Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Social Commentary

Laying The Groundwork For The Next LA Riots

34 Comments

Thanks a bunch, Al:

By yoking himself to the memory of the Los Angeles riots, and to the coming trial of George Zimmerman in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, Sharpton is implicitly threatening violence even as he explicitly denounces it. “I’ve fought for justice for Trayvon,” Sharpton wrote at the Huffington Post, “because I believe in America and I don’t believe we should burn it down. Let’s prove that we are in fact the United States of America, and let’s not miss another opportunity to show just how great we can be.”

And just how great can we be, Mr. Sharpton, if “justice for Trayvon” results in an acquittal of George Zimmerman?

Sharpton surely knows this is a real possibility. As pointed out by Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, among others, the case against Zimmerman is feeble. But this is of little import to Sharpton, and indeed may even be to his advantage. The initial narrative of the Martin shooting – racist white guy shoots harmless black child – has come unraveled, leaving Florida special prosecutor Angela Corey in the unenviable position of pressing a murder case in which the only known eyewitness bolsters the defendant’s claim of self-defense. But expectations of a conviction have already been raised, not least by Sharpton himself, leaving him in the role of the man who will pour oil on the troubled waters. And, conveniently for Sharpton, the anniversary of the L.A. riots arrives to provide exactly the right platform for the type of self-promotion at which he is so adept.

I’m sure that Chris Gerrib will be along any minute to defend the lying race baiter, though.

34 thoughts on “Laying The Groundwork For The Next LA Riots”

  1. You may not like what Al Sharpton has done over his career. I’m not sure I like what he’s done. But the fact is, without his involvement, there would be no investigation into what happened in Sanford.

    Here’s a fact – Martin is dead, and Zimmerman shot him. Martin was doing nothing wrong when Zimmerman started following him, and that’s a fact. We do not know how the fight (if any) between Zimmerman and Martin started, and that’s a fact.

    It is not race baiting to peaceably assemble for redress of grievances. Actually, it’s a right that people fought and died for. You, Rand, having not served, wouldn’t know that.

    3. Now for an opinion, this is race baiting:

      “Let me tell you, the things that’s about to happen, to these honkeys, these crackers, these pigs, these pink people, these —- people. It has been long overdue. My prize right now this evening … is gonna be the bounty, the arrest, dead or alive, for George Zimmerman. You feel me?”

    4. And if Al hadn’t brought this up, we wouldn’t have crowds of black people beating up whites and claiming that’s somehow “justice for Trayvon.”

    5. “Martin was doing nothing wrong when Zimmerman started following him, and that’s a fact. ”

      Speculation.

  2. But the fact is, without his involvement, there would be no investigation into what happened in Sanford.

    Are you trying to be a cartoon?

  4. I’m not sure what Al wants is a riot, it seems more likely what he wants is the *possibility* of a riot, which of course, can only be averted by the personal intervention of a certain large preacher with a bullhorn (payable in advance please).

    There is no actual profit in the actual riot for him, but in the tense, long, drawn out, run-up to the riot he will receive a great number of Sunday Show invites, and speeches, and public appearances where he can stand up and preach “Calm” although it seems to be paraphrased as “Everybody should calm down. Just because some (insert ethnic here) unjustly (fill in assault crime here) on a poor innocent child who was unable to defend himself, is no reason to go out and burn down your neighborhood. Unless you want to. And only in places that didn’t pay me tribute.”

  5. Gerrib, I have served and you are absolutely full of it in your comment about such. I did ten active plus six reserves. I was a career professional and in my heart still am. What did you do? And regardless of the answer, what in the world gives you the right to excommunicate others?

    I personally think you should be banned from this site. Not my call. But at any rate, go to blazes. George Zimmerman is the victim of a lynch mob. You’re included in that description.

    1. And the reason it is a lynch mob is because there *was* an investigation. There *was*. There was just not a decision to prosecute because the evidence was not there. But there was an investigation. And then there was another one. With no great new evidence, at least as far as one can determine.

      The evidence still is not there, the evidence will probably never be there. But we *have* drilled into stone the principle that no American is innocent of crimes against a black man and must must must be tried, no ifs, ands, or buts, evidence or not, seeming waste of time or not, if the blessedly wise *Reverend* Al Sharpton thinks he should be.

      In that case why even have prosecutorial office review? All incidents involving black individuals and those of any other race should *always* go to the blessed *Reverend*, because no investigation will ever again be considered good enough witthout a trial. So let’s just cut out the middle man and let Al decide what “justice” is going to be in America.

      In Al Sharpton’s America, mess with a black man, guarantee yourself a show trial. That’s all there is to it. And you can take that any way you want. Because there *was* an investigation. And it turned up pretty much what the second one did. Nothing.

      See you at the acquittal.

    2. Finally, while I’ll absolutely agree that we will never know what happened, we do know this:

      –George Zimmerman thought he saw someone acting suspicious.
      –Trayvon Martin had been previously found with merchandise most likely stolen *on him*. He also had other issues with obeying rules.
      –We know now that robberies had been occuring in the neighborhood. We do not yet know if they overlap in time with Mr. Martin’s association with that neighborhhod and the time he was discovered with the jewelry. But we will.

      Folks, at some point does George Zimmerman get any benefit of the doubt at all that perhaps the saintly Mr. Martin might in fact have been acting in ways to justify suspicion that night? Any at all? Or in Al Sharpton’s America, is malfeasance in the immediate past now something that must be considered as exculpatory in nature, while trying to uphold the community as something that must be considered as deviant and evidence of guilt? For so it seems.

      1. Linebacker – the lack of service remark was directed at Rand, not you.

        Zimmerman is not the victim of anything. He will be tried in a court of law, where he is innocent until proven guilty.

        Zimmerman had no knowledge of Martin’s past record, which is suspiciously absent of violence, and at the initial hearing we learned that video exists of Martin buying the snacks he had on him. Does it make any sense that Martin would decide to case houses for a robbery while carrying candy and trying to get back home for the NBA All-Star game? In short, the only evidence we have of any suspicious activity is what Zimmerman tells us.

        There is a lot of evidence we haven’t seen, from forensics on the bullet to bruising (if any) on Martin’s hands.

        1. Zimmerman is not the victim of anything.

          Except for being assaulted to the point of shooting while in a close range struggle, I’d say you’re right.

          The fact that you seem blind to this fact is very telling.

          Explain to me Chris, why George didn’t shoot at the proper range?

          1. I have never called Zimmerman racist. I think he was over-eager and exercised poor judgment.

            We do not know how the fight (however much of it there was) started. Simply put, you can’t legally shoot your way out of a fight you started. Well, you can, but the law calls that manslaughter.

            Bottom line – Martin had an equal right to self-defense, and no requirement to retreat or be polite to Zimmerman.

          2. How did ‘racist’ squeeze in there?

            You didn’t understand my point. If you have a handgun with the intent to use it, you do not wait until someone is right on top of you. You also tend not to start fights because you don’t have to. You can finish them which is exactly what did happen.

            You can legally shoot your way out of a fight even if you did start it. That’s because a fight can escalate to the point where lives are in danger. It may have only started as a shouting match which either could have started and would have no effect on the legality of the shooting.

            Zimmerman didn’t cause his own wounds, Trayvon caused them. This fact is not in dispute except by those that will not acknowledge clear evidence. Those wounds, by themselves and regardless of any other evidence, give cause for lethal defense.

          3. Fine. Martin caused Zimmerman to cut his head.

            That does not by itself justify shooting Martin. It may justify Zimmerman pulling his gun, but unless Martin continued the attack, one punch does not allow you to kill somebody.

            Martin has a right of self-defense. He’s being followed by an unknown man acting suspiciously.

            Driving erratically – check.
            Giving somebody the “evil eye” – check.
            Getting out of the car in the rain to follow somebody – check.

            In short, Martin should have called 911 on Zimmerman.

          4. Martin should have called 911 on Zimmerman.

            For once you are correct. Instead he’s dead. Because he decided to attack an armed man. Give him a Darwin award.

            So, one punch is your latest strawman?

        2. the lack of service remark was directed at Rand, not you.

          It offended me. Rand need not serve to know others have fought and died to defend our constitution. I think you should answer Linebackers question.

          1. Leland, that’s my real name on the top. I’m in the phone book, and five minutes on the Internet will give you my home address and where I work. So I feel no need to defend my history to one-name-wonders on the Internet.

            Saying somebody is wrong is not excommunicating them, nor is it telling them that they have no right to speak. Rand was the one who suggested that people don’t have the right to speak by branding peaceful protests as race baiting.

          2. Rand was the one who suggested that people don’t have the right to speak by branding peaceful protests as race baiting.

            I suggested nothing of the kind. More straw-man bullshit from the king of straw men.

            Al Sharpton has every right to speak, and I have every right to call him out on his self-aggrandizing race warfare, that you continue to defend.

          3. Gerrib, I’m not asking you to defend your history. I said you should answer a question. I’m saying you should defend the arguments you made here. You seem unwilling or incapable of doing so. When I said “I’m offended”, its because your service history doesn’t support your arguments. You’re trying to abuse the respect that Rand and others give to our military personnel to bolster a strawmen. It is that abuse I find offensive.

            There’s a reason I only provide to you one name. It is all the reference you need. I want my arguments to stand on their own validity. I want to challenge others to discuss my ideas and not my background. But you aren’t up to the task. My credentials won’t improve your arguments, and as I said, I won’t use them to bolster mine. I see how you handle Rand, insulting his history with strawmen because you can’t invalidate his arguments. You can’t even defend your own arguments.

  6. I guess for Gerrib a trial and an acquittal followed by riots killing untold numbers and destroying millions in property is better than no trial because of a lack of evidence. So is that win-win for you?

    If you are ambivalent about that race-baiting, racist inciter to a killing, lying slanderer I need you to buy this bridge and send me 5000 bucks so I can transfer this 20 millions from Nigeria.

    1. First, I don’t assume that there will be riots. Second, are you telling me we should let people get away with murder if the result of trying them might be a riot? Sounds like mob rule to me.

  8. Since I said nothing about timing, what’s your point? Since I said nothing about two wrongs making a right, what’s your point?
    You are telling US Al did good here. Of course his veiled threats about riots not withstanding, he seems a real stand up guy. What part of the judicial system doesn’t have to bring a case to trial for there to be justice don’t you understand? YOU’RE the one talking about Zimmerman wouldn’t have been charged without ol’ Al and the need for a trial. There was an investigation. The results just weren’t what you or Al wanted.

Comments are closed.