The Post-Zimmerman Poison Pill

Heather McDonald has a palliative to the continuing race baiting:

Criminal-law professors across the political spectrum agree that the Zimmerman verdict resulted from prosecutorial overkill, not juror bias. . . . Close on the heels of the “biased justice system” conceit, however, is the preposterous implication that the primary homicide threat faced by young black males comes from honorary whites such as George Zimmerman. “Our children are targeted. Our community is targeted,” Martin Luther King III told the NAACP national convention on Wednesday. Protesters at the Orlando, Fla., courthouse this week held signs proclaiming “Endangered species: young black men and boys.” The New York Times ran an article today about the “painful talks” black parents are having with their children about how not to get gunned down by whites. A nurse’s assistant in Missouri told the Times: The whole situation ‘“would just make me skeptical about what crowd of white people I put [my son] around.’”

In fact, if a black parent wants to radically reduce his son’s chance of getting shot, he should live in a white neighborhood.

Yup.

More from the notorious right-wing racist, Jeralyn Merritt:

Obama said if Martin had been white the result would probably have been different. Not once did he acknowledge that if Trayvon Martin had not attacked George Zimmerman, the outcome might have been different.

As a former Constitutional law professor, I would expect our President to acknowledge that the purpose of a criminal trial is not to send messages to the American public. It is merely to test the Government’s evidence: Did the state prove guilt and disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

By the President comparing himself to Martin 35 years ago, is he saying he would have responded as Martin did, and physically attacked someone for following him? I hope not because our laws do not allow such conduct. It is not illegal for a private citizen to follow someone. It is illegal to physically assault another person who has not threatened him with the imminent use of force.

I am very disappointed that the President has chosen to endorse those who have turned a case of assault and self-defense into a referendum on race and civil rights. And that he is using it to support those with an agenda of restricting gun rights.

The President, like so many others, refuses to acknowledge that George Zimmerman had no avenue of retreat from the beating Martin was inflicting on him. Zimmerman would have prevailed on self-defense without a stand-your-ground law. The only additional element a stand-your-ground law adds to traditional self-defense is the elimination of a duty to retreat if one is available.

Florida Gov. Rick Scott says there will be no change to Florida’s Stand Your Ground law. I hope he’s right. The law does not need to be changed. People have a right to defend themselves from attacks like the one Martin initiated against Zimmerman. They should not have to wait until the next blow, which could be a fatal one.

Shameful. But the president has no shame (which is apparently true of some of my commenters as well).

11 thoughts on “The Post-Zimmerman Poison Pill”

  1. A black man I worked with used to tell me that his mother would tell him when he was a child, “I brought you into this world, and I can take you out of it.” I understand that such was commonly said in the black community. My mother never told me or my brothers anything like that. Sometimes it seems that violence is endemic in the black community.

    1. My mom used to say the same thing, along with “if you kids don’t stop that right now I’ll throw you so hard against the wall you’ll stick!” It’s called hyperbole, and not limited to any race.

    2. How odd. That’s the second comment I’ve seen since the verdict claiming a given undesirable trait is “endemic” to one race or another.

      Auric Goldfinger, call your office.

  2. What this travesty of justice proves, is actually two fold to start with.

    First, it doesn’t matter whether you’re found Not Guilty or NOT in the 21st Century. Rule Number One is defined as follows, the political debate and the guilt of the accused are determined by the ‘victims’ skin color.

    Second, Rule Number One is thrown OUT, if the perp and the victim have the SAME skin color, or if the ‘victim’ has LIGHTER skin color.

    The caveat to both rules is easy to see also.

    Regardless of the legal or officially ruled outcome of ANY Trial, Sporting Event, International Group Annual Assemblage and Whenever the Put Upon Classes deem them necessary, Citywide, Statewide and Nationwide Protests, Riots and Lootings are not only OK, they’re Politically Correct, and damned likely to be profitable!

    It’s the same Rule of Law that the Goths, Visigoths, Nomadic Hordes from the East lived by, that helped take Rome apart. So everyone can now rape, rob and plunder their way to prosperity! So long as they have a ‘tinge’ of color to their skin.

  3. Obama said that he had been followed in a department store, and tried to use that to justify his position.

    If he was so upset about being followed around by white people, why did he accept one of the very few jobs in the nation that involves lots of scary white people in suits following him around everywhere?

    Charles Barkley would crush him at basketball – and logical thinking.

    1. When I was in my teens, I had the experience of being followed by store security many times, and even being told I could not enter a store because I was a “teen” and the owner was “sick of shoplifters”. (I’ve never shoplifted anywhere, ever).

      I was absolutely profiled.

      I’m white. I was profiled all right; as a teen male. Or maybe just a teen. That’s why I rolled my eyes when I heard Obama whining about being followed in a store.

      Do I think it’s okay to profile? Yep, I do, when it’s supported by objective data. For example, charging teen males higher insurance rates is absolutely profiling, and also absolutely justified.

      What about racial profiling? Is it okay to look at black teens and assume that they are far more likely to be violent criminals? Why don’t we ask Jesse Jackson? Ah, here we go… here’s the quote,

      “There is nothing more painful to me at this stage of my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”

      That’s racial profiling. It’s also supported by the facts.

      Let’s be blunt; young black males commit a massively disproportionate amount of crime. Let’s be equally blunt about the cause; it’s not color, but culture. The “Street culture”, which I call “ghetto trash gang culture”, is the problem. It glorifies violence, crime, drugs, and stupidity. The proof that it’;s culture and not color is that young white males who adopt this culture are every bit as much crime-prone and trashy, while young black males who don’t are no worse (including statistically) than other teen males. So if blacks don’t like profiling (and let’s be fair, it’s a bad thing to be on the receiving end of) they need to address the cause (the degenerate culture) out of their own self-interest if nothing else; they are overwhelmingly the victims of it (in countless ways, such as the murder rate in Chicago).

      1. Ask white guys with long hair regardless of age if they get profiled or white guys with no hair.

        One summer I had a buzz cut and went to watch a soccer game in Seattle. One of the teams had a big Latino following and we sat in their section. You think soccer fans would be used to seeing white guys with a buzz cut but I was lucky to make it out with nothing but really dirty looks. And my hs spanish didn’t teach me any of the words they used.

  4. This red headed Mick was profiled every time going through Frankfurt or Heathrow airports. Fit the profile of an IRA bad person. I’d joke to my travel companions, “Watch I’ll get pulled aside, questioned, inspected and detained for 5-15 minutes. Wait for me.” My companions would be astonished when it actually happened.

  5. Something like a 1/3rd of Stand Your Ground cases in Florida are claimed by black people accused of homicide. A good many of them are successful at getting their homicide cases acquitted on this defense. The black community is calling to repeal this doctrine which would ultimately lead to more black people being thrown in jail. As they say, be careful what you wish for.

Comments are closed.