We’re not going to say that we delight in the salty goodness that is the frustrated tears of leftist thugs because… Oh why bother? Of course we delight in them. They are delicious and nutritious. Anyway, here’s a perfect example of the Utterly Divorced From Reality™ leftist point of view in the aftermath of the Zimmerman acquittal (h/t LC Radical Redneck) and it is 100% industry grade stupid.
Which you’d pretty much expect from a blog featuring Keef Olberdouche at the top of its sidebar.
The “Stand Your Ground” legislation was sponsored by Florida state Representative Dennis Baxley and state Senator Durell Peadon, both Republican allies of Jeb Bush. The governor quickly signed the measure into law — despite explicit and repeated warnings that this law would encourage shootings of innocents like Trayvon Martin.
We should bloody well hope that it would encourage victims of violence to defend themselves against “innocents” “innocently” ground pounding them, banging their heads into concrete. Sort of the whole point. As to any actual innocents being shot? So far the count remains zero. Streets running knee deep with blood just aren’t what they’ve been creepy-assed cracked up to be, if you ask us.
My heart sank when I heard the verdict. George Zimmerman, the man who shot dead an unarmed teenager after profiling and stalking him,
So much fail in just one sentence. So very much of it. The head spins. “Unarmed”, while technically true depending on your definition of “armed”, is utterly irrelevant. His Imperial Majesty could certainly kill somebody armed with nothing but our two hands, particularly if we were a 170 lbs athletic, MMA-trained thug straddling a woefully mismatched dude we’d pinned to the ground. “Profiling?” If by “profiling” you mean “wondering what a hooded stranger is doing perambulating your troubled, crime-ridden neighborhood in the middle of the night and calling it in to 911″ then we suppose you have a point. In which case we need more “profiling”, not less. Actually, under that definition “profiling” is the whole ruddy purpose of a neighborhood watch. And finally “stalking?” Seriously? Under most definitions we can find, “stalking” means “obsessively following somebody with malice aforethought.” You might want to cuddle up with a copy of Webster’s and a cuppa tea one day.
has been declared “not guilty”. This is, in my strong opinion, a miscarriage of justice.
So noted. Also noted: Your “strong opinion” doesn’t amount to squat, although you’re perfectly entitled to hold it, no matter how foolish it makes you look. Verdicts are not handed down based on “strong opinions”, at least not in any civilized nation.
Just prior to the reading of the verdict I heard there were questions regarding the manslaughter charge, so I was hopeful that at least Zimmerman would be convicted of the lesser charge.
Because, in your “strong opinion”, facts to the contrary be damned, Zimmerman was bloody well guilty of something so, again facts to the contrary be damned, he needed to be punished and sent to jail. For something, anything, jaywalking perhaps?, as long as that evil, murderous, racist bastard was sent to jail.
MSNBC was the channel I had on during time leading up to the reading of the verdict.
MSLSD? At this point we could rest our case, but we’re beginning to have fun here.
I stayed tuned following the pronouncement of “not guilty”. Below I have transcribed some of the commentary from the MSNBC coverage following the 7/13/2013 reading of the verdict; a discussion I have edited for brevity and clarity…
Chris Jansing: The Reverand Al Sharpton joins us now. Your reaction?
You mean Al Not-So-Sharpton on Tawany Brawley, “Jew” York City, Duke Lacrosse “fame?” You’re making this too easy, you know.
[Camera stays on a smiling George Zimmerman as Al Sharpton speaks. Smiling because he just got away with murder, IMO.]
Or maybe smiling because of a year and a half worth of endless nightmarish persecution is finally over?
Al Sharpton: Well, I think this is an atrocity. I think it is probably one of the worst situations that I’ve seen. What this jury has done is establish a precedent that if you are young and fit a certain profile… you can be commiting no crime, just bringing some Skittles and iced tea to your brother and be killed…
Of course, provided that your particular way of “just bringing some Skittles and iced tea to your brother” includes accosting, sucker punching and ground pounding any “creepy-ass cracker” you meet on your way. In which case you’re doing it wrong.
and someone can claim self defense.
Funny that, isn’t it “reverend” Carpton? If you defend yourself against being beaten into hamburger it’s called “self defense.” Amazing.
Having been exposed in all kinds of lies and all kinds of inconsistencies…
What lies and inconsistencies? As a matter of fact, Zimmerman’s testimony has been remarkably consistent throughout, both with itself and the actual facts found by the investigation. Not one single contradiction to be found anywhere.
We had to march to even get a trial.
Because that’s how justice works, dammit! Forget about actual grounds for one, forget about facts, forget about all of that! Just march around like a mob of lynch happy hoodlums and scream until charges are filed.
Then at trial, when he’s exposed over and over again as a liar,
he is acquitted. This is a sad day in the country. I think we clearly must move on to the next step, in terms of the federal government and in terms of the civil courts. This is a slap in the face to those who believe in justice.
“Let’s go march and howl in the streets again until we get what we want, because that’s justice!!!1!!”
Joy Reid: … [the] community in Sanford is split along racial lines. White Sanford residents were by and large supporting George Zimmerman. In a lot of ways it’s a Conservative community. Supporting George Zimmerman has become something of a matter of Conservative dogma. He raised 300k, that didn’t come from no one.
If you want to keep harping on about how supporting an innocent man is somehow a “Conservative dogma”, go right ahead. We love compliments. We also suspect it’s true, having seen how the other side behaves.
There has been a sense of demoralization and depression [in Black Sanford] concerning this case from the very beginning. The notion that a young Black man’s life really isn’t worth much in America was tied up in this case. That notion that this boy just walking home was out of place just by being there, just by being dressed the way he was, his existence was almost illegal.
No. But his ground pounding a guy into mincemeat certainly IS illegal.
Such that someone acting in the guise of a police officer, but with no authority by the law… could shoot and kill a young Black man and not be arrested. Be sent home.
Everybody has the authority under the law to defend themselves against death or serious bodily harm. You leftist idiots like to blather about “civil rights.” The right to defend yourself IS a “civil right”.
I think that for a lot of African Americans in Sanford, this is going to double them down on their feelings on the Sanford police, about the system, about not mattering.
L-rd knows that you screeching assmonkeys in the OgabeMedia have done all that you can to make them feel like that with your “guilty until proven innocent” and constant lies, doctoring and omission of evidence etc.
Now back to the blogger:
My Commentary: Al Sharpton then mentions a civil suit that has been filed against George Zimmerman by the family of Trayvon Martin. I’ve heard, however, that the defense could ask the judge for “immunity which would protect him from a civil lawsuit”.
Yes, they very much can. His Majesty is not terribly familiar with Florida’s version of Stand Your Ground, but we do know that there is such a provision in the Texas version. It’s based on “if defendant is found not guilty of murder, then it really makes no fucking sense to try him for damages which a jury just said he wasn’t guilty of incurring.” Something that is also sometimes called “horse sense.”
He also mentions the possibility of bringing a civil rights violation charge. Honestly I don’t see how that could be possible, as he was found not guilty and the prosecution specifically said that George didn’t RACIALLY profile Trayvon, he CRIMINALLY profiled him.
The prosecution was, by the way, declared off their rockers and wrong, so it really doesn’t matter what they “specifically said” at this point.
I believe George racially profiled Trayvon.
And His Imperial Majesty believes that eating garlic keeps vampires away.
Of course Conservatives were pre-complaining about this possibility. I ran into one of them on Lisa’s blog. A faker calling himself George Zimmerman said “its disgraceful and scary that an innocent man can be railroaded like this with the help of our Government. It’s very obvious that Eric Holder and maybe Obama himself is pulling the strings”.
Clearly the “railroading” hasn’t worked out that well so far.
And thank G-d for that! But that’s not exactly evidence of no railroading having taken place, any more than the failure to actually murder somebody proves that there was no intent to do so or that no attempt was made. That’s why we have “conspiracy to [...]” and “attempted [...]” charges.
But GZ lived in a very conservative area. I heard the Rude Pundit refer to Sanford as a “Republican hellhole” on Stephanie Miller’s radio program.
Nice hellhole, if by “hellhole” you mean “a place where you have a right to defend yourself from death and/or serious bodily harm.”
So I guess 6 Conservative women let the killer of an unarmed Black youth walk? Nobody but the jurists can say for sure. Even they probably think they did the right thing. It certainly wasn’t as if they decided it quickly (which could indicate they had their minds made up).
Well thank you for at least acknowledging that you don’t know.
I certainly agree with Mr. Sharpton about this verdict setting a precedent. As far as Black people go, yes, I think armed conceal and carry license holders will feel freer to shoot when they feel “threatened”. Just claim self defense and you’ll get off, so why take the chance if a Black male “thug” is menacing you by walking in your general vicinity in a public area where he has every right to be?
Because clearly that’s all the motivation that Zimmerman had for shooting Martin. At no point did “lying pinned to the ground while I’m having my head bashed repeatedly against the concrete” enter into it.
But, in addition to that problem, what about people seeking to commit outright murder? Just shoot and claim Stand Your Ground. Dead men tell no tales, after all. Be sure to shoot your “assailant” dead and the only side of the story the police will ever hear is yours.
That and those pesky things we call “facts” and “evidence”, that is. But go ahead, try on your theory for size. On second thought don’t. For the sake of your victim.
A right to defend yourself becomes a license to kill.
In your deranged, hyperventilating fantasy world, perhaps. Meanwhile, here in the real world, facts and evidence might still come back to bite you in the arse.
That is why previously people fearing for their lives always had an obligation to retreat first.
Kinda hard to “retreat” when you’re pinned to the ground by 170 lbs of angry athletic thug pounding you into submission, isn’t it?
Conservatives are already going crazy and dancing their victory jigs. Hurray for the “right” of a gun toting vigilante to shoot dead a menacing Black male they find suspicious for daring to be somewhere the vigilante doesn’t think he should be.
Also “daring to pin some creepy-ass cracker to the ground and trying to murder him by repeatedly banging his head against the concrete”. There has to be a reason why you keep omitting that, but we can’t for the life of us imagine what it is.
I’ve gotten a few of these kind of comments on this blog already. The Left wanted to “lynch” an innocent Hispanic man, but the jury got it right, according to the “Elizabeth Says” commenter. No Elizabeth, the jury got it wrong.
According to you. They should have just done away with this whole jury of your peers thing and called you instead.
Zimmerman is at least guilty of manslaughter.
Under what laws, exactly? Please be careful and thorough in your citations, Mr. Super Legal Eagle.
And we (the Left) never advocated a “lynching”, they simply wanted our justice system to do it’s job
Which was, apparently, to convict Zimmerman no matter what the facts and evidence might suggest. Which, we don’t exactly know what that is, but “justice” it isn’t.
instead of simply accepting Zimmerman’s version of events and setting him free (which the police did the very night George shot and killed Trayvon).
You know what police can’t do in a civilized society ruled by an actual justice system? Detain people without grounds to do so, that’s what.
And why use a word (lynching) that has such ugly racial connotations attached to it? It’s because they’re telling us they don’t care that racism still exists in the world today.
Er, no. But thanks for playing. What we are doing, apart from accurately describing a lynch mob as, well, a lynch mob, is take your endless, baseless, mindless howls and screeches of “raaaaacism” and shoving them right the fuck back in your ugly faces where they belong.
That is why they take this word and use it in a way that is so very inappropriate. Demanding justice is NOT a “lynching”.
That’s what all of those real racists of yore thought too when they gathered a mob of fellow racists and went marching on the city jail to lynch them some black folk. They were just demanding “justice” which, to them as it obviously does to leftist racists of today, meant “convicting that damn bastard no matter what because it is our ‘strong opinion’ that he’s guilty.”
See some similarities there? Then look harder. They’re there, we assure you.
They’re laughing at us by using this word
You’re damn right we are. Hurts like a bitch, doesn’t it? Get used to it, because we’ve barely begun laughing yet.
and now they are rubbing our noses in it.
Ayup. Like the smell?
That is their mindset. And it will prove to be very dangerous going forward. Some with this mindset will surely feel much freer to shoot and kill dangerous Black “thugs” in “self defense”.
In the absence of evidence of actual “self defense”, they’ll then find themselves up shit creek without a paddle as they’re cuffed and thrown in the slammer, and well-deservedly so.
Really. If you want a martyr, you’d do well to pick somebody who wasn’t pinning a guy to the ground while trying to murder him.