

No-one really knows what happened that night. Only 1 person, really.

I find it odd that so many people have picked a side in this case, when no-one could really know.

Isn't that a bit naive?

You can't pick a side?

How about this...

On your backside being battered to death... or on topside dong the battering and no end in sight if we remove the gun from the picture?

How's that for choosing a side?

There's nothing naive about acknowledging an objective fact: only Mr. ZImmerman has a chance of knowing exactly what happened and why.

Your emotive language and imaginative descriptions of what MIGHT be the truth don't change that.

Let's have a sense of perspective please. Stalin is not reviled, and Mao is still a hero in some quarters ( and they probably killed more people than Hitler ), not to forget Guavera, Begin ( a terrorist that went on to become a PM, like Mugabe ) and others. Hitler was a very bad man in a world full of very bad men but not unique by any means.

If you don't get upset by them, why pick on Hitler?

Your use of "perspective" is rather ironic.

* It's an odd and rather distasteful moral equivalency you try to employ with your group. To suggest there are no degrees of wrongdoing is simply illogical and ugly moral relativism.

* Hitler was unique as are the others in you list and they have little in common between them (Hitler and his nemesis Uncle Joe being closer than the rest, mind you). Unless you think their lives and the consequences of their actions can be reasonably reduced to the most simplistic terms (ie they were bad, lots of people died).

* As for you rod assumption at the end, speaking for myself, I don't get upset by them (I don't even know what that means - upset by the fact that they once lived? No. Upset, to varying degrees, by what they did? Yes.), but I do and would object strongly to any suggestion that (with the possible exception of Begin) they were heroic or somehow not that important because they deeds are long past and the have been lots of other bad people before and since.

There have been some lame and ugly attempts to dismiss this incident - which by the way, I don't see as a huge deal - and yours goes on that list I should think.

Things just got a little more complicated.

Pakistan Taliban set up camps in Syria, join anti-Assad war

This cannot end well.

I've said many times that the extremists groups being sheltered in Pakistan are a major threat that has not been addressed.

From a Reuters report

"Ahmed Rashid, a prominent Pakistani author and expert on the Taliban, said sending Taliban fighters to Syria was likely to be appreciated as an act of loyalty towards their al Qaeda allies. “The Pakistani Taliban have remained a sort surrogate of al Qaeda. We’ve got all these foreigners up there in FATA who are being looked after or trained by the Pakistani Taliban,” said Rashid, who is based in Lahore."

Be interesting to know if this has been going on for a long time or in response to Iran and Hezbollah sending combatants to support the Shiite dictatorship in Syria.

And, as you know, the greater danger is that such groups are sheltered in Pakistan - by that I mean not only the groups themselves are a danger but (as I've been saying for about 15 years - in part because I've been listening to Rashid and others) the fact that the situation is such that they can find shelter there is equally worrying if not more so.

Ok, I do not believe the death was racially motivated. Yes, I believe that the case was politicized from the very beginning and the powers that be will are weighing their options so as to minimize political risk. Be that play one ethnic group off against another or simply defer. US politics is nasty, although you are trying to associate my observation and analysis of these events with my own personal views. Which is obviously quite cynical of a gubbamint that has lied to me since I was a small child in nappies.

]

I apparently wasn't clear despite isolating the part of your post I was referring to. Since you have bothered to reply, I feel obligated to clarify:

"The real question is, what does Holder and the DOJ do? Do they go after Zimmerman with civil rights charges and appease the black community while further alienating the white and hispanic community -or- does he abide by the ruling of the jury and piss off the black community."

My point was that to break things down by race to such an extreme degree (eg assuming any further action taken against Zimmerman will further alienate the "white community" - or that said "community" is already alienated) is absudly simplistic and objectively false.

I have not "tried to associate your observation and analysis of these events with your own personal views.", but feel free to show me where I have.

By the way, I happen to think race was a factor and a sad fact is that it would be so not without cause (I wish it weren't so, but to pretend that in many situations, for many people, a young black male isn't viewed with some degree of prejudice is foolish. And sadly there is a reason for that aside from racism).

I have no doubt the case "was politicized from the very beginning and the powers that be will are weighing their options so as to minimize political risk." Which is to be expected.

the answer to this is easy. Germans have been in Thaialand a long time. they have been slowly inserting a German history into Thailand, it has been absorbed into the curiculum over the years when Thailand wanted to know what to teach students. Now indeed Hitler is held up next to cpt america.

Nice one!

Wait...you ARE joking, right?

"It was not that many years ago when everyone in the US was armed with a side arm and a long rifle if mounted. As short 120 years ago."

You've been watching to many cowboy movies. That wasn't even true in the "wild west", let alone the entire US.

You obviously know nothing of US history is my only response to this.

And a fine response it is, of you are deliberately trying to make me chuckle (and yourself look foolish): while I'd never claim to be an expert, modern history (especially US) has been a hobby most of my life. however, one needn't know much at all to know this rather basic fact. In frontier towns, nowhere near everyone - not even all males - was armed and even fewer in the relatively vast part of the country that was settled and urbanized. Not mention the fact that in many towns, people who did carry weapons were required to turn them in to local law enforcement while in town limits.

Who gives a hoot about frontier towns? WTH are you arguing about? and why?

A person made a fallacious claim to somehow support his position (I agree, it was ridiculous) and then tried to defend it with an ad hominem.

I replied.

Hope that helps.

"It was not that many years ago when everyone in the US was armed with a side arm and a long rifle if mounted. As short 120 years ago."

You've been watching to many cowboy movies. That wasn't even true in the "wild west", let alone the entire US.

You obviously know nothing of US history is my only response to this.

And a fine response it is, of you are deliberately trying to make me chuckle (and yourself look foolish): while I'd never claim to be an expert, modern history (especially US) has been a hobby most of my life. however, one needn't know much at all to know this rather basic fact. In frontier towns, nowhere near everyone - not even all males - was armed and even fewer in the relatively vast part of the country that was settled and urbanized. Not mention the fact that in many towns, people who did carry weapons were required to turn them in to local law enforcement while in town limits.

It was not that many years ago when everyone in the US was armed with a side arm and a long rifle if mounted. As short 120 years ago. There was a reason that people were armed and that is because you needed to defend your life in a violent world. Many are still armed today for this very reason. If you are going to attack another person with malice and intent, then that person should be able to defend his life. The courts realize this and that is why the laws are on the books. You do the crime, be prepared to pay for it with your life. Some forget this and think of Martin as the victim in this case, regardless of what the court and jury finds. No sense arguing the semantics as there will always be two distinct, polarized views on the topic.

The real question is, what does Holder and the DOJ do? Do they go after Zimmerman with civil rights charges and appease the black community while further alienating the white and hispanic community -or- does he abide by the ruling of the jury and piss off the black community. The POTUS also has political skin in this case after publicly taking a position. Which ever way they lean, they are screwed.

"It was not that many years ago when everyone in the US was armed with a side arm and a long rifle if mounted. As short 120 years ago."

You've been watching to many cowboy movies. That wasn't even true in the "wild west", let alone the entire US.

"Some forget this and think of Martin as the victim in this case, regardless of what the court and jury finds."

He may have been a victim and Zimmerman still rightfully acquitted: the jury did not determine that Martin was not a victim, merely that Zimmerman could not be found guilty.

"The real question is, what does Holder and the DOJ do? Do they go after Zimmerman with civil rights charges and appease the black community while further alienating the white and hispanic community -or- does he abide by the ruling of the jury and piss off the black community."

Do you actually believe such simplistic and bigoted nonsense as that?

It's not a matter of whether I believe it or not, it is the fact that the case was politicized with severe racial overtones from the outset. Zimmerman was found guilty by the media the day he was charged with the crime. Blame the culture of the US, not me.

You yourself admitted not being up to speed on the timeline and details of the case. I'll help you out with a timeline.

GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT: HOW THE PRESS PROSECUTED ZIMMERMAN WHILE STOKING RACIAL TENSIONS

Follow link for timeline over events.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/07/13/Media-Zimmerman-Coverage-Rap-Sheet

It is a matter of what you believe as I am asking you about YOUR posit. No link can answer my question to you.

And what I said was, I was not as informed about the case as UG - giving him the benefit of the doubt, as he kept citing a "preponderance evidence" without any more detail than that.

Your racial analysis is WRONG.

White liberals want Zimmerman to pay for the murder.

Latinos largely want the same thing as white liberals.

Its simplistic to assume they side with the killer Zimmerman because he is 1/2 Hispanic.

Of course most of the black community also wants Zimmerman to pay.

Right wing whites mostly want to gloss this over and for this to be over now.

But it is NOT over.

Yes it's a very divisive situation.

When you add the white liberals, majority of Latinos, and almost all blacks, you've got a MAJORITY of Americans who still care that the killer faces the consequences of his actions.

BTW, Zimmerman can potentially face the death penalty under federal charges. Not saying that will happen, but it's interesting that it is even possible.

It seems like almost everybody wants Zimmerman to pay - except the people who saw the evidence.

Why don't these people focus their energies on the hundreds of "Trayvons" gunned down in Chicago every year? Is it somehow OK to kill you blacks if it is another black doing the killing?

"You blacks..."?

Zimmerman ignored the fatally wounded Martin because Zimmerman had done what he set out to do.

Kill.

Another poster who has magical powers.

Your post misrepresents me, cynically and arrogantly so.

It did? A joke (admittedly mocking your bold claim) misrepresented you? How?

You state, as if it is absolute fact, what Zimmerman's intent was. You could rightly only do so with the help of supernatural gifts - hence my facetious comment.

But tell me - how have I misrepresented you? (Let alone cynically and arrogantly).

It was not that many years ago when everyone in the US was armed with a side arm and a long rifle if mounted. As short 120 years ago. There was a reason that people were armed and that is because you needed to defend your life in a violent world. Many are still armed today for this very reason. If you are going to attack another person with malice and intent, then that person should be able to defend his life. The courts realize this and that is why the laws are on the books. You do the crime, be prepared to pay for it with your life. Some forget this and think of Martin as the victim in this case, regardless of what the court and jury finds. No sense arguing the semantics as there will always be two distinct, polarized views on the topic.

The real question is, what does Holder and the DOJ do? Do they go after Zimmerman with civil rights charges and appease the black community while further alienating the white and hispanic community -or- does he abide by the ruling of the jury and piss off the black community. The POTUS also has political skin in this case after publicly taking a position. Which ever way they lean, they are screwed.

"It was not that many years ago when everyone in the US was armed with a side arm and a long rifle if mounted. As short 120 years ago."

You've been watching to many cowboy movies. That wasn't even true in the "wild west", let alone the entire US.

"Some forget this and think of Martin as the victim in this case, regardless of what the court and jury finds."

He may have been a victim and Zimmerman still rightfully acquitted: the jury did not determine that Martin was not a victim, merely that Zimmerman could not be found guilty.

"The real question is, what does Holder and the DOJ do? Do they go after Zimmerman with civil rights charges and appease the black community while further alienating the white and hispanic community -or- does he abide by the ruling of the jury and piss off the black community."

Do you actually believe such simplistic and bigoted nonsense as that?