Rasmussen: Near-majority agrees with Zimmerman verdict, 48/34

posted at 2:01 pm on July 17, 2013 by Allahpundit

Significant, not only because it’s the first major poll of public opinion about the verdict but because Holder will think twice about bringing federal charges if he believes it’s a sure political loser for his boss.

We’ll need more polls before drawing hard conclusions but here’s data point number one:

Reactions to the jury decision in the shooting of Trayvon Martin vary sharply along racial lines.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 48% of American Adults agree with the jury’s verdict that Hispanic neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman is not guilty of murder in the shooting death of the black teenager. Thirty-four percent (34%) disagree with the Florida jury’s verdict. Eighteen percent (18%) are not sure.

I have the crosstabs in front of me but they’re reg-walled for subscribers only, so I’ll give you the broad outline without providing actual numbers. The white/black split on the verdict is what you’d expect, as is the fact that men are much more likely to agree with the outcome than women are. One big question mark is how Latinos feel about it; Rasmussen didn’t list them as a separate racial demographic in the poll, choosing to include everyone who’s neither white nor black in the “other” category, but “other” ended up agreeing with the verdict almost (but not quite) to the same extent as the public generally did. Politico marveled last night that not once during four separate interviews yesterday with Univision and Telemundo did Obama get a question about the Zimmerman verdict, even though the White House issued a statement about it on Sunday and the DOJ is supposedly seriously considering filing federal charges. Not one question. Said one TV executive: “It’s unbelievable that any journalist with access to the President this week wouldn’t ask the first African-American president about his reaction to the verdict.” Indeed it is, but it makes sense if you assume that it’s not so much an oversight as a deliberate omission. Spanish-language media and Obama are united in wanting comprehensive immigration reform; the whole point of the interviews was to give O a pipeline to Latino voters in order to put pressure on the GOP. If, as Rasmussen’s numbers suggest (but don’t prove), Latinos lean toward thinking that Zimmerman deserved to be acquitted, then both O and his partners at Univision and Telemundo would want to stay away from this subject lest it complicate the White House’s PR initiative.

Rasmussen also asked people what they thought of media coverage of the trial, but those results are hard to parse. Only a few people think it was “excellent,” but the spread among “good,” “fair,” and “poor” isn’t wide. And of course, “poor” can include people from both ends of the spectrum, those who think the coverage was unfair to Zimmerman and those who think it was, surreally, biased in his favor. There isn’t a wide racial gap here, in fact; the big gap, oddly, comes among men under 40 and women under 40. The former thought the coverage was quite good. The latter didn’t. Huh. Maybe that’s just a fluke from a small subsample.

Speaking of sample splits, read this. I wasn’t the only one, apparently, who thought juror B37 was surprisingly pro-Zimmerman in her interview with CNN.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

George Zimmerman did not start the fight.

Trayvon Martin did.

Resist We Much on July 17, 2013 at 3:47 PM

I agree with you a lot, but to be fair, this is an assumption… IMO a pretty good one, but still an assumption.

easyt65 on July 17, 2013 at 3:51 PM

I agree with you a lot, but to be fair, this is an assumption… IMO a pretty good one, but still an assumption.

easyt65 on July 17, 2013 at 3:51 PM

That is what the jury found.

It is also what Rachel Jeantel said in her interview with Piers Morgan.

Resist We Much on July 17, 2013 at 3:54 PM

Politricks on July 17, 2013 at 3:30 PM

What is the ‘civil rights’ violation that Zimmerman is guilty of? If you can answer that you will have just done something the FBI could not do in its extensive investigation into just that question.

You said:
“When you boil this case down to its very simplest levels the fact remains that had Zimmerman never gotten out of his car, or if he identified himself as a concerned citizen none of this may have never happened.”

Not to make light of this situation, but there is an old saying that goes like this: “If ‘IF’s and ‘But’s were candy and nuts, everyday would be Christmas’. By this, I mean:
1) If Trayvon had not decided to walk through that neighborhood on the way back home…

2) If Trayvon had not acted suspicious and run from Zimmerman, who was only trying to protect his neighborhood – which Martin had no way of knowing…

3) If Zimmerman had not gotten out of his car…

4) If Martin had just gone home during the 4 minutes he had after he lost Zimmerman…

5) If Martin had not made the decision to confront Zimmerman…

6) If Martin had not decided to ‘deliver an @$$-whoopin on Zimmerman to teach him a lesson’, as his girlfriend just recently said he did on the Pierce Morgan show…

What this case REALLY boils down to is a chain of bad decisions on both sides led to Zimmerman defending himself from an attack and a Jury delivering the legally correct decision…and most of all a tragic ending to a life that should never have been lost.

or the record, despite Holder and Sharpton’s attack on the ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law, Zimmerman’s defense team NEVER USED THAT DEFENSE – it had NOTHING to do with this case. This law, does, however, provide complete protection from any ciuvil law suits should they be filed. The defense team has already declared it wil invoke the ‘Stand Your Ground’ law if any civil law suits are filed against Zimmerman…which means a cicil law suit at this point doesn’t stand much of a chance.
———————

Not Civil Rights violations as in an f.b.i case. I mean Civil case like the family of Nicole Simposn brought against OJ after he was found not guilty in the criminal case.

I agree with everything you said other than that (with the exception of had Martin not “acted” suspicous. From Zimmermans own statements the only thing suspicious that Martin was doing was walking slowly while in the rain and having his hands in his pockets and waistband? Now had he been looking in home windows or jiggling door handles Id agree with you.

. Bad choices on both sides

Politricks on July 17, 2013 at 3:55 PM

George Zimmerman did not start the fight.

Trayvon Martin did.

Resist We Much on July 17, 2013 at 3:47 PM

Maybe not the fight, but the confortation? That’s up for dispute. If you follow me, walk up to my face and insult me and I swing at you first. Yes you can say you didnt start the fight but you did start the confortation.

Not saying thats what happened here but we will never know how that got started other then Zimmerman getting out of his car and attempting to follow Martin. That’s the only fact we know for sure.

Politricks on July 17, 2013 at 3:58 PM

During her lengthy interview with Piers Morgan last night, star witness Rachel Jeantel described how she and Trayvon Martin feared that George Zimmerman was a “rapist” following the 17-year-old teenager.

Asked whether there was any doubt in her mind as to whether Martin “absolutely believed” Zimmerman was “pursuing him” that evening in 2012, Jeantel replied in the affirmative. He was “freaked out” about it, she said, especially after she had suggested to the late teenager that Zimmerman “might be a rapist.”

She explained that because Martin was not a homosexual, he was troubled by the actions of Zimmerman: “For every boy or every man who’s not that kind of way,” she said, “seeing a grown man following them, would they be creeped out?”

Jeantel continued: “You have to take it as a parent, when you tell your child, you see a grown person following you, run away, and all that. You going to tell your child stand there? If you tell your child stand there, then you’re going to see your child on the news for missing person.”

via mediaite…

If Trayvon had just not been afraid of Gay Rapists this whole thing wouldn’t have happened. The take-away is that gay rapists should never be on neighborhood watch, and if they are they should be willing to take a new school ass-whoopin’ because that is what gay rapists deserve.

oldroy on July 17, 2013 at 3:59 PM

Politricks on July 17, 2013 at 3:58 PM

Getting out of his car, which despite what has been said, the dispatcher NEVER told GZ NOT to do, and ‘following’ TM was NOT illegal.

Resist We Much on July 17, 2013 at 4:01 PM

When you boil this case down to its very simplest levels the fact remains that had Zimmerman never gotten out of his car, or if he identified himself as a concerned citizen none of this may have never happened.

And if Zimmerman had stayed in his car but was still attacked, you’d be making some other excuse to cover for Trayvon Martin’s life-ending actions that night.

When you boil this case down to its very simplest levels, the fact remains that had Trayvon Martin stayed home that night, none of this would have happened.

xblade on July 17, 2013 at 4:01 PM

Politricks on July 17, 2013 at 3:58 PM

Also, don’t forget that there was a 4 minute period in which GZ and TM had been separated. According to Jeantel, TM had made it back home. His home was 70 yards from where he was killed. He went back and confronted GZ. Why? Why didn’t he go inside, lock the doors, and call 911? I mean, if he was afraid…

OTOH, could it be that he wanted to ‘prove’ something to that ‘creepy ass cracka’? Is it possible that he thought about what Jeantel said and was going to bash a ‘gay’ man?

Resist We Much on July 17, 2013 at 4:05 PM

I would like to know who taught this irrational hate of gay’s and suspicion that all gays are rapists to Trayvon.

oldroy on July 17, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Not saying thats what happened here but we will never know how that got started other then Zimmerman getting out of his car and attempting to follow Martin. That’s the only fact we know for sure.

Politricks on July 17, 2013 at 3:58 PM

Did you miss Rachel’s testimony?

Did you miss the forensic evidence?

Did you miss the testimony of Dr. Vincent DiMaio?

Obviously you did.

sentinelrules on July 17, 2013 at 4:05 PM

“You’re entitled to due process of the law and a fair trial by a jury of your peers, after which we’ll take a poll and see if we agree with the verdict.”

SailorMark on July 17, 2013 at 4:09 PM

Maybe not the fight, but the confortation? That’s up for dispute. If you follow me, walk up to my face and insult me and I swing at you first. Yes you can say you didnt start the fight but you did start the confortation.

Not saying thats what happened here but we will never know how that got started other then Zimmerman getting out of his car and attempting to follow Martin. That’s the only fact we know for sure.

Politricks on July 17, 2013 at 3:58 PM

Don’t believe this to be correct.
IIRC, the testimony was that TM had given GZ the slip. That is, GZ lost him and could not be following.
After a 4 minute gap in time, TM reappears and confronts GZ.

Who started what ? TM came back to confront GZ. Then, he started the fight.

Jabberwock on July 17, 2013 at 4:09 PM

That as many as 34% think the jury got it wrong in a case so weak that there should not even have been a taxpayer’s money wasting trial just confirms my belief that this country has too many mentally challenged people. With their numbers bound to grow they will bring it down in the long run.

Chessplayer on July 17, 2013 at 4:11 PM

Don’t believe this to be correct.
IIRC, the testimony was that TM had given GZ the slip. That is, GZ lost him and could not be following.
After a 4 minute gap in time, TM reappears and confronts GZ.

Who started what ? TM came back to confront GZ. Then, he started the fight.

Jabberwock on July 17, 2013 at 4:09 PM

Yep. It’s all in the trial, yet people still speculate.

oldroy on July 17, 2013 at 4:11 PM

I would like to know who taught this irrational hate of gay’s and suspicion that all gays are rapists to Trayvon.

oldroy on July 17, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Trayvon’s stepmother, who raised Trayvon, is associated with the Crips.

However, she also thought that Zimmerman didn’t racially profile Trayvon

sentinelrules on July 17, 2013 at 4:12 PM

Politricks on July 17, 2013 at 3:58 PM
Getting out of his car, which despite what has been said, the dispatcher NEVER told GZ NOT to do, and ‘following’ TM was NOT illegal.

Resist We Much on July 17, 2013 at 4:01 PM

I agree. Neither of what either of them doing was illegal at the onset.

To all those that question the gap of time. I agree with those questions.

Zimmerman said

“In the interviews, Zimmerman says he took note of Martin because he was near a home that he had previously called police about. He also said “he was just walking casually, not like he was trying to get out of the rain,” and he felt “something was off” about Martin

Zimmerman said he left his truck to find a street sign so he would be able to tell the police dispatcher where he was. He told investigators that he was not following Martin but was “just going in the same direction he was” to find an address, but admitted that he had also left his truck to try to see in which direction Martin had gone.”

No what makes me question his version of events for leaving his car is he lived in that neighborhood since 2009. I find it hard to believe he wouldnt know the names of the streets he was assigned to be the neighborhood watchmen for. Now what he says could be 100% true but all we have is his version of events. What Ive learned in my 30 years of living is that there is always more then one side to a story. I dont see that lifelong fact being disproven in that case.

Maybe Martin returned because he thought this man following him was tryinig to find his home and assualt his family. Maybe Zimmerman thought Martin had broken into someones home. All these are assumptions. The jury after hearing all the evidence went into deliberations split so I dont think us having questions is out of the ordinary.

As I said in my first post. From a criminal perspective I agree with the jury.

Politricks on July 17, 2013 at 4:21 PM

Don’t believe this to be correct.
IIRC, the testimony was that TM had given GZ the slip. That is, GZ lost him and could not be following.
After a 4 minute gap in time, TM reappears and confronts GZ.

Who started what ? TM came back to confront GZ. Then, he started the fight.

Jabberwock on July 17, 2013 at 4:09 PM
Yep. It’s all in the trial, yet people still speculate.

oldroy on July 17, 2013 at 4:11 PM

Simply because I cant figure out why Zimmerman would have been outside his car at that point. If he had lost TM and was not attempting to follow him. I guess the fact he got out to check a street sign in a area where he is the neighborhood watchmen for and has probaly driven by everyday for 3-4 years strikes me as weird. Ive lived in my current residence in a gated community for a year and I can name every street by just looking at the houses, cars, basketball courts, mailboxes, etc. I cant picture myself having to get out my car to have to read a street sign in my own neigborhood

Politricks on July 17, 2013 at 4:24 PM

All these are assumptions. The jury after hearing all the evidence went into deliberations split so I dont think us having questions is out of the ordinary.

As I said in my first post. From a criminal perspective I agree with the jury.

Politricks on July 17, 2013 at 4:21 PM

Again, IIRC, the split was on a matter of law, not what happened.

Jabberwock on July 17, 2013 at 4:25 PM

Trayvon’s stepmother, who raised Trayvon, is associated with the Crips.

However, she also thought that Zimmerman didn’t racially profile Trayvon

sentinelrules on July 17, 2013 at 4:12 PM

His father was the CRIP. He covered his “CAT” tatoo on his neck to praying hands sometime in march.

oldroy on July 17, 2013 at 4:25 PM

Hey. Where’d libby go?

oldroy on July 17, 2013 at 4:26 PM

I guess the fact he got out to check a street sign in a area where he is the neighborhood watchmen for and has probaly driven by everyday for 3-4 years strikes me as weird. Ive lived in my current residence in a gated community for a year and I can name every street by just looking at the houses, cars, basketball courts, mailboxes, etc. I cant picture myself having to get out my car to have to read a street sign in my own neigborhood

Politricks on July 17, 2013 at 4:24 PM

You can read a street sign in the middle of the night, while it’s raining?

You must have better vision than Superman.

sentinelrules on July 17, 2013 at 4:30 PM

Maybe Martin returned because he thought this man following him was tryinig to find his home and assualt his family.

Politricks on July 17, 2013 at 4:21 PM

So, instead of calling the police or his “peeps,” he hides in the bushes to ambush Zimmerman?

Oh, and Trayvon’s father was not home at the time and Trayvon knew that.

sentinelrules on July 17, 2013 at 4:32 PM

Reactions to the jury decision in the shooting of Trayvon Martin vary sharply along racial lines.

The baboon media are hate-mongers.

jaime on July 17, 2013 at 4:45 PM

Now we learn from Trayvon palamour Rachel Jeantel that the teenager, at her suggestion, thought George Zimmerman might be a gay pedophile, intent on raping him? Lil’ Trayvon, a gay basher? Regular Right Guy

Mornin Mojo on July 17, 2013 at 4:50 PM

No what makes me question his version of events for leaving his car is he lived in that neighborhood since 2009. I find it hard to believe he wouldnt know the names of the streets he was assigned to be the neighborhood watchmen for.

1. Zimmerman wasn’t an “assigned” “neighborhood watchmen.” Nor was he “on patrol”; he was going to Target. Neighborhood watch, at least in California, are just neighbors agree to be alert to any strange goings-on in their neighborhood, and once a year or so go to a talk by the local police about what’s going on. It’s what used to be known as just being a good neighbor.

2. I don’t know the name of many streets within 3 blocks of my house, and I’ve lived here for 10 years. If I planned to call the police to report something on one of them, I would probably have to check the street name on google or in person.

LASue on July 17, 2013 at 4:53 PM

Simply because I cant figure out why Zimmerman would have been outside his car at that point. If he had lost TM and was not attempting to follow him…
 
Politricks on July 17, 2013 at 4:24 PM

 
Because he clearly didn’t feel like he was in physical danger after profiling the unknown black man, and he obviously made the associated assumption that Trayvon likely wasn’t prone to irrational and harsh violence.

rogerb on July 17, 2013 at 4:57 PM

That’s nice but this no longer really is about the trial. This about an excuse for gangs of angry blacks attack whites and Hispanics.

Yeah like here: http://gawker.com/soul-singer-attacked-on-stage-for-dedicating-song-to-tr-785398779

As for the poll results. Lets remember Rasmussen’s accuracy in the 2012 election (woeful). Lets also remember that no one is arguing that there isn’t a divide. Finally. Protests have been overwhelmingly peaceful, but if it makes you feel better to call them “riots” do you.

libfreeordie on July 17, 2013 at 3:29 PM

Hey, Teaching Assistant, don’t you find it ironic that Chambers was attacked in a city that overwhelmingly voted for your Cult Leader?

We don’t yet know what the motivation of that woman was when she attacked Chambers. But I’m sure you’ve already concluded that what she did was a Hate Crime.

Del Dolemonte on July 17, 2013 at 4:58 PM

America needs to know Roderick Scott. Thanks to a Glenn Reynolds post, I ran across the 2009 story of a man acquitted of manslaughter charges after he saw three teenagers appearing to break into his car. He walked outside (late at night) carrying a handgun to confront the kids. He ordered the kids to freeze, but — according to his testimony — one of the kids charged towards him saying that he was going to “get” Scott. Scott shot the teenager twice. The news reports I’ve reviewed don’t indicate that the teenager was armed, but do state that he had alcohol and drugs in his system. Unlike in the Zimmerman trial, there were other direct witnesses to the incident, and one of them claimed that Scott fired his weapon when the victim was simply standing still, hands in the air.

After two days of deliberations, the jury found Roderick Scott not guilty.

The catch? Roderick Scott is a black adult (a pretty big guy, judging by his picture); the victim was a white teenager.

For those in anguish about the alleged inherent racism of our system of justice, about the idea that basic principles of self-defense as applied in court are nothing but a “hunting license” against young black teens, the Roderick Scott case should be a comfort. Our self-defense laws are not constructed to kill minorities but to protect simple moral principles that resolve doubts in favor of those who don’t initiate violence, and American juries are more than capable of looking past race to apply the law to the facts of a case.

If Scott had not testified that the teenager rushed him, Scott would be in jail. Similarly, if George Zimmerman’s defense team had not presented compelling evidence that Trayvon Martin had injured him and was beating him while Zimerman was prone on his back, Zimmerman would be in jail. It’s really that simple.

Resist We Much on July 17, 2013 at 5:07 PM

Have been reading about roving groups of black teenagers on an assault spree through Hollywood, and two other cases of assaults by young black men “for Trayvon.” I might be missing the point.

To protest the killing of a young black man who the defense claimed turned on and attacked someone, is it really a good idea for young black men to go attack someone else?

Am I missing the message here?

IndieDogg on July 17, 2013 at 5:10 PM

Have been reading about roving groups of black teenagers on an assault spree through Hollywood, and two other cases of assaults by young black men “for Trayvon.” I might be missing the point.

To protest the killing of a young black man who the defense claimed turned on and attacked someone, is it really a good idea for young black men to go attack someone else?

Am I missing the message here?

IndieDogg on July 17, 2013 at 5:10 PM

Protests have been overwhelmingly peaceful, but if it makes you feel better to call them “riots” do you.

libfreeordie on July 17, 2013 at 3:29 PM

Del Dolemonte on July 17, 2013 at 5:14 PM

That’s nice but this no longer really is about the trial. This about an excuse for gangs of angry blacks attack whites and Hispanics.

Yeah like here: http://gawker.com/soul-singer-attacked-on-stage-for-dedicating-song-to-tr-785398779

As for the poll results. Lets remember Rasmussen’s accuracy in the 2012 election (woeful). Lets also remember that no one is arguing that there isn’t a divide. Finally. Protests have been overwhelmingly peaceful, but if it makes you feel better to call them “riots” do you.

libfreeordie on July 17, 2013 at 3:29 PM

Our statist “friend” doesn’t want to answer the qustion, “Why do you want to give MORE power to the state and its police arm, and less power to individuals like:

Amadou Diallo, the Central Park Five, Oscar Grant, Stanley “Rock” Scott, Donnell “Bo” Lucas, Tommy Yates, Angel Castro, Jr. Bilal Ashraf, Anthony Starks, Johnny Gammage, Malice Green, Darlene Tiller, Alvin Barroso, Marcillus Miller, Brenda Forester, Eliberto Saldana, Elzie Coleman, Tracy Mayberry, De Andre Harrison, Sonji Taylor, Baraka Hall, Sean Bell, Tyisha Miller, Devon Nelson, LaTanya Haggerty, Prince Jamel Galvin, Robin Taneisha Williams, Melvin Cox, Rudolph Bell, Sheron Jackson, Eleanor Bumpers, and Jordan Davis.”

ebrown2 on July 17, 2013 at 11:50 AM

ebrown2 on July 17, 2013 at 5:21 PM

America needs to know Roderick Scott. Thanks to a Glenn Reynolds post, I ran across the 2009 story of a man acquitted of manslaughter charges after he saw three teenagers appearing to break into his car. He walked outside (late at night) carrying a handgun to confront the kids. He ordered the kids to freeze, but — according to his testimony — one of the kids charged towards him saying that he was going to “get” Scott. Scott shot the teenager twice. The news reports I’ve reviewed don’t indicate that the teenager was armed, but do state that he had alcohol and drugs in his system. Unlike in the Zimmerman trial, there were other direct witnesses to the incident, and one of them claimed that Scott fired his weapon when the victim was simply standing still, hands in the air.

After two days of deliberations, the jury found Roderick Scott not guilty.

The catch? Roderick Scott is a black adult (a pretty big guy, judging by his picture); the victim was a white teenager.

For those in anguish about the alleged inherent racism of our system of justice, about the idea that basic principles of self-defense as applied in court are nothing but a “hunting license” against young black teens, the Roderick Scott case should be a comfort. Our self-defense laws are not constructed to kill minorities but to protect simple moral principles that resolve doubts in favor of those who don’t initiate violence, and American juries are more than capable of looking past race to apply the law to the facts of a case.

If Scott had not testified that the teenager rushed him, Scott would be in jail. Similarly, if George Zimmerman’s defense team had not presented compelling evidence that Trayvon Martin had injured him and was beating him while Zimerman was prone on his back, Zimmerman would be in jail. It’s really that simple.

Resist We Much on July 17, 2013 at 5:07 PM

Nice catch, RWM. It’s nice to see that self-defense worked in the case you cite. Scum like Slavenowandie would denounce Scott in a heartbeat as a bourgeois “Uncle Tom” if it fit his political narrative. After all, he’s willing to attack a multi-ethnic Hispanic Obama supporter and community volunteer despite the evidence.

ebrown2 on July 17, 2013 at 5:26 PM

Protests have been overwhelmingly peaceful, but if it makes you feel better to call them “riots” do you.

libfreeordie on July 17, 2013 at 3:29 PM

You put “riots” in quotes. The word didn’t appear in my post so perhaps you’re quoting yourself. And I didn’t call them anything. I was referring to the AP, LA Times and others so take it up with them. It’s a legitimate question. You don’t have to like it.

IndieDogg on July 17, 2013 at 5:26 PM

Politricks on July 17, 2013 at 4:24 PM

You and the leftists see what you want to see and twist what you twist. Trayvon attacked George. Trayvon f’d up.

CW on July 17, 2013 at 5:50 PM

libfreeordie on July 17, 2013

How many more people, especially blacks , have to be killed by blacks at an embarrassing rate before YOU put your energy in the right place?.

CW on July 17, 2013 at 5:53 PM

Sekhmet, so you honestly believe that’s how self defense law should work? People who start fights with guns, who lose the fight should be able to kill with impunity? The person who is attacked has to make sure to respond in such a measured way that they do not hit any vital organs? That’s the society you want?

libfreeordie on July 17, 2013 at 3:42 PM

.
“People who start start fights with guns” against a disarmed individual, don’t end up on the bottom, losing.

We’ll keep saying “Trayvon started it”, and you’ll keep saying “George started it”, and there’s no resolving it.

listens2glenn on July 17, 2013 at 5:56 PM

Forget your nonsense, politricks and libdie. You lose, and rightly so.

Tell you what: If something happens to Zimmy, I might be back on the schtreets (yes, I said ‘schtreets’, and I might take some of that ‘twitter’ advice…

Lanceman on July 17, 2013 at 6:00 PM

If Trayvon had just not been afraid of Gay Rapists this whole thing wouldn’t have happened. The take-away is that gay rapists should never be on neighborhood watch, and if they are they should be willing to take a new school ass-whoopin’ because that is what gay rapists deserve.

oldroy on July 17, 2013 at 3:59 PM

+3.0

Oldnuke on July 17, 2013 at 6:02 PM

What Zimmerman trial?

davidk on July 17, 2013 at 6:17 PM

July to Date
Shot & Killed: 26
Shot & Wounded: 117
Total Homicides*: 32
Chicago Murder, Homicide & Crime 2013 Stats Shortlink

June Final Totals
Shot & Killed: 40
Shot & Wounded: 225
Total Homicides*: 45
Chicago Murder, Homicide & Crime 2013 Stats Shortlink

Year to Date Totals
Shot & Killed: 190
Shot & Wounded: 982
Total Homicides*: 226

http://www.heyjackass.com

davidk on July 17, 2013 at 6:19 PM

Lanceman.

This isnt a game. I dont think anyone “won”.

Politricks on July 17, 2013 at 6:20 PM

Politico marveled last night that not once during four separate interviews yesterday with Univision and Telemundo did Obama get a question about the Zimmerman verdict, even though the White House issued a statement about it on Sunday and the DOJ is supposedly seriously considering filing federal charges. Not one question. Said one TV executive: “It’s unbelievable that any journalist with access to the President this week wouldn’t ask the first African-American president about his reaction to the verdict.” Indeed it is, but it makes sense if you assume that it’s not so much an oversight as a deliberate omission.

How long do you think Presidents, people of power, people of fame, people of money, hell, right down to your direct community level, not even CLOSE to nationally or even statewide, been negotiating terms of public interviews and including solid prerequisites that questions of topic x, y, or z are off limits if you want this interview to happen.

I’m not really surprised at all. If politico or that “tv exec” got offered a presidential interview with those preconditions, I’d advise you to bet the farm on that they wouldn’t have been asking either. “Not one question”.

Genuine on July 17, 2013 at 6:36 PM

Forget your nonsense, politricks and libdie. You lose, and rightly so.

Tell you what: If something happens to Zimmy, I might be back on the schtreets (yes, I said ‘schtreets’, and I might take some of that ‘twitter’ advice…

Lanceman on July 17, 2013 at 6:00 PM

Lanceman.

This isnt a game. I dont think anyone “won”.

Politricks on July 17, 2013 at 6:20 PM

But your side certainly thinks it “lost”, doesn’t it?

And that goes all the way to the top, to Cult Leader O’bama. After injecting himself into the narrative unsolicited at the beginning (“If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon Martin”) after the acquittal he called the jury’s decision “a tragedy for America”.

And Democrat mouthpiece USA Today’s editorial board opined:

Zimmerman’s fate was determined as it should have been, based on the evidence in a court of law, not the court of public opinion. But just because a verdict is legally justified doesn’t make it morally satisfying. Trayvon Martin’s death remains an avoidable American tragedy — one that Zimmerman set in motion.

The title of the USA Today editorial? “Trayvon Martin’s Story Lost”.

Thanks for playing!

Del Dolemonte on July 17, 2013 at 6:49 PM

I dont think anyone “won”.

Politricks on July 17, 2013 at 6:20 PM

I won. Stevie Wonder is boycotting my state.

Ronnie on July 17, 2013 at 7:11 PM

Lanceman.
 
This isnt a game. I dont think anyone “won”.
 
Politricks on July 17, 2013 at 6:20 PM

 
Strange how your posts come across almost exactly like a sports fan whose team lost a national championship.
 
From one year ago:
 

To those still disputing the evidence…
 
It’s hard for me to imagine a situation in which Mr. Martin was in the wrong.
 
Politricks on March 23, 2012 at 1:01 PM

 
Not to mention you’re quoting wikipedia (and not even crediting them) in this post:
 

Politricks on July 17, 2013 at 4:21 PM

 
(Press ctl+f and type “had gone” in the search bar.)
 
I especially like the way you phrased this while passing it off as your words, btw:
 

Zimmerman said
 
“In the interviews, Zimmerman says he took note of Martin

 
Zimmerman said Zimmerman took note of Martin? Neat.
 
Regardless, you do realize wikipedia isn’t a credible/reliable source, right?

rogerb on July 17, 2013 at 7:43 PM

Wow. More Rachel Jeantel. Those poll numbers are going to change if she can just do more interviews.

Trayvon was just doing “whoop-ass” according to Rachel. And Zimmerman misunderstood it. See, it was just whoop-ass. Stupid Zimmerman, he should have known.

oldroy on July 17, 2013 at 7:49 PM

We need more Rachel. And then we need more polls.

oldroy on July 17, 2013 at 7:50 PM

Why don’t any of the trools want to talk about Rachel and her interview?

oldroy on July 17, 2013 at 7:51 PM

According to Rachel, she’s a wanna-be cop.

Ronnie on July 17, 2013 at 8:04 PM

According to Rachel, she’s a wanna-be cop.

Ronnie on July 17, 2013 at 8:04 PM

Yeah. She new school. You probably old school. George Zimmerman he old school too. It was just new school whoop-ass. He misunderstood it to be an old school assault that could lead to his death.

Here trooly trooly…. Hello? Nobody want to school us old schoolers on new school whoop-ass?

It wouldn’t surprise me one bit if all traces of the Piers Morgan Rachel interview disappears.

oldroy on July 17, 2013 at 8:19 PM

Jesus Christ, what the hell are you moderating me for?

Lanceman on July 17, 2013 at 8:49 PM

New school use Skittles. Old school use bullets. Taste the rainbow, punk.

Ronnie on July 17, 2013 at 8:49 PM

Well, I had a nice lengthly response, but, as typical whenever I take the time to do that, it gets moderated right off the earth.

Lanceman on July 17, 2013 at 9:02 PM

I can’t take credit for this, but appropriate none the less…

America, where a Hispanic man kills a Black man, and it’s all blamed on the White man.

Meople on July 17, 2013 at 9:26 PM

O/T Did y’all see this at Ace, so funny.

Much See TV: Al Sharpton will interview Rachel Jeantel tonight.

The closed captioning guy just hanged himself. He left this note: “Avenge me.”

Cindy Munford on July 17, 2013 at 9:29 PM

Apparently it should be illegal to exit one’s vehicle in one’s own neighborhood while conceal carrying and there are six foot tall 160 pound black “children” within 500 feet of your vehicle. Or it should be illegal to move more then ten feet away from your vehicle under these conditions, or something.

Considering the libs hate concealed carry with a passion, they would support such an absurd law.

IIRC, the governor of Chicago tried to amend the proposed Illinois CCW bill with several such absurdities. I think there are still some absurdities in the IL CCW law.

farsighted on July 17, 2013 at 10:04 PM

Don’t believe this to be correct.
IIRC, the testimony was that TM had given GZ the slip. That is, GZ lost him and could not be following.
After a 4 minute gap in time, TM reappears and confronts GZ.

Who started what ? TM came back to confront GZ. Then, he started the fight.

Jabberwock on July 17, 2013 at 4:09 PM

Have not followed the details of this case until tonight, but this is exactly as I understood what happened.

If TM was so afraid of GZ, why did TM come back (4 minutes is a long time) to confront him, if not to attack him?

Pretty darn clear if anyone wants to put the time into studying the timeline. If one doesn’t, then I can say a pink elephant flying overhead landed on top of both of them and held them both down while it wrapped its trunk around the one on top and then used its trunk to shoot the one on top. (The ballistics guy said that TM was shot while on top of GZ.)

As good as any other made up version as those that haven’t looked into the details. *shrug*

avagreen on July 18, 2013 at 2:24 AM

I can’t take credit for this, but appropriate none the less…

America, where a Hispanic man kills a Black man, and it’s all blamed on the White man.

Actually, Zimmerman was raised in a Catholic racially integrated household and himself has black roots through an Afro-Peruvian great-grandfather – the father of the maternal grandmother who helped raise him. So, he’s part white (German father), and from his mother…..part Peruvian, and part black.

Now the midia is calling being called a “white hispanic”????

avagreen on July 18, 2013 at 2:35 AM

Jesus Christ, what the hell are you moderating me for?

Lanceman on July 17, 2013 at 8:49 PM

OMG! It’s a MIRACLE!

Axeman on July 18, 2013 at 2:36 AM

it’s a sure political loser for his boss.

That’s the only thing, the only thing that would slow Holder down.

petefrt on July 18, 2013 at 10:20 AM

Zimmerman told the police that Martin walked around his car. For all Zimmerman knew Martin may have had a gun and he would have been a sitting duck if he had remained in his car.

Martin caught Zimmerman’s attention because he was walking through the neighbourhood in the rain between the houses like he was casing them out. There is no evidence that Zimmerman would have become suspicious if Martin had stayed on the sidewalk.

Martin would be alive today if:

(1) he had not gone back to confront or attack Zimmerman;

(2) he had not attacked Zimmerman;

(3) he had not continued the attack, pinning Zimmerman MMA style and not letting up while Zimmerman screamed for help for 40 seconds.

The outrage over the verdict is outrageous.

Basilsbest on July 18, 2013 at 10:32 AM

Actually, Zimmerman was raised in a Catholic racially integrated household and himself has black roots through an Afro-Peruvian great-grandfather – the father of the maternal grandmother who helped raise him. So, he’s part white (German father), and from his mother…..part Peruvian, and part black.

Now the midia is calling being called a “white hispanic”????

avagreen on July 18, 2013 at 2:35 AM

Indeed. All good points. And yes, to the media he’s White-Hispanic.

But let me just take that one step further. The media was HOPING, and is STILL wishing, that they could JUST refer to GZ as WHITE and ONLY White. They were, and are today, disappointed that GZ wasn’t a full blood, European White Man.

Meople on July 18, 2013 at 12:46 PM

If you follow me, walk up to my face and insult me and I swing at you first. Yes you can say you didnt start the fight but you did start the confortation.

Not saying thats what happened here but we will never know how that got started other then Zimmerman getting out of his car and attempting to follow Martin. That’s the only fact we know for sure.

Politricks on July 17, 2013 at 3:58 PM

If I insult you, and you swing on me, you’ve committed criminal assault; and I haven’t committed a crime.

You’re aware of that, right? You’re not legally allowed to beat on people because they insult you, or “diss” you, or follow you, or whatever.

There seems to have been some confusion brought to light by the Zimmerman trial.. beating on people isn’t legal, you’re not allowed to issue a beat-down because some punk disrespected you…

Please tell me you knew this already. And that you can see why the illegal action could be presumed to be the proximate cause of the shooting…

Or if not, don’t say anything. I’ve been disappointed enough by humanity recently.

gekkobear on July 19, 2013 at 12:27 PM

Comment pages: 1 2