With the George Zimmerman trial drawing near, his attorney is flaunting information about Trayvon Martin as a pothead, a possible thief and a gun lover. It’s questionable whether that information will ever make it into evidence at trial and the assistant state attorney has filed a motion for a gag order to prevent attorneys from discussing the case with reporters. But you’d never know any of that from watching Megyn Kelly’s interview with Zimmerman attorney Mark O’Mara on Thursday (5/23/13). To the contrary, she seemed determined to work in as much dirt on Martin as she could before she was ordered not to.
Kelly, an attorney herself, sounded more like a lawyer questioning her own client on direct examination than an interviewer. In other words, her questions were designed to elicit O’Mara’s talking points and ignore the other side. So she asked questions like, “What is the most significant piece of information” O’Mara wanted to put forth against Martin and commented, “It looks like you’re also going to use some of these text messages from Trayvon’s phone to show that he was a potentially violent guy who had some past violent episodes. What do the texts show in your view?” She also made a point of showing some of the photos O’Mara wanted displayed, such as a photo of a marijuana plant and a gun.
Kelly feigned objectivity by asking, “How is this relevant?” but it was really just an opportunity for O’Mara to answer that Martin was high the night he got shot by Zimmerman and was a “chronic user” of pot. But as Kelly surely knows, the issue is not whether Martin was high or loved guns but whether Zimmerman acted in self defense when he shot and killed the unarmed Martin.
Somehow, she never got around to bringing that up. In fact, it was O’Mara who kept qualifying his “evidence” by saying that it may not be admitted in court. But that was no problem for Kelly! She never even asked why not.
I have previously asked you to be respectful toward us. The next time you say we lied or call anyone here “mentally ill” or call us “race baiters” or act hostilely, you will be banned. This is your final warning.
Mj, I think you’re right – I’m probably answering my own question within the thought. I just wanted to give him a chance to have some other reason to justify his behavior.
Harry Ball, you have once again tried to swamp the thread, and I suppose you must get some credit for persistence in the attempt. But almost all of your statements are repetitions of the same things you’ve already failed to prove.
To answer your issues in order:
“1. Mr.Zimmerman committed no crime that night before he was battered.” – This assumes that he didn’t instigate the situation by stalking and confronting Trayvon Martin. According to Witness 8, he approached and confronted Martin as a precursor to the fight that was heard by all the other witnesses. And the other witnesses heard the arguing, which would not have been happening had Zimmerman simply been jumped by Martin. So you’re stating a fact not in evidence, and you may actually be stating something that’s the reverse of what we’ve been discussing here.
" 2. The gun was fired from where Mr.Zimmerman said it was." I think you’re right about this. But it’s irrelevant where Zimmerman fired the gun. What’s relevant is THAT he fired the gun, when he should never have been in the situation in the first place. “3. Mr.Zimmerman was injured and the injuries are consistent with being battered.” I think you’re right about this, but that doesn’t tell the whole story, does it? Even if Zimmerman and Martin got in a fight that Zimmerman was losing, does that justify Zimmerman killing Martin? Particularly when the fight was caused by Zimmerman’s stalking and confronting of someone who was committing no crime?
" 4. The kid wasn’t hit, grabbed or struck in any way by Mr.Zimmerman." You don’t know this. You only know that the only bruising that was found on Trayvon was on the knuckles, from where he was clearly hitting Zimmerman. You don’t know that he wasn’t grabbed or struck otherwise. You don’t know what Zimmerman did, because you weren’t there and you’re relying only on the testimony of Zimmerman, who has already contradicted himself. “5. Witnesses corroborate Mr.Zimmerman’s account of being battered.” This is true, but irrelevant. Yes, he was in a fight with Martin that he was apparently losing. Same question as before. Does this give him the right to kill Martin? “6. Mr.Zimmerman was going back to his vehicle not chasing the kid down.” You don’t know this either. You hope this is the case, but you don’t know it. And Witness 8’s testimony says that he was actually approaching Martin in the dark, not moving away from him.
“7. The kid either didn’t leave or he came back, he didn’t try to go home.” Witness 8’s testimony says that he tried to run away and then stopped in the dark, thinking he’d lost Zimmerman. Witness 8 makes clear that he wasn’t going for the front door, which is understandable as nobody would want to give a stalker their address. Witness 8’s account of the confrontation has Zimmerman catching up to Martin and thus instigating a confrontation.
“8. Mr.Zimmerman feared for his life.” This probably is true, but it’s irrelevant. Trayvon Martin was fearing for his life as well. And what happened? Zimmerman killed him. “9.Mr.Zimmerman didn’t stalk the kid.” The testimony by the witnesses indicates that he did. He went looking for Martin after he lost him in the dark, following the last direction he saw him take and clearly came upon him very quickly after hanging up on the police dispatcher who told him not to do so. Had Zimmerman not done this, there would have been no fight and no killing. This is likely to be a major point in the trial. “10. Mr.Zimmerman didn’t start the physical altercation.” You don’t know that. You hope that he didn’t, you mean to say. From what Witness 8 says, he started a confrontation that led right into the fight. From what the other witnesses have said, there was arguing going on before the shouts for help. Which puts Zimmerman’s entire account in doubt. Hopefully, Zimmerman will come clean during the trial and tell us the full story of what happened.
“I have not whacked at anyone on here for the last 3 days after the mod warned me. Quit lying.” I find it interesting that Harry keeps trying to say that he isn’t insulting me, while at the same time he repeatedly calls me a liar. He tells me to provide more examples of where I’m getting my reasoning from, which sounds like he just wants me to repeat the same spread of material he continues to do. I’m trying to answer his more recent repetitons without subjecting everyone to an endless post of quotes of what can already be found on multiple submissions of mine to this thread. If Harry were to look at my prior submissions, he could find exactly what he was asking for here. But I believe he knows that.
At the same time, I find it interesting that Harry wants to again discuss the text messages which were provided by the prosecution to the defense, and which the defense is trying to publicize. Somehow, the providing of this material, which Harry has admitted the prosecution has done when he’s wanted to pin the material on them, is somehow a stall. It isn’t. It’s called Discovery. The stall tactic is the defense team asking for the trial to be delayed. Further, we had the hearing today which didn’t go well for the defense, but that’s another story.
It sounds like Harry is hoping that somehow the defense will be able to get the jury to believe that Zimmerman was completely the victim in this situation. Given the contradictions we have repeatedly pointed out in Zimmerman’s testimony, this doesn’t sound likely. One never knows in a jury trial, and it does sound like the defense team is doing what they can to try to get a change in venue or whatever they can get in order to get their client out of this mess. And maybe they’ll succeed. But it’s quite likely that the discussion in a couple of months will be about what sentence is handed down, and how the right wing media reacts to it. If it’s anything like the Ramos & Compean matter, it won’t be pretty. Of course, with Ramos & Compean, they didn’t know about the case until after it was all over. With this case, they’ve had a whole year to try to assemble their talking points. It’s just unfortunate that this is all they’ve come up with after that amount of time.
I linked him to that Zimmerman allegedly had a severely broken nose on the night, then when the pictures of him cleaned up were taken 40 minutes later, his nose was straight, had no swelling, no bruises, nothing.
Even if they set his nose before taking the picture, there’s no way he would heal that quick.
He blew that off.
I linked him to the mysterious dancing headwounds. He blew that off.
I linked him to the people who busted the photoshopping. He blew that off.
I linked him to the perjuries of Zimmerman and his wife. That was excusable because they’re sad.
If this guy was interested in facts, reasoning, or even basic courtroom logic, he would have acknowledged this. But he doesn’t care about having an argument more evolved than defending Zimmerman’s racism, and his guns.
The judge called this motion “racist and reprehensible.”
Zimmerman was a casual racist:
So’s his brother:
People who know Zimmerman say his whole family is like that, and a few also peg him as someone who can’t control his impulses:
I have linked Harry to multiple sources throughout this thread exposing Zimmerman as a racist and Perjurer. Even if he’s found innocent of the murder, he still lied under oath, his wife implicated him in other crimes, and he violated orders from a police dispatch. No way this guy’s walking, even with the pull of his daddy the judge.
But you keep on thinking that this guy will walk, and that your side can “crush the 20%” when that happens, Harry. But if I were you, I’d start working on my sore loser face.
Statistician (“Look at it this way: When GZ walks and the riots happen us 80% will crush the 20% easy”), attorney, and now — mental health expert.
You really are a jack-of-all-trades, aren’t you, Hairy?
@ Kevin Koster:
“I do have to ask Harry what his motives are here. Multiple posts completely repeating the same citations that have already been discussed. Multiple insults to everyone he encounters here. Multiple nasty comments about Trayvon Martin and citations of his girlfriend as “Dee Dee”, followed by attempts to hide behind the right wing blog from whence Harry pulled the transcript of her remarks.”
Kevin, I think you’ve answered your own question, when you said:
“It’s understandable that you want Zimmerman to be found innocent of this murder. It’s understandable that you’re upset that he’s facing serious jail time.”
Hairy, the departed Russ DeMented, and the few others trolling this thread are just like the numerous “visitors” who showed up and spammed the boards during the Benghazi controversy; they felt that if they simply showed up in numbers and kept repeating the same debunked talking points, it would not only change the reality of what happened, but would also result in President Obama’s election defeat and/or impeachment.
The same principle is at work here: as with Benghazi, where the deaths of 4 Americans was the trigger for their outrage (which was strangely absent during the numerous attacks on US embassies during the GW Bush administration), the arrest of George Zimmerman triggers their outrage that it is no longer as acceptable as it once was that a known bigot isn’t allowed to stalk and kill an unarmed black teenager without facing legal repercussions.
Good night and good luck.
Good night all.
He’s a whole lot smarter and better informed than I am. He is immeasurably more patient than I could ever be, especially with young people (as Russell has admitted to being). And I like to play around with words whereas he’s dead serious in trying to establish a dialogue with the blindered and the endeafened. Makes me think he may be a professor (or a social worker).
On this thread, his efforts have led to naught because neither Harry nor Russell (weren’t the two of you leaving BTW?) are actually reading his posts. “Un dialogue de sourds” (or conversation between the deaf).
That aside, I detect many similarities in the posts by Harry and Russell. They seem to have the same fixations: e.g. with the idea that Trayvon bashed Zimmerman’s head into the concrete despite all the evidence to the contrary. Neither will countenance the possibility that Zimmerman may (understandably) be lying through his teeth to avoid life imprisonment (or death). He’s gotta be innocent! They bellow.
Well, I have to admit to having a few fixations of my own, although they are subject to modification as a result of the trial. I wasn’t there so I can’t say whether or not Zimmerman was justified in killiing that kid but there are parts of his story that don’t track properly for me. And I claim my rights to freedom of speech to list a few of them here:
1) Zimmerman was not watching Martin from a window (with or without a laptop) or his vehicle: he was following that kid at night and in a deserted place. That’s not “watching” in my book, it’s stalking and stalking is aggressive especially at night.
2) Zimmerman ignored the 911 dispatcher’s invitations to stand down. Twice. “We don’t need you to do that, sir” is clear for any law-abiding citizen. But Zimmerman wasn’t listening.
3) Zimmerman would not have been at risk of being pummelled by Martin had he (Zimmerman) not ignored the invitation of the 911 despatcher to wait for the police. Had he waited in his vehicle, Martin would probably not have confronted him (I think, anyway).
4) Can’t for the life of me understand why “stand your ground” is a valid justification for shooting somebody (as Zimmerman did) but not for un-armed combat (as Martin did). Does having a gun make it somehow more acceptable?
Those are some of my own fixations but I shall await the outcome of the trial.
And almost all of Harry Ball’s contributions are the same material, regurgitated again even after he’s been asked why he’s doing it.
Harry, you are entitled to your opinion. It’s shameful that you wish to cast aspersions on the victim in his case and on Witness 8, but you do have the right to express your feelings about them. I have asked you to show decency and that’s apparently falling on deaf ears. So be it.
Your response posts to me, once again trying to throw up a bunch of the same quotes and again calling everyone names, do not constitute factual evidence. You clearly are trying to swamp this thread and hope that less informed readers may not catch on. But just because you feel that Zimmerman is innocent does not make him innocent, and will not get him somehow exonerated at his trial.
I don’t expect riots to happen if there is a conviction, but I do have a feeling that the right wing media will treat this the way they did the Ramos & Compean matter – just as you are doing right now.
And it’s nice that you think I’m the same person as another poster here, but that would be an incorrect assumption. I only post under one identity when participating in message boards. I don’t like the idea of people using sock puppets, so I never do. If you believe otherwise, then that assumption would be as factually challenged as much of what you have written here.
Then why’d Fox News play them up like they were, when they were playing it up like it was some kind of bombshell?
BTW, if you can excuse the casual lying of both Zimmerman and his wife because they’re sad… Then we could play the same card here. Oh, wait- we’re above that. But you have fun with that double standard.
OK, outta here for real…
But at no time have you dealt with the contradictions in Zimmerman’s testimony or the parts of Witness 8’s testimony that do not support your opinion. Witness 8’s testimony in particular makes clear that Zimmerman was following Martin, caught up to him and confronted him. The other witnesses’ testimony indicates that an argument preceded the fight, which blows Zimmerman’s claim that Martin just suddenly jumped on him.
It’s understandable that you want Zimmerman to be found innocent of this murder. It’s understandable that you’re upset that he’s facing seriious jail time. But nothing in that emotional reaction can change the facts from what the investigators have in evidence. And callling posters here names will not somehow help your argument.
This matter will go to trial shortly, even after the attempted stall by the defense, and even after what has been a despicable attempt by O’Mara to publicly assassinate Trayvon Martin’s character and poison the jury pool. (It’s a craven tactic – make broad public statements in the local press, thus ensuring that any potential jurors will likely have seen it and can be struck from the panel, and thus making it possible for O’Mara to try to change the venue to one where he thinks he can get a jury more to his liking.) Once at trial, Zimmerman’s account is not expected to hold up. Assuming he testifies, he’s facing a very tough cross examination, and all the cheerleading from his supporters will not be able to get him out of it.
I do have to ask Harry what his motives are here. Multiple posts completely repeating the same citations that have already been discussed. Multiple insults to everyone he encounters here. Multiple nasty comments about Trayvon Martin and citations of his girlfriend as “Dee Dee”, followed by attempts to hide behind the right wing blog from whence Harry pulled the transcript of her remarks. Harry can’t just cite the material and then hide behind it. Further, he is unable to actually answer the question of how he can reconcile Witness 8’s testimony and his opinions about how this incident happened. Just using a single line out of the testimony does not constitute answering the serious question I have repeatedly asked. Harry can’t have it both ways. He can’t cite one line that he agrees with and then discount the entire rest of the testimony.
I believe Harry knows this, and is continuing to troll this topic and swamp the area with previously discussed material. I believe he thinks this will somehow fool a reader who has just started reading the thread from the top. Unfortunately, there are enough of us here who do know the facts of the case and can continue to educate both Harry and the casual reader.
I have to change/clarify something I said earlier: I said the 110+ (now 130+) posts in this thread must be a record for a non-Obama thread.
But, that’s not completely true, because I recall when this story first came out and Trayvon Martin was being eulogized in the media, the President said that “if he had had a son, he would look like Trayvon.”
When you think about it that way, its NO WONDER Hairy, Russ DeMented, and the rest of the wingnuts are so eager for Martin to get shot. I guess they figure if they can’t get the “dad” . . .
Anyway . . . I have to say, I enjoy these occasional visits to Planet Wingnut and forays into the psyche of the teabagging rightwingnut; you learn a lot, things like
- how the normal rules of evidence don’t apply; the word of someone white/nonblack is to be taken at face value without question, while a deceased black teenager may have his reputation smeared freely, since he’s no longer around to defend himself
- how merely carrying a gun gives one person the authority to “watch/monitor” someone else, including following that person because they “look suspicious” (even after being told not to do so by a dispatcher — twice)
- and how, while making the arguments supporting the above, one can simply make up statistics that support your arguments without citing any source (“Ellen it’s not just me and Harry saying what we are both saying; it’s also 80% of the American people who are saying the same thing.”)
Yes, these insights into the mind of the rightwingnut are educational; it’s a little like that movie, Being John Malkovich, though not quite as entertaining — and occasionally a little more frightening . . .
Zimmerman lied because he’s a “Person in Crisis?” Really? That excuses Perjury? That excuses the doctored photos of his injuries that don’t match other photos of said injuries?
Kinda funny how those two can fixate so much on what a thug they think Trayvon was, while everything Zimmerman’s been caught in can be excused by that he’s sad…
I’m sad today, what does that get me?
Well, it was an interesting discussion while it lasted.
Happy Memorial Day, everybody (even Russell and Harry)!
As far as Zimmerman changing his story goes you need to understand that Zimmerman has been, and still is, a very upset person. He’s a person in crisis. He’s dealing with a traumatic situation. People in these kinds of situations get facts wrong. Not only was he put through a lot that fateful night but he still has to live in fear of the prosecution, the New Black Panthers (who belong in jail for threatening Zimmerman life) and just extremist persons with mental problems who might hurt him because they’re mad at him. He lives in hiding last I heard. I would not imagine that a person as upset as he has been is really able to relay facts perfectly. And so you will say that I should not listen to one word he says since I myself realize that he is under too much stress, and too upset, to really give us the facts correctly in perfect detail. And in some situations you would have a good point but not in this case.
In this case we have some very powerful evidence that tells us what really happened. We should be fair and intelligent about this, and we should understand that Zimmerman is too upset, and was too upset the night of the incident, to relay us facts correctly and then we should look at the evidence to find the truth. The evidence is the pictures of Mr. Zimmerman’s face and the autopsy report of Martin telling us that the only “fight” injuries Mr. Martin had were to his knuckles from beating Mr. Zimmerman. The beating was severe and that’s obvious by the photos of Mr. Zimmerman. It was reasonable for Mr. Zimmerman to perceive Mr. Martin as a threat to his life, he did, and he did what he had to do to protect his own life. 80% of the American people agree with me.
It’s funny how you’re both suddenly making the same comments, eh?
As for insults, we are a community here and you have arrived as newcomer(s) and thrown out a slew of incendiary remarks. That is very bad manners, as you surely know. And yes, I am more lenient to the people who are long-time, supportive and upstanding members of our community.
So thanks for the suggestions, but I am not interested in your thoughts on how I or we moderate comments here.
Or to put it another way, you need to be polite and respectful. Period.
Read the below stories, I won’t be back, you are full of the smelly stuff, and the only reason you are hating-on Zimmerman is because many people in the African American community, who are overwhelmingly democrats, are hating on Zimmerman. But unfortunately in this one situation the African American community is mistaken and as more and more time goes by more and more African Americans are starting to perceive that. The number of African Americans who think Zimmerman is innocent is rising.
You think it’s a progressive cause to defend Martin but this is not the time for it. It’s tragic that Martin is gone but if he hadn’t tried to kill Zimmerman (for just watching him) then he would not be dead. I’m sorry but it’s true. There is something to be learnt from this but it is not what you think. What is to be learnt from this is that we should all, including the people like Trayvon Martin who are too quick to resort to violence, tone down the violence. We need to be more peaceful.
Anyway, here is some reading for you below and goodbye:
Progressive Al Sharpton wants the FCC to limit Rush Limbaugh’s access to the air waves.
More progressives calling for Rush Limbaugh’s access to the air-waves to be inhibited:
Now, you may find this hard to believe, but I agree that principled debate does not require name-calling and personal insults. That’s why I don’t participate in it. I personally wish that other people would not participate in such things – and that includes people who may agree with me otherwise. At the same time, I also recognize that some of the posts directed toward you and toward Russell have been in response to nasty statements that you have made. If you’re asking for the right to insult other people but wishing for them to be polite to you, that’s a strange request. I would hope to see you and everyone else be polite to each other. But you don’t get to insult someone and then cry foul when they answer you with one. Personally, I think it all just becomes a game of tit-for-tat, and I’d rather not hear all that noise – but I can understand when someone responds badly to a personal attack.
Going on to the rest of your post, following your attack on me:
I’m sorry to point this out again, but you have not been providing the unvarnished truth here. You have cherry picked certain details and relied completely on the testimony of the killer in this case. You have ignored the rest of the facts and the evidence that disproves your case. Which means your position here doesn’t hold up under scrutiny, as we’ve been showing you.
I’m honestly not sure why you continue to repeat Witness 8’s statement about what Martin told her when you have ignored the rest of her statement, where she tells us that she heard Martin say that Zimmerman had found him and was approaching him before she heard the beginning of their argument. How do you reconcile this? Are you saying that you only believe the parts of Witness 8’s testimony if it supports your position? How do you account for the rest of it?
As for Zimmerman’s refusal to obey the instruction he was given by the dispatcher, you seem to be obstinately persisting in repeating everything about the dispatcher’s words being a “suggestion”. Given that Zimmerman had worked to get a degree in Criminal Justice and wanted to become a judge, given that he had appointed himself the Neighborhood Watch captain for the community, and given that he had regularly been calling the police in that capacity (7 times in 18 months), he certainly knew what it meant to be told “We don’t need you to do that”. If you’re saying that he was ignorant of this, that’s an odd position to take. If you’re saying that it was optional for him to continue stalking and following Martin even after being told not to, I think the trial may be an eye-opener for you.
Here’s Zimmerman changing his story UNDER OATH:
Oh, and I already linked you and Harry to comparison pics, but the pic ABC plastered all over? Exposed as a photoshop. They even found the pic the “wounds” really came from:
Clean head in this shot:
Broken nose here:
But not in his “Injury” mug shot, taken when he was questioned formally:
I didn’t know the swelling from a broken nose could go down in less than an hour… Oh, and b sure to note that his injuries seem inconsistent. So, how about instead of the pity party about how “fringe Democrats can’t get to the truth,” how about you ask why Zimmerman perjured himself in court, and to the press.
Then you can ask why Zimmerman’s photo timeline shows his nose healing faster than Wolverine, and the back of his head not being able to decide how he was hurt.
But much of what outlets like Fox News do is more insidious than that. They’re careful not to make a direct attack, choosing instead to use the old “some people say” canard, or making sure they ask one or two questions as “devil’s advocate”, as O’Reilly likes to do. And you can’t just shut off the channel for that. It’s more appropriate to expose the behavior for what it is, and to correct the record when these guys try to rewrite history. You seem to be in favor of trying to shut these guys down, and I understand the emotion. But I’d rather someone had the right to say something and be proven wrong (again, provided what they are saying isn’t designed to immediately cause harm to someone else) than not have that right.
Jay Rockefeller is not considered a progressive by any of the left wing voices I have mentioned to you here. I’m sure that the professor you have cited feels he and Harkin are such, but I don’t know that I would agree with that label. Liberal might be applicable – Centrist would be much more appropriate. Please understand that I mentioned those names to you for a reason. I would like you to look up their writings and programs for yourself and see what you think. They are all left wing thinkers and writers, and most of them have spent close to 30 years discussing and participating in progressive causes.
To be specific with your examples, Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now program has dealt with both of the Senators cited in the blog you mentioned. Rockefeller was mentioned in a negative fashion for his backing away from the public option in the Affordable Care Act debate. Left wing critics felt he and President Obama had abandoned the whole point of the bill even though they could pass it through the Senate via reconciliation. The feeling was that the liberals and centrist Democrats had caved once again to the health insurance lobby. As for Harkin, Goodman’s show featured a 12 year old who participated in a sit-in at Harkin’s office in 2010 because he would not vote against war funding when it could have made a difference. Along the same lines, some liberals looked to Dennis Kucinich as a progressive Democrat. But reporters on Pacifica stations exposed him way back as an anti-choice politician who changed his position when he ran for Congress, since he needed more votes than when he was a local Mayor. His presidential runs in particular always struck me as a little fishy, particularly given who was running outside of both parties during his candidacies.
Your last comment comparing me to Goebbels is, frankly, deeply offensive to me. I would ask that you rethink such a statement. My grandfather fled Nazi Germany in the 1930s, and the idea that you would compare my upholding of speech rights to a support for Nazi atrocities is unfortunate and repellent to me.
The Zimmerman trial is coming soon and then we will see what happens. If Zimmerman wins 20% of the American people (the percentage of people who think Zimmerman is guilty) will be all upset but if Zimmerman loses then 80% of the American people (the percentage of people who think Zimmerman is innocent) will be upset. I think Zimmerman will win unless the prosecutor can get a bunch of lunatic-fringe left-wingers on the jury. But if even one reasonable person gets on the jury then Zimmerman will walk out of that courtroom a free man.
I’m a democrat, a progressive democrat, an intelligent democrat who thinks independently and it’s my position that Zimmerman did what he did because Martin was trying to kill him just because Zimmerman was watching him. Martin was too violent. Sorry but it’s true.
1. It’s OK to try to kill someone just because the person is watching you.
2. That Zimmerman had some responsibility to just lay there, with Martin on top of him pummeling him, and allow Martin to kill him rather than trying to defend his life.
And it isn’t just me – one progressive democrat – who agrees with you. 80 percent of the American people agree with you, and that same 80-percent of the American people disagree with the people who are disagreeing with you. The few lunatic fringe democrats who can’t find their way to the truth in this situation are hurting my party because they make the overwhelming majority of Americans think that my party is out of touch. Check out this link:
you’re position is basically that Martin’s stand-your-ground rights in that situation included that just because Zimmerman was watching Martin that gave Martin had the right to kill Zimmerman without even knowing if Zimmerman meant Martin harm or not. This goes back to what I’ve been saying about how there are people in our society who watch people for a living and your position means is that if you see one of those person’s, who watches people for a living, watching you then it’s OK for you to go up to that person and try to kill that person. That’s bs and it certainly isn’t moral peace-loving progressive values to authorize people to run around killing people just because someone is watching the person.
And you can say that Zimmerman wasn’t one of those people who watches people for a living but to that I say the following:
1. Martin did not know that Zimmerman wasn’t one of those people who watches people for a living. It could have been one of those people who watch people for a living and Martin could have killed the person.
2. Zimmerman was “neighborhood watch” and the very name indicates that the person watches people so he WAS one of the people who watch people as part of his duties.
3. Even if you say that Zimmerman’s was not a true neighborhood watch or come up with some other silly nonsense it doesn’t matter because it’s not legal or moral to try to kill someone just because the person is watching you. MJ, I just took my laptop to the window and I’m sitting at my window and there are people walking in the street and I’m watching them. Do you think that they should be allowed to come over to me and kill me just because I’m watching them? If you do then you should be ashamed of yourself. If you believe that people should be allowed to kill me just because I’m watching them then you are no peace-loving progressive; rather you are too violent and evil. I would actually go so far as to say that it sounds sick and perverse to believe that it’s OK to kill people just because the person is watching you. It sounds like something from some kind of fright movie where the person is about to kill the victim and the victim asks, “Why are you killing me?” And the evil murderers says, “Because you were watching me.” It’s pathological and evil. You need counseling I think.
And as far as the Rush Limbaugh things goes my point is simply that some of us “progressives” want the news to have to tell the truth, and some of us "progressives want news programs to be barred from propagandizing. You don’t agree with some of us “progressives” on that issue so maybe you’re not a “progressive.”
The last time I checked the person most linked to allowing the air waves to be filled with a bunch of hate-speech, lies, and propagandizing was a man named Joseph Goebells – an extreme right-wing nazi, which by the way is the POLITICAL OPPOSITE of a progressive, so you are definitely not a progressive.