Image 01 Image 03

Zimmerman-Martin questions

Zimmerman-Martin questions

Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by George Zimmerman, that much is certain.  It is a tragedy for the Martin family.

It’s not worth opining on the facts, as so many are doing, because we don’t have enough facts, much less all the facts.

Was Zimmerman, who is Hispanic (or some say “half-Hispanic” or a “white Hispanic”), actually motivated by racial animus? Is there anything in his past to suggest that he singled out blacks for different treatment either in his private life or his life as a self-appointed Neighborhood Watch captain?  Of the reported dozens of call he made in the past to 911, are there any clues to racial motivation?  I’d like to know these things before reaching a judgment as to whether there is a racial component to this case.

What was the geography?  Is there evidence Zimmerman continued to chase Martin after the 911 operator said it was not needed?  Was the shooting in a place where Zimmerman may have run into Martin while Zimmerman was heading towards a place he could be seen by police, or was the location indicative of Zimmerman still chasing Martin?

What happened between the last phone call between Zimmerman and 911, and the shooting?  If Zimmerman takes the stand, we will only have one version, because the only other witness is dead.  But there is an audio recording which can be analyzed of someone yelling for help; there is physical evidence as to the condition of Zimmerman and Martin which may show, circumstantially, who was the aggressor at the point the two entered into physical contact.

The trajectory of the bullet may tell us the position of Zimmerman when the fatal shot was fired, and other forensics may give an indication of the distance between the two at the time.

I don’t know if police took photographs, but presumably they did.  What do the photographs show as to the scene?

There may be witnesses we don’t yet know about, who heard things or saw things which in isolation may seem insignificant but may be pieces of a puzzle.

Let’s allow the facts to come in before we opine on the legal significance of the facts.  Did Zimmerman hunt Martin down, or did the two come into unexpected contact with deadly results?  It could be important.

Given the high political profile the case already has taken, we owe it to the victim and the accused for there to be a professional investigation free from politics.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


“Given the high political profile the case already has taken, we owe it to the victim and the accused for there to be a professional investigation free from politics.”

Too late.

“I am glad that not only is the Justice Department is looking into this, but the Governor of the State of Florida has put together a task force [to investigate the case],” Obama said. Obama carefully avoided any discussion of George Zimmerman, the man who shot Martin, and has controversially avoided arrest under Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” self-defense laws.

Obama did say there is a need to “examine the laws” surrounding the incident, as well as the incident itself.

“My main message is to the parents: If I had a son he’d look like Trayvon…”

I call that race-baiting.

    If Obama had a son he’d look like Trayvon … Zimmerman would have been gunned down by multiple Secret Service agents.

      Tamminator in reply to Neo. | March 23, 2012 at 8:16 pm

      I know this makes me a bad girl, but that comment made me laugh out loud.
      You are too sick, man.


-The media … their articles with outdated baby-faced pictures of Trayvon. Very few include that he was a towering 6’2” football player.

-Many news articles have also claimed the neighborhood is ”mostly white.” The neighborhood is only 49% white. It is over half non-white.

-The witness reports that George Zimmerman was on the ground and Trayvon is on top of him punching him.

-The witness says that George Zimmerman was screaming and yelling for help.

-Police arrive and find Zimmerman bleeding on his face and the back of his head. He also has had grass stains on his back. All this confirms the story told by Zimmerman and the witness.

-Police play the 911 tape for Trayvon Martin’s father, who tells police that the voice screaming is not the voice of his son.

-Would you be surprised to learn that there were eight burglaries, nine thefts, and a shooting just in the past year? In fact, the local homeowners’ association reports that George Zimmerman actually caught one thief and aided in the apprehension of other criminals.

- In fact the Miami Herald goes on to interview neighbor, Ibrahim Rashada, who is black. Rashada ​confirms that there has been a lot of crime in the neighborhood and indicates to the reporter that the perpetrators are usually black.

    Ragspierre in reply to Scott Jacobs. | March 23, 2012 at 5:38 pm


    We just don’t know, do we?

    Due process is called for, but President Pond-Scum did not call for that…along with calm.

    No, indeed. He went far, far beyond where the Chief Executive of the United States should go.

    See rights, state’s; see also Arizona, Texas, etc.

    Doug Wright in reply to Scott Jacobs. | March 23, 2012 at 5:50 pm

    @Scott Jacobs: Megyn Kelly’s FNC show today had two quests talking about this killing. One did say that he found out that there were witnesses to the shooting, describing a situation very much like what you said; Mr, Martin on top of Mr. Zimmerman who was on the ground shouting, that Mr. Martin was hitting Mr. Zimmerman.

    No idea of what is true in this case except that a young man is dead. The police handling of this case was done very poorly and little concrete information has come out yet the screams and outrage is growing. This will explode beyond all belief until, and unless, the truth comes out such that we all can understand what happened.

    So far, this killing has been a basis for demands to change a FL law when that doesn’t seem to be what is needed. What is evident is that some are using this incident to agitate for some very Socialist positions; on one such email I got and to which I didn’t respond. This country doesn’t need Jesse Jackson trying to stir up racial hatreds nor do we need Rev. Al joining in that rabble rousing.

If you listen to Obama, he is right up there with Rev. Sharpton. To them, it is obviously a hate crime. It isn’t important what the “offender’s ” race is, so long as he/she is not Black and the “victim” is Black. This Country will never get over the race issue so long as people like them are around to stir things up.

DINORightMarie | March 23, 2012 at 5:32 pm

It’s not worth opining on the facts, as so many are doing, because we don’t have enough facts, much less all the facts.

Thank you for making this clear. I was listening to Hannity on the radio today, and he wasn’t quite clear that all the FACTS in the case are not known. Also, he played the 911 audios you referenced, and seemed to be making some presumptive conclusions (just IMHO).

There are many incidences in this country of clearly racially motivated crime – from all different races (black against white; white against black; Latino against black; black against Latino; etc. etc.). We don’t need to further fuel this already ignited incident with more speculation.

Obama making comments in this case is, once again, quite revealing. Just as he did in the Harvard prof. case, he is speaking about things he doesn’t know, and putting HIS feelings and perspective into the situation. Not presidential. It, to me, puts some more evidence toward the vetting assertion that Obama has a radical view, a Critical Race Theory aligned view, on things which occur in our country.

Laura Ingraham had a segment on this yesterday, mentioning an incident earlier this month against a 13 year old white boy who was set on fire by two black teens – who apparently said something to the effect of, “….you get what you deserve, white boy….” (Link to an article on this here.) Where is the outrage over that incident? We all know the answer: if a mob of thousands started calling for “justice” over that incident, it would be portrayed as tantamount to a “lynch mob,” rabble-rousing raaaaacist throwback, shades of KKK, etc.

The double-standard is quite ingrained in our “post-racial” society……it seems.

Speaking of idiot, demagogic gas-bags…

(Was that uncivil…?)

Bear in mind that the Democrat Jim Crow did not like armed black people.

There is audio from the cell phone call made to police dispatch by Zimmerman who said there was a suspicious person there. The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following the suspect. He replied, yes. Dispatcher said, “we don’t need you to do that.” There was no response by Zimmerman.

Then there was another call from a woman to 911, who said she heard someone yelling for help. Then there was a gunshot heard in the background. The dispatcher asked the woman what did she see? The woman replied, “I can’t see anything because I went upstairs to hide.”

I don’t like the direction this has taken. Rev. Sharpton inserting himself making it a racial issue. They are trying this in the court of public opinion, instead of waiting for the police investigation report.

I feel this President has tried to set race relations back 50 years, and I’m really tired of it. That isn’t where we are at this point in time. But anything to distract the people from the political atmosphere.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to Scorpio51. | March 23, 2012 at 5:52 pm

    Obama is like a pickle. He has soaked exclusively in a vat of Black Muslim Supremacism, Islamism, Marxism, Communism, Fascism all his days..from his family, biological and adoptive. That is all he has ever known.

      Uncle Samuel in reply to Uncle Samuel. | March 23, 2012 at 5:55 pm

      He was bred and taught racism and hatred of whites, Jews, of America… and vengeance all his days.

      He cannot do otherwise without a crisis of faith and thought. Without a miracle, an act of God.

      That is what I am praying for…that Obama (and the liberals) will repent, see the light before it is too late…for his sake and for America’s sake.

I am reminded of the Duke Lacrosse Case- the rush to judgement was immediate and overwhelming. It took TWO YEARS for the FACTS to come to light.

Obama and the race professionals (Jackson, Sharpton, Wright, Farrakahan, etc.) will milk this for all its worth and Holder will call for a ban on handguns.

George Zimmerman will be lucky if he’s not lynched by these people.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to AmandaFitz. | March 23, 2012 at 6:02 pm

    Reminds me of the David Kato case in Uganda when a well-known homosexual was murdered. Immediately, it was labeled a ‘hate crime.’ Turns out it was the all too frequent and tragic MSM scenario – a ‘sex-for-hire’ assignation gone very bad. In my very small Southern community, this turn of events was not at all uncommon, both brutal beatings and violent deaths, by the hand of the partner of the evening.

    Tamminator in reply to AmandaFitz. | March 23, 2012 at 8:28 pm

    Or Tawana Brawley…

So what do we have? A death under troubling circumstances which the police are investigating, where the general lack of publicly available facts make obvious only an absolute fool would make comments about it.

So there’s our president, at the head of the line to the microphone, followed by the regular race-baiting suspects. Look guys, we know there’s an election coming up, but for the sake of sheer decency’s sake try repeating this line. “It would be inappropriate at this time to comment on these tragic events.”

Yes. For all the reasons mentioned above, I would like to defeat Obama in the coming election.

It sure looks like the local sheriff bungled this, though. He apparently accepted the “self defense” claims and didn’t do a thorough–or even a professional–investigation.

    Ragspierre in reply to jimbo3. | March 23, 2012 at 5:58 pm

    Please put up your authority showing there is no active investigation.

      DINORightMarie in reply to Ragspierre. | March 23, 2012 at 6:07 pm

      jimbo3 is a troll; don’t feed the trolls 🙂

      jimbo3 in reply to Ragspierre. | March 23, 2012 at 6:20 pm

      I didn’t say there wasn’t an active investigation, Rags. I said it sure appeared that the local police department bungled the investigation.

      There are several investigations now. There’s a question of whether the local police otherwise would have continued to investigate the incident, which happened a month ago. They didn’t seem to have done pretty basic stuff (like check his cell phone).

        Ragspierre in reply to jimbo3. | March 23, 2012 at 6:25 pm

        “Rags. I said it sure appeared that the local police department bungled the investigation.”

        But you have nothing showing that investigation is over, do you?

        Does the competence of the local force have anything to do with the fundamental question?

          jimbo3 in reply to Ragspierre. | March 23, 2012 at 6:43 pm

          You have comments by the local police department saying they missed the alleged racial slur on the tape. You have evidence that the local police department didn’t look or turn on the cell phone to determine who the victim was or that he was talking to his girl friend when the shooting occurred.

          Those don’t look like professional investigation.

          Bonus question: How much money would the New Orleans Saints have paid Zimmerman if he did this on the football field?

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | March 23, 2012 at 7:01 pm



          Nathan in reply to Ragspierre. | March 23, 2012 at 9:24 pm

          After an investigation by the local yahoo department, the young man was clearly guilty of WWB — Walking While Black.

          That ridiculous law that allows you to kill someone if you feel threatened needs to go.

          Crawford in reply to Ragspierre. | March 23, 2012 at 9:26 pm

          What “racial slur”, Jimbo? The RELIABLE reports I’ve read about this say the “racial slur” BS is invented by people willfully mis-hearing the tapes.

          Crawford in reply to Ragspierre. | March 23, 2012 at 9:27 pm

          “That ridiculous law that allows you to kill someone if you feel threatened needs to go.”

          You mean the natural right to self defense needs to be repealed?

          You’re as ignorant of the law as you are of this case.

          Nathan in reply to Ragspierre. | March 23, 2012 at 10:45 pm

          There is no “natural right of self-defense”….that’s just made-up garbage from the NRA.

          Was he exercising his “right of self-defense” against the kid’s pack of Skittle or the can of iced tea?

          The guy left his car after the 911 dispatcher told him not to. He followed the kid. He was close enough that the kid turned around and said “why are you following me?”

          There is no “self-defense” here….and certainly not when he got out of his car and approached the kid after he’d already called the cops.

          He shot an unarmed kid that he had no business even being in a confrontation with.

          I hope he spends the rest of his life in prison.

          “Self-defense” street murders have gone up some 300% since that ridiculous law was signed.

          That law needs to go away.

Let me pose a question in all seriousness:

If this were not an election cycle, would the President have said a word in public about this case AT THIS JUNCTURE?

    Uncle Samuel in reply to Ragspierre. | March 23, 2012 at 6:08 pm

    Probably. Obama is tuned to racism. Besides, it’s big press and solidifies his base in any season.

    In the Kato case above, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who was in the middle of a global meeting, instantly got out to make a public statement condemning ‘hate crimes’, when in other cases he was as unresponsive and oblique as possible to traditional Anglicans and their concerns. It was comical, revelatory and disgusting how he played that hand…much as Sharpton and Obama will.

    DINORightMarie in reply to Ragspierre. | March 23, 2012 at 6:09 pm

    Can you say, “Beer Summit?” 😉

    jimbo3 in reply to Ragspierre. | March 23, 2012 at 11:35 pm

    If it were Bush, he would have written “Mission Completed”.

[…] commented all week on the Trayvon Martin case. [That might have been a smarter policy because the attempts to make this shooting a "racist" case (or as Geraldo does, blame the hoodie) might face some difficulty as the shooter is a Latino who […]

georgfelis | March 23, 2012 at 5:49 pm

“for the sake of decency” — that word is not in their lexicon. All these poseurs are interested in is being in the limelight and power, and whatever the two will bring them in monetary terms or otherwise. Al Sharpton is doing what he has been doing for decades, race baiting to get what he wants. Obama only wants to win the election and stay in power (he hasn’t finished destroying this country) and will stop at nothing to get what he wants. He may have made a slight mistake here, jumped the gun, because the parties involved are from minorities, although the MSM is doing everything it can to underscore that Zimmerman is a “white” Hispanic — is our President then a white African-American? What’s fair is fair.

Ragspierre: if this were not an election year, I doubt he would have said anything at this juncture as he would not have anything to gain; however, it’s an election year, he can’t really run on his record, so the next best thing is to latch onto anything to divert attention and inflame sentiments. Can anyone say fanning the flames of race riots? He isn’t the only one. Read what Frances Fox Piven has said recently and others.

Sorry, I lived in South America for many years and this is precisely how the strong men stay in power: faux outrage, not letting a crisis go to waste (thank you Rahm), class and racial warfare and diverting the attention from one crisis to another. We will be overwhelmed with so many crises that we will not be able to keep track of what is actually happening (economy, healthcare, unemployment), much less address those issues.

Unfortunately, this incident, instead of being investigated for the sake of justice will become a pawn in a power struggle.

    Ragspierre in reply to MAB. | March 23, 2012 at 6:32 pm


    “You have to comment on a horrible crime” (on the Hewitt show, referring to Zimmerman)

    The guy is completely NOT presidential.

    He is not bright enough to say the RIGHT thing, or just shut his mouth.

      TEWS_Pilot in reply to Ragspierre. | March 23, 2012 at 6:54 pm

      No kidding. When explaining Obamacare, he needs to tell parents in “all 57 states” with asthmatic kids to be sure to use a “breath-alyzer”…you know, brilliant stuff like Obama sez. Oh, and Biden said Obama’s directing of the Osama bin Laden raid was the greatest feat in the past 500 years. Santorum just needs more brainiacs like that touting his accomplishments.

        Nathan in reply to TEWS_Pilot. | March 23, 2012 at 11:12 pm

        Rick Santorum has accomplishments?

          TEWS_Pilot in reply to Nathan. | March 24, 2012 at 12:30 am

          Do you mean experienced former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum, who served four years in the U.S. House of Representatives and twelve years in the U.S. Senate, was instrumental in exposing the abuses of the Congressional Bank and the Congressional Post Office, and served for eight years on the Senate Armed Services Committee and is now running for President? Are you as accomplished as he is?

    Crawford in reply to MAB. | March 23, 2012 at 9:29 pm

    “Can anyone say fanning the flames of race riots?”

    Hey, it kept the Democrats in power in the south for most of a century.

    Once whites stopped falling for it, they started using whites as the boogeymen.

Hispanic is an ethnicity not a race. There is no such thing as 1/2 Hispanic. As for being a white Hispanic, Hispanics can be, and are, of any race. The past President of Peru, Alberto Fujimori and his daughter who also ran for President are of Japanese decent but are Hispanic.

Anytime you see an article in a newspaper or blog that uses Hispanic as if it was a race, I recommend you either contact the writer or use the comment section and ask what race the individual who is of Hispanic ethnicity belongs to.

[…] commented all week on the Trayvon Martin case. [That might have been a smarter policy because the attempts to make this shooting a "racist" case (or as Geraldo does, blame the hoodie) might face some difficulty as the shooter is a Latino who […]

An article yesterday at Ricochet said that the author had contacted the Sanford, Fl. PD and the report of Zimmerman calling the PD over 40 times in one year was a typo. It was not over one year, it was over ELEVEN years. So it worked out to 3-4 times a year, hardly out of reason for anyone who does neighborhood “watch” duty.

Also, I did a Mapquest search on the area that Zimmerman gave an address for on Retreat View Circle. The news reports say that Martin’s father claimed Martin had left during a half time to go to 7-11 for Skittles. But I could not find any 7-11 in that area that is the gated community Zimmerman was patroling.

Also, the dispatcher first asked Zimmerman the race of the “questionable” person that he was following and Zimmerman said he didn’t know. He just knew Martin was in a hoodie, and white shoes. He later told the dispatcher that Martin was coming toward him and that Martin was black.

Now, here are some questions I have:

what was Martin doing in a gated community where his father didn’t live when there was no nearby 7-11, if he was going to 7-11?

If Martin was running away from Zimmerman, why was he shot in the chest, and at what range?

Why did a local news station delete from its site that there was a eye witness who said they saw Zimmerman on the ground, with Martin on top of him, when he ran upstairs and heard a shot?

If you mapquest the area we are talking about (the Twin Lakes gated community) there are no convenience stores within that complex, or even relatively close to it.

But the fact that Louis Farrakhan and Al Sharpton is now getting involved tells me that this is going to be a pretty simple case that is going to be used as another way to line those two race hustler’s pockets.

Anchovy | March 23, 2012 at 6:34 pm

You are correct, it is an ethnicity; however, it is being used as a synonym for race to make a distinction.

    Anchovy in reply to MAB. | March 23, 2012 at 8:41 pm

    And that’s the problem. Don’t grant racial status to an ethnicity. They aren’t the same.

LukeHandCool | March 23, 2012 at 6:41 pm

Of interracial black/white violent crimes in America, approximately 90% involve a black perpetrator and white victim, and 10% a white perpetrator and black victim.

This is not a comment on this particular case, but rather on the claims of Al Sharpton and his ilk that blacks are “scared.” Law-abiding black citizens would likely be scared of black-on-black crime.

Let law enforcement agencies do their work. That includes you, too, President Obama.

For the life of me, I can’t find a single transcript or video of Obama commenting or condemning the incident earlier this month in Kansas City where a 13-year-old White boy who police say was doused with gasoline and lit on fire by two Black boys last week while walking home from school and is recovering from first-degree burns to his face and head.

The boy was just two blocks from his home in Kansas City when two teenagers began to follow him and then attacked him, his mother, Melissa Coon, said.

Police have described the suspects as black 16-year-olds, while the victim is white.

“We were told it’s a hate crime,” Coon told KTLA.

Coon said her son put out the fire with his shirt and called 911 himself. He was rushed to the hospital and was treated for his injuries.

She believes the students also attend East High School with her son, and said he will not be returning to the school. She also told KMBC her traumatized family plans now plans to move.

“My 5-year-old came in and asked me, ‘Mom, am I going to get set on fire today?'” Coon said. “I was in tears.”

    retire05 in reply to TEWS_Pilot. | March 23, 2012 at 7:54 pm

    Nov. 3, 2011 KFOX14

    Socorro (Tx) police and the FBI are looking for four men who police say attacked and raped an elderly man out on his early-morning walk.

    Investigators said the 70-year old was walking around 6 a.m. at Valle del Sol Park on Valle Rico Road and Valley Fertile when they said four black men got out of a late -90’s Ford or Chevrolet van or minivan and demanded the Mexican-American man give them money. Whe he said “No”, the allegedly grabbed him, threw him in the van and raped him.

    Socorro spokesman David Garcia said the men yelled racial slurs at the victim as they assaulted him.”

    Perhaps Obama didn’t comment on this because the victim being Mexican-American Obama could not relate to him as Obama’s grandfather.

One thing is clear-

The progressive establishment hope an incident like this will trigger racial unrest, and change the political dynamic leading up to the election.

“his life as a self-appointed Neighborhood Watch captain”

Why do you accept the press narrative so easily? I just don’t get it — you KNOW the press lies with the ease the rest of us breath, and you KNOW that they lie in particular ways.

Yet you buy their lies about Zimmerman.


    jimbo3 in reply to Crawford. | March 23, 2012 at 9:41 pm

    Crawford, we have Neighborhood Watch captains in my neighborhood. They tend to be judgmental, prying, noisy a*sholes. I was on the board of our HOA for two years. It’s generally a power thing in my experience.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to jimbo3. | March 23, 2012 at 10:36 pm

      It is an identifying trait for Jimbo, and part of what makes him so reliably and laughably trollish, that he so often assigns to everyone and everything his own pecular take on a given subject. Jimbo’s limited experience of neighborhood watch captains is that “they tend to be judgmental, prying, noisy a*sholes,” ergo, all of them are, ergo, Zimmerman is as well.

      Jimbo3: Center Of The Universe

        Nevertheless, giving some men a bit of authority and a gun is a dangerous combination.

        And this guy was apparently ‘self-appointed’, whatever that means, and wasn’t supposed to have a gun.

          Milhouse in reply to Nathan. | March 25, 2012 at 3:52 am

          Why on earth shouldn’t he have a gun? This is America; he had a fundamental right to be armed. And who exactly should be appointing Neighborhood Watch volunteers? He was being a good citizen, protecting his neighbourhood from criminals. Quite possibly from young Martin; there doesn’t seem to be an innocent explanation for what he was doing there.

        And Henry, that wasn’t just my perception. It was the perception of the five other board members and at least three past HOA board members that had to deal with one guy in particular who was appointed the head. Nice attempt to ignore the issue by insulting the person saying it (an ad hominem attack).

          Henry Hawkins in reply to jimbo3. | March 24, 2012 at 1:48 pm

          Sure, Jimbo. All you need to do is explain why the perceptions not of just you but five other people ( ! ) is sufficient to ensure that the perception extends to everyone.

          And before you go winging around charges of logical fallacies, to avoid ridicule, you’ll need to stop employing them, practically with every post.

          In this case you are employing an ad populum argument – that you are correct because a number of others (5!) agree with you. That’s ridiculous. A fact is not determined as such because of how many people believe it. Hey, I know. I’ll go round up SIX people who disagree with you and that will constitute a brand new truth. (rolling eyes).

I hear that Obama is going to interrupt his vacation to fly Air Force One back to DC in the dead of night to sign a law specific to this one case in order to satisfy his lunatic base.

Oh wait….that was Terri Schiavo and the last president.

Never mind…

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to Nathan. | March 23, 2012 at 10:28 pm

    Where are you going with this ?

    Yeah when the pressure was for SB 686 Senate vote …… he fled. It was above his pay grade.

    Besides the bill just allowed Terry Schiavo’s parents to to appeal & challenge Terry’s husbands Guardianship rights.

    I cannot see any comparison to this blog subject except that is in Florida.

      You all seem upset that Obama even COMMENTED on this case, and I think it was in response to a question.

      My point is that in the Schiavo case, Bush went much further, even flying back to DC in the middle of the night to satisfy his nutcase base.

      And if you want to harp on the silly idea that Obama shouldn’t even comment unless he is going to comment on every other shooting in the country, we could as easily say that Bush should have been flying around the country, signing laws for each and every case where a guardian has made the decision to take a loved one off life support.

      Those are your rules, right?

        BannedbytheGuardian in reply to Nathan. | March 24, 2012 at 1:11 am

        Bush signed the law that was passed by (uncontested ) Senate vote & then the House. (over 50 Democrats voted yes).It was not an Executive Order & Bush did not veto many bills.

        As this bill originated in the Senate Obama could have at least taken the floor & spoken against it.

        This bill was ALL of the Congress’s responsibility – not GWB’s alone.

        I stiil don’t see what it has got to do with he case in point unless you think both were similar. In which case are they both justifiable homicide or non justified homicide? Did Zimmerman refuse to feed him ?

          If you are going to complain that Obama got involved in a specific, state-level case merely by saying something, then you should acknowledge that Bush got involved in a far deeper way in a specific, state-level case and conservatives cheered him on.

          Clear enough?

        Ragspierre in reply to Nathan. | March 24, 2012 at 8:25 am

        That Obama even COMMENTED…

        Well, yeah…given this was a shooting (NOT a “murder” by any established evidence), and not a “national tragedy” but one of several that day in the US that he never mentioned.

        And, yeah, because of HOW he COMMENTED. It was as divisive and gratuitous a comment as I’ve ever heard a president in office make, and I’ve heard several.

          jimbo3 in reply to Ragspierre. | March 24, 2012 at 10:42 am

          Have you been paying attention to what West and other GOP types have been saying, Rags?

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | March 24, 2012 at 11:30 am

          Yep. Haven’t you seen?

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | March 24, 2012 at 11:32 am

          That, BTW, is called a Tu toque ad hominem fallacy.

          Henry Hawkins in reply to Ragspierre. | March 24, 2012 at 2:21 pm

          Like the Gates case, the Martin case is local, not national/federal, and presidents have traditionally – and wisely – avoided comment because of the great weight placed on presidential utterances (why that is so is a whole other thread, eh?). Allen West is ‘local’, a Florida congressional rep, and his commentary is appropriate, especially in that he spoke more to the process than the case specifics.

          Even the Holder DoJ will have a tough time making a federal case out of this, ethically, that is, and by commenting, Obama has already begun to taint potential jury pools in a certain direction.

          The push to make political points out of any crisis, no matter how small or local (c’mon, murders like this happen all day every day across the US), has usurped the ethical practice of not commenting on cases in which one has no part and over which one has no jurisdiction.

          What we have in the Martin case is an example of how the media, in cahoots with race hustler types like Sharpton, constantly scans the news wires and has once again identified a case that is potentially exploitable for political gain. They are now doing just that, exploiting it.

          Obama was wrong to comment on the Gates case and is no less wrong to comment on the Martin case. The furor and uproar is manufactured, ginned up by media-driven hype. I live outside any municipality, and the closest town of any size is Rocky Mount NC. In the last two weeks, three murders have occurred in that town of perhaps 40,000 people. Do I care? Do you? I care in the general sense, but to be honest, no, not really. By report, they were routine ‘gang related’ in the one two-victim case, and ‘domestic violence’ related in the other. I known that somebody was probably murdered yesterday in New York, as well as in LA. Do I care? Do you?

          One thing that makes us care is if a murder is particularly heinous due to features such as serial killer, cannibalism, parent-on-child, and including the truly race-based killing, like when some white supremies drag some black guy down the road, and that is appropriate. But in this Martin case there is no obvious race-centered feature – it is being highlighted and promoted because it *might* be race-related, and certain individuals and causes are doing their absolute damnedest to *make it* race-related. The effort only furthers the social disruptions and divisiveness propagated on a wholesale scale by the Obama administration and the left in general.

          What we need at all levels in our country is not geniuses or heroes in leadership, but simply *adults* who can see past their own petty desires, hopes, and agenda needs, and conduct themselves in accordance to the sworn oaths of their respective offices, and in accordance with basic common sense and decency.

          Common sense has become so rare in American public life, it ought to be considered a super power.

    TEWS_Pilot in reply to Nathan. | March 23, 2012 at 10:40 pm

    You are so right. Instead of signing a law against starving adults who have brain function and a chance to recover like Bush did, Obama is more into laws that FORBID doctors and nurses from providing any medical care, not even pain killers, to infants born alive after a botched abortion like he did in Illinois. He prefers to have them placed in a broom closet and checked on periodically to see when they are dead.

      Nathan in reply to TEWS_Pilot. | March 23, 2012 at 10:52 pm

      Ah, BIG government intruding on personal, private family tragedies. So much for that ‘keeping intrusive government out’, eh?

      Terri Schiavo’s brain was atrophied and half the size of a normal functioning brain, with significant damage throughout all regions and no chance for recovery, the autopsy showed.

      However, simply NOT your business. Between the family and the doctors. Not for busybodies to stick their noses in.

        jimbo3 in reply to Nathan. | March 23, 2012 at 11:30 pm

        Schaivo’s brain was also mostly liquid.

        BannedbytheGuardian in reply to Nathan. | March 24, 2012 at 1:25 am

        Actual voice recording of (state ) Senator Obama questioning the need for the neo natal care for born alive abortees have him – aa aaahhh ahhhh aaahhh ahhhhhh aaaaahhhhh….

        Obama doubted that an American doctor would ever kill or let a born abortee die so the legislation was unnecessary. Kermit the Pennsylvanian baby killer begs to differ.

        What it would have done was up the cost of an abortion immensely because the practice would have to be set up to save a life not expunge it.

          With gibberish like that, I can see why you are “BannedbytheGuardian”…and every other blog will follow suit…proud of your ignorance?

          And for good measure:

          If you thought the Obama mandate of abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization raised a furor for attacking the rights of conscience our Founding Fathers sought to protect via the First Amendment, you’ll really enjoy what is coming soon.

          The prestigious Journal of Medical Ethics has just given us a sneak-peek into what ObamaCare will surely be mandating in the not-too-distant future.

          The Journal published an article this month seeking to mainstream the view that infanticide is a health-improving measure. Calling it “after-birth abortion,” two philosophers argue that killing a newborn should be a purely elective decision of parents who believe the baby would be a burden or would negatively impact their family’s well being.

          “What it would have done was up the cost of an abortion immensely”

          And there we have the TRUE goal behind all these right-wing anti-choice bills.

      jimbo3 in reply to TEWS_Pilot. | March 23, 2012 at 11:29 pm

      You, of course, realize that is a lie, don’t you? Illinois had a “born alive” statute, and, as far as I can tell, the consent decree didn’t affect the enforcement of the following provisions of the on-the-books statute:

      Sec. 6. (1) (a) Any physician who intentionally performs an abortion when, in his medical judgment based on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support, shall utilize that method of abortion which, of those he knows to be available, is in his medical judgment most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus.
      (b) The physician shall certify in writing, on a form prescribed by the Department under Section 10 of this Act, the available methods considered and the reasons for choosing the method employed.
      (c) Any physician who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly violates the provisions of Section 6(1)(a) commits a Class 3 felony.
      (2) (a) No abortion shall be performed or induced when the fetus is viable unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion. This requirement shall not apply when, in the medical judgment of the physician performing or inducing the abortion based on the particular facts of the case before him, there exists a medical emergency; in such a case, the physician shall describe the basis of this judgment on the form prescribed by Section 10 of this Act. Any physician who intentionally performs or induces such an abortion and who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly fails to arrange for the attendance of such a second physician in violation of Section 6(2)(a) commits a Class 3 felony.
      (b) Subsequent to the abortion, if a child is born alive, the physician required by Section 6(2)(a) to be in attendance shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion. Any such physician who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly violates Section 6(2)(b) commits a Class 3 felony.

      Yes, there was a consent decree, but it doesn’t seem to have affected almost all of the “born alive” requirement which was in place since the mid 70s:

        TEWS_Pilot in reply to jimbo3. | March 24, 2012 at 12:46 am

        You didn’t follow the chronology of Obama’s obstruction in the “Born Alive” fight in Illinois, either, but of course he has stated that life issues are “above his pay grade”, and he thinks pregnancy is a “disease”.

        As an Illinois State Senator, Barack Obama opposed the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act. The legislation defined any infant born alive as a “person” who deserves full legal protection.

        The Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act was modeled after the federal version, with the identical definition of “born alive.” The World Health Organization created this definition in 1950. The United Nations adopted it in 1955.

        Obama actively opposed the legislation in the Illinois State Senate. In 2001, he voted no in committee, spoke against it on the Senate floor, and voted present on the floor. In 2002, he voted no in committee, spoke against it on the Senate floor, and voted no on the floor. Obama was the sole senator to ever speak against it on the Senate floor.

        The U.S. Senate passed the federal bill unanimously, with Senators Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy speaking in support of it.

        The pro-abortion group NARAL expressed neutrality on the federal bill. On August 5, 2002, President George W. Bush signed it into law.

        For four years Obama has said he would have supported the federal version, but that simply isn’t true. In 2003, as chairman of the Illinois Senate’s Health and Human Services Committee, Obama voted yes on an amendment that made the Illinois version identical to the federal one. However, he then voted no on the amended bill.

        (Note the first vote under “DP#1” or “Do Pass Amendment #1” was to allow the amendment to be added, making this bill identical to the federal Born Alive bill. The second vote under “DPA” or “Do Pass as Amended” was on the bill as amended. Obama voted to amend the bill and then voted against the amended bill.)

        You can view the Republican State Senate Staff analysis at the site linked in my response, and you can also see a comparison of the final federal version of Born Alive and the 2003 IL version Obama opposed.

        It has been speculated that the IL Born Alive bill became unnecessary after passage of the federal bill. This is not true.

        The federal legislation was focused on Federal laws only, ensuring that for purposes of federal law, the terms “human being,” “person,” “child,” and “individual” include all born alive infants. The Illinois statute ensures that the same is true for purposes of Illinois law. The two bills are complementary, and the Illinois legislation was necessary to ensure that born alive infants in IL and not at a Federal hospital were fully protected under Illinois law.

          jimbo3 in reply to TEWS_Pilot. | March 24, 2012 at 10:35 am

          You didn’t answer my point. The existing Illinois statute had a provision that required doctors to provide immediate medical care for infants born alive (see Section 6(2): “No abortion shall be performed or induced when the fetus is viable unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion.”) There was a consent decree invalidating part of the statute, but it didn’t seem to affect that provision.

          It looks like there already was an Illinois law on point.

          jimbo3 in reply to TEWS_Pilot. | March 24, 2012 at 10:50 am

          TEWS here is the entire Federal born alive act. Can you explain what statutes require infants “born alive” to be given medical care at the federal level?


          (a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

          ‘Sec. 8. ‘Person’, ‘human being’, ‘child’, and ‘individual’ as including born-alive infant

          ‘(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words ‘person’, ‘human being’, ‘child’, and ‘individual’, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

          ‘(b) As used in this section, the term ‘born alive’, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.’.

          (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

          ‘8. ‘Person’, ‘human being’, ‘child’, and ‘individual’ as including born-alive infant.’.

        BannedbytheGuardian in reply to jimbo3. | March 24, 2012 at 1:40 am

        Technology for abortions has increased since the 70s. They used to just tear & scrape it out. Now they give tablets which help dislodge the fetus & 24 hours later vacuum it out.

        The threshold for viable life outside the womb has decreased by from 27 -28 weeks in that time to 22-23 weeks of gestation.

        I can see the desirability of updated protections against a grosser act than the usual gross act of abortion.

          Oh, so as long as a baby is killed by pills instead of ripping it apart or burning it to death with chemically treated saline solution or jabbing a pair of scissors into its skull and sucking out its brains, your fine with it?

          The “viability” argument went the way of the gooney bird, by the way.

    Milhouse in reply to Nathan. | March 25, 2012 at 3:57 am

    Right. Because trying to prevent a judicial murder is exactly like inflaming people against a presumably innocent person. Terry Schiavo’s murder is a permanent stain on the entire United States, because it was done by the USA, not by some individual criminal. Bush tried to prevent it, but failed. The harm that George Zimmerman has already suffered from the threats against him, including his loss of income, are at least in part the fault of the President who is busy prejudging the situation just as he did when he called those Cambridge cops “stupid” for doing good police work.

I’m with Bill when he says that we don’t have all the facts and need a professional, objective investigation. However:

1. It’s been about a month since Martin was killed, but suddenly the story has gone national.

2. Obama would not have been elected without the black vote and youth vote. Afaik these blocs continue to support him, but their November turnout is in doubt.

3. If the Democrats wanted to galvanize these blocs by making a national issue out of the Martin killing, it would take days or weeks to do polling and focus groups; to assess tradeoffs like potentially alienating Hispanics; and to set up an astroturf campaign. Just sayin’.

4. The foregoing is conjecture, of course. But I’ve posted before that every day that the focus is off Obama’s record, especially wrt the economy and debt, is a good day for the Democrats.

[…] me, which was basically, “Close the door quietly when you come in.”Attorney William Jacobson is hoping that justice will be thorough in its questions and answers:Let’s allow the facts to come in before we opine on the legal significance of the facts. Did […]

Henry Hawkins | March 23, 2012 at 10:40 pm

The only thing that surprises me about the Martin/Zimmerman thing is that, so far as I’ve heard, no one is yet suggesting Zimmerman is a conservative, a Republican, a Tea Partier, etc.


At my youngest daughter’s high school this week, a black girl slit a white girl’s throat with a scalpel. No sign of Al Sharpton as yet.

FINALLY – NEWT injects some sanity into the situation, while chiding Obama (Sharpton, and the rest of the race specialists) for inciting racism:

NObama spoke right up for Trayvon Martin – but has he spoken up or expressed condolences to this widow who lost her husband and children in France?

Has anyone from the White House or State Department spoken up about the Jew hatred being spewed out daily and is quoted from the core texts of Islam?

And has anyone spoken out about the commands to destroy all churches in the Middle East from the Chief Saudi Sheikh’s mouth?

No, I’m sure I haven’t heard a peep. Do correct me if I’m wrong.

    Gosh, why hasn’t Newt Gingrich commented on every single murder or accident in the country yet?

      TEWS_Pilot in reply to Nathan. | March 24, 2012 at 1:11 am

      Because he has a lot more brains and class than Obama, and he isn’t a race-baiter like Obama and “not-so-Sharpton” and Jesse Jerkson and the rest of the pre-civil war throwbacks.

        Nathan in reply to TEWS_Pilot. | March 24, 2012 at 1:29 am

        Ah….well, now you know why Obama hasn’t commented on this or that other death.

        Using the same rules you are using for Gingrich.

        If you want Obama to comment on other cases of your choosing, then you have to also state why Gingrich or Santorum don’t.

        It’s really amazing how trivial you folks are sometimes.

        “Gosh, why isn’t Obama saying something about MY pet murder…sniff, sob…”

          TEWS_Pilot in reply to Nathan. | March 24, 2012 at 1:53 am

          Sure, because they don’t fit his anti-White, anti-American narrative. As President of the United States, he (and his State Department) should be commenting on terrorist attacks on Jews and on Christians around the world because those incidents have international impact. His silence is a green light for them to continue, knowing the U.S. won’t interfere. He’s too busy meddling in non-issues at the “swing-state” level to do his day job.

          Nathan in reply to Nathan. | March 24, 2012 at 2:03 am

          Well dude, maybe YOU are on some kind of missionary religious war, but America isn’t.

          Since you are of the opinion that presidents shouldn’t comment on domestic issues, in ‘swing’ states, you should have recommended Bush stay out of the Schiavo affair, a domestic issue in a swing state.

          Clearly, you felt presidential involvement was just fine for that one.

          TEWS_Pilot in reply to Nathan. | March 24, 2012 at 2:48 am

          BannedbytheGuardian | March 24, 2012 at 1:11 am eloquently answered your March 24, 2012 at 2:03 am screed, but apparently you don’t pay attention to replies before you post.

          Nathan in reply to Nathan. | March 24, 2012 at 8:34 am

          He didn’t add anything new. Point remains: Bush got involved in the specific, state-level Schiavo case. More than involved…he actually flew Air Force One back to DC in the middle of the night to sign a specific bill for this specific case.

          You wingnuts who whine about Obama even saying something about this case just don’t have a leg to stand on.

          As usual, the legacy of Bush has ruined whatever credibility you might once have had.

Yesterday afternoon at a press conference, the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense circulated a “wanted dead or alive” poster for George Zimmerman for shooting to death a Florida teenager four weeks ago…here is just one of the many links to the story. I guess nothing is illegal for Obama’s Brownshirts.

    Nathan in reply to TEWS_Pilot. | March 24, 2012 at 1:04 am

    “Obama’s brownshirts”?

    And you wonder why people laugh at you.

      TEWS_Pilot in reply to Nathan. | March 24, 2012 at 1:09 am

      I haven’t noticed anyone laughing at me, but I know why they would laugh at your ignorance of Obama’s statements about forming a civilian army (just like Hitler did) and why most knowledgeable people refer to them as Brownshirts, just like Hitler’s Brownshirts. What would you call thugs who act like the “New Black Panthers”…eerily like the Nazi Brownshirts?

        Nathan in reply to TEWS_Pilot. | March 24, 2012 at 1:19 am

        Ah….so some dumbasses do something and they are doing so at the direction of Obama? Right.

        I knew you’d get to the Obama=Hitler stuff sooner or later.

        I’m sure his ‘army’ will be arriving at your house in black helicopters.

        But if you wear a tinfoil hat, you’ll be safe.

          TEWS_Pilot in reply to Nathan. | March 24, 2012 at 1:23 am

          “But if you wear a tinfoil hat, you’ll be safe.”

          …if anyone would know, you would. I’ll just have to take your word for it.

          Nathan in reply to Nathan. | March 24, 2012 at 1:57 am

          You’re the paranoid one ranting about Obama=Hitler, not me, dude.

          I think your hat’s screwed on a bit too tight, amigo.

      Milhouse in reply to Nathan. | March 25, 2012 at 4:05 am

      What else do you call the New Black Panthers, whom the Obama administration has effectively given a license to commit any crimes they like? Please explain why the Obama administration went out of its way to drop the case against them after they’d already been convicted.

Well, maybe Obama was right when he said if he had a son, that son would be just like Trayvon Martin.

Witness: Martin attacked Zimmerman
Updated: Friday, 23 Mar 2012, 6:19 PM EDT
Published : Friday, 23 Mar 2012, 5:47 PM EDT

ORLANDO – A witness we haven’t heard from before paints a much different picture than we’ve seen so far of what happened the night 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was shot and killed.

The night of that shooting, police say there was a witness who saw it all.

Our sister station, FOX 35 in Orlando, has spoken to that witness.

What Sanford Police investigators have in the folder, they put together on the killing of Trayvon Martin few know about.

The file now sits in the hands of the state attorney. Now that file is just weeks away from being opened to a grand jury.

It shows more now about why police believed that night that George Zimmerman shouldn’t have gone to jail….

…hmmm, did anyone know that Trayvon Martin had been suspended from school?

    Nathan in reply to TEWS_Pilot. | March 24, 2012 at 1:54 am

    Good enough reason for him to be murdered by some wannabe Rambo right there, eh?

      TEWS_Pilot in reply to Nathan. | March 24, 2012 at 2:53 am

      No, but good enough to stop publishing choir-boy-like photos of a 12-year-old holding an infant to try to garner sympathy for a 6′ 2″ high school football player who apparently was trying to beat a neighborhood watcher to death.

        Nathan in reply to TEWS_Pilot. | March 24, 2012 at 8:12 am

        Not really. You can get suspended for anything, including being late too many times. It’s high school stuff. I was suspended once for talking back to a teacher. Your attempt to portray him as some kind of ‘bad kid’ is lame.

        But since you want to go there, the Orlando Sentinel reports that your Rambo-boy shooter has an injunction against him for domestic violence, an arrest involving some kind of altercation with a cop (a real cop, not Rambo-wannabe), and a court history of bad debts and failure-to-pay actions against him.

        Apparently while he imagined himself some kind of vigilante, and once followed a shoplifter until the cops came, he ALSO once followed a guy who merely spit at his car (he claimed). THAT kind of thing is creepy….that demonstrates a vengeance and punishment-oriented mindset, and a tendency to overreact to very small things. Very dangerous.

        You have a vivid imagination if you think Rambo-boy MURDERED this kid because he was being ‘beaten to death’. You have no knowledge of this, and you are making it up.

        What we do know is that he went after the kid after being told by the cops to stay in his car. He was the aggressor, and there would have been NO confrontation at all if he had not started it.

        Sounds like he started something with this kid, who was probably scared to death since Rambo-boy had a GUN he wasn’t even supposed to have, and there was a scuffle.

        Rambo-boy, despite outweighing the kid nearly 2-1, found himself on the losing end, and LIKE A COWARD, shot an unarmed teenager.

        So there ya go, Genius Boy.

        Aside from the details we know, this whole thing demonstrates that these ridiculous ‘stand-your-ground’ gun laws NEED TO GO. That you can shoot somebody and make up whatever story you want after-the-fact and that’s the end of it…..that’s just a way to get a lot of people killed for no good reason.

        I hope Rambo-boy prick spends the rest of his life in prison….but he probably won’t.

          retire05 in reply to Nathan. | March 24, 2012 at 12:35 pm

          Nathan, you said you were suspended from high school for talking back to a teacher. So you have already established two things; you had no respect for authority (when Yes, m’am or Yes, Sir would have done) and you were a smart ass even as a teen ager.

          Amazing how you seem to know so much about Mr. Zimmerman, via the left wing Orlando Sentinel, but not much about Martin. What was he suspended for? Why was he in a private, gated community at night when his father claims the young adult was just going to 7-11 for some Skittles, yet there is no 7-11 in the near vacinity of Twin Lakes?
          Tell me, do you have a habit of walking around in neighborhoods where you don’t live?

          And you claim that Martin was unarmed? As in firearm, or is it possible he could have had a rock (or a brick, both considered weapons in certain cases) that he was threatening Zimmerman with?

          Now, perhaps you would like to comment about the trial that started yesterday on the deaths of two young adult British tourist. They were murdered by a 17 year old “kid”, shot not once, but multiple times. Seems that the Orlando Sentenial is a bit MIA in reporting that a black kid has now gone on trail for the murder of two white British.

          You are just another one of these people who jump to the conclusions you want. Zimmerman bad, Martin, poor innocent kid wandering around in a neighborhood he did not belong in just looking for Skittles. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are waiting for your checks.

BannedbytheGuardian | March 24, 2012 at 7:35 am

Tews_Pilot .

Firstly I had to drive 40 miles to help a young relative who has 3 young children 3 & 1 & 7 months. I walked the dogs , helped with bathing , dinner & bedtime. Then I drove back.

I don’t live for this blog alone.

I did see your replies then but I don’t think we are on the same wavelength for I simply do not understand your vitriol.. Kindly try not to reply to my posts & I will return the favour.

SmokeVanThorn | March 24, 2012 at 8:50 am

TEWS Pilot – I’m torn. On the one hand, I think I should remind you not to feed the trolls. On the other hand, I feel like congratulating you for responding so well to their nonsense, and I especially enjoy the whine you elicited from Banned.

Zimmerman Attorney To Anderson Cooper: Trayvon Martin Broke My Client’s Nose
by Frances Martel | 8:59 am, March 24th, 2012