The 5 Most Racist Assumptions You Needed to Exonerate George Zimmmerman

FILED TO: Society and Culture

Trayvon Martin

If this photo had been on the nightly news, would there be any doubt who was innocent and who was guilty?

For anyone who thinks that the acquittal of George Zimmerman for the murder of Trayvon Martin was justified, there are several assumptions you must have made to get to that conclusion. In short, anyone who believes Zimmerman was justified in killing the unarmed teenager are most likely racist, even if they don’t know it.

Here are the five assumptions you need to have either consciously or subconsciously made to determine that a white guy who, after being told by the police not to, chased down an innocent black teenager and shot him dead, is innocent:

1. A white person carrying a gun is a hero – a defender of truth, justice and the American way. A black man carrying a gun is none of the above. He is almost certainly a gangster and a threat to society.

2. When white kids smoke weed, they are college students or ‘pot heads’. When a black kid gets high, he is a drug addict and a thug. 

3. White people are allowed to chase black teenagers with loaded weapons if they believe they are guilty of something. You don’t need any proof – just suspicion. White people are presumed innocent by society, and black people are presumed guilty

4. Black people are not allowed to ‘stand their ground’ when a white person with a gun chase them down for no reason. The ‘Stand your ground’ law only applies to white people (see the story of the black woman in Florida who fired a warning shot when her husband threatened to kill her, and received 20 years in jail). 

5. Trayvon Martin couldn’t possibly have been defending himself from George Zimmerman because George Zimmerman was white, and white people don’t attack black people.




If you love what we do here at the Banter, please consider becoming a Banter Member and supporting independent media! Readers get access to the Magazine and unlimited monthly articles

  • 1984isnow

    Very stupid statements on so many levels. Zimmerman chased no one. Most stand your ground cases in Orida have been used BY black people, We elected a black pot smoker as president. Nobody begrudges anyone the right to carry a gun legally and all evidence including the testimony of his girl friend shows Trayvon was not defending, but attacking. Time to grow up. Stop making up shit. Take responsibility for your action. Real low life liR you are.

  • John

    That is completely incorrect and has zero basis in the law or what has been shown to have happened.

    You’re cloaking your own racism by projecting it on others.

  • Javier Wilcox

    That is extremely offensive. In fact, some people might think George Zimmerman is not guilty for different reasons, which you cannot see because you are blinded by your assumption of guilt. Perhaps you assumed that Zimmerman was guilty because the media told you he was white (not true) and that the person who died was a black teen (even though they used pictures of him as a child) and unarmed. I didn’t think there was enough evidence to say that Trayvon Martin didn’t attack George Zimmerman first. Not saying that Zimmerman couldn’t have diffused the situation or not followed Martin, etc. It didn’t have to happen, but that doesn’t mean there was a depraved murder. It is sad that Trayvon Martin died and I feel for the family, but I also feel for Zimmerman’s family who have been harassed by horrible people as well. I love how everyone’s comments on here are all about how “white guys” are going to come on and are so unwillingly to contemplate that black people are equal that they will defend Zimmerman. That’s quite a racist statement on its own. I think that both sides have made assumptions and things don’t have to be black and white or us vs. them. The very reason this article was written is the very reason that Martin died in the first place. Assumptions are deadly, but they don’t have to be racial assumptions. Martin made assumptions about Zimmerman too, he was a “cracker” (that’s not racist, it’s culture!!! yeah, right. Just like slavery was culture and Jim Crow was culture) and a pedophile. Both of them had a right to be there in that neighborhood, no one should dispute that. There was no evidence to say that Zimmerman had a racial motive and he was definitely overcharged by the prosecutors. For the last time, it wasn’t a stand your ground case, it was a regular self-defense case. Self defense is a touchy subject, but the facts are you have to be able to get into someone’s mind to find out if they had a reasonable belief or not, not what you would have done. If your head is being slammed into the pavement, is it reasonable to be afraid? Zimmerman had a right to have a concealed gun and people tend to grab that first in defense if they are gun people. Plus no one helped him or stopped the situation. The bystander effect is also a problem here. The prosecution did a terrible job with their case and maybe that’s because they didn’t have a real case. You can always second guess people and say things could have ended differently. Think about it, Zimmerman is living in a neighborhood that is besieged by robberies. The robberies are committed by minorities. Police officers are looking for a minority suspect, is that racist or just accurate? Martin wasn’t doing anything wrong at first. Things collided. Look at it from the other side, just like the Zimmerman “fans” should. Zimmerman isn’t to blame for all the racism of centuries past nor is he to blame for all the murders of blacks that went unjustified. Follow your own advice. Don’t make assumptions about people, seek to understand them, or the world will always be as terrible as you perceive it in this article.

  • Kevin Scott

    Another self serving liberal with bias views….Always fueling the hate in true liberal/elitist form, Keep up the good work!!!

  • Inherently guilty white person

    It would take an ignoramus like Ben Cohen to write an article about a purported double standard between the African Americans and a race that is irrelevant to the Trayvon murder case. Sorry Ben, but you can’t blame white people for every problem in the world. Why don’t you just accept that you are racist against white people and seek counseling. Racism goes both ways, my friend.

  • John Lindsay

    Excellent work, Mr. Cohen!!!!

  • Bill Hunter

    You need to look up how many blacks have “gotten off” on the stand your ground law!
    Zimmerman chased nobody, he followed from a distance to tell police where this thug was.
    Zimmerman was Hispanic.
    You racist hate spreaders should focus on more important issues like black on black killings and blacks taking care of their kids.
    There is nothing powerful about this post, other than showing very powerfully how American blacks want to hold on to the race card like it is a precious shrine. Zimmerman fought against a white cop’s son who beat a black man, he posted flyers and protested until this man was held liable and prosecuted. He was not a racist like all you sobbing blacks want him to be. READ people, don’t get your info from MSNBC, they are race baiters too.

  • PMac

    One suggested addition to this excellent list: in a fight between an Hispanic/White adult, 200 lbs, and trained in martial arts, and an African-American teen, weighing 155 lbs, and having no training in martial arts, the African-American teen of course has the advantage and poses a deadly threat, leaving the older, heavier and trained Hispanic/White with no option but to shoot him.

  • Colin
  • mjbarkl

    Dear George,

    So, now that you’re off the hook, tell us George, what really ugly nasty racist words did you say to Trayvon to cause him to sock you in the nose?


  • Helen Lovell-Wayne

    A saying I learned in college states “statistics don’t lie, but liars use
    statistics”. I am skeptical of those figures in the graphs. How is “white” and “black” defined? If someone is half white half Asian is that white? If someone is 1/4 white and 3/4 Asian is that considered white? How about if someone is 1/2 black and 1/2 Asian is that considered black? George Zimmerman was 1/8 black and 1/2 Hispanic, and 3/8 white. Is he Hispanic, white, or black? My point is without
    the raw data and knowledge of how the data was gathered the graph means
    virtually nothing.

    The larger issue is it does not matter if the numbers were 99 blacks, 15 Asians, and 5 whites where killed as a result of stand our ground laws. What matters
    is that people are dying and the law needs to change no matter who the victims


  • Kizmet Paradigm

    So Ben went from the corporation of london which isn’t a part of England to the district of columbia which isn’t a part of the united states so next your moving to vatican city which isn’t a part of Italy? So tell us what Adam Kokesh is really like? Ben reminds me of a horticulturalist I used to know… his name was Moe and did a brisk business selling his plants. I can still picture his storefront sign “Moe Saads plants” Good guy.

    • chilisize

      “the district of columbia which isn’t a part of the united states”

      Thanks for the laugh. Dumbnuttiest thing I’ve read all month.

  • SlateLaRochele

    Ben Cohen = Liberal, Tin Foil Hat , apologist

    • Lady Willpower


    • letsnotmakeassumptions

      Nice comment bro. Really interesting material ya got there

  • Dave Love

    The police did not tell Zimmerman not to follow Martin. Repeat the lie as many times as you want, it doesn’t make it true. As has been stated many times by people more informed than the author of this silly article, stand your ground played no role in this trial. It was a case of self defense. Great example of race baiting though. You should apply for a job with MSNBC. They love bullshit facts and nutjob logic.

    • chilisize

      “The police did not tell Zimmerman not to follow Martin. Repeat the lie as many times as you want, it doesn’t make it true.”

      Dispatcher to Zimmerman: “We don’t need you to do that.”

      “That,” in this case, was following Martin. You can claim I suppose that the phrase, “we don’t need you to do that,” is not literally “don’t do that,” but literate people understand that’s exactly what it means in this context.

      “,,,stand your ground played no role in this trial.”

      Not true at all. The “stand your ground” concept was a key part of the jury instructions.

      • AKB

        A 911 operator is NOT the police. They have as much authority to order a citizen around as a 411 operator. Continuing to say “the police ” does not make it true. Also, Zimmerman is allowed to walk around in his community (public property) just as much as you are. It is not illegal to get out of one’s automobile. It is not illegal to walk on a sidewalk (this applies to Trayvon as well). It is not illegal to look at another human being (unless it’s online and that person is under the age of 18 of course).

        • chilisize

          A police dispatch represents the police department and indeed gives authoritative instructions to those who call the line. BTW, George wasn’t on the “911” line, he was calling the “non-emergency” line. The police department of Sanford told him not to follow Martin. Period.

          • Dennis

            . The police department of Sanford told him not to follow Martin. Period.

            Do yourself a favor and read the testimony of the radio dispatcher that was on the line with GZ at the time. The PD did not tell him not to follow Martin. He said they do not give direct orders. You are wrong here, chilisize.


            Who the aggressor was that fateful night is the central — and most unanswerable — question of the case. Those who fault Zimmerman have latched on to this back-and-forth with Sean Noffke, the operator, as proof that Zimmerman defied a direct police order.

            Not so. Noffke testified on the first day of the jury trial that it is dispatchers’ policy not to give orders to callers. “We’re directly liable if we give a direct order,” he explained. “We always try to give general basic . . . not commands, just suggestions.” So, “We don’t need you to do that” is different than a more direct “Don’t do that.”

            I honestly don’t understand the point in so many people’s insistence that this was a stand down order. They keep going back to it and keep repeating it. I take no joy in explaining this to you, but it seems to be your central thesis for GZ’s guilt.

          • chilisize

            “The PD did not tell him not to follow Martin. He said they do not give direct orders. ”

            Unambiguously, in the recording, the police dispatcher, reasonably understood as representing the police, told Zimmerman, in plain English as understood by literate English speakers, not to follow Martin. Whether or not Zimmerman was legally obliged to follow this direction as “direct orders” is another matter. Zimmerman, in following Martin, again whether or not it was legal for him to do so, went against the wishes expressed by the Sanford Police department.

            And one more time: This was not a “911” call.

            Is it your contention that the police dispatch told Zimmerman it was ok or advisable to follow Martin?

          • Dennis

            iUnambiguously, in the recording, the police dispatcher, reasonably
            understood as representing the police, told Zimmerman, in plain English
            as understood by literate English speakers, not to follow Martin.

            That’s not a true statement, no matter how much you want to believe it, chilisize. The radio dispatcher testified to that effect, clearly stating that he cannot make orders. Zimmerman was already out of the car at that point, so that even a suggestion by the dispatcher cannot hold Zimmerman liable for what happens after that point, as you seem to making that case. It was a suggestion, that the police is on the way. That’s all. You keep grasping at that straw, placing far more weight on the suggestion as if Zimmerman violated a direct stand-down order from the ultimate authority, and that this violation proves guilt, and that just isn’t so. At no point was it ever so.

            And one more time: This was not a “911” call.

            I didn’t call it that.

            Is it your contention that the police told Zimmerman it was ok or advisable to follow Martin?

            No. I’ll post the testimony from the dispatcher if you’d like, but again, he said they do not give orders. “Ok, we don’t need you to do that” is a benign suggestion. Given that he was already out of the car at the time makes that question moot and inoperable.

          • chilisize

            I will explain it to you again: The contention is not that Zimmerman was given an order, which he was legally bound to follow, not to follow Martin. It was that he was told by the police dispatch, again, reasonably understood as the public representative of the police department, that they did not “need” him to follow Martin. This is construction,”I need you to…,” “I don’t need you to…,” is understood by literate speaker s of colloquial American English to mean, “do…” or “don’t….” respectively.

            Unambiguously, the police department told Zimmerman not to follow Martin. Whether or not Zimmerman was legally obliged to do as they told him is, wait for it, think about it for a sec,… another fucking matter.

          • Dennis

            I’m not sure what case you’re making then, unless it’s laying blame on him for the confrontation by his having gone to an area where he could get a street sign for an address, which is clearly what the radio dispatch operator was confused about. Unless you think he was lying about that, and no evidence disproved it, you seem to be making the case that once he turned back in the direction that Martin fled, no matter what the reason he did it for, either for information or pursuit, GZ nullified any self-defense argument whatsoever for all possible circumstances as to use of deadly force from that point on because he didn’t “retreat”. I’m not a lawyer, but if that’s the point you’re making, I certainly don’t see it.

          • chilisize

            I will stipulate that indeed the government does need to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt if you will agree that we don’t have to believe every word that comes out of George Zimmerman’s mouth. It’s simply not credible that he was out of his car to “look for an address,” when the number of the house was visible from his car, when the community he was in had all of three streets, when said community was one he had been “patrolling” for some years. I don’t believe he didn’t know the name of the street, and neither should you.
            Again and again we are supposed to treat Zimmerman claims as unassailable fact. I see no reason we should.

            Btw, by bringing this “he was ooking for the address” stuff up, you are shifting from “the police didn’t tell him not to follow Martin” (they did in fact), to “Zimmerman didn’t follow Martin.”

            So which is it?

            Zimmerman’s words and deeds, the ones that are truly *known,” as opposed to various claims made by him, show that he intended to confront Trayvon Martin.

          • Dennis

            You and I aren’t trying this case, so there’s no quid pro quo that makes any sense. We can believe what we want to believe. I have a theory, but it doesn’t matter much, and it means nothing because I wasn’t there and don’t know anything about the neighborhood or it’s layout. I suspect neither do you and neither does about 99.9% of the people who opine on this case as if they did know what happened. We can’t know that everything that came out of GZ’s mouth is believable, but we do know that most of it was consistent and much of it was corroborated. None of it proved to be a blatant lie. That is unusual in a case where you think you enough to prove a depraved mind with intent to kill. The reason I can’t follow you line of logic is that I think it would’ve been awfully insane of GZ to have been on the phone with the police and knowing the police were on their way, for him to go willingly into a confrontation with the intent to kill.

            I think it it credible for him to have been looking for an address, especially since he was unsure about the address with the dispatcher and unsure about whether the police knew the most direct way to get there, which is why he told him to call him on his cellphone. Nothing in the call indicated to me he was on his way to take care of matters in any kind of vigilante way. But that’s just me.

            Btw, by bringing this “he was ooking for the address” stuff up, you
            are shifting from “the police didn’t tell him not to follow Martin”
            (they did in fact), to “Zimmerman didn’t follow Martin.”

            So which is it

            I’m not shifting, I’m just taking them as two different possibilities since we don’t know. If he was already out of the car when the dispatcher said he didn’t need him to follow him, he could have walked in the direction he saw TM flee in order to get that street address at that cross point where he’d have a view. Is that following him? He went in that direction. People say that was stalking him. I don’t know, but two people could call that two different things and both would be reasonable.

            I don’t agree with your last statement. I don’t know what those actions are unless you have made up your mind first and then going back certain things indicate that willingness.

            As to my theory, briefly, something tells me there was more between the two with eye contact, facial expression and body language than we know about from GZ’s testimony. By that I mean, think about how you might be if someone in traffic on your way home from work cut you off or did something stupid to get in front of you. There’s a little bit of eye contact that you and the other guy both exchange looks that may say “FU buddy, what’s your f’ing problem”. We didn’t hear that from GZ. We’d never be able to hear that from TM. That’s where I feel very bad for that side. They both felt like they wanted to have words, just like you might in that traffic scenario, or at least I have many times before. It’s just macho stupid stuff 99% of the time, but every once in a while, shit turns. I think there’s a good chance that’s what happened here. that the dynamic changed. We don’t know what that was, and we never will, but the facts of the case as they are, as they were even before they decided to go to trial, were in my opinion, the correct verdict without question. I have yet to hear a convincing case how the law should have rendered a different verdict with the confines of the law.

      • Dave Love

        The stand your ground wording is standard in Florida for self-defense cases. Many states without stand your ground laws have the same wording. The stand your ground allows a defendant to request a hearing based on the law. If a judge agrees that the law applies then there is no trial. Zimmerman did not request such a hearing and instead relied on a self-defense strategy. The police didn’t say that to Zimmerman, it was a 911 operator. There is a difference if you think that facts matter.

        • chilisize

          Again: It was not a “911” call. Again: The police dispatch, while perhaps not a “police officer,” represents… wait for it… the police. It is *their fucking job* to communicate police imperatives to the public.

          And, again, the notion that “stand your ground” was not in play during the trail is nonsense, the very essence of stand your ground was right there in the jury instructions.

          • Dave Love

            You either can’t read or you are willfully ignorant. Law professor Jonathan Turley has written an excellent article on why stand your ground didn’t apply at his website at More than likely you would prefer to remain ignorant as facts are confusing and thinking is hard. Just keep repeating what you heard from the media morons.

          • chilisize

            “The defendant cannot justify the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless he used every reasonable means within his power and consistent with his own safety to avoid the danger before resorting to that force.

            The fact that the defendant was wrongfully attacked cannot justify his use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm if by retreating he could have avoided the need to use that force. ”

            According to Dan Geiber, former Florida State senator and former Florida state House Democratic leader, the above were the jury instructions given in the state prior to 2005, that is, prior to the stand your ground laws. Contrast those with the instructions given to Zimmerman’s jury. This contradicts Turley’s claims re SYG in Florida.

          • Dave Love

            The only eyewitness to the shooting said that Martin was on top of Zimmerman “wailing on him MMA style”. How does stand your ground come into play?

          • chilisize

            The witness described a fight in somewhat hyperbolic terms when considering the injuries actually sustained by Zimmerman.

            SYG would have come into play *before* this fight got to that point.

            SYG and the definition of “reasonable self defense” that it brings into play basically allows someone to start a fight and then finish it with his pistol.

    • Steven Skelton

      Repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.

    • AKRNC

      The Sanford PD most certainly did tell GZ not to follow anyone he thought suspicious, he was told to call 911 or the NEN and wait for police to handle the situation. He was told all of the above during the initial NW meeting that was to introduce the community of RATL to the rules of Neighborhood Watch. GZ knew he wasn’t supposed to follow TM and it’s quite easy to see that he never attempted to confront others who he had deemed to be suspicious when he called 911 on prior occasions. However, on the night of 2/26, GZ decided he had enough of “these assholes who always get away” and considered them to be “fucking punks” and he wasn’t going to let Trayvon Martin get away, either.

      Bullshit facts and nutjob logic? No thanks, not interested in watching Fox where GZ was coddled from day one despite his killing an unarmed teen.

      As far as racist assumptions go, O’Mara actually told the jury that GZ had every right to assume that TM was a burglar because other black men had committed burglaries in RATL. The simple fact that there was no witness to or suspect in 5 of the break-ins that occurred during the year, didn’t stop MO from suggesting that those break-ins had been committed by black men. Considering O’Mara had no qualms about trashing the memory of a deceased teen for the past year, it wasn’t surprising to see him try to use race with the jury as a reason to acquit his lying POS client.

      • Dave Love

        A 911 operator isn’t a cop. You can get just as many bullshit facts on MSNBC as you can on Fox. That is probably why you cite so many fake facts. It’s fascinating how you know exactly what Zimmerman was thinking that night. Are you psychic?

  • Helen Lovell-Wayne

    I agree that George Zimmerman is not innocent. However it is the law that needs to be changed. People of all races are effected by this law and I am tired of people pointing out the racial element. Their was a white man that found his wife sleeping with his neighbor (also white) in Florida. He shot the man dead and claimed he thought the man was raping his wife. He never served any time citing stand your ground law. In another case a white man was putting out 8 bags of trash when he was only allowed 6. He shot a neighbor (also white) who tried to correct him. He was never charged because of stand your ground. I could go on and on. This law needed to be changed a long time ago. Innocent people are being killed period. I know the media likes to harp on differences between people and entice people to buy their newspaper or watch the TV. Honestly this is not a black and white issue it is a human issue that needs to be addressed. Like so many other human issues in Florida (paid sick leave, paid vacation leave, right to work, voting problems, the FCAT, forcing renters to pay 6 months of rent if they break their lease, allowing convicted child molesters to wear Disney character costumes and pose with children for photographs everyday, lack of enforceable regulations on resturants, pools, ect). By playing into this black and white clash this situation is simply giving more fodder for the tea partier to rally. Instead we need to come together to fix a broken system that effects everybody. Black, white, Asian, Hispanic, middle eastern, ect are all effected by these laws.

    • Treading_Water

      True, but statistically, the laws aren’t applied equally. If you’re white, it’s more likely that you get off under the SYG laws and the strengthened self-defense jury instructions.

      • Kizmet Paradigm

        In reality are violent crimes committed equally among the races? 94% of violent crimes against black are committed by blacks and about 50% of violent crimes against whites are committed by blacks. Black males are about 7% of the population but commit around 50% of all violent crimes nationally. Tell me where I’m wrong? Has this case given you the false assumption that white people are just running around killing black children and getting off under the SYG laws? I’d like to see the statistics for that assertion.

        • Treading_Water

          Roman also found that Stand Your Ground laws tend to track the existing racial disparities in homicide convictions across the U.S. — with one significant exception: Whites who kill blacks in Stand Your Ground states are far more likely to be found justified in their killings. In non-Stand Your Ground states, whites are 250 percent more likely to be
          found justified in killing a black person than a white person who kills another white person; in Stand Your Ground states, that number jumps to 354 percent.

          • Kizmet Paradigm

            I will cede your point based on the statistics, where does the research come from? I’d like to see the raw data. These are percentages not numbers and percentage “likelihood” that killing ruled justified. Can you quantify “likelihood” or just use actual numbers of cases using SYG and what the actual outcomes were? I would have liked to see “these are the actual numbers of cases that used SYG and these are the results based on race” I’m not a statistician so its out of my league. I would think that if only 3% of violent crime against blacks were committed by whites then the number of successful stand your ground cases invoked by the black victim would be low based on its rarity alone. Conversely if 50% violent crimes against whites are committed by blacks then the number of would be much higher based on their high 1 out of 2 frequency. All that aside I thought zimmerman should have gotten manslaughter. I do think the system is rigged against black people in that they dont get competent counsel from the court appointed attorneys. Long sentences for minor drug offenses and the Prison Industrial Complex are major problems pushing high black incarceration rates. I would be for the release of all non violent drug offenders. But people that invoke this unfair system as all you need to think about when convicting george zimmerman are wrong because every case is different and the particulars of each case and context are very important. Your chart doesnt show that aspect at all. I take it on a case by case perspective. I respect well thought out defenses but Mr. Cohen plays the race card as all you need to make an appropriate decision on right and wrong and that in my view is intellectually dishonest.

          • Treading_Water

            I still think that by isolating race as a factor you are losing a very telling part of the picture. Most violent crimes are committed by poor people, regardless of race. If you just look at race, it’s easy to just throw your hands up and say, “those people” are violent and predisposed to crime. If instead you isolate for poverty and lack of legitimate pathways to success then the picture is not only clearer, but solutions begin to present themselves.

          • chilisize

            You should be posting the sources for the statistics *you* cite, no?

          • kizmet paradigm

            National federal crime statistics from the FBI? Not good enough for you?

          • William Harasym

            I didn’t see that you had already posted this, sorry.

        • chilisize

          Almost ninety percent of white murder victims were killed by white murderers.

          Time for some soul searching among the ofay.

          • kizmet paradigm

            where do you get that statistic from?

    • William Harasym

      Justified killings of Black people under ‘Stand Your Ground.’
      PBS’s Frontline made this instructive chart on the way that defendants
      who invoke ‘Stand Your Ground’ — the policy that allowed George
      Zimmerman to walk free on the night that
      he killed Trayvon Martin — fare. PBS explains, “The figures represent
      the percentage likelihood that the deaths will be found justifiable
      compared to white-on-white killings.” The result? A huge racial
      disparity of when the defense works — and when it doesn’t:

      • Joe Schmoe

        The only problem is this case wasn’t tried under the Stand Your Ground law. It was self defense.

    • sknyjohn

      You need to be tired of racism & you need to be tired of defending racism. This was mainly, if not exclusively, about color, because if Trayvon were white none of this would have happened. You’re not fooling anyone with even half a clue.

    • Rob Rosa

      Well said i totaly agree with you.the law has to be changed in order for the people to get justice respectfully.

  • js hooper

    This one is very interesting to me.

    2. When white kids smoke weed, they are college students or ‘pot
    heads’. When a black kid gets high, he is a drug addict and a thug.

    It explains why Barack Obama’s youthful drug use isn’t allowed to be viewed as…A young college hippy like his white peers… Instead racists immediately go to the Obama was a thug stereotype.

    Also #4 speaks for itself. I can’t imagine a way for anyone to defend that absurd and glaring double standard / injustice. Although I’m sure some racists will try.

    • Vic78

      Anyone that thinks Obama’s a thug has never seen or met any real thugs. You’ll see the difference right away.

      • sknyjohn

        Obama’s far worse than a thug; he’s a corporate war criminal.

        • Vic78

          Good Lord, you’re serious. Please stay on topic.

          • sknyjohn

            You brought up that corporate war criminal Obama, so *you* need to stay on topic.

          • Vic78

            What the hell is wrong with you? What does all that mean? Corporate war criminal? You need to grow the fuck up.

          • sknyjohn

            Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan, drone bombing, Yemen. If you don’t know what war crimes & corporatism are & the fact that Obama is a corporate war criminal, then YOU not only need to grow the fuck up, but YOU also need to WAKE the fuck up & get a clue. What the hell else is wrong with you?

          • sknyjohn

            & understand that wall st., the private health insurance racket, big oil, the coal racket, the nuke racket all purchased & permitted both of Obama’s presidential elections. That’s corporatism.

          • Vic78

            Good luck waiting on your dream candidate from an ideal situation. Even if he were elected without corporate help, there’s still congress and the thousands of lobbyists to contend with. There’s no getting around that right now.

          • sknyjohn

            Your cluelessness obviously knows no limits. If you had a clue you’d realize that it’s not about your absurd notion of a “dream candidate,” but about getting off your behind & joining us, the People, to force these corporate puppets (president, congress, etc.) to obey the needs of the People instead of the corporations who put them in govt.

          • Vic78

            You be safe, kid.

          • sknyjohn

            Fighting for freedom & justice can be & often is dangerous but also necessary.

  • js hooper

    Very powerful and skillfully worded.I appreciate that you didn’t waste words trying to sugarcoat these statements like so many well meaning people do.

    Any of the clowns that will come along to dispute these powerful statements are simply white guys who are unwilling to contemplate what it’s like to be a black person in America. They are unwilling to analyze the accepted mentality that views “White as right”…and Black as always being suspicious and deserving of being viewed in the most undesirable context.

    • Lady Willpower

      But JS, according to Larry Elder the U.S. doesn’t have a problem with racism anymore.

      • John Lindsay

        What would you expect from azz-licking Black CONservatives like larry elder, uncle thomas, thomas sowell, etc.?!

    • Steven Skelton

      What it’s like to be a black person in America doesn’t matter at all.

      We only send people to jail when the government proves it’s case beyond a reasonable doubt….white or black.

      • Inspiridos

        You are, of course, being sacastic … right? Statistically with the large number of those exonarated from former convictions is staggering. We put the innocent in jail all the time; and we all know how what we think we know can be manipulated … by the one’s giving us the information. Prosecutorial misconduct; Police rendering false confessions, and evidence happen with regularity … so if you aren’t be Sarcastic … well then you must be an imbecile.

        • Steven Skelton

          Nice intentional misreading of my comment.

          If you think I was referring to the accuracy of the system rather than the standard of proof, I would counter that you are the imbecile.

          • Inspiridos

            Oh so you are indeed not merely an imbecile but a racist too … the “standard of proof” merits nothing at all … if it is not achieved. With the statistics demonstrating a false conviction rate disparity that is weighted heavily in areas of race and gender … given particular crimes … like a typical bigot attempting to bury themselves in a waste of ignorance to keep the status quo of injustice towards others so long as you reamain more immune … you are playing semantics. Zimmerman by following was the first aggressor; Martin was standing his ground.
            To demonstrate how bias roles can make things … If a man was following your daughter …. from a car; and she began trying to evade him; and he left his car to follow her … and their ensued a conflict (where she by defending herself from her point of view from a potential rapist or robber) began winning the struggle … standing her ground … against what well could be a pervert … then to be shot and killed for it; how might that have mitigated whether it was manslaughter or murder?
            I don’t anticipate an honest answer from you. You will dodge the anagolous circumstances and evade that the sole difference revolves around the gender roles of those involved … rather than the roles that prejudice and other stereotypes play.
            What occurred no matter how you try to spin it … is an injustice … and it was started and finished by Zimmerman. Zimmerman is culpable and because the laws or you don’t support that doesn’t make it less so.

          • Steven Skelton

            Ah….the race card. Nice talking to you.

          • Inspiridos

            As I thought you would evade the answer; how might the circumstance I describe have mitigated in the mind of the juror’s “reasonable doubt” and Why? Typically you are coward that fails to meet fair challenges.

          • courte

            America; All about saying one thing and doing the complete opposite.

          • Joe Statist

            what occurred was an injustice, but tell me, did it have anything to do with race? Flip the scenario vice versa; would a black man be justified in killing a white man based off of the same exact circumstances? If you believe that a black man should be acquitted, then congratulations, you’re a racist! If you believe that the act in and of itself based off of the circumstances was not justified, then please demonstrate how race plays any role in this discussion…

          • Inspiridos

            If the circumstance was flipped … with a black man being Zimmerman and what Trayvon being half-hispanic … in all cases the aggressor was Zimmerman; in that his suspicions was based on his targets racial difference to him … does not change. His attack no matter the colors involved (unless there was no difference between them in race … or his decissions were not mitigated by race) had an underlying premise of racism.

          • Inspiridos

            BTW, I wasn’t “misreading” your comment intentionally or otherwise … I was noting how preposterious it was and still is; that you think your comment has any validity or relevence at all to reality demonstrates how deep seated your racism, hatred, and ignorance is.

          • shutupandknit

            The only problem is that over and over again it’s been shown that blacks suffer high rate of false convictions. To the point that many cases have been overturned with newer scientific evidence. Not to mention the false testimonies and issues with evidence being hidden or not being made available for defense. So not, a conviction does not mean absolute proof of guilt. The proof of evidence also relies heavily on police work. If the police work is faulty, particularly intentionally, then the defendant is put at a disadvantage. And in many areas of the country, particularly the South, this is still a real problem. Sanford is known for a racially biased police department, so it’s not improbable that there was skewing in the Zimmerman/Martin case.

      • John Lindsay

        Written like a true brainwashed believer…in the Great White Way.

        DNA Exoneree Case Profiles…Innocence Project

        There have been 311 post-conviction DNA exonerations in United States history. These stories are becoming more familiar as more innocent people gain their
        freedom through post-conviction testing. They are not proof, however, that our system is righting itself.

        The common themes that run through these cases — from global problems like poverty and racial issues to criminal justice issues like eyewitness mis-identification, invalid or improper forensic science, overzealous police and prosecutors and inept defense counsel — cannot be ignored and continue to plague
        our criminal justice system.

        Eighteen people had been sentenced to death before DNA proved their innocence and led to their release.

        The average sentence served by DNA exonerees has been 13.6 years.

        About 70 percent of those exonerated by DNA testing are people of color.

        In almost 50 percent of DNA exoneration cases, the actual perpetrator has been identified by DNA testing.

        Exonerations have been won in 35 states and Washington, D.C.

        The Innocence Project was involved in 171 of the 311 DNA
        exonerations. Others were helped by Innocence Network organizations,

        JL: Hmmmm
        NOT a one of the 311 was “exonerated by prosecutors admitting they’d made a mistake.”.

    • John Lindsay

      NOT only Blacks….but also Asian- & Latino/a Americans and Indigenous Peoples (whom some inaccurately refer to as “Native Americans”).
      All of these groups are profiled, mistreated, etc., by Whites.

      “So, I Ask You, What If Trayvon Martin Was Asian?”

      • shutupandknit

        indigenous means indigenous to what ever land you’re standing on. A Chinese person would be the indigenous of China. So it’s not an absolute usage to refer to Native Americans. The more appropriate use is Indigenous North Americans if you want to describe the non-Latin American indigenous. As the Mayans, et al of the Latin American countries are also referred to as the Indigenous Mexican, indigenous Peruvian, etc….

    • Axxion

      Funny thing, Zimmerman wasn’t even white though, true story.

  • Kizmet Paradigm

    Clearly you didn’t even watch the trial! Wow you make a pretty “black and white” argument there based on simplistic narratives and the republican mainstay of “if the shoe was on the other foot..oh boy” of nonexistent alternate realities. This case had nothing to do with race or stand your ground laws it was a simple self defense case. You draw ridiculous assumptions of racism on the people that supported the zimmerman side of the equation. The context of this incident was a gated community repeatedly the victim of breakin robberies by groups of black teens who was sick of being robbed and violated. Do you have any sympathy for people that just dont want to get robbed anymore? Zimmerman volunteered to do neighborhood watch and did the best he could.For me it all comes down to who started the assault. Even the most ardent trayvon supporters know it was Trayvon as proven by their not even touching on the subject EVER! “he should have never gotten out of his car”. Translation I know trayvon started it but he didnt deserve to die. Clearly, he didn’t. But the visciousness of the unrelenting assault took george to that point of feeling he had to defend his life. Self defense INNOCENT! The jury agreed. There was alot of evidence that came out about Trayvon that only added to the perception that he was the perpetrator of the assault, where the character of both sides should be up to debate. Trayvon didnt fare well with me on his character based from his texts to friends about fighting too much to the texts where a friend asks him if he really took a swing at a bus driver. Now to the rachel jeantel interview in which she was the one that planted the idea that george was a gay rapist which added to his adrenaline. To the pictures on his phone of him holding a gun to the texts about being interested in buying a gun. To the multiple suspensions, to his twitter name of “no_limits_nigga” thats the name he picked for himself. Finally the fact that his mother actually kicked him out of her house for messing up all tells me he was the aggresor and george didnt exit his car gun out ready to shoot and when we here the final words before the assault began “what are you doing here?” Not “freeze or I’m gonna blow you away” Zimmerman didnt want to kill anyone he just wanted to protect his neighborhood from further break ins. Thats what neighborhood watches do they WATCH with their EYES! Which became hard to do when Trayvon ducked into the condo courtyard where george couldnt see him. The sinister racist motives and the poor minority victimmake juicy headlines but its just not accurate.

    • Treading_Water

      According to testimony of Rachel Jeantel, she heard Trayvon shouting “Get off me” just before hearing the scuffle. That could lead to the scenario that George grabbed Trayvon to keep him around until the police arrived. If someone that I don’t know grabs me, and doesn’t first identify himself as neighborhood watch or an actual professional authority, (which George did not) then I’m going to do what I can to get away as well. The injuries George sustained did not indicate 20-25 blows to the face and his head being slammed repeatedly against the sidewalk. Instead, according to expert testimony, his injuries were insignificant and indicative of low force trauma, and could have been caused by as little as a single blow to the face and then George falling backwards and hitting his head on the ground.

      You dwell upon Trayvon’s transgressions, but forget to mention that the actual neighbors in that neighborhood had complained about George being overzealous and making them uncomfortable. You also ignore that, unlike Trayvon, George had an actual police record for domestic abuse and battery of a police officer, and had been asked to participate in an alcohol treatment program. Neither man was an angel. But you see, your assumption is that Trayvon was a vicious thug and the man with an actual record of violence was innocent of any wrongdoing. There’s only one thing I know. If George Zimmerman hadn’t brought a gun into the situation, if George Zimmerman had listened to the police dispatcher, if George Zimmerman hadn’t assumed wrongdoing of a teen who was actually DOING NOTHING WRONG, Trayvon would still be alive. You’re doing the same thing juror B37 did, completely discounting Rachel Jeantel’s testimony and giving every benefit of doubt to a man who refused to give his own sworn testimony.

      • Kizmet Paradigm

        Trayvon “why are you following me” George “What are you doing here” at that point Trayvon could have used his words and said ” I’m going to my fathers girlfriends house you can walk with me there and I can prove it if you want me to, lets go they are in condo 1425 C” Instead he brutally assaulted the neighborhood watch guy! Hes in the gated community one day and he is already attacking people! Just because racist people would automatically assume that Trayvon was a violent thug isn’t proof that he wasn’t a violent thug. Where Trayvon came from fighting is an everyday occurrance thats what they do to entertain themselves and establish dominance heirarchy. So we got a kid who fights REGULARLY (swung on a bus driver and was in another fight THAT DAY before he brutally assaulted george) verses a guy just trying to protect his gated community from break in robberies. I dont know the details of the domestic assault which was a one time occurance, (did george do any time?) I do know that the assault of the cop was a drunken bar fight and the cop was not in a uniform or even on duty. (Did george do time for that either?) So one fight with his girlfriend and one drunken fight with an off duty ununiformed cop. George was 29 so those 2 isolated incidents as his record is a joke. You know as well as I do who started the fight and who threw the first punch and the second and the fifty fifth punch then and only then did george fearing for his life pull out his gun in self defense and shoot Trayvon. I dont know how many if any fights you were in as a kid but when the other person is down and submitting you stop beating them. That code does not exist in the hood. Its prison rules. Let me guess you grew up in a lilly white suburb and the first black you were ever friends with was in freshman year of college! The university black kids are alot different then the lifelong hood dwellers. I grew up in a small town and those black kids are different then the inner city types. Trayvon was that type, he may have had a really cute 14 year old picture but he lived by the hood prison rules which you have no conception of so stop trying to pretend you could understand how they think act or live.

        • Lady Willpower

          You know as well as I do who started the fight…”

          FOX News-speak for “I believe it, therefore it must be true.”

        • Treading_Water

          The injuries do GZ only really indicated 1 or 2 punches, not fifty-five. I don’t know that GZ didn’t attempt to restrain TM, and I will not take as gospel the word of a man whose story keeps evolving and who wouldn’t actually answer questions under oath. I believe that Trayvon knocked Zimmerman on his ass, but I don’t know for sure if he wasn’t responding to being grabbed. I do know that Zimmerman was the one who brought the gun, against neighborhood watch procedure. I do know that GZ followed Trayvon against the instructions of the dispatcher. I know that GZ discharged his weapon at a 17 year-old and killed him. There was obviously not enough evidence to return a 2nd degree murder conviction, but I believe that there was plenty to prove manslaughter.

          And, f#ck you, you don’t know me. You don’t know where I grew up, or even what race I am.

          • chilisize

            Exactly: Let’s look at the things we know, ignore the things we don’t know. We know that Zimmerman sought to confront Martin.

        • chilisize

          Seems that if Martin were the “thug” you make him out to be, the various victims of his thuggery, for example the bus driver he supposedly savaged, the owner of the jewellry he supposedly stole, would have long since spoken up or be speaking up now.

          Where are they?

    • chilisize

      “This case had nothing to do with race or stand your ground laws it was a simple self defense case.”

      “Stand your ground” was an important aspect of the jury instructions. “Stand your ground” is why Zimmerman wasn’t initially charged.

      Race wasn’t a factor? That would be funny if it wasn’t ghoulish.

  • Yastreblyansky

    Your photoshop or however you did that has to be worth several thousand words.

  • Yvonne Ward

    I agree, however the one glaring omission in this debate is that Zimmerman is half hispanic…this fact widens the scope of the racist problem considerably beyond the overly simplistic black and white scenario.

    • chilisize

      Nothing could be less relevant. It actually doesn’t matter if Zimmerman himself was racially motivated. The main point is that Trayvon Martin is seen by many, many people as a thug, and that his race is key to that feeling.

      Then again, the notion that an individual from a “Hispanic” family wouldn’t be racially motivated is just silly.

      • Yvonne Ward

        Silly? No it’s not silly. Since this tragedy and legal case has spawned our nation into discussing how white society has and is mistreating black society I think it’s an important distinction to make. And your comprehension skills are lax if you gathered from my statement that Hispanics could not be racists as well. In fact, I clearly stated that it “WIDENS THE SCOPE OF THE RACIST PROBLEM CONSIDERABLY.” In other words ALL RACES ARE RACIST TO SOME DEGREE and to lay it solely at the feet of white people shows complete ignorance. Yes, there is no doubt that Trayvon Martin was racially profiled because to George Zimmerman his black skin and hoodie made him look like a thug. But the media and people like you would rather over simplify the problem and continue to hone in on the black/white history when the problem is much larger than that in today’s society.

        • chilisize

          First off, it *hasn’t* been “an omission” that Zimmerman is “Hispanic” or “half Hispanic.” This fact has been brought up again and again.

          Second, is it really surprising or earth-shattering or paradigm-changing to know that someone identified as “hispanic” or “half-hispanic” could also have animosity toward black people? Really?

          Finally, the point is this: We don’t even need to consider if Zimmerman himself is a racist (though it’s a very good bet he is). Racism is what has led so many others (just check out comments all over the web) to so quickly, reflexively, justify his killing of young Trayvon Martin.

          • Yvonne Ward

            I’m not saying there was justification for taking Trayvon Martin’s life. It’s a sickening tragedy. But I was not on the jury, nor did I listen to the trial nonstop. Anyone who has ever served on a jury knows that very tight parameters exist as to what decisions can be made and what evidence may be considered. Maybe the jury was not being racist, maybe it was the prosecution who failed in their responsibility to give them what they needed to make a decision within the parameters of the law. But my issue came from the President’s comments. I understand he was trying to take the opportunity to provide a teachable moment, but he failed to acknowledge that not all people are racist. He asked the non black public for understanding of the black point of view but he didn’t ask black society to extend understanding as well to other races inability to totally relate to their struggle. As President of all people in the USA he had a duty to make that clear.Of all people, he should be keenly aware that not all white people are racist. After all, his mama was as white as me.

        • Steven Skelton

          It is incredibly frustrating around here. Yvonne, what you posted was entirely reasonable and worthy of discussion.

          It’s unfortunate that Chilisize is so passionate about her point of view that she is blinded to the reasonableness of your point.

          • Yvonne Ward

            Thank you Steven..It is frustrating and sad as well because it is that kind of blindness that causes society to cease to be able to solve problems.

  • Steven Skelton

    Ben, I also think it’s pretty despicable to label all who felt the verdict was correct as racists.

    I take it personally. I went 1 on 11 in a jury room for 8 hours trying to convince them to acquit an obviously guilty drug dealer because I felt he had been illegally profiled. A claim that his own defense attorney either didn’t raise or was disallowed by the black judge in the case.

    In the end, I relented…but if I were a racist, why would I have done that?

  • Felonious Grammar

    The whole weed = criminal thug formula should have been strangled in the crib— it’s so Reefer Madness. What I do after a hit of weed is enjoy doing my otherwise boring chores. Three hits of sensimilla and I’m waxing the appliances, so I limit it to two. The whole green couch thing is likely the result of people smoking too much weed or smoking until they get the desired effect, or smoking dirt weed.

    There is not a whit of scientific evidence to suggest that weed has a different effect on young black men. The idea that a person who uses pot is a criminal in any other way besides having contraband detectable in their bloodstream a month after using it is likely a member of the criminal class is just bunk. It’s alcohol that raises the risk of violent behavior (by lowering inhibitions) yet Zimmerman wasn’t tested for alcohol when the Sanford police showed up at the crime scene.

    The disparity for sentencing being so much more harsh for crack cocaine than it is (was?) for regular cocaine is racist, classist, unscientific, and is another example of our justice system punishing the poor and minorities for doing drugs that Wall Street financiers, bankers, and rich kids do, but using a cheaper version. Doing drugs economically is somehow more criminal than paying high dollar for drugs.

    • Steven Skelton

      The best argument for the legalization of marijuana is as follows: It is beyond stupid that it is illegal in the first place.

      One thing I agree with regarding those on the other side of this issue is that Martin having smoked marijuana has nothing to do with it.

  • Steven Skelton

    Sorry Ben, that’s a bunch of crap.

    All one needs is an understanding of the burden of proof upon the government before it can incarcerate.

    The case was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Not even close.

    One need none of those suppositions to agree with the verdict.

    • Benthedailybanter

      What on earth do you mean the case was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt Steven? There’s NO DOUBT that Zimmerman was the aggressor and Martin defending himself. It’s in the Goddamn 911 call – Zimmerman told the police Trayvon was running away, the police told him not to chase him, he did and consequently shot Trayvon. Has everyone lost their fucking minds? It doesn’t matter if Trayvon turned around and started hitting Zimmerman – HE WAS BEING CHASED. Case fucking closed. (Please excuse all the f-bombs. This case is starting to get to me).

      • Steven Skelton

        Sorry Ben, but it hasn’t been proven that Zimmerman was the aggressor.

        Sure, it’s a reasonable assumption, but we don’t convict in this country based on reasonable assumptions. We convict only when the state proves (key word) beyond a reasonable doubt.

        Depending upon whether or not one believes in a deity, there are at most three who knew who the aggressor in the confrontation was. The deity isn’t talking and Trayvon (sadly) is dead.

        There is an entire range of possibilities of how that altercation began. We don’t know who attacked who. Perhaps Zimmerman finally caught up to him in the courtyard, attacked, got the worst of it and shot Martin. It’s possible, but there is no evidence that is what happened. There is no eyewitness to the beginning of the altercation. There is no physical evidence that points to Zimmerman as the aggressor.

        Working backwards, we know through the testimony of the most well respected forensic scientist in the country, the eyewitness and the physical evidence that Martin was on to Zimmerman landing blows to Zimmerman’s face when the fatal shot was fired. That is pretty indisputable.

        From there, the state must then prove beyond a reasonable doubt that either 1) Zimmerman did not fear for his life (they never even attempted that) or that 2) Zimmerman started the altercation.

        Without any evidence of 2 and the non-attempt of 1….there was only one legal conclusion the jury could have possibly reached.

        Don’t worry about the F bombs….I’ve dropped a few in my exasperation over this as well.

        • chilisize

          Zimmerman sought a confrontation with Martin, that much is confirmed by his words and his deeds, following him around both in his car and on foot, along with an expressed desire to prevent Martin from “getting away with it,” whatever he thought “it” was.

          Did Zimmerman throw the first punch or make the first shove? It’s isn’t known but it doesn’t matter. The altercation was of his making.

          • Steven Skelton

            Your last paragraph displays a stupefying misunderstanding of our legal system.

          • chilisize

            First off, Mr Skelton: I don’t reside in Florida, so it’s not exactly “my” legal system. If you live in Florida then it is yours, but if not, it’s not “our” legal system.

            I suspect that you are assuming that a self-defense justification needs no more substance than a bloody nose and/or the defendant’s word that he or she *felt* threatened. This may be the case in Florida, it certainly seems to be, but it is not the case in all states, and hasn’t always been the case in “our” legal system: It used to be that there needed to be reasonable evidence that a person defending himself or herself with lethal force was in serious danger. Such evidence, all of the “MMA” “ground and pound,” “smashing Zimmerman’s head on the sidewalk” notwithstanding, simply does not exist in the case of George Zimmerman, who *without any doubt whatsoever* gunned down Trayvon Martin. He *should* have to present evidence that his life was in danger. A bloody nose didn’t used to cut it, but now it seems to, in the state of Florida anyway, and it’s really just a license for juries to convict when they don’t like the looks of the defendant (we don’t believe it was truly self defense), or acquit when we don’t like the looks of the person who was gunned down (George was about to be killed by the scary gangster thug guy with the hoodie on).

            So please: Detail the deficiencies in my understanding of Florida’s legal system as laid out in my last paragraph.

            I’ll wait, counselor.

          • Steven Skelton

            Did Zimmerman throw the first punch or make the first shove? It’s isn’t known…..

            The state (all 50 of them) have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before sending a man to prison.

            Because we know that Zimmerman was on the bottom and getting pummeled when he fired, the state had to prove that either he didn’t fear for his life…or…that he instigated the fight with Martin.

            It does matter….in fact, it’s really the most important fact in the case. That fact that, without, the state could not prove their case.

          • chilisize

            “Because we know that Zimmerman was on the bottom and getting pummeled when he fired,…”

            No, “we,” don’t know that. You don’t know that, I don’t know that, we don’t know that.

            We know only that Zimmerman *said* that.

          • Steven Skelton

            Now you are just being ridiculous.

            Zimmerman’s back was wet
            The back of Zimmerman’s head was bloody
            Multiple eyewitness accounts confirm Zimmerman’s account
            Two forensic experts testified Martin was on top of Zimmerman when he was shot.

            To deny that fact is to deny reality.

          • chilisize

            You’re describing someone who was in a fight, yes.

            It seems that Zimmerman was punched in the nose.

            The “pummeling” part is not certain in the least. Zimmerman had some scratches on his head, that’s all.

            The “forensics expert” was hired by the defense, and the prosecution erred greatly in not cross examining him more rigorously. THere are alternatives to the defense experts scenarios that were not mentioned and they should have been.

          • connoire

            was Martin standing his ground? Sounds like it. If some pervy was stalking me….well, I might have taken a stand my ground and confront my stalker

      • HilaryB

        Thank you!

      • Kizmet Paradigm

        If you didn’t actually watch the case then don’t embarrass yourself by pretending you did. He was being chased? Are you sure you didnt fall asleep watching a movie with a chase in it? Trayvon was running away? Why would anybody run if they werent doing anything wrong. That sounds like the definition of suspicious behavior to me. It doesn’t matter if Trayvon “turned around and started hitting Zimmerman”? THATS the heart of the self defense innocent verdict! Neighborhood watches do just that they watch. George broke no laws watching Trayvon. George broke no laws in getting out of his car. George broke no laws in following Trayvon into the condo courtyards, the shared backyard backdoors where a criminal would go to break in someones condo. George broke no laws in asking Trayvon “What are you doing here?” Trayvon broke the first and only law broken by then attacking and brutally and unrelentingly assaulting the neighborhood watch guy. George broke no laws in carrying a gun and he broke no laws in defending himself from a violent and potentially deadly assault. Its a textbook self defense case.

        • chilisize

          “Why would anybody run if they werent doing anything wrong.”

          ‘Cause they are being stalked by a creep?

        • Benthedailybanter

          A neighborhood watch man is not a law enforcement officer, so running away from him would make perfect sense (in reality – a place you’re clearly unfamiliar with).

          We know Trayvon wasn’t doing anything wrong – he was walking back to his dad’s fiance’s place after going to the store. Why do you make the assumption that he was guilty of something? Maybe Trayvon did throw the first punch, but so what? He was being chased by an unknown guy who had a gun. I’d do exactly the same thing. The only way you can argue Zimmerman was justified is if you believe Trayvon didn’t have the right to defend himself. And that makes you either a racist or an idiot.

          • AKB

            “Maybe Trayvon did throw the first punch, but so what?” That is assault. It is the only proven crime that occurred that night based on evidence in the trial. This is not my opinion. It is what was bourn out during the trial. I understand that the facts put forth by the prosecution and defense may not fit the narrative you wish. But that doesn’t make them any less real.

          • chilisize

            “That is assault [if Trayvon threw the first punch].”

            Hilarious. Take the first shot you’re “standing your ground,” you’re “defending yourself,” take the first punch, it’s automatically assault. But let’s say it was assault. Guess what? Being assaulted (in this case by the guy you’ve been stalking) does not justify homicide.

            “It is the only proven crime that occurred that night based on evidence in the trial.”

            Please direct us to the “proof” that Martin threw the first punch and/or committed “assault.”

            You won’t, because you can’t.

          • Steven Skelton

            Maybe Trayvon did throw the first punch, but so what? He was being chased by an unknown guy who had a gun.

            If the state had proof of that, don’t you think they would have presented it at trial?

          • Benthedailybanter

            If the state had proof of what Steven? That he was being chased by a man with a gun? My friend, IT’S IN THE 911 TRANSCRIPT. We know that for a FACT. Seriously, what planet are you living on? We’ll never really know what happened after he caught up with Trayvon because we only have Zimmerman’s testimony. All we know for sure is that Martin wasn’t doing anything wrong, Zimmerman initiated a confrontation, and Martin was shot dead. Based on those facts alone, it is impossible to argue Zimmerman had the right to ‘defend himself’. If he initiated a confrontation, he was therefore the aggressor. You’re an intelligent guy Steven, but you making a really, really nonsensical argument.

          • Steven Skelton


            Zimmerman didn’t call 911. He called a non-emergency number….and had long since hung up the phone when the fight with Martin occurred.

            Furthermore, we don’t even know that he caught up with Martin. Zimmerman’s statement was that he was heading back to his truck. Police found no inconsistency with this.

            And, as you say…”We will never really know what happened…”

            Maybe it’s different back there in the UK, but in America we don’t send people to prison unless we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they committed a crime.

            I respect you, but I hope your never on a jury judging me.

      • Kizmet Paradigm

        See this is the effects of 20 years of gangsta rap on a generation. Zimmerman was the aggressor because he watched Trayvon with his eyes! Prison rules dictate that eyeballing someone is worthy of getting beat down. Zimmerman is the aggressor because he looked at him with his EYES! Oh no he didn’t! Oh yes he did! As far as chasing him he only got out of his car after trayvon ducked behind some condos. So the picture in your mind of Trayvon running scared as george is right behind him is a fantasy. I don’t take any joy or glee in the killing of a kid whatever race he was but if we can’t honestly say that Trayvons actions of violent assaulting a stranger led to his death then we have learned nothing. Treyvons friend texted him with the warning to stop getting in fights because someday he is going to wind up fighting the wrong guy and getting shot and killed. Trayvons answer to his friends concern? “You soft” those two words say more about trayvon and the culture he embraced then anything else. Its a culture of death and self destruction. 25 killed every day in America, more dangerous then being deployed to Iraq! Are we determined to not learn anything from this whole thing?

        • chilisize

          Of course, because everything Zimmerman says *must be believed,* he’s always right, never lies, knows everything.

          It’s just his word against… the kid he shot dead.

        • Benthedailybanter

          He was a teenager, Kizmet. Teenagers say and do dumb stuff. I got in a lot of fights as a teenager, but I was also a pretty good student and got on well with my family and friends. From what we know, Trayvon was the same way. Just because he embraced a bit of gangster culture doesn’t mean he deserved to get shot for walking home with a hoodie on.

          • kizmet paradigm

            Of course he didn’t deserve to die. He wasnt killed because of his hoodie. He got shot and killed for his assault on zimmerman. It was the content of his character not the color of his skin. Thats it. Real simple.

        • Joe Schmoe

          THANK YOU!! I couldn’t agree more. The moment Trayvon laid his hands on Zimmerman, he broke the law and opened the door for Zimmerman to claim self defense. I don’t understand why people are dismissing the FACT that it was Trayvon who assaulted Zimmerman.

          As for Mr. Cohen’s post, it’s all a bunch of BS. Why is Zimmerman being called a white man when he’s clearly half Peruvian? I don’t think or agree with any of the 5 points the Mr. Cohen made, yet I agree with the verdict because the evidence proved self defense. I’d agree with the verdict if Trayvon had been any other race.

          • shutupandknit

            Half peruvian could be half spaniard of Peruvian citizenship, not necessarily Peruvian of Afro or Indigenous descent.

            Zimmerman got himself into this pickle by following someone who was just walking home. He killed someone because he created a situation and got confronted. The dead person can’t speak to round out the story, but what is clear was that Zimmerman could have prevented the whole situation by following Neighborhood Watch guidelines.

        • shutupandknit

          Plenty of people listen to “Gangsta Rap” and happily avoid committing crimes.

          I find it highly humorous that people, particularly white people only bring up rap music when there is a crime or tragedy like this involving black people. You didn’t care about it the day before, so it’s just scapegoating.

          Martin was a 17 yo boy who was lost and was being followed by a stranger. Zimmerman was a grown adult who had history of disobeying the law and arrested multiple times and had a restraining order against him. As much as the right tilting media and certain ethnic groups want to bring up his beverage choices and things he did in school, that same population never brings up Zimmeran’s very relevant past.

      • Dave Love

        We haven’t lost our minds. You are simply repeating “facts” that aren’t true. You also don’t seem to understand self-defense laws.

    • Badgerite

      Yes but what they needed to prove was that Zimmerman’s belief that his life was in danger was not a REASONABLE belief, beyond a reasonable doubt. So, let me just ask you, was a man who had been in contact with a police dispatcher and knew that the police would be there in minutes, whose injuries were a bloody nose and some cuts on the back of his head for which he needed no medical attention more than a band-aid, who was carrying a concealed and fully loaded weapon in a back holster and was laying with his back on the ground so that only he knew he had the gun, reasonable in fearing that for some reason he wouldn’t survive until the police got there? I don’t think so.

      • Steven Skelton

        Are you familiar with non-emergency police response times?

        How long is Zimmerman expected to lay on his back and get his ass kicked? 2 minutes? 5 minutes?

        How long would a referee allow an MMA fight to go on with one guy on top of the other and pummeling his face?

        • chilisize

          Again you are pretending that everything Zimmerman says is golden. This is a *far* cry from finding “reasonable doubt.”

          Apparently, in Florida, if you are on the losing side of a fight you have a “right” to end that fight with lethal force: All you need to do is *say* you *felt* your life was in danger.

          This should *not* be the standard.

  • David Walsh

    Yep. I made the mistake of reading some of the comments on the National Review site after the exoneration. A bunch of assholes basically saying Trayvon deserved it because he was a violent thug who smoked weed and stole jewelry.

    Now, even if that was all true (and it isn’t), I knew a LOOOT of guys in high school who were violent, did drugs, and stole things (in this case, something like $5,000 worth of sporting goods). They were all white.

    If some black guy — or even some white guy — had killed one of them in an incident similar to Trayvon Martin, that guy would have gone to jail.

    • Kizmet Paradigm

      I believe around half if not more of the states have a stand your ground law on the books so if this hypothetical situation had occured they might have gottn off if it was in self defense. White people do drugs and steal and get in fights too? Stop the presses! Do white people kill each other at a rate of 25 a day everyday of the year? The right to self defense has been around for 1000s of years why is this treated like its some new thing?

      • chilisize

        It is not that case that for “1000s of years” justification for using lethal “self defense” has been simply *feeling,* i.e. claiming, your life was in danger.

        • Badgerite

          Exactly, and the facts don’t really bear out the claim of a reasonable fear for your life. Zimmerman’s contention was that Martin was going to take his gun away from him and kill him with it. Given where Zimmerman told police his gun holster was located, it was not even possible that Martin knew he had a gun until he whipped it out and shot Martin through the heart.

      • Badgerite

        Because Zimmerman created the situation. Since when is just going to the store for snacks a dangerous enterprise. Zimmerman created the entire situation. And he brought a gun into it. They have pictures of Trayvon Martin with a gun but who was actually carrying a gun that night. Zimmerman was barely injured. His injuries were so minor that he did not even feel the need to seek ANY medical help. How, exactly, was his life reasonably threatened by that boy? Zimmerman had been on the phone to a police dispatcher and knew that within a couple of minutes, at most, the police would be there. What, exactly, was Trayvon Martin doing that was so life threatening to Zimmerman that he had to whip out his gun from the holster attached to his waist line at his back and shoot him through the heart. Trayvon Martin was not the dangerous person on the loose that night. Zimmerman was.

        • kizmet paradigm

          Trayvon brutally assaulted zimmerman for no good reason and he’s not a dangerous person?

          • shutupandknit

            You missed the part where Martin relayed to the person on his phone that someone was following him. If someone was following me I’d be tempted to confront them too. Zimmerman was breaking two basic rules of neighborhood watch. Even stupider was that he wasn’t even on duty, apparently he was going to Target. But apparently he thinks he’s better than the police. If he’d stayed in his car, Martin would have continued his course and eventually made it back to his father’s residence.

          • Joe Schmoe

            Trayvon DID go back to the residence where he was staying. Rachel Jeantel said Trayvon told her he was in the backyard of his father’s fiancee’s house. This apparently was when Zimmerman lost sight of Trayvon. And since the altercation didn’t take place in his father’s fiancee’s back yard, it’s logical to conclude that Trayvon confronted and then assaulted Zimmerman, as Zimmerman testified. Keep in mind, it was not illegal for Zimmerman to get out of his car. It was not illegal for Zimmerman to see where Trayvon was going so he could relay that information to the dispatcher. He even lost sight of Trayvon, as he stated during his call. The moment something illegal happened was when Trayvon laid his hands on Zimmerman. The bottom line is the evidence proved self defense and the jury agreed.

          • william trent

            If Zimmerman had been so brutally assaulted, why were his injuries superficial and why didn’t he go to the hospital that night? His story has never made any sense to me. His head should have been beaten to a bloody pulp if Martin had been slamming it into the ground repeatedly.

      • shutupandknit

        Actually white-on-white violence is only 10% lower than black-on-black violence. So don’t get so high and mighty. :)

    • SlateLaRochele

      Like Aaron Hernandez , Einstein ???


Subscribe to the Banter Newsletter!