Posted on 07/10/2013 11:02:20 AM PDT by Kaslin
On Monday, the Broward County Sheriff's Office in Florida released a public service announcement attempting to convince young people not to riot in case George Zimmerman, the man who shot and killed Trayvon Martin, was acquitted of second-degree murder. That likelihood remains high, thanks to the fact that the prosecution itself was weak and pushed forward by a breathless media desperate for a racial hot point to drive ratings.
The sheriff's office announced that it was "working closely with the Sanford Police Department and other local law enforcement agencies" on a "response plan in anticipation of the verdict." Sheriff Scott Israel appeared in a video alongside a rapping duet of two teenagers, one a Hispanic female and another a black male, who tell the public, "Raise your voice, and not your hands! We need to stand together as one, no cuffs, no guns. ... I know your patience will be tested, but law enforcement has your back!"
Despite the passions elicited in both the black community and the white community over Zimmerman, one fact remains clear: Americans are far more concerned with the possibility of a minority riot over Zimmerman's acquittal than they are with the possibility of a white riot over Zimmerman's conviction. That's not unreasonable. Al Sharpton of MSNBC, among others, has threatened civil disobedience in Sanford before, and Americans still remember the Crown Heights riots of 1991, the Los Angeles riots of 1992, the St. Petersburg riots of 1996, the Cincinnati riots of 2001 and the Oakland riots of 2009, among others.
Why, exactly, are Americans so seemingly complacent about the notion of another riot over a case about a Hispanic man shooting a black teenager, presumably in self-defense? It's thanks to a media that continues to maintain the fiction that every case allegedly involving a non-black suspect and a black victim is a test case for American racism. The media pretended that the case against George Zimmerman was unshakeable; it simply wasn't. There wasn't just reasonable doubt about whether Zimmerman engaged in self-defense when he shot Martin, there was virtually zero countervailing credible evidence to the proposition that he shot Martin in self-defense. Furthermore, there was literally zero evidence for the proposition that the shooting was racially motivated, or that the police didn't initially arrest Zimmerman thanks to their institutional racism.
Yet the story has played out in the media as a controversial example of America's continuing love affair with racism. The media's narrative went like this: white man shoots black man after racially profiling him, and racist local officers let him off the hook. That's a lie, but it's become widely accepted in the black community, where 72 percent of blacks polled thought that Zimmerman was definitely or probably guilty (compared with just 32 percent of nonblack Americans), and 73 percent thought he would have been arrested initially if he had shot a white person (compared with 35 percent of nonblack Americans).
Sadly, an incredible number of blacks feel that the system is biased against them: While most white people don't believe that the criminal justice system is racist (49 percent believe it is), a whopping 84 percent of blacks in America believe it is.
And so each case with racial overtones becomes another reminder to blacks that the system is out to get them, particularly when largely white media commentators wrongly paint a case as race-based. This means that anytime the media labels a case race-based, Americans are forced to accept the ugly calculus that acquittal, while proper, may result in riots based on perceived institutional wrongs.
It’s a RAT county.
I hope they tear the place apart, regardless of the verdict.
I saw the video where GZ walked police through what happened, before he had attorneys. And I hear there was a video prepared that the judge would not allow defense to use.
meanwhile DOJ busy fomenting riots
advice for Holder’s people:
go to the store, write your name and obamaphone number on a piece of tape and place it on the back of the TV. That should reserve it for you when you return on Friday.
Well, here we are. What next?
It was a rhetorical question actually but you have given the correct answer. How many times and how badly does the law have to be broken for a response to be just?
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants.” - Thomas Jefferson
Know where we can find any Patriots? I know where there are a bunch of Tyrants.
Good point.
As I’ve always said, when these people riot, they usually tear up their own neighborhoods,
causing HUNDREDS of dollars in damages.
“America is at that awkward stage; it’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.”-—Claire Wolfe
Spot on!
One of the operative issues in this case is the ultimate imperative. It doesn’t matter if there was following, or not. It doesn’t matter if GZ was given instructions (he wasn’t) that he disobeyed. There is one most significant issue, which if true, prevents all further discussion. That is: Did GZ at the time he fired his Kel-Tec reasonably believe his lifewas endangered, or serious bodily harm was going to occur. If it did, he could defend himself. All else is window dressing.
Another FReeper posted this morning on another thread the following logical argument that I believe you will hear urged in closing argument. Assume there are two men. One has a gun, and the other doesn’t. One is a soft, formerly pudgy man afraid of personal confrontation. Who starts the fight? I would posit that the one without the gun would begin fisticuffs. A man with a gun, wanting to dissuade another, at most, would brandish (not advised) to warn the other.
But, regardless who started the physical exchange, did GZ have a reasonable belief that his life was endangered to the point of death or serious bodily injury. The test is subjective - not objective. It is not what any other person (jury, lawyer, judge) thinks. It is what GZ was thinking “in the moment”.
That is the Florida law that the jury will be instructed upon.From reading the two stautes it seems that there is good reason for law enforcement to anticipate riots.
When our Masters speak we are to say Yassuh and do as they say./s
Might be a good idea for folks in that area to hide their Dogs.
TT
George Zimmerman Reenactment Of Trayvon Martin Shooting (Part 1)
George Zimmerman Reenactment Of Trayvon Martin Shooting (Part 2)
A 911 operator is not a deputized officer of the law, and his or her requests are not binding.
“Zimmerman was absolutely wrong in following him for any length of time longer than to place the call to the dispatcher. His role as a Neighborhood Watch patroller was over at the point of conclusion of that phone call.”
Specific references upon which your post is based, please.
How long ago was that?
I’d send any HDTV’s, X-Boxes, Blu-Ray DVD players( If you loot a HDTV,
you got to have a matching Blu-Ray player to go with it), etc to Fort Knox
to protect them.
That was written years ago. The end of the “awkward stage” is approaching rapidly.
riots will not come there but in the urban areas.
I understand the video the judge would not allow the defense to be used is a animated video
Sequoyah101 ~:” How long ago was that?”
Sometime between 2003 - 2005
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.