« ECHR on LWOP: thoughts on Vinter and possible US impact | Main | "A Perfect Prosecution: The People of the State of New York v. Dominique Strauss-Kahn" »

July 19, 2013

Are folks eager to comment on the President's comments on Martin/Zimmerman case?

I have a feeling the answer to the question in the title of this post is yes, and that is why I provide this post and also this link to Politico's list of "Obama's 10 most important lines" in his comments this afternoon. Here are the top three of the top 10 that struck me as most blog-worthy for the SL&P readership:

"The fact that a lot of African-American boys are painted with a broad brush and the excuse is given, well, there are these statistics out there that show that African-American boys are more violent — using that as an excuse to then see sons treated differently causes pain."

"I just ask people to consider if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman, who had followed him in a car, because he felt threatened?"

"At least you ask yourself your own questions about, ‘Am I wringing as much bias out of myself as I can? Am I judging people, as much as I can, based on not the color of their skin but the content of their character?’ That would, I think, be an appropriate exercise in the wake of this tragedy."

And, as I too often fear I need to say on this topic and others, let's try to keep it civil (and relatively novel) in the comments, folks.

July 19, 2013 at 04:23 PM | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Are folks eager to comment on the President's comments on Martin/Zimmerman case?:


Quote Number one:


Quote number two:

The answer is no but the question is irrelevant.

Quote number three:

That is an appropriate question for those who villify Zimmerman but ignore the faults of Martin.

Posted by: Jardinero1 | Jul 19, 2013 4:43:32 PM

Charles Barkley for president. His comments were much more thoughtful and honest.

Posted by: Thinkaboutit | Jul 19, 2013 4:58:34 PM

TM would have been entirely justified in remaining where he was despite being followed or even harassed, depending on the circumstances he might have been justified in calling the cops to say some bozo was being a jerk. But that alone would not be enough to justify any sort of use of force, let alone deadly force.

I agree fully with this from Mark Bennett earlier today (http://blog.bennettandbennett.com/2013/07/the-stupid-it-burns.html): We have long drawn a distinction, legally, between verbal provocation and physical violence. Violence may justify violence; words (other than imminent threats) cannot.

Posted by: Soronel Haetir | Jul 19, 2013 5:00:26 PM


That misses the point. The fundamental fact is that there are only two people who where there that night. One of them is dead and the other has an obvious self-interest in defining what happened to his advantage. Everything that is in the media, and most of what went on at trial was speculation or inferences. So it all question begging.

The real question, the one question that Barkley spends his entire remarks dodging, is why should people be allowed to create such situations in the first place. This isn't a question of words but of environment building. We do not let people walk down the street with rocket launchers and small scale nuclear weapons in their backpacks. I wonder why not...

Posted by: Daniel | Jul 19, 2013 5:50:36 PM

This statement is purely for political purposes as the president is a political animal. It will stabilize his base. It is primarily meant as a media distraction from all of the other c--p that is going on in "our" government.

About 30 people are killed by guns every day in the US, yet I am an advocate of people (including non-violent felons) having the right to bear arms.

It is not what we know that is the problem, it is the things we know that just aren't so.

Posted by: albeed | Jul 19, 2013 6:54:33 PM

A thoughtful and balanced analysis of the President's remarks is given by my longtime friend and Stanford classmate, Paul Mirengoff, here: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/07/obamas-mixed-bag-commentary-on-the-zimmerman-case.php

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jul 19, 2013 7:00:30 PM


I read Paul Mirengoff's analysis and agree that it was thoughtful and balanced. I also read the comments and, as always, extremes were well represented.

All I've got to say is:

Treyvon Martin - Rest in Peace!

George Zimmerman - Live in Peace!

Posted by: albeed | Jul 19, 2013 7:45:38 PM

Everything I say is news to the lawyer because my high school education has not been erased by the passage of 1L. For example, a person with a Harvard Law degree and a PhD in Medievel Legal History did not know the technical meaning of the central doctrine of the common law, the word, reasonable. Any lawyer care to 1) tell us if that word was ever clearly defined in law and how it can be measrued reliably, 2) what they think it refers to?, and 3) why it has to be the central doctrine of the common law, and not other words? Hint, see your notes from 10th grade World History, under Scholasticism.

Obama's economic and international performance have been abysmal, because he is a Commie. No Commie can oversee a good economy, because Commies work against human nature. No Commie can persuade nor lead foreigners, even after killing 100 million people.

He should emulate the uber-Capitalists of China to get the economy moving. China will kick our ass before the Century is over. So he has to distract his unemployed, government dependent base with totally trivial matter, a state murder trial, not even in the jurisdiction of the federal government. This privileged son of a dirty hippie and an African neer do well is not even black. He is half whtie and half Kenyan, with no experience what soever of American blacks. The latter are not black either. Their DNA tends to show, "white trash," from Scotland or Ireland. So race in the US does not even exist as a fact of nature. The ghetto reflects Southern trash culture.

All racial disparities in social pathologies are fully explained by the bastardy rate. This rate is new, just 50 years old and the intentional result of the attack of the VFL on the black family. In the 1950's, Blak had only slightly higher rates of pathology, including crime and murder. That difference exploded in the 1960's. Trayvon, I do not believe was a bastard, but he grew up surrounded by them. One adopts the culture of one's surroundings within a short time.

GZ is hispanic. Hispanics are engaged in violent ethnic cleansing in California. They want to start with blacks, and go on to drive out the whites. That parallel is being overlooked by Harvard indoctrinted Obama, perhaps on purpose to pander to Hispanics.

I have discussed the real message behind lawyer oppostion to stand your ground in comments on Holder. Caused 9/11. Deter public self help, the only effective remedy to high crime rates, whether country is poor or rich. Generates make work jobs by immunizing, protecting, enabling and encourging th ecriminal, the client of the lawyer. A thinly disguised method of rent seeking.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jul 19, 2013 7:45:44 PM

albeed --

"All I've got to say is:

Treyvon Martin - Rest in Peace!

George Zimmerman - Live in Peace!"

Well said.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jul 19, 2013 9:13:18 PM


Corey's statement of "Our precious victim" almost makes one wish Supremacy's joke about a lawyer's inability to utter the "V-Word" was close to true.

Posted by: anon | Jul 19, 2013 10:33:34 PM

Non-trivial federal Issues which Obama has failed utterly to improve, and on which he does not want any puyblic attention, trying to distract the public with the above speech:

Black Youth Unemployment: 37% down from 49%

Black Male Youth Number One Cause of mortality: Homicide


Overwhelming Majority of Murders of Black Youth are by blacks.

Many more white people are murdered by blacks, than blacks are murdered by whites, especially among murders committed by strangers.

Stand your ground laws have benefited many armed black victims of crime. Thus they have to go.

Black kids born into bastardy today: 72%

Brief list of adverse consequences of bastardy on children.


Now a fatherless bastard occupies the White House, setting no example.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jul 20, 2013 12:48:16 AM

Anon: Dinner party trick with lawyer friends.

Offer to give the lawyer or his charity $10 if he can quietly say the word, victim, even out of earshot of other lawyers. Then make it $100. Can't. Just can't.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jul 20, 2013 12:51:37 AM

One may find 100 of these a day across the nation. Newspaper is not even allowed to mention the race of the criminals. If this girl carried a gun and used to save herself, should she have been prosecuted?


Not a word from the race whores, including the Race Whore in Chief in the White House. Not a word from race whore Jackson nor from race whore Sharpton.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jul 20, 2013 12:57:07 AM

"The fact that a lot of African-American boys are painted with a broad brush and the *reason* is given, well, there are these statistics out there that show that African-American boys are more violence."

There, fixed that for ya Mr. Prez.

People act for reasons. The *fact* that AA commit a large proportion of violent crime despite being a minority, is not some trivial nonsense. And you know what I don't hear the Prez talking about? How much black on white violence is committed? Here's a hint for ya: it's a lot more than white on black. Wonder why the prez doesn't want to talk about that?

Posted by: justme | Jul 20, 2013 9:51:13 AM

Justme is correct.

Blacks kill twice as many whites as whites kill blacks, despite having a tenth of the total population. Not a word about that from the race whores. The lawyer has made the black criminal by making him a bastard after destroying the black family. Then he protects and immunizes him to go on murderous rampages. A Hispanic person dares defend himself, and there a conniption fit by the race whores, including one trained at Harvard Law, though preselected, and placed in the White House by left indoctrinated young people, and minorities.


I am going to guess that the overwhelming majority of lawyers, even transactional ones, feel as the President does. No one can touch their precious client without paying a steep price.

The use of Zimmerman verdict as a pretext for ultraviolent riots, bash mobs, and mass attacks on random pedestrians and drivers does send a message. No, Zimmerman should not be prosecuted further. Zimmerman should be joined by all law abiding citizens, including innocent black people in getting guns, and not hesitating to use them on either the client of the lawyer or preferably on the VFL that produced, enabled, empowered the criminal. We are all George Zimmerman, victims of the out of control, pro-criminal, lawyer profession, most of all black crime victims. It is for them, most of all, that stand your ground laws must be passed by all the states and the federal government. Otherwise, we will know the government has sided with the criminal.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jul 20, 2013 10:20:31 AM

Per the article Bill Otis cited.

A core reason why the death of Trayvon Martin became a "national tragedy" -- if a tragedy gets such national attention, it is very well a "national" one -- is because it reflects various societal problems that we continue to have. The responses can be liberal, they can be conservative or something else.

It is not "irrelevant" that something is personal. It is also not "irrelevant" because you don't have to be a troubled youth to be profiled. WHITE teenagers, for instance, repeatedly are looked at warily in certain stores. This results in some unfortunate things, including the teens not trusting authority, and in extreme cases, some adult can by mistake or otherwise do something tragic. Rich well off blacks are profiled. And, yes, black people in particular. That is why there is a "sense" from many that color made a difference here.

His personal statements are not seen as a basically human thing to say as much as perhaps a strategic move. This to me is rather unfair. E.g., after a rape, a woman might note that as a woman, that especially affected her ... will this be "irrelevant" for her to say? will it just be to be more "palatable" to women when she says the feds won't prosecute? if the rape is in a low rent bar, will it not be relevant since she would not be likely to be in such a situation?

"The better cause for soul-searching is the epidemic of black-on-black killings."

The tragic killing here is not a "one off." There has been, with different racial mixtures, various violent incidents arising from public transactions based on possible mistake. Some of them involve some sort of interracial dispute, preventable violence. Why he is supposed to use a specific type of killing to move on to "black-on-black killing" is unclear. It's an important issue, but it is not the specific issue at hand.

The only thing said to be "presidential" was his final words of optimism. Because Presidents don't speak personally at times (e.g., when they talked about their religious faith or background in the past, they weren't "presidential") or when they don't move on from the matter at hand to another matter? The update is telling too -- somehow it required an update to note, again "presidential," that he found the trial fair.

Posted by: Joe | Jul 20, 2013 10:52:39 AM

High level commentators agree with Obama.


Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jul 20, 2013 4:26:31 PM

I am not a legal professional or a student, just a person who has taken an interest in your blog due to my involvement as a juror in Los Angeles and my concerns about California's prison problem. I hope my comments are useful to your readers. Thanks for offering this forum for thoughtful and rational commentary.

It’s always tragic when a young person’s life is lost to violence. When one physically assaults another, there is no predicting what the outcome might be. Poor judgment and choices were made, most likely by both parties. I am appalled at Obama’s consistent attempts to make the topic somehow about HIM, with his comments about Martin resembling his non-existent son, and now Martin resembling HIM. This is not the behavior of a leader. Obama’s privileged upbringing does not compare with the average 17 year old US black male, except in one regard: being the product of broken homes. (Interesting that Obama is the first president who is the product of a broken home, as far as I can tell, unless you count Gerald Ford whose mother remarried when Gerald was four: source Huffington Post, I can’t vouch for the accuracy.) Which is perhaps why Obama continues to carry his own victimhood as a chip on his shoulder, as many children of divorced parents carry deep emotional wounds. But using his POTUS status to rile emotions and make biased comments exhibits some of the very faults that started this whole mess: poor judgment and lack of self-restraint. In my opinion, he has now played the ultimate race card, by publicly identifying with Martin rather than making comments about the rule of law and a fair trial. As one who voted for him the first time, I am glad I did not the second time around.

I am perplexed by Obama’s public displays of friendship with rap stars who openly emulate gangsters and celebrities who star in excessively violent films. What effect do these so-called cultural products have on our youth today, especially young black males? Would Obama worship the rapper types if he had a son instead of daughters? We won’t hear Obama asking these questions, he depends too much on the celebrity financial contributions to his campaigns. The ironic concern expressed by the gangsta rappers for Martin is revolting. If they are so concerned they should “start a movement” by writing songs about being a responsible adult and learning the virtues of self-restraint. A double standard here: the rap music, which might be doing real harm by idolizing lawlessness and violence, is allowed to continue under the auspices of freedom of speech; but making a movie about Islam lands one in jail.

It is unfathomable to me what Holder and Obama think this pursuit of civil rights abuse is going to accomplish. It appears that there is a double standard with regard to civil rights, some are considered more important than others. I live in Los Angeles, we all had to accept the OJ verdict. The reasonable doubt standard and jury nullification are vitally important to jurors as the only ways to vote their consciences and avoid the risk of wrongful conviction. A president trained as a lawyer should uphold the rule of law, not pander to special interest groups. But that kind of objectivity appears to be beyond Obama, and he wouldn’t have been elected without the pandering.

The best commentary I read was by Jason Riley (a young black man) in the Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323309404578613941506544024.html
I was unaware of the MLK Jr. quote about the disproportionate number of crimes committed by blacks and how the black community must be responsible for seeking solutions. The black community used to have leaders with integrity, who encouraged people to be responsible, make good choices and exert self-restraint, things we are all (white, black, male, female) supposed to learn as children. Some admirable black men like Ben Carson make intelligent comments, then they are ridiculed by moronic celebrity and comedian types, for whom serious issues are just grist for the idiocy mills. Meanwhile, Oprah tweets about her new TV show moments after the Martin verdict. I genuinely feel sympathy for the members of the black community who are unaware they are being treated as pawns by both their leaders and their celebrities.

Posted by: Anon | Jul 20, 2013 8:37:51 PM

Anon --

I hope you will comment often.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jul 20, 2013 9:19:29 PM

Thanks for the comment. Apparently the link I gave to the WSJ doesn't allow non-subscribers. You can access Riley's article here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2013/07/16/race_politics_and_the_zimmerman_trial_311629.html

Posted by: Anon | Jul 20, 2013 9:30:12 PM

anon, it is clear you have never walked in the shoes of a young black man man. Does anyone cross the street when you're walking down the sidewalk? Does anyone hold his child close when you pass by? Have you been stopped by the police while driving because of your color? Has anyone asked you what you were doing in the neighborhood? Obama spoke out honestly and movingly. It was an excellent address.

Posted by: anon contra | Jul 20, 2013 10:27:29 PM

Anon Contra: I have done all of those things you speak of, including making a rapid exit from an elevator in certain places and under certain circumstances, in the name of awareness and caution, as I am a woman. Didn't matter if the suspicious male was black/brown/red/yellow/white....males commit the vast majority of violent crimes, it's purely a rational choice on my part based on statistical facts. One time I (rather stupidly, but I was young)fought off a male who attempted to assault me on the street and then attempted to steal my purse. Walked in the shoes of a woman lately?

Posted by: Anon | Jul 20, 2013 11:00:36 PM

anon contra --

"anon, it is clear you have never walked in the shoes of a young black man man."

The underlying extremely unpleasant truth, a truth no one wants to talk about, is that young black men are by far the most dangerous demographic group in this country. If we are to have the honest conversation about race and crime that Eric Holder says he wants, there is no way to avoid this fact.

See http://www.crimeandconsequences.com/crimblog/2013/07/the-single-biggest-lie.html

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jul 20, 2013 11:07:41 PM

lol good one anon!

i was wondering just how our fucktard of an AG was going to even try for a civil rights case after the FBI spend god knows how much money and time and ruled they could not find anything reacial in the case.

Of course that might explain why the FBI is now suddenly wiling to admit they aren't perfect. They are laying the ground to come back and suddenly FIND racial overtones in this case!

Posted by: rodsmith | Jul 20, 2013 11:54:58 PM

Bill: Let's have a really honest conversation. The crime rate of black bastard thugs is the superficial symptom of a bigger crime by an elite that has infiltrated and fully controls the three branches of government. The rioter are naive pawns, destroying stores and attacking drivers. Wrong direction at which to aim wrath.

You lawyers destroyed the black family. You lawyers protect the ultra-violent black thug from public self help. You lawyers are totally responsible for every single one of the 20 million FBI Index felonies by your refusing to get rid of the criminal at the youngest age possible.

In the 1950's, black social pathologies were very slightly higher than those of whites, despite worse poverty and worse discrimination. There is no elevated rate of antisocial personality in blacks, nor of drug abuse. You lawyers are setting the crime rate.

Compare the crime rate where the lawyers live, a few miles from the worst ghettos, but close to nil, to where the lawyer works, where the crime rate is worse than Fallujah. Where you lawyers live, the death penalty is at the scene. You have herded crime into these ghettos. Your VFL's have orchestrated the murder of an excess of 5000 black males a year. It took the KKK a 100 years to lynch 5000 people. Why are you lawyer so heartless, so cruel, so treasonous to the nation? Simple, for the rent. This is so bad, I see no recourse but mass arrests, brief trials and executions for insurrection against the constitution by your hierarchy. To deter.

The criminal protecting lawyer hierarchy must be stopped, and then we kill all the criminals, to take our country back crime free, just like in the towns where the lawyers live.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jul 21, 2013 12:05:58 AM

Supremacy Clause, you are truly, truly out of your mind.

Posted by: onlooker | Jul 21, 2013 1:59:14 AM

Onlooker: The personal remark is because the facts are threatening your living.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jul 21, 2013 9:48:58 AM

Using the gender card to trump Anon Contra's race card was a bit under handed, but I did it simply to illustrate a point. We are all profiled by someone to some degree. Women are profiled by criminals as easy targets. The truth is that while most violent crimes are committed by men, the majority of men commit no violent crimes. That is a fact that upholds a civil society. It's regrettable that a small percentage of the population make life difficult and dangerous for the majority of the population.

Supremacy Clause, you might read The Collapse of American Criminal Justice by William Stuntz. I read it last year to prepare for my jury service. It helps to explain the multi-factorial causes of what's wrong with our system. It's complicated. Your criticism is far too simplistic.

Posted by: Anon | Jul 21, 2013 11:35:58 AM

Breaking it down...

Racism will always be with us and will never go away. Period.

The ONLY way racism disappears is if the current incarnation of the Democratic Party is completely negated. This is a sad state of affairs, but cannot be otherwise disproven. Of COURSE the president will play up the racism angle because if he doesn't he hurts the Democratic party, and every action he's taken since becoming president is to advance the Democratic party to the point where it will dominate American politics.

Therefore, racism will, it MUST, be always part of American society, and it will NEVER be reversed, unless the Democratic party is defeated in significant fashion; in my opinion, that is an impossibility. I defy anyone to prove otherwise.

Posted by: Eric Knight | Jul 21, 2013 2:42:37 PM

Notable quote:

"There is nothing more painful for me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start to think about robbery and then look around and see it’s somebody white and feel relieved." - Rev. Jesse Jackson, 1998

Guess he's one of them ignorant racist hicks, huh?

Posted by: Eric Knight | Jul 21, 2013 2:46:40 PM

Anon. Your suggested book represents the standard lawyer explanation, blaming the public.

But it is simple. The Inquisition 2.0. Orthodoxy was the mask. The real aim was money. Do you think anyone could build the Vatican from collection plates? They built the Vatican from plea bargain profits. When we say, they hounded the Jews. It was only rich Jews. When we say they hounded witches. It was only rich hags. The Rent Seeking business plan has been covered up by historians.

The Rent Seeking Theory is the Grand Unifying Theory of Anomalous Appellate Decisions. There are exceptions, where judges decide against lawyer income interests for the appearance of piety and to avoid the wrath of the public. Even in those cases, lawyer interests rise above public safety.

The only explanation that I have never expressed before could be our land mass. We have always had a shortage of people. So killing criminals has developed into a taboo. Canada has more land, fewer people. They are even softer on crime than the USA.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jul 21, 2013 5:47:42 PM

Add, 40% increase in gangs since getting the green light from the feds, that criminals will be protected. Naturally, the overwhelming majority of their murder victims are black.


Not addressed by the President. The coddling and enablement of gangs.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jul 21, 2013 9:43:08 PM

SC: I don't think we have read the same book. It doesn't lend itself to such a facile summary.

Posted by: Anon | Jul 21, 2013 11:34:07 PM

Anon: It blames the public by blaming the legislatures. Over criminalization combined with lengthy terms. The Left over criminalizes. The Right over punishes. We end up with what? Both commodified the defendant, settling sentencing questions in minutes of plea bargain negotiations, for a mass production and efficiency.

Huge prisoner population. It even implies that such populations are to generate industrial size expenses for government.

If you were around for the 1970's you would appreciate another purpose, public safety, and the 40% drop in crime across the board in the 1990's, as this effect trickled down. The commodification of the defendant was needed because there was massive criminality. The over punishment served the sole mature aim of the criminal law, not intentionally, but as a side benefit only, incapacitation.

You will never willingly get a change that reduces the size of government and lawyer income. That is why the Inquisition 2.0 must end as 1.0 did, with 1000's of beheadings.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jul 22, 2013 3:06:46 PM

Twice as many blacks benefit from the Stand Your Ground Laws after committing a homicide.


That would be the sentencing headline in a sentencing blog that was not so left biased.

Harvard indoctrinated, lawyer Obama, as expected and as is so frequent, totally devalues the black crime victim. Why does he try to protect the black thug, and says nothing about the black crime victim? Why does Obama consult with race whore Sharpton? Because at Harvard, one is indoctrinated into growing government, which can do nothing well. Whether the Harvard prof is left or right wing, it matters not. The Ivy indoctrinated lawyer want the US to become France so these supercilious, lawyers can take it over.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jul 22, 2013 11:15:28 PM

School security looks for graffiti markers, finds jewelry and other property in Trayvon Martin's locker.


Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jul 23, 2013 7:15:09 AM

SSSSSSSSS SC we all know he was if not a thug then a wannabe one. But we're not supposed to admit it!

Of course that still doens't let zimmerman off the hook!

Posted by: rodsmith | Jul 23, 2013 8:39:58 PM

I am intrigued by Jardinero's comments that people "vilify Zimmerman while ignoring the faults of Martin." Unbelievable! In how many murder cases were the victims put on trial and found guilty of their own murder? What do "Trayvon's faults" have to do with the fact that he was murdered on the way home from the store? Of course Zimmerman would say that he "viciously beat him" because that is the only way he could claim self-defense. What's incredible is that Zimmerman fans are so quick to believe that which cannot be proven, in spite of the fact that Zimmerman lied about everything that could be verified in some way. His lie about having no knowledge of the "stand your ground" law, was refuted by his former instructor who noted that Zimmerman had "an intense interest" in that subject. His lie about Trayvon pounding his head into the pavement was refuted first by John Good, who saw the entire encounter (he said) and denied seeing Trayvon pounding Zimmerman's head - he said "it didn't happen." It was also refuted by the doctor who examined Zimmerman's injuries and testified, under oath, that they were minor and didn't reflect any type of head pounding on the pavement injuries. And what about the good neighbor who testified, under oath, that he did not know Zimmer but within 5 seconds of the shot being fired he went to Zimmerman and asked if he wanted him to call the police. How many people would walk up to a stranger with a gun after he has shot somebody dead and ask anything? "Can I help you? " "Let me take a picture of the back of your head." And what about the broken nose that Trayvon was covering with his hands, the hands on which there was no blood. Broken noses bleed profusely. There was no blood on Trayvon's clothing, except at the gunshot wound location. But those are just small details, right? Some people would prefer to believe stupid stuff, like the "expert" who opined that Trayvon remained alive after Zimmerman shot and killed him, long enough to change his position and move his hands so that the position of his body and his hands would contradict Zimmerman's account. Wow!

Posted by: Msyoung | Jul 24, 2013 1:13:55 AM

"The underlying extremely unpleasant truth, a truth no one wants to talk about, is that young black men are by far the most dangerous demographic group in this country."

I disagree. The most dangerous demographic group in this country are rich old white men.

Posted by: AFPD | Jul 24, 2013 1:22:58 AM

LOL i have to give AFPD this one. Expecially that buch in Washinging DC as well as the 50 state capitals!

Posted by: rodsmith | Jul 24, 2013 9:49:10 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB