- The American Conservative - http://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Us

Smitty [1],” the Other McCain’s other blogger seems to be a bit confused about the charges against George Zimmerman:

If the Left had facts, they’d pound the facts. If they had law, they’d pound the law. Having neither, they’re setting up to pound the courts.

. . .The judge is going to apply reason, and reject this, and the Left is going to cry foul. . .

The Left will blame the courts, and try to use this as a rallying point to whip up the troops about these ‘activist’ judges who are denying ‘justice’ to Trayvon. What a despicable, evil act that will be, if it unfolds that way. I’d like to be wrong, but the patter of the last three years is nothing if not consistent in its diabolical, omnidirectional attack on all we hold dear.

The interesting question, after all this, will be George Zimmerman’s take. He’s being crucified on the false cross of the Left’s quest for power. Does he break, and blame himself, or does he realize what a sick, Satanic scam the Left is running?

So allow me to clarify for him. Zimmerman isn’t charged with “raaaaacism [2]” and he isn’t charged with Crimes Against Obama. He’s charged with second degree murder because he shot and killed somebody. As it turns out, Bill Ayers isn’t the governor of Florida and Saul Alinsky isn’t the prosecutor—Florida’s Republican Governor, Rick Scott [3] appointed Angela Corey to investigate the case.

From the available evidence, the conservative movement these days is little more than a tribe and the important issue in any public dispute is who is Us and who is Them. Smitty and his fellow rightwingers seem to have decided that George Zimmerman is one of Us.

UPDATE: Smitty replies [4] and denies seeing Zimmerman as one of “Us” but he can’t  discuss the case without reference to a series of “Them.” My favorite comment compares [5] me to my least favorite magazine editor. “I see that Stooksbury’s Rich Lowry Dress Up Kit arrived in the mail.”

Comments Disabled (Open | Close)

Comments Disabled To "Us"

#1 Pingback By Clarifying Friday’s Trayvon Martin Post : The Other McCain On April 15, 2012 @ 12:14 pm

[…] disgusting, propaganda-driven spectacle to which I was reacting in the post.Blind to point #2, the concern trolls come out:Zimmerman isn’t charged with “raaaaacism” and he isn’t charged with Crimes Against […]

#2 Comment By Tony J On April 15, 2012 @ 12:17 pm

“From the available evidence, the conservative movement these days is little more than a tribe and the important issue in any public dispute is who is Us and who is Them. Smitty and his fellow rightwingers seem to have decided that George Zimmerman is one of Us.”

That sound you hear is the sonic detonation of many hands clapping at the same time.

IMHO…

Reason Number Two for why the conservative movement has taken Zimmerman’s side is because his entire defence (and the defence of the Sanford PD and the local DA) revolves around the awesomeness of ”Stand Your Ground’ laws. The murder of Trayvon Martin makes those laws look really, really stupid, and that just can’t be allowed. Obfuscation, smear-the-victim and good old lying have been deployed to keep – that – issue off the front page.

Reason Number One? Well, a black kid was shot by someone of a lighter complexion and other black people were raising a fuss about the lack of an investigation. What side you’re on in an argument like that is very much the definition of a modern conservative purity test.

#3 Comment By TomB On April 15, 2012 @ 2:09 pm

Tony J wrote:

“Reason Number Two for why the conservative movement has taken Zimmerman’s side is because his entire defence (and the defence of the Sanford PD and the local DA) revolves around the awesomeness of ”Stand Your Ground’ laws. The murder of Trayvon Martin makes those laws look really, really stupid….”

Tony, Zimmerman hasn’t even *invoked* the SYG law in Florida yet, and in addition there’s no way he is going to rest “his entire defense” on it.

As I recently noted in that other recent threat here, it seems the SYG law in Florida mostly grants a *procedural* right—that is, a right to fight a prosecution before it gets to a jury that is.

Otherwise it merely says that no, you don’t have to retreat if in fear of your life or fundamental safety … but *only* if you are not an “aggressor.”

So your factual assertion here is just not so I’d say, and as to the opinion part of what you say, just what do you find so “stupid” about the law? The mere additional procedural right it gives—both to aggressors and non-aggressors?

Or the right of non-aggressors to stand their ground?

Because that’s about the entire warp and woof of the law as I’ve read it.

As to your assertion that modern conservatives are on Zimmerman’s side due to his lighter hue than Martin’s, I too pick up a little of that I think. But, on the other hand, don’t you also smell some of the siding with Martin due to the fact that he was *darker*? And aren’t *both* equally condemnable?

#4 Comment By Mitchell Young On April 15, 2012 @ 3:05 pm

First, the very premise of this post is wrong, as many ‘conservatives’ have unquestioningly swallowed the Martin/Fulton family, Al Sharpton line from the beginning.

But you’d think that after falling hook, line, and sinker for (in the useful phrase of Paul Kersey) Organize Blackness’s presentation of the this ‘case’, only to see that presentation be utterly crushed by blow after blow of actual facts, Mr. Stooksbury would be a little more cautious on the second go-round.

Let’s review some so of those facts and non-facts. Zimmerman’s gashes to the head, Zimmerman’s obviously not being 240lbs, Zimmerman’s being ‘let go’ (nope, he was detained and questioned), Zimmerman’s ‘profiling’ (turned out he was being asked a description of the person he was calling police about), Trayvon Martin not being the 11 year old boy so-often pictured in the media, there ‘not being an investigation (six witness statements, physical evidence etc, questioning Zimmerman immediately and then multiple follow-ups).

In fact, Zimmerman is being indicted due to the potential violence of Al Sharpton’s army. And in fact his is being indicted because of ‘raaaacism’ — the prosecutor actually was idiotic to write that Zimmerman ‘profiled’ in the indictment. And let’s get real here — any prosecutor who starts of presenting an indictment with talking about how she just got off the phone with the ‘sweet parents’ of alleged murder victim, how she ‘prayed with them’, is not an officer of the court seeking justice, but a politically motivated actor.

As a white man, George Zimmerman is not one of my tribe. But that’s the whole point — Organized Blackness and its liberal (and now apparently ‘conservative’) enablers– wants this guy’s blood as a one of the periodic sacrifices we must make to *their tribe* (cops trying to protect the community from out of control ‘motorists’, ‘privileged’ Duke lacrosse players, high school kids in Lousiana, etc). Well, a lot of us are done with that game.

#5 Comment By Sands On April 15, 2012 @ 3:48 pm

“…other black people were raising a fuss about the lack of an investigation.”

No, they were raising a fuss over the lack of charges being filed, evidence be damned. We really don’t know how thorough the Sanford police department investigation was, do we? Reading the affidavit of probable cause submitted to a judge the other day, it appears that this prosecutor is using the same information obtained by the original (Sanford PD) investigation.

Now the prosecutor doesn’t think she has enough evidence for a grand jury indictment (you know what they say about indictments and ham sandwiches), so maybe the Sanford PD didn’t conduct a thorough investigation. Or maybe, just maybe, there just isn’t enough evidence and this prosecutor is playing politics with a man’s life. And maybe — GASP! — the original prosecutor had it right all along.

This idea that police officers risked being charged with felonies and prison time just to protect a guy that had been arrested and charged just a few years back for allegedly assaulting one of their own is the result of paranoia..

#6 Comment By Scott Lahti On April 15, 2012 @ 3:53 pm

“… the conservative movement these days is little more than a tribe and the important issue in any public dispute is who is Us and who is Them”

One more reason that the best depiction of such matters, as of all matters not purely technical/instrumental, comes not from the usual array of opinion columnists, talking heads, and the fuglemen for divers ideological camps, but from the better sort of fictioneer, essayist, journalist-as-artist, or – heaven help us – depth-charging knight of the Viennese couching caste.

A friend and fellow writer emailed me recently:

It’s amazing but it seems that THE defining trait of “conservatives” is their overwhelming need to believe and feel that they are persecuted. It seems they need this to make sense of the world and feel okay, it helps them explain to themselves why they are not doing better than they are, or as well as they DESERVE and why the world isn’t the meritocratic place that accords them the proper fruits of their labor and proper degree of recognition and esteem that would otherwise flow from their inherent goodness: it’s because there are so many that have it in for them.

… the people and “analyses” and agendas [they] so [love] and [take] to heart are offered up far more to manipulate [them] and so much less than sincere efforts to Change the World. There is nothing quite so edifying or memorable in this world as the realization that You’ve Been Had; that so many others are opportunistic manipulators who don’t give a rat’s ass (now where the hell does that expression come from?) about you or what you care about but are playing you for their own purposes.

#7 Comment By Mike P On April 15, 2012 @ 4:20 pm

If, a big if, Zimmerman’s story is accurate, “stand no ground” will play no role at all in his defense because he had no chance to withdraw, being on the ground with someone on top of him.

This is going to be a traditional self defense case and its going to be decided upon whether he can prove that he was resonably in fear of his life or of serious injury.

#8 Comment By sal magundi On April 15, 2012 @ 5:37 pm

“It’s amazing but it seems that THE defining trait of “conservatives” is their overwhelming need to believe and feel that they are persecuted.”

this is 100% spot-on and is the root of the matter.

#9 Comment By SVT On April 15, 2012 @ 5:56 pm

The favorable comments from the likes of Lahti and Tony J are condemnation enough of this post.

#10 Comment By Joe Cloud On April 15, 2012 @ 8:39 pm

It seems to me that the moment Zimmerman got out of the car to confront Martin he became the agressor.

#11 Comment By Thomas O. Meehan On April 15, 2012 @ 10:18 pm

OK let’s make this simple. Property owners/normal people living in proximity to large black populations are the modern historical analogues of the Texicans to the Comanches. If you haven’t had your property stolen over and over. If you haven’t experienced black casual violence and and disorderliness, you are not in a position to judge.

To live in proximity to large concentrations of blacks is to live in under frontier conditions. The depredations of the “natives” are routine, and resistance is problematic. It is precisely for this reason that Whites abandoned the cities. Zimmerman naïvely assumed that he would be understood to be doing the right thing in defending his neighborhood from the obvious threat. How naive. The only acceptable response to Black criminality and disorder is to move. Resistance is futile!

#12 Comment By TomB On April 16, 2012 @ 5:45 am

Joe Cloud wrote:

“It seems to me that the moment Zimmerman got out of the car to confront Martin he became the agressor [sic].”

Just for the record, I believe the relevant Florida law (a section of the SYG law) is Sec. 776.041 which defines an “aggressor” as one who:

“(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself….”

While I suppose Joe might disagree I very much doubt that the law would say that Zimmerman merely getting out of his car is “provocation” enough. (Think of the precedent it would set!)

Interestingly enough it should be noted that even if you *were* the “aggressor,” contrary to the idea that the law is some sort of vigilante thing if the tables are non-lethally turned on such an aggressor the table-turner in no way has the right to just willy-nilly shoot or kill the former aggressor. If the aggressor retreats, that is, the former victim does not then have the right to shoot or kill them. And the former aggressor *themselves* have the right to defend themselves with lethal force. Or, to put it another way, the former aggressor still has the full measure of the traditional right of self-defense that everyone has. (They just don’t have the stand your ground right and have to first retreat.)

My suspicion is that as more people actually understand what the Fla. SYG law is there’s going to be far less spoken against it.

I’d also say that a larger if mostly sotto voce message that’s sort of being transmitted here somewhat bothers me, and that is the subtext of an attack on the traditional idea that it is a good thing for a person to be watching out for their neighbors and neighborhoods in general. And perhaps also that the self-esteem of people—especially youths, and maybe especially Black youths—is so great that if they are merely challenged as to whether they belong where they are that this then justifies them physically attacking whoever has challenged them.

“Yes yes,” that is, someone perverse might say, “that’s what’s good for America. Tell people they have no right and that it’s stupid to be looking out for their neighborhoods. Especially Black neighborhoods with bad crime problems. Tell the good people in those neighborhoods to just mind their own business and never speak up for their neighbors welfare.”

Of course that might not be the full intentional message, but it is sort of the message that I see as being taken.

And then there’s the idea of youth—or indeed anybody being so righteously imbued with self-esteem that nobody can even verbally challenge them even in obvious suspicious circumstances. Or at least nobody can challenge them without justifiably getting a roundhouse to the nose in return.

Is *that* what we really are suffering a dearth of? A lack of self-esteem amongst our youth? And is *that* the degree of respect we have to give such self-esteem when it’s there? So that a mere verbal challenge to it merits a physical assault in return?

Yeah right. *That*s what the youth of America need.

#13 Comment By MattW On April 16, 2012 @ 8:55 am

It seems to me that the moment Zimmerman got out of the car to confront Martin he became the agressor.

Wrong. you do not have the right to beat up people who are following you or asking you questions.

This post was awful, but it’s Stooksbury so what do you expect? Maybe one day Mother Jones will call and rid us of him.

#14 Comment By Socrates On April 16, 2012 @ 10:30 am

“Wrong. you do not have the right to beat up people who are following you or asking you questions.”

Oh, right! Being stalked by an armed man is nothing to worry about.

#15 Comment By Red Phillips On April 16, 2012 @ 11:16 am

It is true that mainstream conservatives tend to see things as us against them, but the left is at least equally guilty of this. (I know this because as a member of the non-mainstream right I am often counted as one of the other by some of the more clueless members of the mainstream right.) Go to the Daily Kos and the rantings of the PC grandstanders there make Smitty look like Socrates.

But Mr. Stooksbury leaves out an important point when he mentions the Gov. of Florida and the special prosecutor. What does the Gov. and a special prosecutor have to do with a local law enforcement issue? The local DA was not going to press charges. The Gov. and his special prosecutor didn’t get involved until they didn’t get the results they wanted from local law enforcement. Now they got their charges. How convenient. The skepticism that Florida is sacrificing Zimmerman to the braying mob is entirely warranted.

#16 Comment By Tony J On April 16, 2012 @ 11:25 am

TomB,

I think we’re talking about slightly different things here. I was referring to why the ‘conservative movement’ has jumped into Zimmerman’s corner. From the moment it first hit the news every argument I’ve seen from the Right defending the decision to let him walk free without an investigation has revolved around the SYG law.

No, Zimmerman – himself – hasn’t to my knowledge mentioned the SYG law, but his initial claim (since proven false by the leaked 911 tapes) was that he just happened to be in the area looking at street signs when he was attacked out of the blue and defended himself, and all of his subsequent statements have tried to paint a picture of himself as being the victim of an unprovoked assault.

Remember, the reason he wasn’t arrested and charged – as the homicide cop who was actually on the scene when he was taken into custody thought he should be – was because the local DA met with the Sanford Chief of Police and specifically invoked the SYG law to justify letting him walk.

Why do I think the SYG law is stupid? Putting it as succinctly as I can, the law basically boils down to this – if you shoot and kill someone all you have to do is claim that, at the moment you pulled the trigger, regardless of the circumstances that led to the confrontation, you simply ‘felt’ you were ‘in fear of your life’, and the Police – have – to take your word for it or run the risk of getting sued for millions if they can’t provide proof of guilt – in advance – of their investigation. That’s insane. It’s a licence to kill with a built in financial imperative for the Police not to investigate, and it gives all of these advantages to any shooter smart enough not to leave the sole witness who – could – give a different version of events (i.e. the victim) alive.

I’d call that a stupid law, YMMV.

As to the racial overtones of the case, I have to say that it’s pretty hard to condemn the people who have been protesting the decision to let the killer of an innocent black teenager walk free without an investigation just because the killer said he was defending himself, especially when the Sanford PD out-and-out lied about what they knew about the circumstances of Trayvon Martin’s death to justify their non-investigation. How is it in any way strange or condemnable for American blacks and non-racists to find this outrageous and threatening?

The tidal-wave of racist bile directed at Trayvon Martin from the Right, OTOH, makes it – very – easy for me to condemn the people doing it.

Again, YMMV, but I can’t bend reality enough to view this case through a ‘both sides do it’ lens. The scales do not balance.

#17 Comment By Tony J On April 16, 2012 @ 12:04 pm

Sands,

“No, they were raising a fuss over the lack of charges being filed, evidence be damned.”

No, like I said, they were (and are) raising a fuss about the Sanford PD letting a killer walk free based solely on his claim of self-defence.

“We really don’t know how thorough the Sanford police department investigation was, do we?”

Actually, we do. What it boils down to was that there wasn’t one, because a decision was made that any investigation would have laid them open to getting sued under the provisions of the SYG law.

What we – do – know is that statements made by the Sanford PD after the killing to defend their lack of an investigation have been proven false.

“Reading the affidavit of probable cause submitted to a judge the other day, it appears that this prosecutor is using the same information obtained by the original (Sanford PD) investigation.”

And since she’s going for a charge of 2nd degree murder, shouldn’t that make you think that maybe the Sanford PD weren’t entirely honest in their appraisal of the evidence they had?

“Now the prosecutor doesn’t think she has enough evidence for a grand jury indictment (you know what they say about indictments and ham sandwiches), so maybe the Sanford PD didn’t conduct a thorough investigation.”

You only ask for a Grand Jury when you – don’t – think you have a strong enough case to go straight for a normal trial. IANAL, but that’s what the ones I’ve asked have told me. A Grand Jury is (simplified) a means of dredging up evidence from people who would really rather not give it. If your case is already tight, you don’t need it.

And no, the Sanford PD didn’t conduct an investigation. They did take Zimmerman’s statement and attempt to correct witnesses who told them they’d heard Trayvon Martin screaming for help before he was shot. And they did claim that he was showing signs of physical assault that magically vanished half-an-hour later when he was shown entering the Police station.

I’m assuming these facts might turn out to be included in the prosecution’s case.

” Or maybe, just maybe, there just isn’t enough evidence and this prosecutor is playing politics with a man’s life. And maybe — GASP! — the original prosecutor had it right all along.”

What possible benefit could a Florida prosecutor derive from ‘playing politics’ if her case isn’t going to get her a conviction? How does she benefit? Her career would be ruined. Occam’s Razor, and all that.

And the original prosecutor, the local DA, based his decision on the SYG law. Since then all of the statements I’ve heard from the people who drafted and passed that law in the first place have been very clear that Zimmerman’s admitted conduct on that night does – not – meet that standard. So, no, it really – doesn’t – look like the DA had it right.

“This idea that police officers risked being charged with felonies and prison time just to protect a guy that had been arrested and charged just a few years back for allegedly assaulting one of their own is the result of paranoia.”

Really? When you’ve actually got evidence right there in front of your eyes that that’s exactly what the Sanford Chief of Police and the local DA decided to do?

It’s paranoid to look at the statements the Police made after the killing and conclude they were lying to protect Zimmerman, but it’s – not – paranoid to think that a Republican prosecutor in Florida is part of a conspiracy to railroad George Zimmerman by bringing a case to court she knows she’ll lose?

Projection. It’s lighting up the moon at this wattage.

#18 Comment By Thomas O. Meehan On April 16, 2012 @ 12:06 pm

MattW, brabo, my sentiments as well. And he can take Dreher with him.

#19 Comment By E On April 16, 2012 @ 12:33 pm

The “issue” here is that Stooksbury is plainly guilty of what he accuses “mainstream” conservatives of being. He is acting tribally. Whenever someone from the “base” says something, he mechanically takes the opposite position, because they are allegedly “phony conservatives” (though it is unclear how his understanding of “real” conservatism differs in any meaningful way from the writers of the aforementioned Mother Jones).

The media (and many, though not all, left-wing commentators) are being sharply criticized for legitimate reasons. Disingenuously posing as defenders of civil liberties, they have manufactured an environment of hysteria that is seriously jeopardizing the accused’s right to a fair trial (if not indeed his life). The uncomfortable fact that many of the right-wing pundits who are (rightly) calling attention to this irresponsible behavior happen to include the likes of certain talk radio personalities and bloggers who shill for the Republican party are not relevant here, and should not prevent someone with sound principles from rising above their own tribalism and acknowledging valid criticisms.

#20 Comment By TomB On April 16, 2012 @ 1:28 pm

Tony wrote:

“I was referring to why the ‘conservative movement’ has jumped into Zimmerman’s corner. From the moment it first hit the news every argument I’ve seen from the Right defending the decision to let him walk free without an investigation has revolved around the SYG law.”

Well of course I can’t account for what you’ve seen but in the first place right here on this blog right from the start we’ve seen people “in Zimmerman’s corner” invoking not the SYG law specifically but just the traditional old right of self-defense. And, given that the SYG law of course is so heavily concerned with self-defense, it would be unusual in the extreme for people concerned from the self-defense perspective to *not* just naturally be mentioning it.

In other words, we’ve seen this situation before in other jurisdictions at other times where there was no SYG law, and sure enough even then we saw “conservative” minded people talking self-defense there. So even though, unlike you, I don’t know what’s particularly wrong with the SYG law—I’ll get to that in a second—I don’t think it’s correct to say that the “conservative” reaction has solely been concerned with that law. I think it’s the self-defense aspect more generally, and I don’t know what’s wrong with that.

As to the “stupidity” of the SYG law then you wrote that you feel “the law basically boils down to this – if you shoot and kill someone all you have to do is claim that, at the moment you pulled the trigger, regardless of the circumstances that led to the confrontation, you simply ‘felt’ you were ‘in fear of your life’, and the Police – have – to take your word for it or run the risk of getting sued for millions if they can’t provide proof of guilt – in advance – of their investigation.”

But Tony, given that the only substantive aspect of Florida’s SYG law (and for “non-aggressors” only) merely says you don’t have to retreat, your logic extends then to condemning even the classic, traditional common-law right of self-defense!

Because, even then, in your words, in addition to merely adding that you retreated, “all you have to do is claim that, at the moment you pulled the trigger, regardless of the circumstances that led to the confrontation, you simply ‘felt’ you were ‘in fear of your life’.”

And, to correct one other thing in your thesis, there’s nothing in either the SYG law or the traditional common-law right of self-defense that says the police “simply have to take your word for it.” In that respect they are exactly the same. The same … as with *any* defenses presented to the cops with *any* crimes.

That said, I know you are exactly and indeed keenly right to grasp that there is a problematic aspect of what’s involved here: That, i.e., when you have a dead person the only word that’s out there is coming from the live one.

But *lots* of legal controversies have to deal with similar bad circumstances. Car crashes where one driver is killed or rendered unable to talk or has amnesia, and etc. and so forth.

So what do you do? Again if we take your logic we just totally refuse to recognize the right of self-defense altogether. And presumably in the automobile scenario refuse to listen to whatever the surviving driver says.

But, clearly, that’s not fair, nor even very smart or workable, and so the law has addressed the bad situation and taken into account the problem via a variety of ways, consistent with our other standards of justice: With the ability to ignore non-credible, self-serving testimony, with presumptions about what to believe and not, and burdens of proof, and the requirement that such burdens be met only with evidence, and only again with *credible* evidence.

And again there’s nothing in the SYG law that says the police simply “have to take your word for it” or anything of the sort. *All* of what might be evidence is considered, just as with all other laws.

So for instance even when Zimmerman invokes the SYG law—as I believe he certainly will—*all* he’s getting is (1) the right to go into Court before the jury meets and (2) the opportunity to be free of further prosecution if but only if he can show, by a preponderance of the credible evidence (and a Court just like a jury can always utterly throw out whatever he says as being non-credible), that:

(A) he was *not* the aggressor and he was *reasonably* put in fear for his life or fundamental physical safety, or

(B) even if he *was* the initial aggressor that he stopped his aggression and, essentially, that Martin at that point became the aggressor and pursued him and that he—Zimmerman—then retreated as far as he could from the Martin youngster but was still put in reasonable fear for his life or fundamental safety.

And if there was no SYG law the only difference would be that Zimmerman would have to wait for a jury, but he would still be able to insist that the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was *not* put in fear of his life or fundamental safety, or that if he was that he then did not retreat.

Thus the SYG law here, in its substantive importance (“no retreat” required sometimes), may well make absolutely no difference whatsoever here Tony.

But even if it did, again I fail to see the complaint. As I asked of another poster here on another thread earlier without getting a response: Given that the sole real guts of what’s new in SYG here is that “no retreat” provision for non-aggressors, how in the world does anyone justify that?

How in the world does society tell me that when some killer is attacking me that *he* has the right to keep advancing until I have nowhere left to run because *I* have the obligation to keep retreating?

Like I said, we forget that whenever we take away a right from one person, you’re giving some right to someone else.

#21 Comment By Frank On April 16, 2012 @ 1:30 pm

@MIkeP,

If Zimmerman’s story is accurate, self-defense might not even play for him, as he was the pursuer, the “aggressor”. The 911 recording confirms this, and supposedly his statements have made this case that he was pursing the kid, not just some guy out for a walk who was attacked.

It seems that if you seek out trouble, and then find it, you are not engaging in self-defense. Thus, also the reason for a 2nd degree murder, instead of a manslaughter charge.

#22 Comment By Red Phillips On April 16, 2012 @ 1:53 pm

Tony J,

“And since she’s going for a charge of 2nd degree murder, shouldn’t that make you think that maybe the Sanford PD weren’t entirely honest in their appraisal of the evidence they had?”

Or, perhaps, she is responding to the mob baying for charges, a mob that includes the President of the United States.

“What possible benefit could a Florida prosecutor derive from ‘playing politics’ if her case isn’t going to get her a conviction? How does she benefit? Her career would be ruined. Occam’s Razor, and all that.”

You’re kidding right? That has to be one of the most astoundingly clueless statements I have ever read. The appointment of a SPECIAL prosecutor was a political act from the start. She was appointed to bring charges because the local DA didn’t. Zimmerman may be guilty of something, I don’t know, but the special prosecutor was appointed on this very political case because they didn’t like the results of the local investigation.

#23 Comment By Scott Lahti On April 16, 2012 @ 1:57 pm

“McDonald’s, Pepsi, Coca-Cola, Intuit, Kraft, Arby’s, and Walgreens have shown their true colors: appeasement yellow. It’s time for conservatives to stand their ground and stop showing these corporate cowards their money.” – Michelle Malkin, “ [6]“, NROsis

She sure showed Them! (you know, “The Left” – hide the children!), with arms akimbo, her babyfists pressing Somme trenches into her hips, bravely manning the burning deck of manufactured winger outrage whence all but she, with no thought whatever for her own safety, had fled, this time in blowing reveille in otherwise slumbering American barracks in the face of the “[the ]chill[ing of] conservative dissent” on horrific display every time someone has an unkind word for that poor stake-burned comedian from the wireless, Rush Limbaugh, who, thanks to divers corporate Bolsheviks up to their nipples in the blood of G-d fearing Xian patriots like him, may end his life with and on an estate tragically shy by a few dollars short of a billion, and shyer still of a death by “liberal” firing squad that would, at the last, provide the gasbag Right with a martyr of the sort of which that vast sea of human blanks wedded to its imbecile shibboleths like to flatter themselves worthy.

#24 Comment By Jonathan On April 16, 2012 @ 3:49 pm

“human blanks”

charming.

not “whining,” just observing.

#25 Comment By Sands On April 16, 2012 @ 6:42 pm

“No, like I said, they were (and are) raising a fuss about the Sanford PD letting a killer walk free based solely on his claim of self-defence. ”

They could find no evidence to contradict Zimmerman’s claim of self defence. They took what evidence they did have and presented it to the D.A. who then declined charges. The police do not prosecute people.

Zimmerman may be lying, but PC has to be established.

“Actually, we do. What it boils down to was that there wasn’t one, because a decision was made that any investigation would have laid them open to getting sued under the provisions of the SYG law.

What we – do – know is that statements made by the Sanford PD after the killing to defend their lack of an investigation have been proven false.”

Police spoke to witnesses and a forensic autopsy was conducted. The police can’t help that there’s little evidence in this case.

This case comes down to the initial confrontation between Martin and Zimmerman. According to Zimmerman, he lost sight of Martin and was returning to his vehicle when Martin assaulted him. Without a witness, how do you prove he’s lying?

And what statements were proven false.

“And since she’s going for a charge of 2nd degree murder, shouldn’t that make you think that maybe the Sanford PD weren’t entirely honest in their appraisal of the evidence they had?”

And again, the police do not make the decision to prosecute.

“You only ask for a Grand Jury when you – don’t – think you have a strong enough case to go straight for a normal trial. IANAL, but that’s what the ones I’ve asked have told me. A Grand Jury is (simplified) a means of dredging up evidence from people who would really rather not give it. If your case is already tight, you don’t need it.”

OK, I’m obviously arguing with someone who knows very little about criminal law. The vast majority of murder charges go through grand juries. And it’s just laughable if you think Corey skipped the grand jury because her case is “tight.”

“And no, the Sanford PD didn’t conduct an investigation. They did take Zimmerman’s statement and attempt to correct witnesses who told them they’d heard Trayvon Martin screaming for help before he was shot. And they did claim that he was showing signs of physical assault that magically vanished half-an-hour later when he was shown entering the Police station.”

You’re taking the statement of one witness and ignoring other witnesses. Why didn’t you mention the two witnesses who claim they saw Martin beating the hell out of Zimmerman? Maybe because it contradicts the side of the story you *want* to believe?

So you really believe the injuries were just made up by police officers willing to risk their careers and jail time to protect Zimmerman. I guess the EMT’s with the fire department are in on it too?

“What possible benefit could a Florida prosecutor derive from ‘playing politics’ if her case isn’t going to get her a conviction? How does she benefit? Her career would be ruined. Occam’s Razor, and all that.”

So you think that Sanford police officers — even though there is no benefit to them — are involved in a conspiracy to protect Zimmerman but you have a hard time believing that this prosecutor bowed down to mob rule and political pressure? Whoa…wow! LOL!

“Really? When you’ve actually got evidence right there in front of your eyes that that’s exactly what the Sanford Chief of Police and the local DA decided to do?”

Where’s that eveidence? The local D.A. claims to have not spoken with the chief before charges were declined.

“It’s paranoid to look at the statements the Police made after the killing and conclude they were lying to protect Zimmerman, but it’s – not – paranoid to think that a Republican prosecutor in Florida is part of a conspiracy to railroad George Zimmerman by bringing a case to court she knows she’ll lose?”

You have no evidence that the police — and Sanford FD employees — are lying. None.

And Corey isn’t involved in a conspiracy; she’s just intimidated.

It looks to me like you have gotten the New Black Panther’s side of the story. I guess you think Martin was shot in the back too?

#26 Pingback By At Least Daily Pundit Gets It : The Other McCain On April 16, 2012 @ 11:09 pm

[…] most meritocratic place you’re going to find, though. Meanwhile in an update, Stooksbury continues to badger:Smitty replies and denies seeing Zimmerman as one of “Us” but he can’t discuss the case […]

#27 Comment By pmp On April 17, 2012 @ 10:26 am

Rich Lowry really is an abomination. He fired one of the only two talented writers on staff (John Derbyshire).

RL could’ve easily rebuked Derbyshire’s position under the imprimatur NR’s official editorial position. But no, that simply wouldn’t be craven enough. Nothing short of licking the boots of panty-wetting Left would do.

A little more of this fecklessness, Rich, and Ta-Nehisi Coates might even be willing to return your phone calls!

#28 Comment By pmp On April 17, 2012 @ 10:27 am

One last thing about R. Lowry: Did I mention that he writes with all the skill of a brain-damaged orangutan?