“A man just can’t take the law into his own hands and hang people without hurting everybody in the world … because then he’s not just breaking one law, but all laws. Law is a lot more than words you put in a book … or judges or lawyers or sheriffs you hire to carry it out. It’s everything people ever have found out about justice … and what’s right and wrong. It’s the very conscience of humanity.
“There can’t be any such thing as civilization … unless people have a conscience …” — Don Martin’s letter to his wife, from “The Oxbow Incident,” 1943
“THE OXBOW INCIDENT,” A NOVEL BY WALTER VAN TILBURG CLARK made into a Western starring Henry Fonda, tells the story of a group of men who extract frontier “justice,” aka lynching, in retribution for the murder of a rancher and the theft of his cattle. Later they are torn with guilt upon learning the hanged men — one of whom wrote a farewell letter to his wife, quoted above, that served as a searing indictment of vigilantism — were innocent.
The powerful movie sends a message: Justice for one should not come at the cost of justice for another.
Last week in the trial of George Zimmerman, accused in the death of Trayvon Martin, the jury reached a difficult decision. I believe in the jury system. Having sat on a jury in a vehicular manslaughter case, I know the decision was not made easily.
However, in view of the charges, the Zimmerman jury’s decision was the right one, supported by the evidence — or more accurately, a lack thereof.
Followers of the Zimmerman/Martin saga are strongly divided. One side firmly believing that Trayvon was an innocent child walking home when profiled by a brutal vigilante and gunned down. The other side believes, just as strongly, that the 17-year-old Trayvon was a thug wannabe, a fighter, drug user and petty thief who jumped a neighborhood watch volunteer and was killed when that volunteer defended himself.
As is often the case, the truth lies between those views.
Reviewing the evidence would serve no purpose, as neither side will be swayed. What needs to happen is to not allow the system to again be ginned up by those beating the drums of vengeance.
President Obama originally beat the drums of guilt: “It is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this and that everybody pulls together, federal, state and local, to figure out how this tragedy happened. You know, if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”
The last phrase, particularly poorly chosen, cast doubt as to the president’s real intentions. The reasonable call for cooperation was a false plea, as the president’s actions later proved.
This case deserved to be investigated by local authorities, but Attorney General Eric Holder stepped in with the Justice Department’s Community Relations Services department under the guise of “peacemakers” and “mediators.” By setting up meetings with various factions, the CRS then exerted pressure on the local authorities.
The police chief of Sanford, Fla., Bill Lee, refused to file charges against Zimmerman based on the evidence. The resulting outcry from local citizens, inflamed by race baiters like Al Sharpton, Malik Shabazz and Jesse Jackson, forced Lee from office.
“They (the CRS) were there for us,” stated Rev. Valerie Houston of the Allen Chapel AME Church, who was demanding that Zimmerman be charged.
The case was taken over by the state special prosecutor, who bypassed the grand jury, going straight for Zimmerman’s throat with a second-degree murder charge.
They overstepped and fell flat on their face.
Following the verdict, the president — using words that echo the wrongly condemned Don Martin’s letter to his wife — appropriately changed his tune by calling for calm:
“I know this case has elicited strong passions. And in the wake of the verdict, I know those passions may be running even higher. But we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken.”
Others are seeking vengeance, not as direct as occurred at Oxbow, but vengeance nonetheless:
“We are outraged and heartbroken over today’s verdict. We will pursue civil rights charges with the Department of Justice,” NAACP President Benjamin Jealous said.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid echoed those thoughts: “I think the Justice Department is going to take a look at this. This isn’t over with and I think that’s good.”
The first victim in this case is Trayvon Martin. His death is a tragedy that should never befall any young man or those who love him. I can think of nothing worse than for a parent to bury their young son or daughter.
However, the man who killed Trayvon was tried and acquitted based on the best available evidence.
Yet there are those who now seek frontier justice, including Marion Barry, the disgraced — then disgracefully re-elected — “mayor for life” of Washington, D.C., who said:
“The good news is that Zimmerman will never be in peace. He won’t be able to get a job. He’ll have to go underground, travel incognito, and never live in peace. That’s the good news for me.”
Unfortunately, Barry, Harry Reid, Benjamin Jealous and others who are encouraging further DOJ investigations are flaming division, while not listening to the president:
“I now ask every American to respect the call for calm reflection from two parents who lost their young son.”
The president previously made statements for public consumption while taking or allowing conflicting actions. Future decisions made by the DOJ will indicate if this is, once again, the case.
The best way for the healing to begin for those “outraged and heartbroken” is to recognize what Don Martin said in his letter to his wife:
“There can’t be any such thing as civilization … unless people have a conscience …”
To demand that Zimmerman again be brought before a court to face further legal action for the same offense crosses the line from serving justice to serving unconscionable vengeance.
Dennis Lund is a mechanical engineer who lived in Benicia for more than 20 years.
Sharing is caring!
DDL: How do we accept that 6 women were “a jury of his peers?” That’s the best Florida can do?
OJ Simpson was acquitted in a criminal court but was hung out to dry in a civil court…What’s different about this case? Ever notice how ALL your offerings always have Obama being the Bad Guy? Do you have any other offerings in your portfolio of ideas or do you dwell under an Obama Dark Cloud daily? Did Cheney and Bush bring you sunny days? Your repeating theme always coats your stories with having a persistent agenda and sucks the credibility right out of them…I read your stuff hoping for a valid or new view, the startup with the Oxbow quote was brilliant, then it went back into the Proverbial DDL Obama Rut and wobbled with your “agenda” again…Good luck…pb
Peter said: DDL: How do we accept that 6 women were “a jury of his peers?”
Why do you consider that woman are not equally qualified to sit in judgment of a man?
Ever notice how ALL your offerings always have Obama being the Bad Guy?
Actually Peter, I referred to Obama’s comments as ‘reasonable’ and suggested that people abide by the sentiments issued.
you dwell under an Obama Dark Cloud daily? Did Cheney and Bush bring you sunny days?
Bush Cheney, again? Do you have any other offerings in your portfolio of ideas or do you dwell under an Cheney and Bush cloud daily?
Good comment Dennis. I new you would pick up on that.
I never said that a woman wasn’t equal to a man, I asked why six women ONLY?…why not 12 members and more diversified? Do you always answer a question with a question? I knew some fourth graders that did that quite often…pb
Petr asked: Do you always answer a question with a question?
Do I do that?
DDL: You start off bright with a commendable reference to the Oxbow incident, then it be becomes a chronic ragging on Obama…it’s like a stale tune through old bread… then you become juvenile with questions in response to questions…Enjoy your own banter, I will not echo your endless noise—pb
Thanks for this…while there are mixed messages in this article, I applaud Dennis Lund’s thoughts. The last sentence especially caught my eye: “To demand that Zimmerman again be brought before a court to face further legal action for the same offense crosses the line from serving justice to serving unconscionable vengeance.” If you know anything about the law, Zimmerman can’t be tried for the same crime; that would be double jeopardy. He can, however, be charged with violating the civil rights of the child he murdered. That, Dennis Lund, will be a form of healing. If no federal charges are brought against Zimmerman – and there is that possibility – my prayer is that he will never know another day of peace. Justice comes in many forms.
What world are you living in. I see if someone is coming at me with an axe I should see if I can out run him. I’ll hold me ground and find out after the fact if he was a long distance runner in high school. Wonder what your thoughts would be as you head is being pounded in the concrete. Someone should of asked the question why would a 17 yr old been raised to confront violently an adult.
What world are YOU living in? If you were walking home from the convenience store at 17 years old in the rain in a neighborhood that wasn’t your primary residence so that you don’t know the neighbors and some 240 pound man follows you in his car and then gets out and starts asking you questions about where you’re going, who you are and what you’re doing there and this guy is NOT identified as any law enforcement officer (and has already been told by the authorities to NOT get out of his car)what would you do? We don’t know if Zimmerman got in Martin’s face asking the questions which would lead Martin to defend himself. Through this whole process, Martin’s rights to defend HIMSELF were never discussed, even by the half-assed presentation of the prosecutors. Why wasn’t HE allowed to stand HIS ground. He didn’t even have a weapon! The minute Zimmerman got out of his car was the minute he crossed the line. He knew he had a gun and that emboldened him. If he had waited for the police like he was told to, Trayvon Martin would still be alive. The comments that he HAD to shoot because he “feared for his life” are ridiculous. Martin had no idea who this yahoo was and was under no obligation to talk to him, answer any of his questions and more likely than not feared for HIS life which ultimately was the right thing to do. Zimmerman started this whole trainwreck and got away with murder.
At the end of the day if I had been 17 in a neighborhood noted for crime my thoughts most likely would of been; I need to identify myself, acknowledge the individual questioning me has a valid concern and show some respect towards the adult. He threw the first punch, get it. I wonder what the dialog might had been had he not thrown the first punch. By the way Zimmerman did not weigh 240 pounds at the time of the incident. in addition he wasn’t coming home from 7-11.
“I see if someone is coming at me with an axe I should see if I can out run him.” How is this relevant?
Larry – I always find it interesting that people like you who posts similar thoughts rarely use their real – or full names. Fear is what drove Zimmerman and fear will be his ultimate undoing. That’s the real world we all live in.
Liberals concern me just look at the IRS, of course not inferring you’re a liberal.In addition this is a blog not necessary to share anything other then an opinion. I guess the question is why do you find the necessity for my name. I am only interested in comments. You don’t work for the IRS I hope.
Why should the IRS concern you in re liberals? You are aware, I hope, the ‘scandal’ has been completely debunked, with documents proving the IRS looked into liberal groups at least as much as conservative groups. Indeed, 501(c)4 status was only denied to liberal groups, not to any conservative groups.
I would rethink that statement. Lois Lerner is coming back and that issue is far from done. Now back to the article. Just wait till the hispanics get tired of all the race baiting that is going on. Just wnatch that issue. This is a very tragic event and should be treated that way.
Rethink all you want. It’s a dead issue. Yet another failed attempt by Darrell Issa (a man with a healthy rap sheet of his own) to make something of nothing for political purposes.
Issa should return to threading doughnut holes…who votes for these clowns anyway? Greyhounds?–pb
Say what you want it is happening and Lerner will testify like it or not. It is starting to climb the ladder and many are starting to get very nervious. just follow this IRS issue. It is going to be big.
Zzzzzzzz. Even Rethugs admit now this is a non-issue. But if you want to keep chasing that butterfly, knock yourself out.
Benician stated: with documents proving the IRS looked into liberal groups at least as much as conservative groups.
Do you have a link that confirms that statement, as it appears to be at odds with many other reports, such as this one:
Refuting Democratic suggestions that progressive groups were also swept up in the IRS probe of the tax status of Tea Party organizations, the Treasury Department’s inspector general has revealed that just six progressive groups were targeted compared to 292 conservative groups.</B
In a letter to congressional Democrats, the inspector general also said that 100 percent of Tea Party groups seeking special tax status were put under IRS review, while only 30 percent of the progressive groups felt the same pressure.
Washington Examiner
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Whatever Happened to Those Obama Scandals?
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/07/whatever-happened-those-obama-scandals/67303/
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA … *cough* Ahem. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
The Nature of the Beast: The Breathless Press and the Phony IRS ‘Scandal’ – The Daily Beast
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/07/17/the-nature-of-the-beast-the-breathless-press-and-the-phony-irs-scandal.html
Now Issa’s on the hot seat
http://www.salon.com/2013/07/18/issa_on_the_hot_seat/
Issa looks like he should be grinding meat in a sausage factory somewhere…how many watts are there in a Dim Bulb?–pb
I can provide oodles of links debunking the ‘scandal’, including quotes from the REPUBLICAN IRS officer who led the office in question in Cincinnati and GOP congressmen. You couldn’t come up with anything other than an excerpt from a right-wing propaganda site?
I can provide oodles of links debunking the ‘scandal’
But you didn’t did you?
No, I didn’t. You know the information exists. This is no scandal. If it were…then Darrell Issa is the worst investigator in congressional history. Same as the Benghazi non-scandal. Why should I do your work for you? You love to play the game of willful ignorance, but if you want a play partner, you’ll need to find someone else.
Indeed, the origin of the “scandal” lay in Rep. Issa’s own request for the IRS to look with special care into Tea Party matters. Then, he turned around and used the facts he set in motion to discredit Obama!
Sharon said: If you know anything about the law, Zimmerman can’t be tried for the same crime
Sharon, thank you for the comment. You are right and the use of the word ‘offense’ was a poor choice on my part as I did not intend to convey ‘offense’ as in a “criminal charge” but as in an “offensive action”.
He is under investigation for civil rights charges, but those charges are related to the same actions. Technically not double jeopardy, but rather it borders on harassment because of the desired level of vengeance on the part of many.
Jesus Christ. A child was murdered and you’re talking about Zimmerman being harassed. Are you kidding!!!? Harassment will be the least problem Zimmerman will have to deal with from last Saturday forward as he attempts to go about his pathetic life knowing the real truth. I see how people like Zimmerman exists with people like you excusing this monster. .
I have not ‘excused’ Zimmerman. I am however willing to live by the decision of the jury that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of a crime.
Do you not believe in ‘innocent until proven guilty’?
Do you also live by the OJ verdict? Is he still ‘innocent’ of murder? Zimmerman was found ‘not guilty’, not ‘innocent.
Also…while you pretend to play it down the middle in your column before you moved on to your tired Obama bashing, your comments in the reply area have been all in support of Zimmerman. Didn’t take much for you to reveal your true colors.
Do you not low people can be guilty of crimes without court decisions to that effect?
Sharon do you think your comment has a mixed message. Just wondering.
No I don’t. My post is clear and concise.
Your last two sentences are very clear and concise. the first part of your comment is not.
That’s your opinion. But thanks for sharing.
Let’s forget the verdict for a moment. George Zimmerman has assaulted a cop. He’s been charged with domestic violence. His cousin considers him a racist. All of his previous 40+ something calls to police as a watchdog were to report African-Americans. He has a MySpace page littered with racist rants against Mexicans. He demonstrably lied many times to both the police and to Sean Hannity. In his call to 911 that nite, he referred to Trayvon as a ‘punk’ (actually, some suggest the word was actually ‘coon’) and asshole, having witnessed nothing but seeing Trayvon walk ‘too slow’. Yet, the right holds him up like some kind of hero! Can someone please explain this to me?
Now, to the case…whether or not Trayvon smoked marijuana is immaterial…as are the other nitpicks into his character. Forget the color of his skin, and he’s no different than most other teenagers. He was walking home to watch a basketball game with his younger soon-to-be 12yo stepbrother. Are we to believe he would go out of his way to pick a fight instead of getting home with his snacks to watch the game? What we DO know is Zimmerman ignored the dispatcher’s command to not follow Trayvon. He was told not to get out of his car, but he did. He said he head was being slammed against the concrete, yet he only had two minor cuts on the back of his head. Even his lawyers said he exaggerated the damage. And, by the time he shot and killed Trayvon, he was 30 feet away from the concrete, so it was obvious there was no slamming at the time he shot and fired. Zimmerman said he got out of the car to get the street names, but he’s been a resident there for 4+ years and there are only THREE streets. He said Trayvon came out of the bushes to attack him, yet there are no bushes. He told Hannity he wasn’t aware of the ‘stand your ground’ law, yet a instructor in a law enforcement class, for which Zimmerman got an ‘A’, said Zimmerman was well aware of the law. With these and other lies…how can ANYTHING Zimmerman said be trusted? Meanwhile, Rachel Jenteal testified the last thing she heard Trayvon say in their phone call was ‘Get off of me!’.
Reluctantly giving Zimmerman every benefit of the doubt, the best scenario you can create for him was that he confronted Trayvon physically, a fight ensued, and when Trayvon began to get the best of it, Zimmerman pulled out his gun and shot and killed him. (the worst case scenario has him and Trayvon at a virtual standstill, when Zimmerman brandishes the weapon…causing Trayvon to scream…than killing him….fully aware a ‘stand your ground’ defense could exonerate him) First, why did he have to shoot him through the heart? Why not fire in the air as a warning? Why not shoot Trayvon in the leg? Also, Zimmerman knew residents were beginning to come out of there homes, and he knew the police were on their way. The minor physical damage he had suffered to that point was minimal.
There was enough evidence to convict Zimmerman. Still, I’m not going to argue with the jury. The prosecution was awful and the jury instructions were confusing. But, if you are a person of color, would you want to be anywhere near George Zimmerman while he’s carrying a concealed weapon?
And, as to the potential retrying of the case under federal law, this WAS a hate crime. That charge is different than what the state charged him with, so he’s open to the charge. And, the potential for a civil case exists…where Zimmerman would HAVE to testify. I more than hope we get to witness that.
Benician stated: George Zimmerman has assaulted a cop. He’s been charged with domestic violence. His cousin considers him a racist…
Let’s assume for the moment that all of what you say is true, then should not this have been a slam dunk guilty verdict? It was unanimous for acquittal. Why?
No need to ‘assume’. All I said WAS true. However, these facts were ruled inadmissible by the judge, so the jury was never aware. Of course, you already knew this…otherwise you’d have been horribly unqualified to write the column.
The judge also ruled that info regarding Trayvon and his history of fighting, suspensions and petty thefts was inadmissible.
Can’t have it both ways.
It appears that someone that was given a verdict of not guilty some want him to suffer. The problem I have with the AG getting involved is it appears the government wants revenge. I have always thought that the AG was everyones AG. I guess not in this case. Now what happens if the hispanics start to take action on this issue. Rallies etc. What will we accopmplish. Nothing. It will be Americans against Americans and there goes equality. Right down the drain. It will divide this country even more than it is now. I do not want that to happen. We must all start to think together for solutions and help each other.
Were you aware the DOJ was already looking into this case shortly after it transpired…only to hold back and let the Florida case play out first?
Yes,he who would not have proceeded if he was guilty. just covering his bases.
In one form or another, Zimmerman will get his come comeuppance. It is just a matter of time.
It just may be that time.
athen again, maybe not. Looks like it may have been self defense after all.
What a freakin loser this guy is.
Dennis this is very interesting. The media is now the judge and said he was guilty again. Not so.
Wrong again. Where did the media say he was guilty? Please cite specific examples. Or is it natural to wonder since this is a second time this loser has had a brush with the law?
Also define media. Do blogs and opinion sites count? Or is that just “public opinion”?
Hank it appears you think he is guilty again. Do your own research. You appear to very capable of that. I will not play Local Research Reporter for you.
It appears you have absolved him of any possible wrongdoing without having all the facts. Very premature. No evidence of media bias whatsoever.
Why now are they after his wife and not him on this issue. Hank I believe you are smarter than that.
Why are you rushing to judgment over a domestic dispute? Do you know anything about domestic disputes and how ugly they can get? Bob I believe you are smarter than that.
I am not but apparently the police are. we shall see.
“We shall see.” Smartest thing you’ve posted all morning. In the meantime, those who want to flog that dead horse of media bias are accomplishing little besides embarrassing themselves.
Bob said: The media is now the judge and said he was guilty again. Not so.
Very true Bob. The media has long shaped the news to convey the message they desire to send. This trend has increased tremendously in recent years.
In this case the NY Slimes went so far as to coin the phrase “White Hispanic” when they realized “Zimmerman” was not the KKK-NRA-Tea Party member they wanted him to be.
Very similar to what was done after the Gifford shooting.
What is amazing is there are still those so naïve that they deny the existence of this bias.
Nope. Ya got nothing.
QED
You have to make a case before you can rest it. Your continued failure to do so makes the opposite case. QED
Like the blind man said as he wandered into a cannibal village . . . Alright! I smell barbecue! – John Rachel
The master of the irrelevant quote strikes again.
The two operations of our understanding, intuition and deduction, on which alone we have said we must rely in the acquisition of knowledge.
Rene Descartes
Hank it is a good thing DDL and Bob Livesay post. You then would have nothing say. We make it possible for you to stay active on your posting venture. I will continue to help you.
If he was not guilty why would that even be necessary.
There were clearly no winners in this case. We will never know who actually confronted who. However it escalated, when it got to the point of Martin on top of Zimmerman pounding his head into the pavement, Zimmerman had the LEGAL right to defend himself up to and including deadly force. He acted within the law and the jury, based upon evidence presented and within the constructs of the laws of Florida believed Zimmerman and acquitted him. Like it or not, interject your own emotions about it or not, those are the facts and that is the law.
Let’s say for a second, there is more to the story and Zimmerman was some how in the wrong. If that is the case, I believe things have a way of coming back around. But let’s also consider for a moment that everything actually did happen EXACTLY like Zimmerman has explained. He will never live another peaceful day in his life, always looking over his shoulder wondering when the next shoe is going to drop. That is a terrible existence.
None of us were there and we don’t know what actually happened. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that Zimmerman acted as he said he did and there is also a lot of evidence to suggest that Martin was a punk and may be all to eager to incite a fight.
I have not seen any evidence to suggest that Zimmerman was out to kill someone black that night which is what the media and the race baters would have you believe. There is also no evidence that would suggest that Martin was an innocent little kid, also like what the media would have you believe.
For tons of reasons, it is clear that this case was politically motivated. The local officials did not find sufficient evidence to even bring charges on Zimmerman and yet the white house thugs sent people down there, with out tax dollars mind you, to get the local people foaming at the mouth against Zimmerman. Why was this case made into such a media storm but the same folks will quickly ignore any heinous black on white crime that is happening all around the country. In the coming days, what you will see is that the federalies will not bring a civil case against Zimmerman but they will use the scenario to resurrect the whole gun law issue again. Just wait and see!
If Trayvon were pounding Zimmerman’s head into the pavement, Zimmerman would have more than a couple of scratches. He’d most likely have a fractured skull. And, when Zimmerman shot and killed him, they were 30 feet away from the pavement. Zimmerman was clearly caught in a long list of lies. To trust anything he said is foolish.
I believe the jury did. Are they foolish?
Juror B37 said she believed him. Four of the other jurors (three of whom decided Zimmerman was guilty when the jurors first convened) signed a statement stating B37 didn’t speak for them. During original jury questioning, B37 said she was aware of ‘riots’ that took place in support of Trayvon before he was finally charged. This was not true. So…yes, B37 is/was foolish. That the prosecution allowed her to sit on the jury is but one of many dreadful mistakes they made.
“In the coming days, what you will see is that the federalies will not bring a civil case against Zimmerman but they will use the scenario to resurrect the whole gun law issue again. Just wait and see!”
Talk about living in fear!
Once again, the libs have no debate so they just sling mud!
JLB,
Classify this under the heading: “Blind Squirrel Finds Acorn”:
“I think the jury made the right decision based on the evidence presented… It’s not a moral question, it’s a legal question and the American law requires that the jury listens to the evidence presented,” Jimmy Carter (regarding the Zimmerman verdict) .
JLB: In the coming days, what you will see is that the federalies… will use the scenario to resurrect the whole gun law issue again.
This has already started:
“We should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis.” President 0bama
What a miserable world it must be for anyone who thinks that is an unreasonable statement by a president, or anyone for that matter.
At face value it seems like a reasonable statement. But, unfortunately it doesn’t mean making greater application of existing laws to prosecute criminals. Instead it means more anti-gun laws which will effectively make criminals out of law abiding citizens. We know gun laws don’t slow or stop crime because bad guys don’t follow the laws. Look at Chicago and D.C. They are two cities with the most strict gun laws in the country and they have the highest incidents of gun crime. Do you care to provide an explanation as to how more gun laws are going to make us safer? It certainly isn’t working in those two cities. So what is the problem? Are they doing it wrong? Make no mistake, gun laws only serve to restrict the rights of law abiding Americans to defend themselves against bad guys and tyrannical governments. The latter being the reason they want more gun laws.Several government run reports showed no appreciable or valuable change in gun crime when the assault weapons ban went into effect. Rifles are used in only 3% of gun crimes so it would make sense that it wouldn’t see any change. But the AR-15 is one of the most popular rifles in America. The reason they don’t want us to have them is they are also one of the best self defense weapons available. Do you own math and I would suggest also adding in some common sense and you will begin to see the light!
“The reason they don’t want us to have them is they are also one of the best self defense weapons available.”
In what context?
It does not make for a great home defense weapon, as the velocity of the round makes it problematic as far a penetrating walls and leading to potential collateral damage (experts agree). It obviously doesn’t make a great CCW choice. I will admit that an AR might be alright to defend against wild predators whilst out on back-country ventures. What other self defense scenarios are there?
Dennis, for once we agree, at least on this: “As is often the case, the truth lies between those views.” There was ample fault on both sides. Both Z and T lost rational conduct under force of emotion. Z felt compelled to express both, his racist fear of a hooded young man he assumed black, and his narcissistic compulsion to prove his worth in law enforcement (unofficial, self-appointed “neighborhood watch”) yet disobeying a police order, while T gave in to racial anger instead of ignoring Z and going on his way. Additionally, Z had opportunity to fire a warning shot into the ground before shooting into T’s body, the sound of which might have altered T’s action short of fatality. Z also had the option of wounding T non-fatally by putting a bullet into his thigh or someplace other than his chest. But, Z had got in over his head and beyond his self-confidence rousing incipient feelings of deficient self-worth. When you doubt yourself that way, you have little confidence in anyone but whom you sense as authoritative, and maybe you distrust authority, too. Hence, Z disobeys the dispatcher’s instruction. In my book, T is guilty of unwisdom, but Z is guilty of manslaughter for a combination of personal failings.
RMS: disobeying a police order and Z disobeys the dispatcher’s instruction
The dispatcher never issued any such order to Z and a dispatcher is not a police officer.
You live to quibble, Dennis, because you’re a controversialist who merely pretends to value truth.
The dispatcher is an “official” voice of the department and, man or woman, often wears uniform & badge. The dispatcher wisely “recommended” that Z not get out of his car or follow after T. In his clearly typical “unwisdom”, Z disregarded both recommendations and anyone’s good sense. He had no business being there, anyway, except to bolster his self-regard in face of imagined or pretended dangers and the wish of small boys to “play cops.”
Robert, based on your comments I would suggest you look into two aspects of this case for further clarity:
1) What was it about TM that first caught GZ’s attention?
2) Trace the routes taken by both men relative to the known time frame of GZ c911 call.
If you look at the answers to both questions (as the jury did) then any open minded individual will conclude that the decision made was correct.
Dennis, do keep on grasping at straws of justification. It was after dark. TM was talking on his cell phone. TM was wearing a hooded sweat-jacket. TM was walking fairly quickly as it was raining at least lightly. TM was moving along a walkway between the back sides of two apartment blocks. TERRIBLY SUSPICIOUS, behavior, right? TM was alone. (I’ll bet you, GZ would have stayed in his car if TM had been part of a small group of boisterous teen-agers, but) being alone, TM made GZ feel confident enough to swagger up with pretended authority. TM’s offended, angry response was his death sentence vis-a-vis that young, nearly white-looking person of weak character, inflated self-importance and little accomplishment.
so you did not actually read was said, but instead prattle on and on and on…
Thank you, Bob Shelby! Zimmerman was a self-assigned twit with a weapon looking to play “cops and robbers” for some self-exalting reason…Maybe IF had he had a real job and standing in the community, he wouldn’t have to be stalking kids in the neighborhood with a weapon when told by the dispatcher to “stay in your vehicle.”. Moral of the story: “Beware white guys in the street with intentions smaller than their IQs.” ©PB
Thankyou, Bob Shelby, I agree!–pb
If you watch the video of Z’s reenactment for the investigators at the scene of the incident, it is pretty clear that Z understood fully what the dispatcher meant.
Unfortunately the comments have focused more on the ‘guilt’ or innocence of GZ rather than the original intention of the piece, that being: Where do we go from here? Do we seek vengeance through further direct actions against him, do we seek to increase the divide by further politicization or do we try and seek some healing?
The President has asked for healing and I support him in that, unfortunately too many people do not.
good comment DDL
Foof, Livesay! Dennis, the way forward is through reexamination of “Stand-Your-Ground”, requiring official standing and training for anyone participating in Neighborhood Watch activity, and disallowing Watch-folk to carry firearms. A baton and whistle should suffice, as it does for ordinary UK patrolmen.
Now I understand. What kid of newspaper has a “writer” that deliberately lies? Dennis, you are practicing piss poor journalism just to make a point. The dispatcher did tell Zimmerman to NOT follow Trayvon Martin. The Benicia Herald should at the very least require some accuracy.
You are wrong. The 911 dispatcher did not specifically tell GZ “do not follow him”.
Look it up and you can confirm the testimony.
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah
Dispatcher: Ok, we don’t need you to do that
You’re taking hair-splitting to a new level.
You’re taking hair-splitting to a new level.
No, it is called being accurate.
Ha! Judging from your columns and comments, accuracy is the last thing you care about. As not being part of law enforcement, the dispatcher couldn’t issue a formal command. ‘OK, we don’t need you to do that’ is clear to anyone not looking to play games with words.
I stand by what I said in the piece:
Reviewing the evidence would serve no purpose, as neither side will be swayed. What needs to happen is to not allow the system to again be ginned up by those beating the drums of vengeance.
Actually, most of my comments have been trying to correct the false statements made here by those who continue to beat drum with you on bass, leading the big parade.
So, neither side will be swayed. And this makes this case different from any other on these pages…how? I’ve made no false statements. You have. For example:
“This case deserved to be investigated by local authorities, but Attorney General Eric Holder stepped in with the Justice Department’s Community Relations Services department under the guise of “peacemakers” and “mediators.” By setting up meetings with various factions, the CRS then exerted pressure on the local authorities.”
The ‘guise’ of peacemakers? CRS stepped in to keep protests peaceful and…you know what???…they WERE peaceful. Mission accomplished!
Also…
“The police chief of Sanford, Fla., Bill Lee, refused to file charges against Zimmerman based on the evidence. The resulting outcry from local citizens, inflamed by race baiters like Al Sharpton, Malik Shabazz and Jesse Jackson, forced Lee from office.”
Zimmerman shot and killed a kid. This was not in question from the start. Yet, he got to walk away that nite. Not even held over until some evidence…other than what Zimmerman told them…could be gathered. This was gross police misconduct. But, you throw in some name-calling of people who want to get to the truth to completely miss this point, and suggest removing Lee from office was unwarranted, when it clearly was.
And…
“Followers of the Zimmerman/Martin saga are strongly divided. One side firmly believing that Trayvon was an innocent child walking home when profiled by a brutal vigilante and gunned down. The other side believes, just as strongly, that the 17-year-old Trayvon was a thug wannabe, a fighter, drug user and petty thief who jumped a neighborhood watch volunteer and was killed when that volunteer defended himself.”
Nice framing of the divide. You sneak in Trayvon’s past indiscretions while omitting all of Zimmerman’s. You know…the assault of a cop…the domestic violence…the ‘racist’ accustations coming from his own family…and, his racist rants on MySpace.
Oh, DDL, I think “Benician’s” seen your wobbly trump card and has pulled two or three Ace cards of his/her own…It’s not a sunny day for the DDL/Livesay team, better check those facts again, the Libs move ahead 5 points on the scoring and Game Card circuit…I hear thunder uder the blanket of the Slumber Party…is Mom vacuuming again in the other room?–pb
Petr, you are so wrong and you do not even see it.
Nothing Real Jill or Benician has said has taken anything away from the validity of the point made in my piece:
People today on the left would gladly take the law into their own hands and kill George Zimmerman, if given the chance. You doubt that to be true? Consider:
The Black Panthers have put a bounty on Zimmerman’s head
People on the way to a hospital ER were attacked and prevented from getting to the hospital.
People have been attacked in numerous cities in revenge for Trayvon.
The people attacking in revenge have been encouraged by the false firestorm of rage which is acceptable and even encouraged by people like Nancy Grace and Piers Morgan.
These are the people whom you support and you do not even see it as a problem.
This is a nation of 400 million. The number of incidents was stunningly, happily low. Yes, those on the left — Nancy Grace? Oh, no you didn’t — did EXPECT violence … But that’s better than those on the right HOPING for it, to prove a political point.
Check out these two twunts attempting to incite a riot. I’m guessing they are not liberals.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVDVPLFy91c
I am trying very hard to be polite here, in order to respect the desires of the Editor as well as because I am a very civil person, unlike many of those who agree with your position.
Regarding the “nice framing of the divide” comment. You completely ignore the next sentence:
As is often the case, the truth lies between those views.
Which was the key point being made: Both sides are have distorted the truth and you continue to do so.
I have never known Dennis to be swayed by anything — he is always completely “Right.”
Not true Robert, I was for many years a Democrat, so obviously I can be wrong.
Sorry, Dennis, your validity just went in the sewer…pb
“Amen!” to that one!–pb
Well stated, Robert, it’s always refreshing to hear sime intelligence and not just Right-Wing cannon fodder: Kaboom and Woof…pb
What evidence is there that Trayvon lost rational conduct?
Benician, whatever in the world is an angry attack that throws your opponent on his back with a bloody nose and back of the head smacked on the sidewalk? It stretches my concept of “rational” to call that conduct well-measured.
Bingo!
1) We don’t know Trayvon attacked Zimmerman
2) If Trayvon DID attack, we don’t know what provoked it, other than Zimmerman’s original physical confrontation with him (Trayvon: ‘Hey, get off of me!).
3) We don’t know what caused Zimmerman’s bloody nose, though it was unlikely caused by Trayvon. On Trayvon’s hands were neither Zimmerman’s blood nor Zimmerman DNA.
4) Zimmerman had a couple of minor cuts on the back of his head. If his head were SMACKED against the sidewalk, more damage would have been done. If it were repeatedly SLAMMED against the sidewalk, as Zimmerman attested, it would most likely have fractured his skull.
If Zimmerman physically confronted Trayvon, what would a ‘rational’ response have been? And, since we don’t know, specifically, what constituted Zimmerman’s original confrontation nor, specifically, what Trayvon’s response was, there is no way to conclude what his actual conduct was, be it ‘rational’ or otherwise.
What we DO know is Zimmerman lied throughout both his police interview, and his interview with Ku Klux Klannity. As was said during the trial, only two people know what happened. One is dead and the other is a liar.
Completely uninformed non-intelligible trash.
So says you, who was NOT on the scene? And Trayvon is Gone and only Zimmerman’s marginal truth remains as testimony…he looks as bright as yesterday’s dog meal..No wonder his lawyers would NOT let him testify, the Prosecution would have shred his IQ into even smaller bits…..I’d say that makes for a lot of unintelligible white-boy trash…Right Wing confronted again by Left Wing…–Oh My!–pb
Nice fact-filled counterargument. Have you considered a career as a lawyer? Nothing I said can be disputed. I listed things we know and things we don’t know, as well as asking a question you didn’t answer. For a guy who accuses others of insisting on the last word, your attempts at such are littered all over this place.
Benician said: “as well as asking a question you didn’t answer.”
Complaining again? Usually you have more logic then this. Now I will say what I have said previously:
The other day you said I answer too much, now you complain when I don’t.
I just realized I’ve given you too much credit in the past. I’ve always thought you just pretended to be ignorant when it was convenient to do so. Now, I realize you really ARE ignorant. A second grader could tell my post was simply making reference to your typically nonsensical, let-me-get-the-last-word post, which lacked any substance. Yet, you couldn’t. And, the funny thing is…you’re going to reply to this with yet another nonsensical, let-me-get-the-last-word post.
Way to go! See my posting earlier, this exchange is always funnier than Abbott and Jello…or Costello, whichever shakes the Political Custard Boat the sooner…
Well stated, Benician. My, Oh, My, the Right Wing is not the only wing on the Great American Bird..whoever thought it was? But just another duck in the flying or walking UN family squadron…pb
Petr,
For someone who has repeatedly stated that he pays no attention to what Bob or I say, you sure seem to be paying a lot of attention to everything we say.
Half-truths and a chronically one-sided story are just that, do the math…pb
1)I was suggesting that more people should pay attention to what 0bama was saying on this subject.
2) Far from bashing 0bama I was agreeing with him.
3) the piece was not intended as a defense of Zimmerman, but rather as statement of accepting that verdict was rendered. The State (helped by the Fed) had their day(s) in court. They lost and we should move on.
4) I also came out opposed to frontier justice/retribution. However, it seems too many people are perfectly willing to hang Zimmerman, because they have “all the facts”.
DDL Stand Your Ground!!
Too late. He’s been beaten unconscious by a big bag of truth Skittles.
Dennis writes an article for the Forum Page and now he is told he uses poor journialism. I see hate from the folks that are anti Zimmerman. They take it out on the writer and anyone that says that they will live by the verdict. I lived by the OJ verdict and never looked back. I will live by this verdict and also not look back. I do agree with the verdict by a jury that took the assignment to do their job. They did it. The hate that I see in the media incites others to do things that are not good. Does anyone want to be a part of that. I sure hope not. Some of these comments can divide a community but in this case I do believe most of us new where they stood so it was not new. I would suggest that the nay sayers write on opposing article and see what reaction you may get. Always hearing both sides is healthy. I see three candidates on this issue in the comment section.
I see a problem with those who label as “hate” positions they disagree with. I disagree with the verdict. I think it’s indefensible, not just morally but legally. I think those who defend it are fools or motivated by some dark impulses. Is that “hate”?
Simon said: I think those who defend it (the verdict) are fools or motivated by some dark impulses
We can count Jimmy Carter as one of those defending the verdict, so you may have a good point.
That makes him a fool. On this issue, at least. But he’s also a southerner so he has a built-in handicap on race issues.
Simon – I was joking on Jimmy Carter and won’t belabor that point further. One person who you should respect would be Alan Dershowitz (Liberal and Harvard Law professor and with high integrity).
I have read numerous articles of his on this case. I would encourage you to do the same.
I am not joking about Carter.
I’m familiar with Dershowitz. Why do you point out that he’s “Liberal” — is that supposed to sway me? He’s wrong more than he’s right – see: OJ Simpson.
Why do you point out that he’s “Liberal”
The usual gaggle of bevy of attackers that post here regularly have in the past charged that I only getting my news from: FOXRUSHHANNITY.
I do not. Derschowitz is an example.
If you know the law better than he does then your clarifications are indeed most welcome.
BTW, you may have seen this but Derschowitz believes that Florida prosecutor should be disbarred for her numerous failings on this case.
Yeah….Dershowitz, the pro-torture liberal. Good example.
Dershowitz is in favor of waterboarding (I assume that is what you are calling “torture”)?
If that is the case, then my respect for him has been elevated.
DDL, my respect for you just plummeted.
Have you ever been waterboarded? I have. If you had you would never put quote marks around the word torture.
I find it reprehensible that armchair critics who know nothing of interrogation or torture should so cavalierly endorse inflicting pain on another person, and always, always with questionable results.
and always, always with questionable results.
Except when it was used to help get OBL, as Leon Panetta initially admitted.
He hedged on that. “I think we could have gotten Bin Laden without that,” Panetta added in response to a question about what the interviewer called enhanced interrogation or torture.
DDL, did you ever think of yourself as an advocate for the torture of human beings? At what point did you realize you condoned actions anathema to everything the US has always stood for?
Simon: He hedged on that.
Which then means that waterboarding was used and the information obtained was used to get OBL, the capture of whom BHO took personal responsibility to enhance his chances of reelection and which people who post here have used to denigrate George Bush.
As to your questions, let me turn nit around: You said you were waterboarded. Was this done voluntarily?
No, that’s not what that means — at all. If you read the numerous accounts (from actual news sources) it’s clear that the hunt for OBL was a multi-pronged effort and that any information acquired by torture had to be confirmed and confirmed again by other means. We didn’t need torture to get him, we would have gotten him anyway.
As for waterboarding, you don’t get to turn it around without answering my question first: Have you ever been waterboarded?
Simon being that you have been waterboarded as none of us have been. Maybe you could tell us under what circumstances. Military training, etc. That would be helpful and could make others understand how you feel about waterboarding. It also could change some folks minds on waterboarding from someone giving first hand expierence. This comment is by all means a positive comment.I would also say to you that it makes you a very brave person to volunteer to have that proceedure. For that I am impressed. At the same time you could also tell us your last name.
I have indeed been waterboarded, and it was “voluntary,” in the sense that I could technically have refused. That would have caused big-time problems for me, however. It is not an experience I would ever willingly go through again. And any suggestion that it is not torture is ridiculous — like opining on combat if you’ve never been in it.
I’ll keep my last name to myself, thanks.
Simon, if your wife, girlfriend or child was being held by someone and you had their accomplice and needed information from them to get your family back, I bet you would be willing to water board them or even a lot worse in order to get the information you needed to get them back. Why should we treat savages humanly when they would not do the same or anything close to it for you? Torture has a place and I am all for it. I bet if we were to start torturing savage murderers in country rather than housing them in plush accommodations and provide them with countless resources and comforts, we would see a huge change in our judicial system. For many of these gang thugs, the life inside is way better for them than outside. There is no incentive for them to stay out.
We don’t have to make these decisions as if we were in an episode of 24. We can be smarter, and better, than that — and indeed we must be. Why do you want to sink to the terrorists’ level? Act like the “savage” (your word) and you become one.
When you assume….
Dershowitz’s affinity for torture isn’t limited to waterboarding. And, that you approve of such torture is hardly surprising. Or, are you taking the Bush administration company line that waterboarding isn’t torture. If so, perhaps you’d like to subject yourself to the tactic to confirm.
Anyone who says waterboarding isn’t torture either doesn’t know what they’re talking about or is lying to make a political point. Probably the former.
Great comment. Waterboarding can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage, and death. I know it’s going to sound extreme (sarcasm intended), but, I’m just going to come out and say it anyway; I consider waterboarding to be torture!
edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/03/cnna.Dershowitz/
Again…are you willing to subject yourself to waterboarding?
Benician,
Your terming Derschowitz as having an “affinity” for torture is a complete misrepresentation of what he said. I did read that interview when it first came out and figured that was where you were headed.
Sorry, those comments do not support your grossly exaggerated claim.
I said Dershowitz was pro-torture. He is. BTW, Dershowitz considers waterboarding as torture. You don’t.
Benician,
Here is a link that explains Derschowitz position on torture:
edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/03/cnna.Dershowitz/
You posted it earlier, but obviously never read it, otherwise you would not be making the statements that you are.
Notice I said the media. I see the label because the folks that disagree with the verdict . Explain the legal side, the verdict is in jury dismissed. What dark impulses are you talking about. keep your eye on the media and you will see just what I am talking about. Do you think Dennis was not attacked for what he wrote. If you think he was not attacked you are not following the comments. You call me a fool because I believe in the system and also the verdict. Why am I the fool and not you.
I think you fail to understand the cultural forces at work here. At least you have not displayed any evidence that you do understand them. And if you do, and you still support the verdict — and, apparently, the reprehensible “Stand Your Ground” laws — then you fall into the latter category. Either way you’re wrong, and probably irretrievably so.
I guess Simom I will say the same about you. Now what. the personal attacks on anyones opinion are way over the top Simon. If that is what you want so be it.
Don’t be so sensitive.
Cultural forces have no place in a court of law. The verdict was lawful and based upon facts as presented in the court of law. The problem is that the prosecution had not facts or evidence to support a 2nd degree murder or manslaughter charge. The whole thing is a very unfortunate event that is wounding our nation and causing great divide. If you don’t like the law then change it with your vote but you are not going to be able to reverse the verdict. It was lawfully concluded and lawfully it will stand. Get used to it.
Cultural forces ALWAYS have a place in courts of law, as they do everywhere. Judges are human. Juries are comprised of thinking, feeling humans. Legal decisions are not made in a vacuum.
Was justice done every time a jury found a defendant not guilty? That’s pretty naive.
Was justice done everytime a defendent was found guilty? That pretty naive. Lets move on and let the media decide this case even though the verdict is in.
You can’t flip this around on me because I’m not suggesting there’s a bright red line — that if a jury decides, justice has been done, end of story. That’s what YOU are suggesting. Yours is the naive position.
“Hate from the nay-sayers?” Really Bob, it’s just several contrary opinions…How strange that you always have to throw the opposition to the extremes in your vocabulary…Who protects the public from mediocre lawyers in court? Couldn’t Floridians find 12 jurors, not just six for a far more diversified-public process? Will my guilt or innocence be judged by 6 or 12? How many mediocre FudgeBars in a six-pack? How many Duh-Duh Doughnut Holes in a dozen? How many “quasi-militia” stalk the streets loaded with a weapon looking to “do good” on their streets? Why not lobby their City Council for better protection? Lobby their Congress for fewer “derivative-scamps” sinking the economy causing a lack of funding for anything cultural or providing better security? Should we all “pack heat” and wander the streets looking for “one of those?” Who are “those” anyway? Dour old cosmopolitan anti-science status-quo-ers?–pb
That is a very unfair and incorrect assumption on your part Peter. There are millions of concealed carry persons in America who carry every day. They are not looking for one of those or wanting to use their weapon. We want to be able to defend ourselves within the confines of the law and will do everything in our power to avoid a conflict that may escalate to a higher level. I do not believe that Zimmerman did everything he could to avoid the situation but neither did Martin. He could have just as easily walked on and he would still be alive today. He made a fatal choice as did Zimmerman. Zimmerman could have stayed in his car, made the call to police, reported the incident and left the police to do their job. That was his fatal error. At the end of it all, Zimmerman acted in self-defense within the law using deadly force that he was legally carrying and we have a tragic ending. There are no winners here. Let’s not make more losers than we have already.
Bobbie, you see hate in anyone who sees things differently from yourself. It comes out in the way you always talk back and keep on talking back. Your presumption of “two sides” to any issue shows plain simple-mindedness. Issues may not have ANY valid alternative views or may have dozens of angles for being perceived and discussed.
Amen.
Dennis, your article is, as usual, a serious and thoughtful analysis of a senseless conflict between two disfunctional people. JLB probably best summed up Z-M (and all the palaver on this blog) when he wrote: “There are no winners here. Let’s not make more losers than we have already.”
The jury verdict on Zimmerman may have been correct within the scope of jury-members’ experience of the proceedings and gradual layering of information as framed or informed by Florida law. But, there is a larger frame than that provided by the courtroom trial, and it is the broader morality of life in the real world.
Amen is a religious expression affirming the will of God. Tell me, Thomas, is Benician your god?
Inshallah
Amen is also a closure word, signifying a more colloquial agreement with what was said, I use it often…I suggest you try not to be poured into bronze with every utterance…there are shades of gray in every burp and aspiration–it may relive some pressure around the temporal lobes and bad gas as well…pb
1) I’m an atheist. I have no god. It is a just a figure of speech. Don’t be so literal. There are many expressions in the secular world that have their roots in religion.
2) How do you know my comment was in response Benician’s?