Time columnist Joe Klein has harsh words for the right. His new column uses the Trayvon Martin tragedy to talk broadly about the right and racism. Klein points out that some of the Republican presidential candidates
are desperate men playing on the ignorance and racist bigotry of their audiences. Those of us who cover campaigns and watched the Tea Party grow have notebooks full of hateful quotes from that distinct minority of militants who believe that nonwhites are “taking over” the country and that Shari’a looms and that the President is somehow egging this on. This is a relatively tiny minority but a rather dangerous one. Many are armed, and they have ridiculously permissive gun laws like Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” statute on their side. The Republican Party has been more than complicit–it has been zealous–in the passage of these laws.
Someone should share all those notebooks full of Tea Party racism.
Indeed, Klein’s column begins with one remarkable anecdote about Rick Santorum campaign stop at a shooting range in Louisiana:
As he was firing two clips from a semiautomatic pistol into a target, a woman called out, “Pretend it’s Obama.”
But often times a column like this must apparently shift its focus to the other side’s culpability too–a familiar kind of pox-on-both-houses media “false balance.”
Klein writes:
Which is not to say that the Democrats have been completely blameless. The past 20 years have seen great racial progress in this country. The killing of Martin by a vigilante crime-watch stalker was an exception to the norm; the vast majority of African-Americans who are shot suffer at the hands of other African-Americans.
The paragraph goes on, but stop here for a second and ponder the idea that “racial progress” is marked in part by black people mostly being killed by other black people.
Back to Klein’s paragraph:
But here’s Al Sharpton, with the imprimatur of MSNBC, acting as racial ringmaster for another media circus, and here’s Jesse Jackson back looking for some camera time too. (I’m sure that the Limbaugh/Drudge wing of the Republican Party is thrilled that the Democrats are drifting back into racialist politics after a 20-year hiatus.)
Klein manages to hit all the usual notes: Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson (who is seeking “camera time,” of course) and Democrats endangered by an embrace of “racialist” politics. It’s part of the corporate media’s general distaste for activism, as well as the fear that Democrats might go too far to the left. But it’s especially strange for pundits like Klein to seem outraged by the fact that civil rights activists are doing civil rights activism.
For pundits like Klein, Obama’s election was important because it held out the possibility of a post-racial society where people like Jackson and Sharpton would be totally unnecessary. As Peter Beinart wrote, “For many white Americans, it’s a twofer. Elect Obama, and you not only dethrone George W. Bush, you dethrone Sharpton, too.” Sometimes you get the sense that Trayvon Martin’s killing is a reminder that thing didn’t work out that way–and the pundits are mad at Sharpton about it.
the irony here is that foxnews and right wing radio decided to go all in on racial ambulance chasing and phony white victimization after obama’s election…
they kept folks like sharpon and jackson in business
Please sign this petition for MSNBC to fire Al Sharpton. Please pass it on.
http://www.change.org/petitions/msnbc-fire-al-sharpton
The continuous killings of unarmed Black people by White “authorities” in America is okay because Black people kill more Black people? Really? The problem isn’t Al Sharpton or Jessie Jackson. The problem is a fake justice system which continues to issue hunting licenses and absolution to people like Zimmerman, and a White mainstream culture which is okay which such acts until Black activists and international scrutiny and criticism force White people to confront these situations.
Which “continuous killings of unarmed Black people by White “authorities” in America” are you referring to? Or are you just another sanctimonious, race-bating Progressive attempting to use a tragic situation to advance your own self-serving political agenda?
Are you as passionate about black-on-white crime? What about black-on-black?
I won’t hold my breath waiting for racist, community organizer wannabees like you to acknowledge the role Rev. Wright, Barack Obama and other “race hustlers” potentially play in the lives of the young black men some of us have actually had to raise as parents (I raised twin boys as a single parent). As Dr. Thomas Sowell observes:
“Race hustlers who stir up paranoia and belligerence are doing no favor to minority youngsters. There is no way to know how many of these youngsters’ confrontations with the police or others in authority have been needlessly aggravated by the steady drumbeat of racial hype they have been bombarded with.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/294456/geraldo-and-hoodies-thomas-sowell
“Race hustlers” like Jeremiah White and Barack Obama, along with white Progressives in the MSM media and academia at all levels, have done a fine job teaching our kids that differences between groups can only be due to the way others treat them or to differences in the way others perceive them in “stereotypes.”
Again, Dr. Sowell:
“All around the country, people in politics and the media have been tip-toeing around the fact that violent attacks by blacks on whites in public places are racially motivated, even when the attackers themselves use anti-white invective and mock the victims they leave lying on the streets bleeding.
This is not something to ignore or excuse. It is something to be stopped.”
“This needs to be done for the sake of both black and white Americans — and even for the sake of the hoodlums. They have set out on a path that leads only downward for themselves.”
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2011/08/16/social_degeneration/page/full/
An apology from Rev. Wright and our “Community Organizer in Chief” to the young people of color they helped brainwash during those 20 years, their parents, and anyone who may have been subsequently harmed as a result, would be a start.
Your pathetic attempt to inject your own bigoted and racist views into a truly sad and tragic situation for your own self-serving interests is rejected out of hand.
Peasehead is correct of course. The fact that people like Stopinstigating would quote a bozo like Thomas Sowell at length is sad. Especially when he labels Barack Obama AND Jeremiah Wright as race hustlers. Didn’t Obama throw Wright under the bus during the campaign? How can any black man possibly be more accommodating and racially blind than Barack Obama? He’d have to pretend that black people didn’t exist at all, we’re just swarthy white people.
The difference between white-on-black violence and black-on-white violence is that when the latter happens all the power of local, state, and federal authority is set on the perpetrators regardless of what some apologists might say. Curfews will be implemented, cars will be stopped and bodies will be searched. And when black-on-black violence occurs the “good citizens” will gladly throw every negro in the vicinity in jail for life.
When our “public servants”, paid with my tax dollars, sporting the motto “to protect and serve” kills an innocent, unarmed black guy we get a shrug of the shoulders. Similar to the shrug you get when an Afghan child is blown up by a drone. Or when some soldier goes on rampage killing innocent women and children and burning their bodies. And they don’t even have to be cops. Self appointed neighborhood watch guy will do. At least the state will give the Afghan’s family a couple of bucks as reparations. Won’t give Trayvon’s family sh*t.
Our children know their lives ain’t worth that of third world goat herder. America should be glad they mostly take their rage out on each other.
@Stopinstigating:
At least 10,000 lynchings. All unpunished. Unarmed victims, Amadou Diallo, Oscar Brown, the people on the Danziger Bridge, etc.etc.etc. and more stretching back to infinity and with no end in sight.
So, everyone who doesn’t tow the American party line that Blacks as a people are inherently criminal and violent and are therefore, deserving of whatever “justice” any White individual or institution chooses to mete out, while, on the other hand, White people are non violent innocents who have single handedly built a just loving and peaceful society, is a shameless “racial hustler” with an anti-American/anti-Western agenda. When Whites are as outraged about the killings of unarmed Blacks by their so-called authorities as they are by the windows which get broken during the unrest which often follows such incidents, or by the OJ verdict, or by so-called acts of anti-Semitism, maybe their critiques of those who try to hold their system accountable will have some weight. When Whites stop using the system to work THEIR racial and racist social and political and economic agendas, maybe their critiques of non-White “racial hustlers” will have some meaning.
all the rhetoric by the sell outs like sharpton or the racists leave me unmoved because i know that the only real solution to racist american violence is for the black man to organize around militant self defence and until he does that nothing will change. like the panthers used to say “arm yourself or harm yourself”
another article spreading fear, hate, and racism and I will never sign a petition asking to have Al Sharpton fired. All I see is the tea baggers out in force spread faux “news” lies and their followers saying what the America. This is what the big corporations and the repulsive party of NO (republicans) want, America another 3rd world country.
I would just like whoever thinks the President is race-baiting (or whatever made-up term you want to use) to consider that fact that his mom is white. Let that sink in… Do you comprehend that you can be both black AND white, or does his black blood cancel out any trace of affiliation with the caucasoid race?
Last time I checked the laws in this country, you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Never ceases to amaze me how the media and the left wing pundits Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton have made this Trayvon Martin tragedy into a race issue. The investigation is ongoing, but here in this article and numerous news reports all over this country have already judged, tried, and convicted Zimmerman before he even had a day in court.
How come in your rebuttal Mr. Hart; that you didn’t report that this case is still ongoing and being investigated? No, we find you challenging Stein over his attacks & statements against Jackson & Sharpton. How come you haven’t chastised all of the news media for blowing this story out of context? Oh no, that would be considered fair. You made this about politics and race with NO EVIDENCE, and there is no evidence the Tea Party was responsible for this tragedy Mr. Hart; but you couldn’t resist allowing the TEA PARTY or the Republicans to be dragged into this by Stein without rebuttal, could you? WE DESERVE BETTER!
I like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. At least they stand up for people.
@ C-jean yes, innocent until proven guilty but people have every reason to believe this IS a race issue. If Trayvon was white, Zimmermann wouldn’t have payed any attention to him. Zimmerman also ignored a directive by the police to remain in his vehicle and went to confront Trayvon. Futher investigation is warranted.
I don’t know what happened with the Zimmerman/Martin incident. It certainly doesn’t seem right and I hope that justice is served and we don’t see it happen again. One thing I would that we would all agree on is that people should be able to develop opinions without being manipulated by major media organizations. NBC has already apologized for their dubious editing. Here in the Chicagoland area, sadly, African Americans are killed by other African Americans on almost a daily basis. These killings don’t command as much attention from Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton as the amount of attention they seem to be devoting to Trayvon Martin. Why? Is it because they would prefer to not criticize African Americans? And to clarify some confusion exhibited in this discussion thread regarding President Obama’s race: During the last census, President Obama chose to identify his race as African American. He could have chosen to be accurate and declare himself to be Bi-Racial, or Multi-Racial. Identifying himself as bi-racial or multi-racial would have been the logical, sensible and honest thing to do. Genetically, he is half caucasian and half negro. From the NURTURE perspective, he was mostly raised by his caucasian mom and caucasian grandfather (or was it his caucasian grandparents?). The point is that he wasn’t raised by his genetic dad from Kenya. His biological father hardly spent any time with him–wasn’t it only 3 weeks or 3 months? Most of the African Americans I know take pride in the understanding that their families have suffered through slavery and decades of mistreatment, and the civil rights era and that they have come a long way through all this suffering. This suffering is part of their identity and their successes despite the hardships is a meaningful part of their beings. President Obama’s ancestors didn’t go through these decades of hardships. His father was a Kenyan Bureaucrat, a drinker, and hardly spent any time with his son Barack. President Obama, spent a significant chunk of time in his childhood growing up in Indonesia, even more time growing up in Hawaii, had a stepfather who was Indonesian (or was he a Malaysian or Polynesian living in Indonesia), and went to Harvard. The point here is that President Obama hasn’t lived a typical life of an African American. The Nature Vs. Nurture debate will rage on of course, but let’s not confuse the facts. Genetically, Obama is 50% African. From the Nurture perspective, he’s at LEAST 51% caucasian. To declare himself to be 100% African American during the last census is not only at least 51% inaccurate, but also kind of insulting to his caucasian mom and grandparents who invested all that time and effort raising him. He had an opportunity to show people that it’s okay to admit you are bi-racial or multi-racial (like Tiger Woods did with his “Cablasian” thing years ago), but he chose to lie and ignore the facts.
Paint the tea party as racist,gun toting, white supremacists out to return us to the ways of the hateful past.Paint the Republicans as the party of no.Drag Trayvon’s death into the racial circus with our favorite ringmasters Sharpton and Jackson.The Justice brothers.Go anywhere at anytime to get our mugs in the news while we stir up racial tensions.
Way back on Oct 14 Obama called Republicans racist.This week more top voices in the Democratic party said this.As it becomes obvious the Dems can’t run on their record ,OR the state of the country this appears to be salvos in what will be the dirtiest election ever.Republicans will keep pointing to his record and Obama will yell racist in a crowded room.Sad.
Trayvon’s death at the hands of a Hispanic Democrat without all the evidence in(Jessie Jackson announced to a crowd he was shot in the back of the head)is just more of the same divisive seperatist politics that has served Obama well and that he has trained in for a long time.Truth has no place here.
C-Jean – Have you actually listened to what Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are saying? They are saying exactly what you wrote! We will never know if Zimmerman is innocent or guilty – UNTIL HE IS ACTUALLY CHARGED WITH A CRIME!
I apologize for yelling – but please – I am sick and tired of people whose only news source seems to be Fox yammering away about what – Sharpton, Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz or others say when you have no idea because you have never bothered to listen to them and their opinions.
I think you would be surprised to hear their comments. For all you Rachel haters – she has been one of the strongest supporters of our men and women in the miliary you will find on any network, Fox included. Ed Schultz is one of the few voices on television standing up for working people – white collar, blue or pink collar. We should be repeating their actual words and not the words provided by the voices of the far right.
Jim Doyle wrote: Genetically, Obama is 50% African. From the Nurture perspective, he’s at LEAST 51% caucasian. To declare himself to be 100% African American during the last census is not only at least 51% inaccurate, but also kind of insulting to his caucasian mom and grandparents who invested all that time and effort raising him. He had an opportunity to show people that it’s okay to admit you are bi-racial or multi-racial (like Tiger Woods did with his “Cablasian” thing years ago), but he chose to lie and ignore the facts.
_________________________________________________
This is 100% bullshit. How exactly are you qualified to assess the accuracy and truthfulness of his racial makeup and purity? How are any of us? And why bother? You gonna go around to assess all the wealthy who have Hispanic nannies raising their kids to make sure they self-identify as at least part Hispanic, too? He ID’s himself as Black and is damn-well free to do so; any bi-racial citizen is. These “facts” about his life, seem awfully close to your subjective opinions about what you think he should be.
I dunno about Sharpton and Jackson speaking against black-on-black violence lately. But they sure have in the past. Repeatedly. Nowadays, at least in my city, it seems local activists are taking the lead in decrying such violence, and organizing vigils and stop-violence marches and whatnot.
It’s obvious that if Zimmerman were black and Martin were not, Zimmerman would have been arrested. That’s why race has entered this debate, and it is a legitimate issue to raise. It’s only Florida’s insane “stand your ground” law that gives the fig leaf of legitimacy to a guy shooting another unarmed guy dead after stalking him and getting out to accost him, against the direction of the police.
I want to see Zimmerman arrested, for all the facts to come out, and for him to get a fair trial. That is what everyone who believes in the rule of law should support. That is all that the so-called attackers of Zimmerman are asking. Why aren’t all the so-called “law and order” advocates calling for the same thing?
The bigger question that the mainstream media, with few exceptions, are unwilling or afraid to ask: Isn’t it about time to question the pathological and paranoid cult of guns that has swept across this country? The Martin death is just one more example. How many unnecessary and tragic gun deaths will it take? We hear about them every day. We’re the only country with this insane gun obsession, and the rest of the world thinks we’re crazy — for good reason.
When an unarmed teenager is murdered by a grown man with a gun, a serious investigation should be conducted. The cavalier manner in which this case has been handled by the police and the DA is what is so infuriating.
i have read many news items, about this, and the thing that is most disturbing is the very law itself. Some people say it means that it’s for defense in a person’s home. Others say it’s for defense anywhere. What exactly qualifies as” being in fear for one’s life?”
In this case, the tapes record the police saying to Mr. Zimmerman “do not follow..” They also record Mr. Zimmerman saying “his hand is in his waistband, he looks like he’s on drugs..” Wow, such omnipotent knowledge from a Mr. Zimmerman previously arrested for domestic violence, and apparently a possible problem with resisting arrest. Although, I guess in a snarky way, it didn’t hurt to have a father who was a judge. Why would a domestic violence charge allow a person to carry a gun?
Florida does have some strange laws. It’s also weird, that if you look at Florida on a map, it does resemble a gun pointing at the rest of the nation. Of course, the appearance of that visual could have resulted from the impact of the 2000 election. : )
So many people bring up Obama’s race, of black and white, but then say he’s black. It seems to be true for Mr. Zimmerman also..he’s German/ white and Hispanic, so he’s Hispanic?
Maybe we should stop with the colors and just say..”A dominant gene homo sapien XY American” for Obama and for Mr. Zimmerman, the same thing. I on, the other hand am a “recessive gene XX homo sapien American.” Maybe going to the genetic level is the only way to solve this peculiar description problem.
Well, Florida, if shooters can kill another person because they are” in fear for their life,” then I suggest you clarify the what, when, and how this law operates. That GOP convention will be in Florida, and some fearful, homeless, jobless, and insuranceless Americans might decide to act like Mr. Zimmerman. Really, you’d think when a law like this is written that lawmakers would think through the consequences for everyone.
“I would just like whoever thinks the President is race-baiting (or whatever made-up term you want to use) to consider that fact that his mom is white. Let that sink in… Do you comprehend that you can be both black AND white, or does his black blood cancel out any trace of affiliation with the caucasoid race?”
“Identifying himself as bi-racial or multi-racial would have been the logical, sensible and honest thing to do. Genetically, he is half caucasian and half negro. From the NURTURE perspective, he was mostly raised by his caucasian mom and caucasian grandfather (or was it his caucasian grandparents? [grandMOTHER]). The point is that he wasn’t raised by his genetic dad from Kenya.”
“How exactly are you qualified to assess the accuracy and truthfulness of his racial makeup and purity? How are any of us? And why bother?”
Nobody was talking about “purity,” John. Obama *IS* multi-racial, though who knows what the percentages are? And who cares? But the fact that he calls himself “African American” and “black” instead of bi- or multi-racial IS an important statement. I voted for him (because he was the Democrat on the ticket), but that was one of the many things I disliked (and still do) about him. He NEGATES the role his caucasian mother played in who and what he is while his father was hardly a part of his life at all! I’ve always known that he says and does a lot of sexist stuff, but that has got to be one of the worst acts of sexism or misogyny ever.
I have trouble taking Stopinstigating seriously. I live outside of the country but every time I visit, I go to Chicago, New Jersey/New York, and Nebraska and places in-between. There is always some major scandal in at least one of these places when I visit once or twice a year where a white policeman has killed someone or tortured someone or somehow abused his authority over blacks or other racial minorities. Stopinstigating must not pay any attention to the news because it always seems splashed all over the place.
C-Jean is missing the point that critics do not want Zimmerman’s blood, they want him to go through the criminal justice system in the same way that he would have if he had been a black man gunning down a white man. There is ample probable cause to make an arrest. The point of splashing this all over the media is that police are not doing anything about it.
Well i am sure the police are going to thoroughly investigate this.There are a few angles but this is not all that hard a case.Mr Zimmermann may be a jerk and a creep and a cop wanna be.He probably was a terrible candidate to be a gun permit recipient.He may of followed the kid and spoke to him.All questionable actions but not illegal.The simple question is did Treyvon physically attack him ,and did Mr Zimmerman use deadly force because he felt his life was in danger.Treyvon cant testify.It will be up to physical evidence and eye witnesses testimony corroborating or not Mr zimmermans testimony.Now it seems some people WANT guilt here to Mr zim.Hopefully we can get the truth.
Jamie H wrote: But the fact that he calls himself “African American” and “black” instead of bi- or multi-racial IS an important statement.
________________________________________________
No it’s not. It’s absolutely meaningless to me what he ID’s himself as. It shouldn’t matter to you or anyone else. And nobody has any right to critique how “well” he made his choice. I say there are no other lessons or messages to be drawn outta it– but some people insist there is something there. Why does it have to be anything other than the neaningless “check the box” item on an individually-meaningless form that it purports to be?
Also, I don’t like going down the road where we get to evaluate how much he respects his mother’s side of the family based on his ID on a census form. We gonna look at all the art projects he did for Mother’s Day as a kid and see if he really put feeling into that macaroni art? Or was he just going through the motions? How ’bout we stay outta his intra-family dynamic altogether? If his mom has an issue with something and wants to talk about it, then fine; but it don’t seem right to me judge it when I ain’t part of the family. And it’s really off-base to make such far-ranging judgments based on a stupid census form.
michael e: All questionable actions but not illegal.The simple question is did Treyvon physically attack him ,and did Mr Zimmerman use deadly force because he felt his life was in danger.
_______________________________________________
It’s more than questionable. If Zimmerman initiated the confrontation, then I have trouble understanding how he can claim any kind of self-defense.
He’s a grown man following around a teenager. He’s upset that “these kids always get away.” (That’s his quote from the 911 tape, I think.) He thinks Martin is on drugs. That’s his state of mind when he goes to confront Martin, so I doubt he politely and professionally– as would a police officer– asked him a simple question. If some apparently belligerent guy starts following me and then confronts me when I’m minding my own business, I might well tell him to fuck off and mind his own business. And if he didn’t fuck off and mind his own business, things could easily escalate to physical. But the whole thing was set in motion by the guy who initiated the confrontation– Zimmerman.
Seems to me like he was gonna start something with this kid, he ignored poilce advice in order to do so, and then began losing the fight he started.
The stuff Jim Doyle is saying about how the president chose to identify his race on a census form, or in any other place, is some of the silliest I’ve seen in a long time. Sixty years ago, Mr. Obama would have had NO choice. Mr. Doyle, apparently, has no memory or knowledge of the history of race in America. Or, if he does, he conveniently forgets it. The 1/16th rule and the One-drop rule were created by the dominant white culture of the time to ensure that anyone of “mixed ancestry” (I believe Mr. Doyle’s terms were Bi-Racial or Multi-Racial) did not receive the same benefits in society as “pure” white people. For instance, many states had very specific laws that limited the rights of non-white people to vote. With even one drop of negro blood in his veins, Mr. Obama not only wouldn’t have been allowed to vote, he would have had to drink from a different water fountain, use a separate rest room, eat in segregated sections of restaurants (if they served blacks at all), and sit in the back of the bus in the part of the country I grew up in. The completely ludicrous part of this whole current argument is that, had Mr. Obama identified himself as white, there would have been a furor. Can you even imagine?
For the record, the U.S. Census form does not give you the choice of bi-racial or multi-racial. You must choose from among — White / Black, African Am., or Negro / Asian Indian / Chinese / Filipino / Japanese / Korean / Vietnamese / Other Asian / Native Hawaiian / Guamanian or Chamorro / Samoan / Other Pacific Islander. There is also a box for “Some other race.” Would Mr. Doyle have had him fill in a totally nondescriptive term, like bi-racial in that box?
It’s worth pointing out that all of the above, except for White or Black (common terms for Caucasoid or Negroid) are not races, at all. They are cultural identities, which has become the new focus of the census form. The Chinese, Japanese, Filipinos, etc. would all fall under Mongoloid, though the more common and less offensive term is Asian. Why is it any more important for the census takers to know whether an Asian person is from either Japan or China than it is to know whether a white person came from Russia, France, Germany, or Great Britain?
Can the attacks on President Obama become any sillier? He chose to self-identify his race as black. Honor his choice. That’s a big part of what the Civil Rights Movement was about: to give people rights.
Well John that point where you said” he(Zimmerman) initiated the confrontation” is an important point.Im not doubting that he did.I believe he was following the kid.If I saw something suspicious in my neighborhood I may follow- to see what is going on.Now we can debate the wisdom of that all day,but it is not against the law.If he grabbed the kid THAT is against the law.If the kid grabbed him ,or struck him THAT is against the law.I can yell at you all day and their is nothing you can do about it(Remember Move ,and Ramona Africa yelling day and night with bullhorns in Philly?).I can WATCH you on a public street, and beyond restraining orders for mitigating circumstances you gotta live with it.It is all about who touched who,and what happened after that.It does not matter if either one was a racist.If people saw mr Zimmerman knocked down ,and getting his ass handed to him as he has alleged as he walked to his car ….than we could move into the that horrific area where deadly force becomes a possibility.If he has lied;if the kid was shot in the back…..if the physical evidence shows deception than we shall see where this goes.Jackson and Sharpton should shut their pie holes until then.
As far as Obama I agree we should honor his choice.Now that World Genotype mapping has been almost completed we can all see soon what obvious and hidden races(tribes)run through our blood with a simple test.Maybe Mitt Romney will be able to call himself Black.Or Jewish.Hopefully we will honor that as well
The reason Trayvon’s case is being publicized is because the cops didn’t even investigate and it’s hard to think that race has nothing to do with it. Thank goodness for people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson who have continuously stood up for civil rights in the face of demeaning and insulting news coverage.
Diane
Just because the Police have chosen not to report every finding ,every minute of the day as is so loved by the Nancy Graces of this world does not mean they are not and have not investigated this case.They are in fact actively working this case as the Mayor ,Gov,and the chief of Police and detectives have been quoted as saying.Sharpton and Jackson are PAID to continuously stand up for so called civil rights cases(this is not one).Remember Tuwanna Browley?Sharpton has never answered for that fiasco.How about the Dukes Lacross team……oooops?How about Sharpton calling Obama Barack the magic Negro?I WISH these two clowns stood up for Civil rights.Both white and Black.Where the hell are they when a white man gets killed by blacks ?Hmmmmm?And how about Jackson last week inciting a black crowd into a frenzy when he stated Treyvon was shot in the back of the head?No evidence what so ever.Why is he not crucified for saying that?He just says what he hopes is true to validate himself.Jackson is a vulture.Believing black people still need him to defend them.Truthfully he is no longer relevant.And I will go out on a limb here……I think there may be something medically wrong with him mentally.He seem off lately.
Sharpton is an ambulance chaser.A Carnival barker.Snake oil Salesmen.He is relevant only so long as there is racial strife.If some is lacking …..he will insert it.Follow his tax records.You will be surprised where he makes his daily bread.Always follow the money trail first.He is a community activist type. Stirring up the masses to real, and imagined slights.THE JUSTICE BROTHERS coming to a town near you soon.
@michael e: If you’re gonna sit there and follow people around at night, then you assume the risk that someone is gonna take it the wrong way and kick your ass. If someone was following my kid around at night, and then went to confront him, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if he got angry and scared and responded physically. For all Martin knew, Zimmerman was some pedophile looking for his next victim. When confronted by a belligerent jerk who’s trying to abuse the minimal power granted to the neighborhood watch guy, an agressive or even physical response might reasonably be called for.
Doesn’t matter to me who threw the first punch. It doesn’t necessarily matter under the law, either. Zimmerman initiated the confrontation.
There was no police “investigation.” There was an automatic assumption by the local police that Zimmerman must have been right because Blacks are always wrong. Had the skin colors been reversed, no one believes that a Black shooter would be walking the street and being lionized by people on the right for killing an unarmed White teenager. One wonders how michael e and others taught their children (assuming that they have any, or know anyone who does) about how to respond to strangers in unmarked vehicles who follow them or approach them, whether such a situation occurs in broad daylight or or a rainy night. Thousands of children disappear or are victimized in this country each year. Is one expected to take the word of any White person who approaches you that they have some kind of legal authority to do so? Should their belligerence or aggressive behavior be viewed as acceptable because they are White? Do Blacks, especially males, have the same “right” to approach and challenge White or Asian or Hispanic children or teenagers including young women if their presence “arouses suspicion? And who defines the limits of one’s “ground” in a public space? Does everyone’s “ground” overlap, or does one trump another based upon ones race or economic status? The Martin cases shows once again that the justice system not just the one in Florida is a sick, corrupt joke, one which condones vigilante “justice” while pontificating about the rule of law..
John — It is NOT just a box he checks on a census form! And it *IS* my business, as well as yours and everybody else who cares about what our country is about. He is the main leader of our nation, a leader in the world. Almost every word he utters publicly is important. How he identifies himself says a lot about how he views the world, and that says a lot about how he’s going to govern. The fact that he negates his mother’s contribution to who and what he is says a lot about how he does not value women. And that is immeasurably important. Since your screen name indicates that you’re probably a man, I can imagine that that might not be as important to you.
@Jamie: Why is it important? Because you capitalize “is” in your response? Is there some fine print on the census form that I’m not aware of that reads: “This form is a widely-accepted measure of your integrity and character”? I’ve never heard of anybody judging somebody else by what they put on their census form. You can judge him by what he says and how he governs, sure. But not everything in his life is fair game to read into. It’s like looking at a basketball player’s performance in a game and saying, “Well, he scored 30 points, had 20 rebounds and 10 blocks, and hustled the entire game. But what I really care about is that he missed the garbage can the other day when trying to throw away a crumpled-up burger wrapper.” You’re free to evaluate on any obscure basis you want, but I don’t gotta go along with it, do I? Just ’cause you say it IS important? And I’ve never known anybody to judge someone else based on their census form responses.
For the above reasons, I also don’t consider that failing to ID himself as something other than Black is a slight to his mother’s side of the family. Again, I’ve never heard of a stupid block on a meaningless form being used to evaluate such a thing. Is his mother’s side of the family complaining about it or something? I ‘spose census form responses will soon overtake hip-hop lyrics as the bellweather of misogyny.
I must have missed it, but apparently the 2010 Census was an eHarmony-like comprehensive and exhaustive psychological evaluation tool in the guise of a simple population count.
Guys you don’t understand the law at all.If I see you walking about where I live, and I feel you are suspicious ,I do have the right to check that out.And to contact the police that something may be going down.To go see what you are up too.Or to ask you what is going on.(This does not include ANY physical contact)John you may not like that but there it is.I may be a busybody and you may be innocent but no law is being broken.And no you dont have any right to hand me my ass.
I saw a guy under a car in a parking lot the other night(Mon) and it looked funny.I asked him whats up- and his answer was a might screwy.I told him I was calling the cops and he up and took off.The guy came out minutes later who owned the car.His alarm had been ripped down and window broken.Now I do carry a weapon.If that guy who was robbing the car had attacked me and was beating my face into the ground(as Zimmerman has alleged)do you not see the escalation that might of happened if I drew my weapon?We need to wait to see all the evidence.It may be this was a tragedy but not a crime.Or it may be this guy was shot in the back of the head like Jesse Jackson alleged.Lets all wait and see how it shakes out.He is being charged with 2nd degree murder.
@michael e: No, you do not understand the law, doc. I’m a lawyer. A former criminal defense attorney and prosecutor, in fact. I know what I’m talking about, and the confrontation was initiated by Zimmerman, even though he did not make the first physical contact.
If you’re gonna bug me to “check me out” and I ain’t in the mood for it, I’m gonna tell you to fuck off. If you don’t get the message verbally and you continue to “check me out,” then what choice do I have but to get more aggressive? I don’t have to answer or account myself to you– let alone a police officer in most instances. At some point, if you won’t leave me alone and I don’t wanna deal with you, things will escalate. Probably verbally with name-calling and threats. And after that, if you won’t mind your own business and leave me alone, then I’m gonna hand you your head. And it probably won’t matter who threw the first punch in that instance– you will have initiated the confrontation by refusing to leave a law-abiding citizen alone when asked to because you “wanted to check [me] out.” You, as a private citizen, can ask me anything you want, sure; but you can’t demand an answer and insist I be polite in my responses and you don’t have any special right to keep after me when I make it clear that I’m not interested in answering to you and that you should mind your own business. At some point, I will be justified in using physical force against you. I might get charged, but a conviction would be doubtful.
Now in the situation in the preceeding paragraph, this assumes that you approached me in some respectful manner. Like maybe you walked up and politely asked a question. But if I make it clear that I don’t wanna talk to you, and you repeatedly keep after me, you will cross a line into some form of criminal harassment eventually– no matter how polite and respectful you are being. If I don’t wanna talk to you and all you do is keep pushing the issue and won’t get out of my face, then it’s reasonable for me to respond more aggressively; not immediately, but after some point.
But I doubt Zimmerman approached Martin with any kind of politeness or respect. He was upset enough to ignore police warnings not to confront him at all. He complained about these assholes getting always getting away with it (I think those were his words). He’s delusionally convinced he’s gotta intervene because of his neighborhood watch position. He’s been violent and aggressive in the past– although his prior Resisting Arrest issue probably won’t be admissible, it’s a factor to consider in making a charging decision. And, finally, he knows he has a weapon to back him up: like drunks get beer muscles, some gun-toters get Smith & Wesson muscles. Given all that, it’s far more likely he approached Martin agressively (both verballhy and with physical posture, I’d bet) and with intent to keep Martin from getting away. So here’s the likely situation from Martin’s point-of-view: a wannabe cop agressively confronts a kid he has been stalking at night and won’t let him get home. In that situation, Martin would be justified in using force to defend himself. For all he knows, Zimmerman is some psycho looking for his next victim. He was following him– if not chasing him– at night. If Zimmerman was following me and/or chasing me at night and then came at me aggressively when he did confront me, I might respond physically– and I’m not a young (read stupid) kid.
Seems to me that this was a bad shoot. But a judge or jury will have the final say.
Zimmerman was anxious for conflict so he made sure he got some. An he was armed to make sure he would “stand his ground” against any he confronted. By doing so he violated that particular law. But the police are on his side. They shouldn’t be.
John you say you are a lawyer- yet you say that you will do as you damn well please irregardless of what a police officer says.Let me put it this way.You meet the president in a crowd he is working surrounded by secret service.You yell at him that you don’t trust him.That he is a (N word),He moves on.Your free to go.Touch him and you be going away.The same is true across the board ,for everyone though we may not have the immediate official backup at our disposal.There is a huge difference between physical confrontation and verbal.Verbal is freedom of speech.No words every broke a bone(or nose).No such promise or right, exists once a physical confrontation occurs.Yell at a cop in a parade that you hate the fuzz.That you dont trust them.That they do a lousy job.On you go.Touch them and… down you go.Easy or hard.
Of course we must take into account did Trey think he was in danger.Was he defending himself.Again lets us see out this plays out.Till then I would advise you to keep your hands to yourself barrister.Or you may need good legal help yourself….or me- in an emergency medical situation.Stay calm stay safe.
@michael e wrote: “you say you are a lawyer- yet you say that you will do as you damn well please irregardless of what a police officer says.”
____________________________________
I never said that or anything remotely close to it. And irregardless? Nice word choice, Shakespeare. You say you are a doctor…
True, touching someone is crossing a line from saying things to them. But you seem convinced that you can’t cross any kind of line with just verbal or non-verbal conduct that’s short of physical contact. That’s not the law. If someone comes up to you billegerently, calling you all kinds of names, fists clenched, taking off a jacket in order to be able to fight, you seem to be saying that you gotta let them have the first punch before any crime is committed or any right of self-defense exists. This is not the law in any jurisdiction I know about. Assault usually includes what’s called assault by menace or assault by offer or something like that– criminal beligerent behavior short of any physical contact.
Furthermore, you seem convinced that you, as a private citizen who sees a suspicious person, have some unqualified right to question that person. You do not– assuming that you have not observed that person in the act of committing a crime and can make a valid citizen’s arrest. And without some valid arrest power, you have absolutely no right to detain a person, no matter how suspicious you think they are. While you can try to talk to anybody you want, they don’t have to answer you. Nor do they have to be polite in responses. You can be polite as you want to the other person, but if they don’t want anything to do with you and you won’t let it go, you will eventually cross a line into criminal conduct. Crossing that line makes it reasonable for the other person to respond aggressively– or even possibly physically. Also, trying to detain a person when you have no privilege to do so, makes an aggressive or physical response reasonable.
Observe and report all you want. But leave law enforcement to the pro’s. And if some suspicious person you talk to tells you to fuck off and mind your own business, know that you have no special right to pursue the issue.
It is obvious that many do not understand what “race” is.
1)Race is a social construct. Before WWII, people believed there were several “White” sub-races (Italians, Irish, and others of Eastern European descent). Today, everyone is considered to be the same “White” race. In the first part of the 20th century, individuals could cross state boarders and go from being legally Black to legally White because of discrepancies in state law.
2)Superficial expressions of phenotype (skin color, hair texture, eye shape) are observable, but are not indicative of a specific amount of genetic variation. As part of the Human Race, we share 99% of genetic characteristics. Race is not biologically or genetically real.
3)In conclusion, race is whatever we believe it is at this point in history. It is not “real” in a biological sense. Therefore, what a person believes is there race IS their race. We can identify lineages from countries and specific ancestors that have superficial characteristics we define as important to classify people into racial categories. We can claim these family lineages are meaningful. But, we are all mixed in heritage.
I highly doubt President Obama is distancing himself from White family members or outing himself as a misogynist because he identifies himself as African-American. If you met the President, without knowing his family lineage, would you assume he was African-American? Most of us would. I believe that the President is only confirming (or conforming to) the reality of modern day America: dark skin color defines a person as non-White whether it is codified in law or simply understood through everyday conventions of classification.
If President Obama no longer faced criticism because of how he classified himself racially, people would simply move on to another silly attack. For instance: How do we know the President is male? Isn’t identifying himself as male just another attempt to distance himself from women, as we all know that his mother was, in fact, a woman? Also, how do we know the President is left-handed? Is using his left hand a blatant attempt to distance himself from his right-handed family members and 90% of the country?
John, you keep asking me why it’s important that Obama calls himself black or African American, and I keep telling you why. You are simply ignoring what I say because you don’t WANT to know why. Just as you don’t want to know that it isn’t simply about a box he checks on his census form. He calls himself black or African American all the time in speeches and press conferences and in writing. It is so NOT just about a box on a form. And you CAN make many judgments about people based on what they say. And besides, he has done a lot of other sexist things; it’s not just his racial identification that shows he discounts women.
And Jimmy, you are simply ridiculous, equating arguments about the president’s gender and his left-handedness with how he identifies himself racially. Again, another man who just cannot understand a woman’s concerns or point of view. And by the way, when I look at the president, I don’t think he’s African American or black. He looks decidedly multi-racial to me. I don’t see the world in such black-or-white terms as you apparently do.
I am not “attacking” Obama either. I am just writing about something about him that bugs me. I have every right to be critical of him.
@Jamie: I understand why you think it’s important. You’ve been clear about that. My response is that you’re probably the only person on earth who is reading so much into Obama’s census form. To the best of my knowledge, no other reasonable person or group in history has ever read so much into a self-ID response on a census form.
And you’re putting out the idea that it’s so self-evidently and unquestionably important and not backing it up with anything. So is there some branch of academic research that says census responses indicate these personality flaws? Is it common practice for candidates to mudsling their opponents based on their census responses or something? When doing background checks on potential employees, is it customary for employers to dig up their census data as an integrity check? Does the McLaughlin Group devote weeks at a time to census responses? Ever known of one person who made a decision on whether or not to go out on a date with someone based on his or her census racial self-ID being inaccurate or reflective of some character flaw? In short, is there any generally-accepted authority, custom, or practice that supports the idea that it’s perfectly reasonable to read so much into a census response? Because if there is, I’ve not heard of it and you’ve failed to mention it. And until you can back up your idea with something like that, well… what’s freely asserted is freely denied.
You can judge Obamam based on everything he says or does. But if you’re gonna place tremendous importance and emphasis on something that appears to the rest of the reasonable world to be a meaningless event, and then not give any rationale for why this seemingly meaningless event should be deemed so important, then you can’t really expect the rest of the world to go along with you.
Like I said above: if I start judging baseketball players based on whether they miss the garbage can when throwing stuff away, it’s gonna be awfully hard for me to convince the general public that I’m a basketball scout.
@Jim Doyle…What you obviously fail to understand and appreciate about Mr. Obama’s choice to self identify as “African American, in spite of the biological fact of his 50% Caucasian genetic inheritance, is that practically all “African Americans” today can make legitimate claim to some Caucasian genetic inheritance…a great many, such as myself, surpassing 50%; yet, they and the American community at large view them as “African Americans”. In most cases this Caucasian genetic inheritance is a result not of love and of choice, but rather a result of the depraved practice of RAPE by the slave owners of yore and the Jim Crow enforcers of yesterday. Contrary to your conclusion that Mr. Obama’s choice in this matter was illogical, if you knew African American people (which you obviously do not), then you’d have realized that you had nothing of merit to say, and kept your bigoted mouth shut.