SCARBOROUGH: George Zimmerman trial expands deep divide

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Joe gets it. And I tend to think that much like The Patriot, Joe is wondering where his party went...

George Zimmerman trial expands deep divide

By JOE SCARBOROUGH

The Trayvon Martin case highlights more than the flaws of Florida law or the inadequacies of courtroom justice. It also paints in vivid display the vulgar state of American political culture.

Within seconds of Saturday night’s verdict exonerating George Zimmerman, liberals and conservatives scurried to their shabby political corners and began tweeting hyperbolic political pronouncements on a judicial process that few of them knew anything about.

Liberals launched anguished attacks against George Zimmerman, the state of Florida, stand-your-ground laws, the gun culture, and the current state of racial relations in America in under 140 characters. Some conservatives used the opportunity to gloat and continue their attacks against Al Sharpton, the national media, racial politics, American liberalism, and a dead teenager.

The entire spectacle was repulsive.

The Zimmerman verdict showed just how politicized every speck of American life has become for a hyper-partisan political class that has little in common with most Americans. In fact, they are probably why most Americans hate politics.

How exactly was it that liberals and conservatives could so neatly line up on opposite sides of a troubling courtroom trial involving a Hispanic man and an African-American teenager?

And how could one side unanimously proclaim the verdict a victory for courtroom justice while the other side immediately declared the verdict a defeat for racial tolerance?

There has to be a liberal somewhere in America (who is paid to express his viewpoints) who understands that the prosecution had a difficult burden to carry in the trial, just as there must be a conservative who is deeply troubled by the of events of this case.

If it seems like I am taking a removed, middle-ground approach on this trial, let me assure you that I am not.

I am angry that George Zimmerman could chase a teenager through his neighborhood, ignore a dispatcher’s pleas, make racially charged statements, provoke a confrontation with a young man armed only with Skittles, and pull the trigger that ended that teenager’s life, only to walk away without as much as a misdemeanor attached to his name. But I also know that the laws of Florida favored the defense, that the prosecution overreached in its efforts to convict Zimmerman on a second-degree murder charge, and that we will never know which man was screaming for help in the moments that George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin. I also know that it is a fool’s errand to second-guess the conclusions of a jury that sat through countless hours of testimony and evidence before reaching a verdict.

But that doesn’t mean I can’t draw my own personal conclusions, like my belief that George Zimmerman is a racist idiot who chased an unarmed teenager through a neighborhood for little reason more than he was a black man wearing a hoodie. I can also conclude that many conservative commentators were offensive in their reflexive defense of Zimmerman, as well as their efforts to attack the integrity of a dead black teenager. I am also not sure how it is that the right-wing’s professional chattering classes usually find themselves on the other side of African-Americans in racially sensitive cases.

I do not remotely suggest that all conservatives opposed Zimmerman’s trial. The National Review’s Rich Lowry agreed with a handful of conservatives like myself that Trayvon Martin’s killer should be tried in a court of law. But I remained confused by a political party that desperately tries to expand its minority outreach by considering the granting of citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants while refusing to even give the benefit of the doubt to a young black man gunned down for no good reason in a suburban Florida neighborhood. I just don’t get it.

What I do get is why over 90 percent of African American voters have been voting against GOP presidential candidates for most of my life. Conservative commentary and GOP stand-your-ground laws only exacerbated that divide. If Republicans are to take back the White House anytime in the next generation, that reality has to change. After this week, it has definitely become a longer, harder slog.

[RGinWA 816]

But since evidence of race was not allowed into the trial, the federal government can now address those race concerns because of the Sheppard Byrd 2009 hate crime bill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard_and_James_Byrd,_Jr._Hate_Crimes_Prevention_Act

Funny how that left the door open...

[X Factor 1,112]

It's challenging to be neutral in this divided nation

[Karee 4,190]

What a crock of $hit. Some punk kid thought he was gonna be a bad a$$ and got shot and killed over it. That's all there is to this. End of story. Everyone is trying to take this and turn into more than it is.

Wanna have a conversation? Talk about the rampant violent crime and poverty in the black community. There's something to have a conversation about. Talk about getting some of these kids an education so they don't need to be reliant on govt. for the rest of their lives. Try to make them understand that life has value, and they themselves have value. Something to offer. Give them some self worth. That's probably too hard though. Easier to just keep blaming everything on racism. One big f*cking finger pointing festival. That wont solve anything.

Go ahead and tell me how racist I am now. I really don't care. If me wanting people to take responsibility for their own actions makes me a racist, then I guess I'm a racist.

Edited July 16, 2013 by Karee

[RGinWA 816]

What a crock of $hit. Some punk kid thought he was gonna be a bad a$$ and got shot and killed over it. That's all there is to this. End of story. Everyone is trying to take this and turn into more than it is.

Wanna have a conversation? Talk about the rampant violent crime and poverty in the black community. There's something to have a conversation about. Talk about getting some of these kids an education so they don't need to be reliant on govt. for the rest of their lives. Try to make them understand that life has value, and they themselves have value. Something to offer. Give them some self worth. That's probably too hard though. Easier to just keep blaming everything on racism. One big f*cking finger pointing festival. That wont solve anything.

Go ahead and tell me how racist I am now. I really don't care. If me wanting people to take responsibility for their own actions makes me a racist, then I guess I'm a racist.

No, not racist...angry and ill informed on the 2009 federal hate crimes bill, but not racist.

If they do charge him it will be based solely on his racial profiling and subsequent admitted homicide of the profiled person, and not for what the trial presented.

It would be the same if the person were white, homosexual or Muslim.

So don't get mad, it's the law of this country. Enjoy the freedom.

[Karee 4,190]

No, not racist...angry and ill informed on the 2009 federal hate crimes bill, but not racist.

If they do charge him it will be based solely on his racial profiling and subsequent admitted homicide of the profiled person, and not for what the trial presented.

It would be the same if the person were white, homosexual or Muslim.

So don't get mad, it's the law of this country. Enjoy the freedom.

Man you really are clueless. Where in the OP is there anything about the 2009 federal hate crime bill or GZ being charged under that law?

[mrrobj 20]

Man you really are clueless. Where in the OP is there anything about the 2009 federal hate crime bill or GZ being charged under that law?

No, it appears you are clueless. The 2009 federal hate crime bill is what is being considered by the Justice Department as we speak. It is a "federal" law that cannot be pursued until the State case has completed its case.

Edited July 16, 2013 by mrrobj

[RGinWA 816]

Man you really are clueless. Where in the OP is there anything about the 2009 federal hate crime bill or GZ being charged under that law?

My apologies, I thought you were speaking to what was posted in the thread.

But you have to admit, you are angry over the fact a kid was killed and you feel that's totally ok because he was garbage. I consider him a kid, not a thug. He's not the first kid to get into trouble or get into a fight and he won't be the last.

That's a lot of emotion over a kid that did nothing to you personally.

[Karee 4,190]

No, it appears you are clueless. The 2009 is what is being considered by the Justice Department as we speak. It is a "federal" law that cannot be pursued until the State case is completed.

Show me where Joe Scarborough mentioned that in the original post of this thread. He didn't. You wanna talk about that, there's another thread on it somewhere else here in P&R.

[Karee 4,190]

My apologies, I thought you were speaking to what was posted in the thread.

But you have to admit, you are angry over the fact a kid was killed and you feel that's totally ok because he was garbage. I consider him a kid, not a thug. He's not the first kid to get into trouble or get into a fight and he won't be the last.

That's a lot of emotion over a kid that did nothing to you personally.

I was responding to the original post. Where did I say I was angry about a kid being killed and that being ok because he was garbage. If you're referring to something I posted 2 weeks ago, that was an intentional overreaction to one of your moronic posts. Sorry you didn't get it.

As far as "alot of emotion over a kid that did nothing to me personally," once again your reading comprehension sucks. I have zero emotion one way or the other about that kid. I do however have emotion about how silly this has all become.

[RGinWA 816]

I was responding to the original post. Where did I say I was angry about a kid being killed and that being ok because he was garbage. If you're referring to something I posted 2 weeks ago, that was an intentional overreaction to one of your moronic posts. Sorry you didn't get it.

As far as "alot of emotion over a kid that did nothing to me personally," once again your reading comprehension sucks. I have zero emotion one way or the other about that kid. I do however have emotion about how silly this has all become.

What a crock of $hit. Some punk kid thought he was gonna be a bad a$$ and got shot and killed over it. That's all there is to this. End of story. Everyone is trying to take this and turn into more than it is.

I comprehend fairly well. If you didn't care why would you continually insult the kid by calling him names?

But hey, blame it on my comprehension if that works for you. We know what's up....

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Some ... used the opportunity to gloat and continue their attacks against ... a dead teenager.

Indeed...

Some punk kid thought he was gonna be a bad a$$ and got shot and killed over it. That's all there is to this.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Some ... used the opportunity to gloat and continue their attacks against ... a dead teenager.

Indeed...

In other words you have acted like a total horses ####### for over a year with wild accusations, and calling all that thought GZ might not be convicted delusional

gun nuters.. You have made wild racist speculation all of which has been dis proven . You predicted a mass melt down in here when he goes to his new home courtesy of the state.

Just like most of your wild hysterical rambling it was proven to be false and you go exposed. How you feel now big shot. ! "Oh let's not gloat at the expense of a dead teenager" in other words you don't want people doing to you what you would have done to them had GZ lost

Not gloating at TM expense, but I am enjoying a severely insecure obnoxious poster, being given a nice warm cup of humility. Guess, your this will be just like the election prediction did not work out for you

Real men don't need guns .... Real men don't go into hiding when all their false bragging and finger pointing goes up in smoke . Guess what goes around comes around huh... COWBOY

Edited July 16, 2013 by The Nature Boy

[dalegg 143]

But I remained confused by a political party that desperately tries to expand its minority outreach by considering the granting of citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants while refusing to even give the benefit of the doubt to a young black man gunned down for no good reason in a suburban Florida neighborhood. I just don’t get it.

Well, I guess in part because the trial wasn't about giving the benefit of the doubt to the young black man. I see this over and over and it seems like a lot of people have forgotten that it wasn't TM that was on trial, and you can take that two ways. The defendant here was Zimmerman and what you have to see is whether or not you can give him the benefit of the doubt. Why people opposed the trial isn't just because they think Treyvan had it coming. Some of us "opposed the trial" because we saw that there was no way you could convict a man based on the evidence we saw. For disclaimer I never actually "opposed the trial" myself. I think every so often its good to expose our legal and political system and put it up for debate. Before you go say this is some "conservative" view point, ask yourself do you honestely think that the vast majority of all the political analysts on CNN are conservative? Because if you paid attention, very few of them thought there would be a conviction. Are Alan Dershowitz and Mark Geragos conservatives? I don't think so. They know their stuff.

If you followed the trial objectively and listened to the legal experts, you really cannot have come to the conclusion that a conviction was coming. When I first heard about this case, I was of the opinion that Zimmerman was in the wrong too, but the more I heard the more I questioned what actual case the prosecution had. This is not to say he wasn't also partially to blame for this either. It just says there is no where in this that we can say beyond a reasonable doubt he broke any laws.

So since you can't rationally be mad at the verdict, you must be angry at the laws. But what law exactly? Do you think there should be a law forbidding neighborhood watch to follow someone they deem suspicious? Do you think someone should never be allowed to use a gun to shoot someone unless the other person has a gun too? Do you think someone should not be able to shoot someone in self defense until they are actually on the brink of death themselves? (I loved this part of the trial by the way- did we actually need someone to tell us George Zimmerman's injuries were not life threatening? Dude was very alive after the incident wasn't he, so doesn't that answer that question?)..or do you just think that people should not be allowed to carry guns?

Here is another question for you- Do you think that people should not be able to claim self defense when killing someone unless there is a witness that can absolutely 100% corraborate his story? I've heard this hypo brought up before-'How to get away with murder-make sure there are no witnesses and claim self defense" (as if this hasn't been done about a million times before already). Are you suggesting that we change our legal system to where we do NOT give a defendent the benefit of doubt and that unless he can prove his story he is guilty? Have you thought about what that would mean? So if a woman is attacked while walking home and she uses a firearm to defend her self while nobody is around and cannot prove she was attacked she goes to jail because she cannot prove she was attacked? Is that where you want to go?

Maybe that is what is angering people on the other side. Maybe juries don't give the benefit of the doubt in unprovable situations to black defendants- this is something suggested by some of those commentators on CNN- and that the anger is the inequity in the law. That I can understand, but that hasn't really come out, and if it is that, the focus should be on showing those cases that mirror this one to bring attention to that problem where it exists.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Well, I guess in part because the trial wasn't about giving the benefit of the doubt to the young black man. I see this over and over and it seems like a lot of people have forgotten that it wasn't TM that was on trial, and you can take that two ways. The defendant here was Zimmerman and what you have to see is whether or not you can give him the benefit of the doubt. Why people opposed the trial isn't just because they think Treyvan had it coming. Some of us "opposed the trial" because we saw that there was no way you could convict a man based on the evidence we saw. For disclaimer I never actually "opposed the trial" myself. I think every so often its good to expose our legal and political system and put it up for debate. Before you go say this is some "conservative" view point, ask yourself do you honestely think that the vast majority of all the political analysts on CNN are conservative? Because if you paid attention, very few of them thought there would be a conviction. Are Alan Dershowitz and Mark Geragos conservatives? I don't think so. They know their stuff.

If you followed the trial objectively and listened to the legal experts, you really cannot have come to the conclusion that a conviction was coming. When I first heard about this case, I was of the opinion that Zimmerman was in the wrong too, but the more I heard the more I questioned what actual case the prosecution had. This is not to say he wasn't also partially to blame for this either. It just says there is no where in this that we can say beyond a reasonable doubt he broke any laws.

So since you can't rationally be mad at the verdict, you must be angry at the laws. But what law exactly? Do you think there should be a law forbidding neighborhood watch to follow someone they deem suspicious? Do you think someone should never be allowed to use a gun to shoot someone unless the other person has a gun too? Do you think someone should not be able to shoot someone in self defense until they are actually on the brink of death themselves? (I loved this part of the trial by the way- did we actually need someone to tell us George Zimmerman's injuries were not life threatening? Dude was very alive after the incident wasn't he, so doesn't that answer that question?)..or do you just think that people should not be allowed to carry guns?

Here is another question for you- Do you think that people should not be able to claim self defense when killing someone unless there is a witness that can absolutely 100% corraborate his story? I've heard this hypo brought up before-'How to get away with murder-make sure there are no witnesses and claim self defense" (as if this hasn't been done about a million times before already). Are you suggesting that we change our legal system to where we do NOT give a defendent the benefit of doubt and that unless he can prove his story he is guilty? Have you thought about what that would mean? So if a woman is attacked while walking home and she uses a firearm to defend her self while nobody is around and cannot prove she was attacked she goes to jail because she cannot prove she was attacked? Is that where you want to go?

Maybe that is what is angering people on the other side. Maybe juries don't give the benefit of the doubt in unprovable situations to black defendants- this is something suggested by some of those commentators on CNN- and that the anger is the inequity in the law. That I can understand, but that hasn't really come out, and if it is that, the focus should be on showing those cases that mirror this one to bring attention to that problem where it exists.

I'd +100 this if I could.