Comment of the Day: “Pop Ethics Quiz: Welcoming Rev. Talbert Swan, Late Passenger On The Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman Ethics Train Wreck”

"OK, you can go, but we want everyone to know that the US Government thinks you're a racist and a murderer."

“OK, you can go, but we want everyone to know that the US Government thinks you’re a racist and a murderer.”

The Justice Department’s press release  yesterday regarding the final rejection of a civil rights charge against George Zimmerman was despicable and unprofessional, political, as everything Holder’s department has done from the beginning, unethical,and an abuse of its power and influence.

Raising this  issue adeptly is reader J. Houghton in his Comment of the Day on the post, Pop Ethics Quiz: Welcoming Rev. Talbert Swan, Late Passenger On The Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman Ethics Train Wreck. He ends with a question; I’ll return to answer it.

I am curious about the statement by Acting Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta that: “Our decision not to pursue federal charges does not condone the shooting that resulted in the death of Trayvon Martin and is based solely on the high legal standard applicable to these cases.” It seems almost like an unnecessary statement of the obvious, like, yes of course; this is a tragedy; mistakes were made; bad judgment happened; and somebody died needlessly. Of course, we all would hope that such tragedies “do not occur in the future” as the JD press release stated… ever! this is a most wonderful thought.

However, what exactly is it that the Justice Department does “not condone” ? Is it possible that General Gupta is suggesting that the Justice Department does not buy into the basic idea of shooting someone in self-defense if believed necessary to protect ones self, or perhaps she questions the basic idea of being legally allowed to carry a concealed handgun by permit for self-defense? Or is she questioning the wisdom of the Neighborhood Watch program which might encourage citizens to… God forbid… watch too closely the goings on in their neighborhoods? What exactly is it that the Justice Department does “not condone” in this particular case?

Not to say that the claim of “self-defense” is always justified… because it most assuredly is not. Nor am I defending in any way Zimmerman for the events that unfolded with very unfortunate results. But I am wondering about the chill this incredibly long and ultimately fruitless federal investigation might put on the fundamental right of self defense to protect ones self or others who might find themselves in the position of facing a real threat. Are citizens going to possibly face federal prosecution in the future for becoming “too involved” in the security of their own neighborhoods, or for protecting themselves or their neighbors if the unlawful aggressor and righteous defender in a specific incident happen to be of the “wrong” ethnicity or race?

Just asking…

I‘m back. The answer is that the statement is chilling, and intentionally or not, undermines the jury’s verdict, the justice system, the tradition of self defense, and George Zimmerman’s right not to be harassed by extra-legal means by the government that is supposed to protect his rights.

Yes, what is it exactly that the Justice Department doesn’t “condone”? Self defense? Is it claiming that Martin was profiled, despite the fact that there was no evidence of that? “White Hispanics” should never shoot African Americans even when they are trying to beat their brains in?

Holder’s statement, quoted in the release, was just as unprofessional:

“The death of Trayvon Martin was a devastating tragedy.  It shook an entire community, drew the attention of millions across the nation, and sparked a painful but necessary dialogue throughout the country. Though a comprehensive investigation found that the high standard for a federal hate crime prosecution cannot be met under the circumstances here, this young man’s premature death necessitates that we continue the dialogue and be unafraid of confronting the issues and tensions his passing brought to the surface.  We, as a nation, must take concrete steps to ensure that such incidents do not occur in the future.”

While announcing no prosecution, Holder is saying, essentially, in his position of Attorney General, that Zimmerman committed a hate crime, just one that the law doesn’t allow the government to prosecute. How dare he say that? Where’s his evidence? A prosecutor can’t declare a man who has been found innocent guilty: it’s not just unethical, it’s outrageous and an abuse of power. What does “We, as a nation, must take concrete steps to ensure that such incidents do not occur in the future” mean, if the basis for the investigation turned up nothing? How are we, as a nation, going to “prevent” perfect storms where an officious wannabe cop foolishly provokes a kid with a chip on his shoulder to get physical and one of them gets killed? Banning guns? Presuming racism? Presuming guilt any time a non-black kills a black man in a fight?

I regard these comments as violating the Rule 3.8 , the Rule of Professional Conduct applying to prosecutors, specifically this provision:

(f) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor’s action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule.

There is no legitimate law enforcement purpose to what Holder said, and he intentionally has set out to “heighten public condemnation of the accused.”

The comments of both Holder and his subordinate unjustly continue to accuse Zimmerman while officially exonerating him, based on nothing but innuendo. From the beginning, the government of Barack Obama took sides in this case, with no justification other than group identification, bias and political expediency. The episode’s conclusion was as disgraceful as the episode, with the Attorney General of the United States saying, in essence, to Al Sharpton and the Democratic base, “I’m sorry we couldn’t get this guy, because we all know he’s guilty.” The nations’ top lawyer just set an abysmal example for the nation’s prosecutors.

Again.

52 thoughts on “Comment of the Day: “Pop Ethics Quiz: Welcoming Rev. Talbert Swan, Late Passenger On The Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman Ethics Train Wreck”

  1. Surely Holder belongs to some state’s bar; could one not conceivably make a bar complaint to that state? Didn’t Clinton lose his law license over the Lewinsky matter?

    • I’ll agree that it violates the rule in spirit while being able to avoid to avoid discipline, not that an Ag ever would be. But 3.8 says “under Rule 3.6 or this Rule.” That means one can violate 3.8 with statement not covered by 3.6. Otherwise, there would be no reason to have a second rule. Your interpretation renders the rule redundant. Of course Zimmerman is the accused—he’s the accused right up until, and through, the statement that officially drops the investigation.

      “except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor’s action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused” says “extrajudicial comments”, which the press release is.

  2. Is Zimmerman really “exonerated”? Our system isn’t set up to prove innocence (though sometimes it does happen). The justice department choosing to not bring charges doesn’t mean that they believe he is innocent. It just means they do not believe enough evidence exists to obtain a guilty verdict.

    I see no problem with them explaining that their decision to not charge Zimmerman is not a statement of innocence on their part as that is factually correct.

    Jack, I believe even you have stated that Zimmerman acted stupidly.

    • But stupid isn’t criminal. He has been found not guilty, and his innocence shouldn’t be impugned without any evidence at all. The government’s standard of guilt is what the law says it is; there’s no lesser standard that the state should promote, in this or any case.

      • Right, but government explaining that non indictment is not exoneration is like government saying the sky is blue. The government saying that a non indictment isn’t a condoning of the actions of Zimmerman is a statement of fact. Those statements shouldn’t be controversial as they are fact.

        • Dan, didn’t watch the trial did you? I sat through the whole thing. Was Zimmerman’s innocence proven? Yes I do think so. All of the evidence, including physical evidence and eye witnesses, was consistent with his story. His physical wounds also was consistent with his story. In fact, as the chief investigator said on the stand, there was no evidence that contradicted his story. Nothing. There should not have been a trial, but Rick Scott bowed to political pressure and appointed one of Florida’s least ethical State attorneys as special prosecutor who withheld exculpatory evidence among other things. There is no evidence to show that Zimmerman wasn’t ambushed while walking back to his car. There was, however, evidence of that happening.

          • “In fact, as the chief investigator said on the stand, there was no evidence that contradicted his story.”

            This was the jaw-dropper in the trial: the State’s own investigator, as a State witness, supported the Defendent’s story You never see that in a trial, and the reason is that if you do, you’re talking about a case that shouldn’t be IN trial. All you are doing is waiting tax-payer money and abusing the defendant.

          • Now, Dan, I told you you were off this particular topic, for exactly the kind of nonsense you just wrote:

            “Isn’t that grand. You can stalk a kid, get into a fight with him, and kill him when you lose the upper hand in a fight you started. His following him started the fight. Period.’

            A complete fabrication. The evidence includes Martin’s phone conversations,the 911 call, and the injuries to Zimmerman, the autopsy of Martin, the voice experts who ID’d Zimmerman’s calls for help. There is no evidence, in contrast, to support what you wrote. That’s irresponsible and dishonest. You, like so many others, are incapable of rational thought on this topic.

            That Zimmerman is free is a side effect of our system of justice that makes it hard to convict people. Unfortunately, Florida seems to have made it easier for criminals to get away with it. Much easier than other places.

            Zimmerman would be acquitted in every state in the union under these facts. It would be impossible to prove murder, and should be.

            • Jack: People can start fights and then call for help if they start to lose that fight. That Zimmerman called for help is proof of nothing other than at some point he was losing. It doesn’t imply who started it.

              People can get injured in fights that they start. His injuries only prove that at some point during the fight, Martin got the upper hand. It does not prove who started the fight.

              And what do you mean I am “off” this post?

              • I’m glad you posted this, Jack. I couldn’t believe it when I read it. The press release from the DOJ should have read “The investigation into the Zimmerman case has been concluded without any charges being filed.”

                Aren’t lifers in the DOJ uneasy with the current regime? Aren’t any of them protesting this sort of conduct? Anybody resigning, or at least retiring, in protest? They should be.

              • Except that the evidence showed that Martin made it to where he was staying (he told his friend on the phone just that) and doubled back to ambush Zimmerman. That was about the time Zimmerman told the operator to have the cops to meet him at the car. We know Zimmerman was losing, because we have forensics and eye witnesses showing Martin pounding Zimmerman’s head in the sidewalk. Given Martin’s history of violence in school and the fact that Martin was doing a ground and pound and bouncing Zimmerman’s head on the sidewalk, that more than met the standard of “threat of imminent death or grave bodily harm.” The “stalked while black” was also debunked. Zimmerman was on the phone before he could identity the race. Zimmerman told the operator that Martin was looking in windows. Martin ran when he saw Zimmerman (still in his car) on the phone. Everything both of us read or heard from progressive bloggers and media was exposed as a complete lie. I was a die hard liberal/progressive (on all but guns) until I saw the dishonesty in this case, the anti Mormon bigotry and antisemitism from the left.

            • Looks like you deleted the comment Dan made, but all I wanted to note is that “following” is NOT fighting. It’s annoying and maybe a little scary, but it is not violence. Following a false statement with “Period” does not magically make it true.

            • Saying I am off this post is not a very clear way at all to convey a message that you would not like me to discuss a particular issue on your blog. You should have sent an email saying “I am banning you from talking about topic x” if you want to be clear.

              But now that you have made it clear, I will make it clear that this will be my last post here. Period. Done.

              • I apologize for any confusion, though it wouldn’t make much sense to ban comments on a topic because of their relentless tenor and allow the exact same kinds of comments on the same topic on a directly related thread, such a COTD on the original post.

                Your comment is, in turn, also ambiguous. I assume by “here” you mean, on this topic. I hope so. Do clarify, because self-banning is taken seriously “here.” I advise against it, an I will take it badly. I have been very accommodating, as a courtesy.

                • I would also be inclined to give him the benefit of a doubt here. I’ve read and re-read the exchange, and it reads to me like he was saying he was done with this topic, though he may have been a little irked about the topic itself. I know there are certainly topics that get my dander up. I disagree with him on almost everything, but I can’t imagine him burning this bridge in a huff. I think he’s more even-keeled than that, IMHO, and that would be beneath his dignity. Granted, I don’t have a long history with him either. For what it’s worth.

        • No, in fact it’s like the the principal handing out a high school diploma and saying to everyone assembled: “Yes, Johnny graduated, but we all know he’s an ignoramus and didn’t deserve this” We’re not talking technical innocence. The State, having found no justification for criminal charges, can not state the individual is guilty anyway, and that’s what happened.

    • The entire statement, from top to bottom, was a redundant assertion of “we all know he did it, but the quantity of evidence didn’t quite meet our exacting standards, unfortunately”. It was like the written version of the o-bama’s angry scowl and disapproving tone when he addressed the nation that is enduring him, following the Ferguson verdict.

      • This narrative that Dan and his ilk subscribe to requires more faith than Christianity. It’s miraculous even. Despite ALL the evidence, this fiction has been invented WITH NO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT, in order to be a bitter clinger.

        It MUST be what happened, because I BELIEVE a set of premises that I don’t want shaken.

        That guy from the History Channel who says “I’m not saying it was aliens…but it was aliens…” uses the same lack of evidence & willful neglect of actual evidence based story telling that these guys do.

        You know what I think happened that night?

        I think the San Bernardino High School Marching Band was practicing on the other side of the housing complex, it scared Trayvon Martin back towards George Zimmerman, I think a KGB special ops team shot Zimmerman with a syringe-dart full of adrenaline, then the two fatefully met. But right before the fight started, I think an amateur Don King impersonator walked between the two and said “I will give 2 million dollars to the winner of this fight”. Then, believe it or not, an 80 year old woman walked out and punched them both in the nose and ran away…bewildered the two began having at each other.

        What, no evidence supports that you say? Whatever, my description fits the gaps in the evidence quite nicely, so I’ll believe it wholeheartedly.

    • Here’s what I think really happened that night:

      Zimmerman’s story flashes back 25 years to his arrival in Sanford as a young, idealistic attorney. His housing complex is robbed by a gang of outlaws led by Trayvon Martin. When Zimmerman takes Martin to task for robbing old ladies of their heirlooms, he is brutally beaten. In town, restaurant owner Peter Ericson, his wife Nora, and employee Hallie tend to his injuries, and explain that Sanford’s townsfolk are regularly victimized by Martin. Bill Lee, the town marshal, has neither the courage nor the gunfighting skills to challenge Martin; the 911 dispatcher (who loves Hallie and plans to ask her to marry him) is the only man willing to stand up to him.
      When Zimmerman, the naive “pilgrim” (as the 911 dispatcher dubs him), opens a law practice in town, the 911 dispatcher and many others believe him crazy for inviting retribution from Martin, who cannot abide any challenge to his “authority”. Force, Doniphan explains, is the only thing Martin understands; he advises Zimmerman to either flee the territory or buy a gun. Zimmerman maintains he will do neither; he is an advocate for justice under the law, not brute force. He earns the town’s respect by refusing to knuckle under to Martin, and by founding a school to teach reading and writing to illiterate townspeople — including Hallie.
      When Dutton Peabody, publisher of the local newspaper, offers him a revolver, however, he accepts it; and when the 911 dispatcher sees that he is trying to teach himself to use it, he brings Zimmerman to his house for a shooting lesson. During target practice he shoots a hole in a paint can, splattering paint on Zimmerman’s suit, explaining that this is the sort of trickery that he can expect from Martin. Infuriated, Zimmerman punches him in the jaw and leaves.
      Sanford’s residents meet to elect two delegates for a statehood convention at the territorial capital. the 911 dispatcher nominates Zimmerman for one of the positions, because he “knows the law, and throws a mean punch”. Zimmerman addresses the group, explaining that statehood will benefit the people of the territory through improvements in infrastructure, safety, and education. The area’s cattle barons, who oppose statehood and the new regulations that it would bring, hire Martin to sabotage the effort. He interrupts the meeting and attempts to bully the townspeople into electing him as a delegate, but Zimmerman defies him yet again. The townspeople elect Zimmerman and Peabody, prompting Martin to challenge Zimmerman to a gunfight. the 911 dispatcher again advises Zimmerman to leave town, but Zimmerman maintains that he still believes in the rule of law (even though Link will do nothing to help him), and he is willing to risk his life for his principles.
      That evening, after Martin and his gang, including Lee Van Cleef and Strother Martin, assault Peabody and trash his newspaper office, Zimmerman goes into the street to face Martin. Martin toys with Zimmerman, shooting a pottery vase near his head, and then his right arm, knocking his gun to the ground. He condescendingly allows Zimmerman to retrieve his gun. The next bullet, he says, will be “right between the eyes”; but Zimmerman fires first, and to everyone’s shock, Martin falls dead. the 911 dispatcher watches Hallie as she lovingly cares for Zimmerman’s wounds, then heads for the saloon to drown his sorrows. At his homestead, in a drunken rage, he sets fire to the addition that he has just finished in anticipation of asking Hallie to marry him. His ranch hand, Pompey, rescues him from the inferno, but the house is destroyed.
      At the statehood convention, Peabody nominates Zimmerman as the territory’s delegate to Washington, but his “unstatesmanlike” conduct is challenged by a rival candidate. Zimmerman decides that his opponent is right; he cannot be entrusted with public service after killing a man in a gunfight. Seeing Zimmerman’s reluctance, the 911 dispatcher takes him aside and confides that he, the 911 dispatcher, actually killed Martin from an alley across the street, firing at the same time as Zimmerman. the 911 dispatcher explains that he knows Hallie loves Zimmerman; he shot Martin to secure her happiness. Reinspired, Zimmerman returns to the convention, accepts the nomination, and is elected to the Washington delegation.
      The flashback ends, and Zimmerman fills in the intervening years: He married Hallie, and then, on the strength of his reputation as “the man who shot Trayvon Martin”, became the first Governor of the newly minted state. He then served as U.S. Senator and Ambassador to Great Britain before returning to the Senate, and now he’s the odds-on favorite to become his party’s nominee for Vice President. Newspaper editor Scott now knows the truth about Martin’s death; but after reflection, he throws his interview notes into the fire. “This is the West, sir,” he explains. “When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.” On the train back to Washington, Zimmerman informs Hallie, to her delight, that he has decided to retire from politics and practice law in Sanford. When Zimmerman tells the train conductor that he will write to railroad officials, thanking them for their many courtesies in expediting his trip back to Washington, the conductor replies, “Nothing’s too good for the man who shot Trayvon Martin!”

  3. “Though a comprehensive investigation found that the high standard for a federal hate crime prosecution cannot be met under the circumstances here”

    This also says to me:

    “Given a standard of X percent, let’s say 70% is the standard we need to meet to pursue hate crime charges… we have found 0% in support of bringing hate crime charges, however, we can’t say that because we have an agenda. So instead, we’ll say the standard is really high, implying that we quite possibly found X-1 or 69%. Just shy dammit! But we can’t say that, because we found nothing, we’ll just quietly let our subtle phraseology convince you we found ALOT of support for hate crime, but the standard wasn’t met!”

    • Is that really what is says to you? Seriously?

      No wonder why your world view is so messed up. You automatically assume that because they cannot meet “70%” that it must be 0? That is laughable.

      • 1) You’ll be hard pressed to find any evidence of hate crime

        2) If a man CAN’T be charged, then for Constituted Authorities to imply there is even some evidence present carries a weight similar to a prosecution and conviction in the eyes of the community. SO much for innocent until proven guilty.

        • 1) Zimmerman saw a black man, assumed him a criminal, showed malice by calling him an asshole, and then stalked him. Kid wound up dead.

          2) As I said before, the Justice Department stated facts. The lack of an indictment is not a statement that the actions of Zimmerman are condoned. The lack of an indictment doesn’t say the person didn’t actually do an illegal thing. Those two things are facts. You are condemning Holder for stating facts.

          2a) Zimmerman gets to walk around. He gets to have a job. He gets to be praised as a hero for killing a thug and getting away with it by many people on the right (not saying most, for all those people out there who don’t understand what the word many means). He gets to travel freely to wherever it is he wants to go. The only reason he has since been required to give up his guns is because of other accusations that came by other people saying he irresponsibly used a gun again. Innocent until proven guilty is the legal standard here and it is applied just fine.

          In general I support the idea of treating people as innocent unless proven guilty, not just in the law but in personal statements as well. But as with my idea that zero tolerance policies are bad, there are exceptions to most rules. George Zimmerman got away with murdering a black kid. That is my firm belief based on his own statements. You disagree. And you are generally and ass about it when you do. But in our society people get to get away with crimes because of the high burden of proof we impose. And that high burden of proof is a good thing. I wouldn’t change it even if it meant that Zimmerman would get locked up.

          • 1) Zimmerman saw a black man fit the description of someone who had been committing several breaks in in the community skulking in the shadows and peering into people’s homes in conditions that reasonable people would be avoiding suspicious behavior, assumed him a criminal observed him based on that suspicious behavior like any conscious person should, showed malice by calling him an asshole, and then stalked maintained observation of him. Kid (wait, he was a man a second ago) wound up got nearly to his home, decided to double back to confront Zimmerman, committed assault and battery on a man who was armed to protect himself and was shot dead.

            There I cleaned up all of your assumptions errors for you. Now it looks better.

          • By the way, you earn being treated like an ass when you consistently say ignorant things after having had 2 years to actually think about a topic you’ve been schooled on time and again.

          • Last warning Dan. You are not allowed to comment on the Zimmerman issue or any issue related to the case, because you refuse to deal with the facts, and keep stating a false narrative as fact.

            I’m letting this comment stay out of respect for you and your contributions here, but it is the last one like this that will, and the rules here are that if I say stop, stop. I’ll deal with your first three dishonest and, I’m sorry, idiotic statements, and then leave the rest for others. But I will say again: don’t test me. The one thing that drives me nuts is someone simply repeating the same false representations over and over again with no valid support whatsoever.

            1) Zimmerman saw a black man, assumed him a criminal, showed malice by calling him an asshole, and then stalked him. Kid wound up dead.

            Lie, lie, lie. Zimmerman did not even report a “black man” until he was asked. He saw someone strange to the neighborhood looking in windows. I would call the police under such circumstances to. In fact, I have. There is no evidence that Zimmerman’s suspicion was prompted by racial animus. It was prompted by conduct. You cannot state otherwise based on your race-baiting, progressive, all blacks are victims sensibilities. You can think such stupid, unfair and bigoted thoughts, but saying it is irresponsible. “showed malice by calling him an asshole” is really desperate and stupid on your part, but note that Martin’s friend testified that Martin called Zimmerman a “cracker.” That also shows “malice,’ but in vact neither term shows malice in the least. Do you know what malice means? It doesn’t mean “dislike.” It means “a desire to cause harm to another person.” I think you’re behaving like an asshole on this thread, but a mean you no harm. There is absolutely no evidence that Zimmerman “stalked” Martin, and anyone who says that it, in fact, an asshole. He clled the police. He was keeping track of Martin until the police arrived. How often do stalkers alert the police that they are “stalking”? It’s a lie.

            2) As I said before, the Justice Department stated facts. The lack of an indictment is not a statement that the actions of Zimmerman are condoned. The lack of an indictment doesn’t say the person didn’t actually do an illegal thing. Those two things are facts. You are condemning Holder for stating facts.

            No, I’m condemning Holder for being unprofessional and violating the spirit of the ethics rules. There was no action to condone or not condone. The innuendo that there was criminal conduct when no basis for a prosecution was found is not proper for a prosecutor.

            2a) Zimmerman gets to walk around. He gets to have a job. He gets to be praised as a hero for killing a thug and getting away with it by many people on the right (not saying most, for all those people out there who don’t understand what the word many means). He gets to travel freely to wherever it is he wants to go. The only reason he has since been required to give up his guns is because of other accusations that came by other people saying he irresponsibly used a gun again. Innocent until proven guilty is the legal standard here and it is applied just fine.

            Bullshit. Zimmerman has a target painted on his back, with the President helping in the paint job. He gets to live knowing there are crazies out there who would love to kill him. What job? He’s no prize to begin with, and who would hire him now? As for this…”He gets to be praised as a hero for killing a thug and getting away with it by many people on the right”…slander. Prove it. I’ve read such comments on Chimpmania, but even there, nobody calls him a “hero.” If someone says something that stupid, it’s not because they are “on the right.” It’s because they are brain damaged.

    • Yes, I agree. The DOJ statement clearly states that, begrudgingly, “we have no case against this guy but we really need a sacrificial lamb on the altar of civil rights. Reluctantly, we have to close the investigation because we can’t prosecute this loser even though we really, really want to. Everybody knows that Zimmerman is card-carrying member of KKK, the American Nazi party, and the local chapter of the SPCA (what that has to do with anything we don’t know, but . . .). But don’t worry. We’ll get the next guy.”

      jvb

      • The next guy was Darren Wilson, and they couldn’t get him, either. But they couldn’t slime a cop this way, so they gave it to Zimmerman with both barrels. I cannot imagine how many neurons have to misfire for someone like Dan to say “this a perfectly fair and acceptable way for the government to operate, casting suspicion of guilt on a citizen duly acquitted of crime in the absence of any other evidence that warrant further investigation or action.” It-is-despicable.

    • There is something weird going on with your comment sorting. This is showing up before a comment you made on the 25th for some reason…

      • All responses to a post that Jack deletes are shuttled to the bottom of the response format, regardless of when the deleted post or responses were made. It’s a WordPress-ism.

          • Well drat. I was enjoying the discussion on moral relativism in the other page, where he had just pretended that the discussion was about the wisdom of federalism and states rights and not actually about decision makinn inside closed systems (which it was).

            I will still draft the response however.

    • No. Several readers flagged it. I decided that it was too stupid and emotional—irrational Zimmerman hate, essentially—to warrant a post. Besides, she could have been saying that she hoped that the evidence and the jury were correct, that Zimmerman was reasonably in fear of his life and that Martin was killed in a legitimate act of self-defense. She’s just too far on the margins of sanity to bother with. Few watch her, and anyone who takes her seriously is pathetic, a communist, a racist, or all three.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.