Bloom explains the buzz: Who broke Samantha Scheibe’s coffee table? The question has been in the news.
Should this question have been in the news? Like President Johnson before us, we can argue it flat or round.
That said, Howard Kurtz seems to think the constellation of topics surrounding George Zimmerman has been in the news too much. Last Sunday, on his new Fox News Channel show, he asked Lisa Bloom why that is.
To watch the full segment, click here:
KURTZ (11/24/13): The Trayvon Martin murder trial was a racially divisive clash and a giant media spectacle. But since George Zimmerman was acquitted in the shooting death of the teenager, he keeps popping up on the media radar, especially this week.Last week, Zimmerman was charged with domestic aggravated assault, domestic battery and criminal mischief in connection with an altercation with Scheibe. The aggravated assault charge is a felony.
Lisa, Zimmerman gets into another altercation, this one with a new girlfriend. Why the enormous coverage of this guy?
Unfortunately, such matters are common in our courts. Why is this case being covered and discussed so widely?
This was Bloom’s first attempt at an answer:
BLOOM (continuing directly): Well, he's a fascinating guy. And you're right. The trial absolutely divided America. It's amazing to me that George Zimmerman finds himself right in the middle of searing, hot-button issues in America. First it was race, racial profiling, "Stand Your Ground" and guns. And now, domestic violence.“He’s a fascinating guy!” That may be the accurate answer—somewhat cleaned up, of course.
That said, Kurtz wanted more. Of all the people who get charged with such crimes, why the attention on Zimmerman?
KURTZ (continuing directly): But who cares? He's obviously a loser. The Trayvon case is over. Why did all three cable news networks, for instance, carry his—the hearing of his arrest live?It’s a fascinating story. It’s more newsworthy than the Casey Anthony case.
BLOOM: Well, I think it is a fascinating story, Howie. And I think this is very different from some of the other high-profile cases that frankly were not as newsworthy, like Jodi Arias or Casey Anthony...
Should this case be generating so much continued discussion? For our money, Bloom never quite made the case for yes. That said, the case does involve a lot of societal issues, several of which Bloom named.
She omitted one other such issue. This case involves the ongoing conduct of the post-journalistic press corps.
Consider two discussions we watched last week. On the November 19 Chris Hayes program, Goldie Taylor adopted a somewhat unusual stance.
“I think I might be the only person who ever says this on television,” Taylor said. “I think that we failed George Zimmerman by not getting him the help that he needs.”
By the end of the program, Hayes was praising Taylor for her “compassion.”
We generally agree with what Taylor said. Still, we couldn’t help noting what she withheld. This is the way we would have rewritten her comment:
TAYLOR REWRITTEN: I think I might be the only person who ever says this on television. I think that we failed George Zimmerman by not getting him the help that he needs. And Chris, we pundits spread a large assortment of inaccurate claims about Zimmerman’s conduct that night. We did that for over a year. Based on current reporting, it sounds like we helped create a very difficult situation, in which he may badly need help.As a general matter, we agree. To us, it sounds like Zimmerman does need some help. Similarly, Cheryl Mangum needed and deserved some help, and it looks like she never got it.
We especially spread those inaccurate claims right here, on this very network.
In this case, people like Taylor spent over a year creating a highly fraught situation. We couldn’t help thinking of all those deceptions as she took her high-minded new stance.
What situation did these “journalists” help create? In the New York Times, Alan Blinder reported the recent court hearing:
BLINDER (11/20/13): Prosecutors asked Judge Schott to order bail at $50,000 with an array of restrictions for Mr. Zimmerman, who was wearing a jail-issued jumpsuit and handcuffs during his brief court appearance. Judge Schott refused and set bail at $9,000, higher than the $4,900 that Mr. Zimmerman's public defenders had sought. Mr. Zimmerman posted bail about 4:30 and was released.According to other reports, Zimmerman has no money. Does he have a place to live? Any chance of employment? Cable pundits are unlikely to ask.
Ms. Scheibe, who has denied Mr. Zimmerman's assertion that she is pregnant with his child, also told the authorities that Mr. Zimmerman had recently shown signs of suicidal behavior.
The prosecutor, discussing Ms. Scheibe's account in open court, said that Mr. Zimmerman had believed ''he had nothing to lose.''
On Anderson Cooper, Zimmerman’s former lawyer said he is worried about Zimmerman’s current behavior. This was the first full exchange:
COOPER (11/21/13): It's obviously been a difficult week for George Zimmerman, first arrested on domestic violence charges after his girlfriend called 911. He spent Monday night in jail and while sitting in a cell, he was served with divorce papers. Shellie Zimmerman gave her take. Here is what she told Katie Couric on her talk show, "Katie."Like you, we don’t know what happened that night in Sanford. But in fact, Zimmerman was routinely described as the most hated man in America over that next year.
SHELLIE ZIMMERMAN (videotape): I don't know who George is anymore. I would like to think I married a person who was a good person and, going through the past year and a half, I don't know how that changes a person or how a person's spirit breaks, but it certainly seems like that's what happened to him. I found out that he was lying about a lot of things, and he became like a pacing lion, very unpredictable. Every single day it was like adrenaline going through my body, constantly not knowing what it was going to be like from day to day.
COOPER: Shellie Zimmerman of course stood by her husband during his murder trial. Couric asked her if she had any regrets about that. She said part of her does. She said she doesn't think George Zimmerman is racist.
For the first time since Zimmerman's latest legal troubles, his former attorney is speaking out. Mark O'Mara helped get Zimmerman acquitted on murder back in July. He joins me now.
Good to have you here. Obviously, you did not know George Zimmerman before Trayvon Martin was killed. She said she saw a change in him during the course of the trial. Did you see that?
O'MARA: Well, I think she's right. I think that the George Zimmerman that existed before February 2012 was a kind and gentle person and one that she described and his friends described. When the FBI did their investigation to see if he was racist, they talked to 40 people and not one said he was or violent or dangerous or anything, but peaceful and mellow. So that's who he seemed to have been before the event that happened on the—I'm sorry, February of 2012.
So, now if you look forward, to see what happened to George Zimmerman, and I know every time I say that, people say, “Well, what about Trayvon Martin?” and we understand he passed away that night and with all respect for what he went through, we know that George Zimmerman went through a trauma, both that night, the trauma of getting beat up, which it happens isn’t all that traumatic. But police officers who have to shoot somebody in justified self-defense, they go through an enormous amount of counseling. They are treated very carefully.
So that wasn't done with George. Rather, he was turned into one of, as was labeled, one of the most hated men in America for having to defend his life. So I'm not sure what happens to a 28-year-old and put him in hiding for 16 or 18 months, but maybe this is fallout.
A large amount of that hatred was generated by a year of misstatements by people like Taylor. The behavior on MSNBC was egregious. That said, our “journalists” never discuss the things they have done in the past.
Bloom is certainly right on one point. A lot of major societal issues are involved in the ongoing Zimmerman incidents. But one such issue involves the gross dishonesty and misconduct of the people we still call the “press corps.”
We humans have always treasured our hatred of The Other. So it is in the hatred of Zimmerman. Cheryl Mangum deserved some help; it looks like she never got it. If Taylor wants to start helping Zimmerman, as we think she should, she could start by telling the truth about the misstatements and lies of the past.
Brother Hayes, a good team man, praised Taylor for her compassion. We thought she left something out.
Holy Mother of God -ReplyDelete
His ex-wife says
(HLN) -- George Zimmerman's estranged wife said Thursday that while she respects the jury's not guilty verdict in his second-degree murder trial, she now has doubts about his innocence.
"I believe the evidence, but this revelation in my life has really helped me to take the blinders off and start to see things differently," Shellie Zimmerman told NBC's Matt Lauer on the "Today" show. Zimmerman was referring to the couple's struggles since the verdict, including an ugly spat earlier this month that resulted in police being called -- and headlines being made.
"I think anyone would doubt that innocence because I don't know the person that I have been married to," she said.
Police Chief Steve Bracknell, who is responsible for the Florida town where George Zimmerman resides, agreed in a series of emails that Zimmerman is a “ticking time bomb” and another “Sandy Hook” waiting to happen.
And bone-gnawer says Zimmerman needs help because librulz spread misinformation ("he was told to stay in his car") !!!!!!!!!!!!!.
OK - Bone-gnawer fans, if you still agree with this sicko - heaven have mercy on you..
And to use his ugly expression, why has he "disappeared" the Martin family who are minus a son thanks to bone-gnawer's supreme hero?
Go away you sickening troll.Delete
Degenerate troll, trolling. Ban this sickening troll.Delete
Make like a salmon!Delete
Salmon? Don't get it. But Anon at 11:08 shows us what we could have guessed, Pastor Bob is cherry picking with both hands. Did this ever have to be harder than it is? Zimmerman, while having a plausible claim to self defense, was also obviously stupid and possibly unstable. He ignored the instructions he got at Neighborhood Watch Meetings, and he ignored his lawyers who no doubt told him to lay low and keep his nose clean. As to helping him start a new life, how about his big mouthed, media savvy brother or the righties who have taken him under his wing? Must the evil liberals do EVERYTHING?Delete
Here's MSNBC's frequent guest Joan Walsh, at Salon, saying that Zimmerman "also concocts a story about her being pregnant with his baby, which the police have since denied."ReplyDelete
Of course, Walsh has no idea whether Scheibe told Zimmerman she was pregnant, or whether Zimmerman made it up. But the latter claim is more consistent with the tale that Zimmerman is a dangerous maniac:
Continuing Coverage of Late Breaking CommentaryReplyDelete
From Part 1 of "Zimmerman Was Treated Worse than Gore"
"I'm sorry to be the one to break this to you, but the Zimmerman trial is over. Which might explain why TDH blog entries no longer cover it."
AnonymousNovember 25, 2013 at 11:35 AM
Anon@10:55: Do you think this post is covering Zimmerman? If trolls could read they might not be such trolls."
Do you think this post is about Zimmerman? It is about the refusal of the press to admit their culpability in creating a situation they now deplore. And you still cannot read, apparently.Delete
Well, Bob certainly hopes it's about Zimmerman. It's the only clickbait he has remaining in the tackle box.Delete
Inconceivable to you that anyone would care about education?Delete
Anon. @ 1:43 PMDelete
Well, I hate to break this to you, but the latest episode of "Amanda does Finland" has zero comments compared to the 47 comments here
at "Poor Georgie Needs Help."
Of course we know Somerby does not read comments....unless they are on someone else's website.
Not everyone who reads a website comments, obviously. Some of these you read with interest but have no opinion about, or there doesn't seem to be much to add. That doesn't mean it is unimportant or uninteresting, but you know that. How many of the comments are asking the trolls to go away?Delete
As Bob points out, there's a parallel between Zimmerman and Mangum, in that they both needed held and didn't get it. But, Mangum wasn't mistreated by the media. On the contrary, her obvious lies were treated with the greatest respect. It's the Duke lacrosse player, who, like Z, were mistreated by the media and received no help from them.ReplyDelete
It would be nice if the mental health parity that is part of ACA would now permit people under stress, regardless of the source of that stress, to get help with coping. I suspect it will reduce a bunch of unfortunate occurrences that are tragic for those involve and damaging to our society as a whole.Delete
When the press stops being ghouls and using such incidents as entertainment, that will be a big improvement too. Maybe our trolls will get some help too and stop bothering this blog, where they are entirely unwelcome.
Bone-gnawer telegraphing where his sympathies areReplyDelete
"According to other reports, Zimmerman has no money. Does he have a place to live? Any chance of employment? Cable pundits are unlikely to ask."
He has no money !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (And WTF is "other reports" - how smooth coming from a ganwer of bones to powder) .
After he set up a website before the trial that wingers and gun-nuts contributed money to and HE LIED TO COURT ABOUT IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bone-gnawer - cry a river for your hero (His ex-wife has said "I found out he was lying about many things") and continue carrying a brief for him (by citing his ex-defence lawyer, for example).
In fact, fund-raise from your adoring fans (all three and a half of them) to take care poor, poor Z who was lied about by librulz.
My recollection is that his wife lied about it in court. But clearly she is telling the truth now, because it is what you want to hear.Delete
Other liars you won't mention: Rachel Jeantel and Shellie Zimmerman, both of whom you love.Delete
Degenerate toll, trolling.Delete
Because George Zimmerman is a dangerous person, who---despite his history of violence--ALWAYS has a story about being the victim. (DinC. based on that, can you figure out why so many people think he's a modern conservative?)
Also, those who bought his story of being attacked for no reason whatsoever by a teenager, are now starting to figure out they too were probably suckered by this violent creep..
What reason do you imagine would justify his being attacked?Delete
None that would matter to a person who already believes Zimmerman's story.Delete
But since I wasn't there, and the only other participant was dead, I am open to the possibility that the person who acted in self-defense -- if there was any sort of fight at all -- might have been Martin.
Why do you say "if there was any sort of fight at all" when there were eyewitnesses and physical evidence? You don't have to believe anything that Zimmerman said, but the evidence did tend to support his general outline of things, not the scenarios manufactured around Martin (who did tell a partial story through his cell phone call prior to encountering Zimmerman again). Assault is illegal regardless of "provocation" and it is not self-defense to seek out a person and be sitting atop him while beating on him, which is what witnesses reported.Delete
Wow. I guess Zimmerman has now risen to the level of one of the apostles who wrote a new Gospel. It's all just gotta be true because he says so.Delete
You see, unlike a jury who must decide on evidence and consider the defendant innocent until proven guilty, I get to use my common sense.
My common sense tells me when a grown man gets out of his truck with a gun to follow an unarmed kid, and the kid winds up shot dead, most likely the preponderance of guilt isn't with the kid.
But then again, we all know how tough and thug like 140-pound black kids are.
You don't get to ignore facts in order to confirm your common sense view.Delete
At autopsy Martin was 71 inches (6 ft 11) and weighed 158 lbs. These are facts. Why might you have misreported Martin's size? Zimmerman was 5 ft 7 or 8.
Re Martin's height - the fellow who did the autopsy recorded how "long" the body was (can't measure height of a corpse) as 5'11 but the defense showed a 7/11 video of Martin next to the witness, the store clerk, who is 5'10. Even accounting for the hood, Marin towered over the store clerk.Delete
That Medical Examiner's testimony was bizarre for its defensiveness. He wanted to read a letter he'd prepared to defend himself. So, I'd tend to go with Martin likely being taller than 5'11, all things considered. The ME was always trying to frame Zimmerman as best he could. He was either fired or quit subsequent to the trial.
"AnonymousNovember 26, 2013 at 11:42 AMReplyDelete
My recollection is that his wife lied about it in court."
Bone-gnawer has taught you to gnaw bones well. So the lies came out of his wife's mouth - but since bone-gnawer has conferred sainthood on Z - he is not responsible for the lies they hatched together.
They said they had no money during that hearing, but Zimmerman and his wife had access to at least $135,000 that he raised through a website he set up before his bond hearing, the judge said.
Trayvon Martin was shot and killed in February.
"They were well aware of the money available," Lester said. "Mr. Zimmerman can't sit back and let his wife testify falsely … nor can he allow his attorney to stand up and make misrepresentations."
Zimmerman is charged with second-degree murder in the shooting of Trayvon Martin on Feb. 26. He told police he shot him in self-defense after the teen repeatedly knocked his head to the ground. Martin's family says Zimmerman racially profiled the teen and confronted him as he walked home from a convenience store.
Assistant state prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda argued in Friday's hearing that Zimmerman and his wife discussed the money raised through the website in multiple recorded conversations while Zimmerman was in jail and before his bond hearing.
He said Zimmerman spoke in shorthand to elude officers listening to the call, referring to $15,000 as "15" and $100,000 as "100."
As far as her change of heart is concerned - she has re-assessing Z based on his behavior post-trial.
Behavior post-trial is inadmissible during the trial, I believe.Delete
Judge Lester was removed from the trial because of his prejudice against Zimmerman, if you recall. Thats pretty rare that a Judge would get removed like that.Delete
As to his saying Zimmerman can't "sit back" and let his wife or lawyer say something ---- WHa?? What about the Fifth Amendment? Zimmerman had the absolute constitutional right to remain silent.
Either the Judge acted up because he wanted to be removed or that judge was one piss poor judge.
"AnonymousNovember 26, 2013 at 11:58 AMReplyDelete
Behavior post-trial is inadmissible during the trial, I believe."
His lawyer fooled the courts, gave bone-gnawer an eternal talking point, but Z is under trial before his Maker.
So are you, but that doesn't seem to stop you.Delete
Here is another thing our esteemed blogger might contemplate.ReplyDelete
Perhaps, the "press" didn't create this "ticking time bomb." Just maybe, Zimmerman was a "ticking time bomb" BEFORE he grabbed his gun, got out of his vehicle, and wound up shooting a kid who was walking home from a convenience store.
As noted, this story is "fascinating" (for want of a better word) because it involves issues of race, profiling, fear of crime, guns, "stand your ground" laws and now, domestic violence.
And I sure wish that while Somerby sheds his tears for poor, mistreated George Zimmerman, that at least once he would reserve a few of them for the kid who was killed that dreadful night, as well as his grieving parents.
Meanwhile, I take a bus to and from work. It is an eight-block walk back home every evening, and during winter months like these, it is often made in the dark, with the hood of my winter coat pulled over my head to protect me from the Midwestern winter winds.
I am certainly glad I don't have a George Zimmerman patrolling my neighborhood.
Did the Trayvon Martin case really involve issues of race? Or did the media and liberal race-baiters wanted to make it seem so? Remember, if Zimmerman acted on self-defense, there was no racial issues at all. If racial issues were so clear, Eric Holder would have decided to prosecuted Zimmerman already for a hate crime; meanwhile he's dragging his feet and experts say it's extremely impossible to convict Zimmerman of a hate crime.Delete
In short no. There is no racial issue involved here. In your race-baiting eyes, there is.
Yeah. Sure. No race in this story whatsoever. Move along. Nothing to see here.Delete
"if Zimmerman acted on self-defense. . ." You mean it was self-defense when he saw a black kid walking down the street, profiled him as a burglar, grabbed his gun, and got out of his truck?
Surely, there is nothing "racial" about that, was there?
Unfortunately, there is no evidence to support your theory that he was a ticking time bomb before his encounter with Martin. In fact, there is considerable evidence to the contrary.Delete
"there is no evidence to support your theory that he was a ticking time bomb"Delete
You mean, besides his arrest record?
Based on his arrest record, he was no more a "ticking time bomb" than many other men of his demographic group. He certainly wasn't like Lanza, to whom he was being compared. That was completely out of line.Delete
In the past month, we've finally gotten some reporting on the Knock Out Game. Thats what St. Trayvon the Sweet Child was up to. He was going to video a vegetabilized Zimmerman and post it on YouTube. He picked the wrong guy.Delete
Yes, we have. Mostly that it's an urban myth.Delete
From Free Dictionary:Delete
The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or desires to someone or something as a naive or unconscious defense against anxiety or guilt.
Many think/feel/believe that in taking a human life as he did Zimmerman was guilty of something but that the laws of Florida were such that he could not be found guilty of anything.ReplyDelete
As one juror clumsily put it, "We had the evidence, but the law wouldn't let us convict." (Actually that's a paraphrase, but I don't have time to Google it.)
Following up on the aftermath of a big story is a legitimate function of journalism. Journalists are often criticized for neglecting that responsibility, of abandoning a story once the headline value has died down. Then they're criticized for making a story into a hobby horse.
Should Zimmerman have been put away for killing Martin? What are the consequences for the rest of us in his being a free man? What are we unloosing upon society when we allow people to "stand their ground"?
Sounds like a story to me. Of course that doesn't prevent hacks from mucking it up.
You paraphrase, instead of quoting, because you wanted to make stuff up. In fact, she said the reason why he had to be acquited was the evidence: "“You can’t put the man in jail, even though in our hearts we felt he was guilty,” said the angst-ridden woman, known during the trial as Juror B29. “But we had to grab our hearts and put it aside and look at the evidence.”Delete
Did you read that? She claims that "their hearts" thought he was guilty BUT they had to look at THE EVIDENCE. Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/juror-b29-george-zimmerman-murder-article-1.1408913#ixzz2lmApmroh"
That was the one black juror, and she was the one who wanted to convict him of murder. Thank God there was only one black juror and the rest of the jury dealt with her racism. What this case should mean is that no white person accused of a crime against a black should have any black jurors on the jury because blacks are motivated by racial solidarity more than anything else. From the nurse's aide to the PResident of the United States, its all about which one "looks like me."Delete
Actually, what the juror said was closer to, "We knew he was guilty, but we had no proof."ReplyDelete
Very different from my initial recollection, but still logically absurd. And I'm still guilty of misusing quotation marks.
" Based on current reporting, it sounds like we helped create a very difficult situation, in which he may badly need help."ReplyDelete
Sorry. No sale. Mr. Zimmerman had problems with altercations with people well prior to the time he followed...sorry! I meant, "walked behind and in the same direction" as Mr. Martin.
His prior conduct wasn't admissible in a criminal trial, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
This is the 5th time Zimmerman claims he's been the victim of an unprovoked attack. Two of these incidents were before he shot and killed Mr. Martin. Unless he had PSTD before he killed Martin, I don't buy it.
The girlfriend and her mother have been negotiating for a paid TV interview for weeks. It certainly looks like the estranged wife is being paid, too. She's done 2 TV interviews and the "fight" she had with Zimmerman was one that she worked hard to provoke. She was following him around with an IPAD trying to film him. In this one, the 911 call has the girlfriend barking orders at Zimmerman like a drill sergeant.Delete
Wake up and stop being so naive: The news media lies and they are telling lies that they don't pay for interviews.
So following someone around is threatening towards them? I've never heard of such a thing...from a Zimmerman supporter.Delete
You mean Shellie Zimmerman "threatening" Zimmerman with the IPAD? She wasn't threatening him, she was trying to provoke an argument or hostile outburst and film it. Clearly she was put up to it.Delete
These incidents surely make the case against "shield" laws for journalists. If they are put above the law, they will abuse it.
So Zimmerman was trying to provoke Martin by following him? How did that work out?Delete
Is there some reason Zimmerman can't seek help for this, his 5th altercation with another person?ReplyDelete
Are members of the media somehow barring treatment?
Anonymous, you are flooding this article with repeated posts, in order to give the impression that a lot of people are on Zimmerman's side. Please try to minimize the number of times you are going to say the same "5th altercation" thing. It's possible to say it in one post.Delete
But apparently a concept hard for certain people to grasp, let alone understand.Delete
I don't think anyone is buying your list of 5 altercations. I don't think Zimmerman describes these events as all unprovoked attacks. I think you are manufacturing this characterization that he thinks he is a victim when he is in fact an aggressor.Delete
Don't forget that the judge did not allow Zimmerman's attorneys to use the "stand your ground" defense, but turned around and charged the jury with that same defense.ReplyDelete
It's no wonder they were confused.
There was little coverage of the court's error because the media could use a lot more ink and commercial time comparing the racist sociopath to the heroic NRA poster-boy.
gravymeister, my memory is that Zimmerman's lawyers chose not to use a SYG defense. The (defense version of the) facts supported ordinary self-defense. According to the defense case, Z had no opportunity to flee, so SYG didn't apply.Delete
In Florida, one element of the crime of illegal homicide is that the accused was not defending himself. Since the prosecution must convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt of all elements of the crime, the prosecution must convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Z wasn't defending himself. This explains the jury instruction about what constitutes self-defense. It also explains why Z didn't take the stand. Self-defense is an affirmative defense, and the defendant must present evidence at trial to assert it. Since the only witness left alive was the defendant, he would have had to take the stand to assert self-defense. He didn't want to do that for the obvious reason, and he didn't have to. The burden fell on the prosecution to disprove self-defense.
The defense version of the facts didn't support self-defense except in the sense that it undermined the prosecution's claim of no self-defense.
Most states have similar statutes with similar implications. But not all.
The facts didn't support self defense? That is the stupidest comment ever made on this topic.Delete
I was referring specifically to the "stand your ground" law, which was NOT presented to the jury until they were charged.Delete
I have been a jury foreman in two felony cases, and had I been duped by the court the way the Zimmerman jury was, I would have howled long and loudly.
In my non-legal opinion, the judge committed reversible error.
Of course, since the defendant was found not guilty, and the victim is beyond redress, no action will be taken.
Meanwhile, a woman was sentenced to 20 years in prison for firing a warning shot when her violent husband was about to assault her.
Thanks to a huge on-line petition, Marissa Alexander gets a new trial.
"Because the jury instructions on self-defense were fundamental error, we reverse" the conviction, a three-judge appellate panel said.
gravymeister -- I'm interested in your point, but I don't understand it. As I recall, SYG was mentioned in the instructions only because that was required or was part of the boiler plate. It was not requested by the defense, who didn't claim SYG. In your opinion, what error did the judge make?Delete
BTW I'm also happy that Ms. Alexander will get a new trial. Her 20 year sentence was ridiculous and unjust. I personally see no connection between her case and Zimmerman's.
Berto, asks: DinC. based on that, can you figure out why so many people think [Zimemrman] is a modern conservative?ReplyDelete
Berto, as I suppose you know, Zimmerman is in fact a liberal, who voted for President Obama. As you point out, many people (i.e., many liberal people)nevertheless think he's conservative. Those who hold this belief are evidently prejudiced against conservatives and lack knowledge. In other words, Berto, the answer to your question is that many liberals are ignorant bigots.
I don't see him as a bully. I see him as someone concerned about protecting his neighborhood who wound up in an unfortunate situation because he didn't know how to deal with Martin.Delete
Anon 2:05 -- You have every right to your opinion of Z's character. I see Z differently than you do. But, neither of our opinions means anything. How we see Z is based on what news coverage we followed and our own pre-judgments. In short, how you and I see Zimmerman tells more about you and me than it does about him.Delete
1. what a shitty comment system...Delete
2. voting for choco jesu is an indication more of being a fucking retarded lemming, than a 'liberal' (are there ANY left?)...
3. zimmerman is a scumbag, pure and simple... (it *may* be that trayvon was a scumbag, too; i don't see the 'evidence', but he wasn't cruising neighborhoods as some sort of super-vigilante, was he?)
4. really, his EXTREME mindset in doing all this super-vigilante stuff is WEIRD on numerous levels... his previous altercations with the law are WEIRD -if not telling- and smack of entitled behavior of a judge's son who gets away with shit...
5. you see, it is possible that zimmerman is/was/and ever shall be a scumbag, *AND* the media screwed the pooch... in fact, i would say that is the most likely of all...
aka ann archy
art guerrilla at windstream dot net
Why was Martin out walking around instead of home babysitting, as he was supposed to be? Do you need a car to cruise a neighborhood (at age 17)? Zimmerman was on his way to a store, not cruising around looking for wrongdoers. He happened to see Martin behaving oddly.Delete
Out of all the 1000's and 1000's of murders, homicides and crimes that are committed and tried in court every year, a small number attract enormous media attention. TDH is right to ask, what is it about the Zimmerman homicide of Trayvon Martin that merited such attention? But in these cases which entail all this media attention, much of the public, included many commentators who voice various views whenever TDH addresses the case and the press's coverage of it, believe they are in a position to conclude what happened here, when in fact, we don't really know. We do know that Zimmerman shot and killed Martin; but we don't know exactly what happened immediately before this awful event happened.Delete
In the U.S, the prosecution has to prove the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, there was evidence from a neutral eye witness, that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, and repeatedly striking him. Zimmerman did suffer some injuries, though people here have freely characterized them as horrible or trivial. But given these 2 factors at least, it isn't surprising that there was a not guilty verdict. Just because he was found not guilty, however, doesn't mean he wasn't actually guilty. But why is he singled out for demonization, mostly by glossing over the part of Martin being on top of Zimmerman and hitting him plus adding in all kinds of extraneous facts and speculations, when there are so many other murders, homicides etc where guilty people may have gotten off, or innocent people convicted? It also seems irrational to call him a "racist sociopath" when for all we know the same thing could have happened if Martin was white.
TDH also suggest that Zimmerman and Mangum need help, from someone. Lots of people need help, and a lot of times they don't get it.
Fortunately, most don't kill someone.
I see him as someone who would have volunteered to lose his life as a police officer or soldier in order to demonstrate he is a good person, not in order to exercise authority.Delete
Close, but no cigar, DinC.Delete
The answer, of course, is that Zimmerman is like a modern conservative because he's ALWAYS playing the victim. It's his schtick (or he hopes a "get out of jail free" card), just like victimization is the schtick of modern conservativism.
Berto, we've gone way off topic, but IMHO the anointing of victims is something added by liberal thought over the last few decades. When I went to school long ago, there was a type of multiculturalism that focused on different ethnic groups. But, by and large, it focused on people of achievement, e.g. Marconi, George Washington Carver, Einstein. Today people are naming things after Trayvon Martin. Set aside the likelihood that his thuggish behavior precipitated his death. At best, he's a young man of zero achievements, famous only for being a victim. Look at Matthew Shepard, again famous only for being a victim. (BTW, according to a recent book, his murder was a drug killing, rather than due to hatred of gays.) There are so many gays with huge achievements, particularly in the arts: Cole Porter, Tommy Tune, Jerry Herman come immediately to mind. Yet, Shepard is more revered for his victimhood than are these three great men for their accomplishments.Delete
I recall a Time-Life book many years ago that featured David Blackwell, a brilliant black mathematician. However, today it's the biggest victim who seems to win.
Nicely put D in CaDelete
That's a whole other (Kim Kardashian-related) topic, DinC. I'm talking about the "War on Christmas", how "Obama will take away all our guns", how allowing same-sex marriage "ruins my marriage", how if one speaks towards the epic fraud with which Wall Street and the banks crashed the world's economy, one is just "against success", etc., etc., etc.Delete
The victimization card which modern conservativism ALWAYS plays, and which Zimmerman (no matter how much he's the aggressor) is also perfecting.
David in Cal November 26, 2013 at 2:29 PM,Delete
How Zimmerman saw Martin tells me a lot about Zimmerman too.
That, along with Zimmerman's violent past and the complete lack of physical evidence supporting his story , is why I didn't believe Zimmerman.
But you and Somerby can blame it on tribalism on my part if it helps you sleep better at night.
'AnonymousNovember 26, 2013 at 11:22 AMReplyDelete
"Zimmerman Was Treated Worse than Gore"'
Hilarious. Sums up the maniacal blogger to a tee. Perhaps we can add "by our tribe that likes to hate".
Yes, Zimmerman needs help.ReplyDelete
He could start by confessing.
Trayvon Martin is still dead.ReplyDelete
George Zimmerman killed him.
Sometimes killing is legal.Delete
Sometimes it's not.Delete
Sometimes it is.Delete
The motherf**king bone-gnawer omitted to mention that the lady being interviewed said "the prosecutions messed it up - both they and the defense were arguing reasonable doubt and there was no other verdict the jury could reach - I show in my book how it should have been handled" (paraphased).ReplyDelete
Wow - what a crazed motherf**ker bone-gnawer is. Florida being a cracker state Z got away with claiming self-defense without affirmatively putting on a self-defense defense and all bone-gnawer obsesses about is how to bring librul-hatred into a clear-cut second-degree murder-case.
'My source said he's polled about 20 prosecutors in New Orleans, and though all aren't sure that they would have been able to get Zimmerman convicted as charged, each of them is convinced he or she could have got more than an acquittal. It was a clear case of tanking, he argued: "They didn't want to win this case." '
Bone-gnawer is only concerned that librulz lied about his supreme hero and that he needs help in spite of his being a murderer and a domestic abuser.
The New Orleans prosecutors are sure they could have gotten a black jury because they posit a black demographic from which the jury would be picked. The defense was OK with leaving the case in that county rather than ask for it to be moved because the jury would be picked from the entire county, which is 90% non-black. Had it been a blacker demographic, Zimmerman would have been subject to the extreme racial solidarity of blacks manifested all the way up to the president, his wife and his attorney general. They do not even worry about how bad they look.Delete
It was a clear case of tanking, he argued: "They didn't want to win this case." 'Delete
This is exactly correct. They allowed him to present a self-defense defense without having to testify and without presenting any of the elements of self-defense.
Did you sleep through high-school civics class the day they covered trials? Or did you skip the whole semester?
No defendant has to testify, and Z didn't. He never presented any defense, including self-defense. In Florida, one element of illegal homicide is the lack of justification. The prosecution must prove all elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus it was the prosecution's burden to show beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't self defense.
That's not the way homicide law is written in all states, but it is in Florida.
Zimmerman put on a defense. He had his own medical testimony and the gym owner, as well as calling Tracy Martin to the stand to testify that he had intially told police the voice on the recording yelling "Help" was not his son's voice. Zimmerman also put on several neighbors to testify about all the crime and hundreds of 911 calls in the neighborhood, including a woman who had locked herself and her baby in the bathroom during a home invasion.Delete
deadrat, google up the jury instructions and read them.Delete
You also might try googling up the closing arguments.
deadrat, I really enjoy reading your comments on this blog, but you're simply wrong. Z never presented any defense??? Maybe you slept through the trial, because I certainly remember the defense presenting witnesses. They didn't rest after the prosecution presented their case.Delete
I understand, thank you very much, that no defendant can be forced to testify. But if you are claiming self-defense, which his lawyers most certainly were, then, just for example:
Much has been made in the public narrative about the fact that Zimmerman shot and killed an unarmed Martin. For Zimmerman to be successful in arguing self defense as a legal justification for the shooting he will need to present the court with a compelling narrative of his own recounting his reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm. The success of Zimmerman’s narrative will surely be a function of the unremitting nature of Martin’s attack—straddling the prone Zimmerman and punching him “MMA-style” even after Zimmerman was clearly no longer any apparent threat and was, by eye-witness account, screaming for help—and the extensiveness of Zimmerman’s injuries as evidenced by medical reports and contemporaneous photos.
I was too quick on the snark. I blame the season. Sorry.
You're right. Z presented a defense, just not an affirmative one, namely justification. Z's lawyers certainly cross-examined prosecution witnesses and presented their own. But the defense witnesses were rebuttal witnesses. The prosecution says that Zimmerman was bigger and stronger? OK, here's a public safety consultant to testify that Martin was in better shape. The prosecution says that it was Martin on the tape screaming for his life? OK, here's Zimmerman's father to say the screams were his son's.
Part of the confusion about this arises from the fact that evidence was presented that Zimmerman claimed self-defense. That's true, but it wasn't testimony. It was the videotaped interrogation and Zimmerman's written statement, and that was introduced by the prosecution.
Your source is correct. It's not permitted for a lawyer to claim his client acted in self-defense. The defendant must present evidence for his claim. That could be expert testimony (i.e., forensic) or eye-witness testimony. In Zimmerman's case, he killed the only other witness, so that would have had to be him.
Because Florida law makes illegal homicide an unjustified killing, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense. And all Zimmerman had to do was introduce reasonable doubt that the prosecution had shown self-defense was impossible. That's the way the law is written in Florida and most, though not all, states.
I'm guessing that the prosecution's presentation of Zimmerman's claims is the basis for your charge of "tanking," but remember that the prosecution had to show depravity for the top charge and at least culpable recklessness for a lesser include charge. Both of these go to state of mind, and without Zimmerman's taking the stand, how are they going to get there without Zimmerman's narrative in evidence?
Anonymous @7:56P presents a source (opinion piece at wwww.nola.com) that claims that New Orleans prosecutors think they could have done better partly because their Florida brethren didn't want to win. It might have been easier to convict Zimmerman in another state, e.g., one that had a commensurate harm rule for testing claims of self defense. I don't know whether Louisiana has such a rule. But I'd be wary of this source, which claims that prosecutors should have demanded a change of venue because the case was too hot a potato for county officials to handle. But the Florida Supreme Court (Ashley v State, 72Fla137 (1916)) doesn't allow for such a demand (over the objections of the defense) unless seating a jury is a demonstrably impractical. It's a Sixth Amendment issue.
I've read the jury instructions. The jury has to decide whether the prosecution met its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not acting in self-defense. The judge therefore instructed them on self-defense.
Please don't make me watch the defense closing argument. It's almost an hour and a half. As I recall, O'Mara spent his time picking holes in the prosecution's case and reminding the jurors not to invent their own scenarios. In any case, opening and closing arguments are not considered evidence.
I'm not a lawyer. I just have a very strong sense that the prosecution did not serve the Martin family or the "people" of Florida well by allowing all of Z's self serving statements and preposterous explanation of the events of that night to come into evidence without having the opportunity to cross examine.
It is very confusing. On the one hand the self-defense defense is an affirmative defense but on the other hand you claim that it was the state's burden to prove it was not self-defense as though all of the elements of self-defense are assumed to be true from the get go.
The prosecution allowed Z to tell his entire story while sitting on his fat lying ass throughout the entire trial. It reached the absurd conclusion where the defense was allowed to show the jury a computer generated reenactment of the killing based on Z's tall tale (without the gun ever appearing!!!!). None of that could have been possible had not the prosecution brought into evidence Zimmerman's statements. If I were the Martin family I would be suing the state for malpractice.
I'm not a lawyer either, and it takes some effort for me to separate my sense of injustice from an understanding of the law. The state has a very heavy burden of proof, and when a defendant has killed the only other eyewitness to an homicide, the task of conviction is almost impossible. The Sanford police should have figured out that they needed to be seen doing their utmost, but the fact is that the original state attorney was right to decline to prosecute.
I can't fault the state for bringing in Zimmerman's videotaped and written accounts. What choice do they have? Determining the proper degree of homicide requires determining the defendant's state of mind -- depraved indifference or culpable negligence. If Zimmerman doesn't testify, how else are they going to do that?
All their other witnesses were weak. Someone who saw a altercation but couldn't tell whether blows were landed. Ear-witnesses who couldn't be sure who was talking or screaming. A friend of Martin who was borderline unintelligible on the stand and had credibility problems.
The state tried to bluff by indicting Zimmerman for 2nd degree murder. Thus they had to prove that someone who seemed such a bumbler was actually a depraved killer. I'm assuming they were hoping to get a plea to a lesser charge, but Zimmerman called their bluff.
The "elements" of lethal self-defense in Florida are simply stated: the defendant must reasonably believe that he was in danger of losing his life and in danger of great bodily harm. Even if post hoc examination reveals him to have been mistaken. Defendants are presumed innocent from the get go. Since everyone agreed that Zimmerman killed Martin, the only question was his state of mind. Did he fear for his life, and if not did he exhibit a depraved indifference to his victim's?
It's not possible to sue prosecutors for their performance. They have immunity.
Florida law makes it almost impossible to sue Zimmerman for wrongful death, which is where the final injustice comes in. Sometimes the state cannot convict a killer because we demand so much of the state, but when that happens we shouldn't preclude the victim's family their day in (civil) court. But you can thank the NRA, ALEC, and the Florida legislature for that, not the prosecution.
Unless someone as cross-posted as I type, we are now up to 67 comments, once again spinning wheels in the same old rut, and forth and getting nowhere.ReplyDelete
Congratulaltions, Somerby. Great clickbait, and way to advance "the "american discourse."
This is a good illustration, apparently, of how the human mind works. First, you decide what you believe, then you search for arguments to prove what you are already firmly convinced of. And around and around we go.ReplyDelete
Some people do not care that the media mis-reported the story, and, in fact, will continue to repeat the mis-information they were given. Since Zimmerman clearly deserves to be hated, who cares if people lie about the racist, murdering sack of crap? Anything that helps to bring him down, is just a-okay, because he deserves to go down. Thankfully, his current troubles just "prove" that. I was right all along.
It worked on Saddam.Delete
Just to provide context.ReplyDelete
Dinesh DeSouza (who is himself blacker than the Ace of Spades) apparently just called Obama "the grown-up Trayvon".
Folks - the right is in a white heat of ugliness, racism and xenophobia as middle class jobs flee the US and is trying to take us back to caveman days - bone-gnawer is doing the work of the devil by attacking liberals.
What would a future rap sheet of Trayvon look like and what wouldit tell us about whether his attack against Zimmerman was an early indicator of a pattern of violent crime?ReplyDelete
Correction, Martin was shot dead in the midst of committing a violent crime against George Zimmerman.Delete
Admit it,. It's the complete lack of physical evidence that Martin was committing a crime which makes you so sure.Delete
There is not a "complete lack of physical evidence" that Martin committed the crime of assaulting Zimmerman. There are the abrasions on Martin's hands, the broken nose and abrasions on Zimmerman's head. Those are all physical evidence. There were no bruises on Martin at autopsy that would suggest Zimmerman ever hit him -- again that is physical evidence that Martin was not defending himself but was committing assault, as eyewitness neighbors reported.Delete
You have mistakenly concluded that the physical evidence that Martin struck Zimmerman is evidence of assault. Martin had the same right to defend himself that Zimmerman had. If Martin reasonably thought he was in physical danger, then he could have legally struck Zimmerman, even preemptively and even if later he turned out to have been reasonably mistaken.
We have no independent testimony as to what went on shortly after the two confronted each other. Zimmerman says Martin was the aggressor, but this is self-serving, although he may be right.
The concept of Enemy of the State or Enemy of the People goes back to Roman times. It applied during various totalitarian governments. It seems to me that the US has a somewhat similar category, although we have no name for this designation. In our case, it's maintained more by the media than by the authorities. Once someone like Zimmerman or the Duke lacrosse players are declared Enemies of the State, they're finished. It no longer matters whether they were guilty or innocent of the charge the led to this designation. Nothing they do can ever get them released from being an EOTS.ReplyDelete
In recent years, there's been a fairly successful effort to get the Tea Parties regarded as EOTS. Koch brothers, who've done nothing wrong, have been successfully branded as EOTS. Just the words "Koch brothers" are enough to blacken anyone allegedly connected to them.
Bullshit. Because people denigrated teahadists for their foolishness and gullibility doesn't mean they were labeled "Enemies of the State." The Koch brothers have done nothing illegal. Billionaires who use their money to secretly manipulate the political system are rightly seen as sinister.Delete
Are you really throwing a pity party for billionaires? Gosh, I hope their feelings haven't been hurt.
"Secretly"? If they used their money secretly, how would you know they did so?Delete
deadrat, you're playing games with loaded language. When billionaire George Soros donates $1 million to David Brock or when billionaire Michael Bloomberg donates money for gun control, I guess you think they're doing their civic duty. OTOH, when Koch donates money for a conservative cause, you call that "manipulating the political system."
Don't change the subject. Americans for Prosperity is the Orwellianing-named topic at hand, from funding Willard the Historical Footnote to the astroturf teahadists to intervening in Iowa municipal elections.Delete
Gosh, I hope this comment didn't hurt the Koch's feelings. Good thing you're here to defend them, eh?
Well, well, well. What do we have here? Is this a modern conservative playing the victimization card? That practically never happens all the time.Delete
Thanks for proving what I was saying up post, DinC.
"...when Koch donates money for a conservative cause,..."Delete
Are you saying definitively that preventing people from participating in elections in a representative democracy is a conservative cause?
Look at us agreeing. We're like Tip and Ronnie over here.
The secrecy involved donating sums to front organizations that were used for money laundering of contributions to campaigns in California during our last election. There was an investigation tracing back those contributions and that is how we know about where they came from.Delete
Please stick to the education stories, Mr. S. On race, gender, class and the press you are hopelessly lost. (Raised in Boston in the old days, were you? Perhaps enough said. If you'd stayed there and grown with the place, rather than going south....)ReplyDelete
Zimmerman is not a victim of press coverage, if that's what you're implying. (You're not really clear at all in your argument.) The most hated man in America? So you say, and have said, underplaying all along the fair-minded responses of many "liberals." Talk about scripts. You need to ask yourself about your own.
(Btw, if Z is strapped for cash, he can always go home to mama. He needn't starve.)
The press gives less attention to Ms.Magnum (is that her name? I'm not sure I ever knew it) maybe because there's been a long interval since the Duke lacrosse team fiasco, during which time she has managed to stay out of the news -- unlike Zimmerman, who has been involved in some pretty amazing incidents which the press didn't invent for him. I dunno. Apples, oranges anyone? You do seem to strain here.
What motivates such straining? Could it be that you can't face that maybe you were wrong about Zimmerman -- not the bad coverage, of which there was plenty (easy pickings), but about the motives of the people who sensed something very wrong with this man.
Reading this on the day when the report on the CT shooter of school children comes out, I feel sick.
Easy pickings, indeed. It's like picking a bushel basket of rotten apples off the ground then concluding that all apples are always rotten.Delete
The post-trial travails of Zimmerman don't prove he was guilty. He might have been guilty, but unless we were there at the time, we can only speculate. He was found not guilty by a jury, where guilt had to be found beyond areasonable doubt.Delete
Anonymous 2:57PM and AC/MAReplyDelete
Martin was 5ft11, not 6ft11, 3 inches taller than Zimmerman.
There is no way to know if J Good was a neutral witness, but he did not see Martin striking Zimmerman. What he testified to was seeing downward arm movements from the person on top, who he thought might be Martin but was not sure, and he definitely did not see anyone bashing another person's head.
I have not seen anyone say that Zimmerman's injuries were horrible, quite plainly they were not. His actions, on the other hand, were horrible and continue to be so.
Thank you for correcting that typo.Delete
He identified the color of jacket that Martin was wearing. Medical testimony confirmed the extent of Zimmerman's head injuries which included a broken nose and abrasions to the back of the head consistent with having been banged on concrete. There were also abrasions on Martin's hands but not on Zimmerman's.
Yes, it's evidence that some kind of fight took place. But Zimmerman's story is preposterous that Martin, who was running away from him moments before, suddenly appeared out of the blue to confront him, knocked him to the ground without warning, straddled him and began pounding his head into the pavement, then Zimmerman was still able to pull his gun from behind his back, take off the safety (if we presume he was smart enough to put the safety on) and fire one fatal shot from point blank range.Delete
What gets me is that all the Internet lawyers around here who can see only Zimmerman's right to "self-defense" can't afford Martin the same right to defend himself.
Zimmerman didn't testify at the trial. There was a witness who did testify that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, and appeared to be striking him. Zimmerman did have injuries.There were these screams, and it wasn't clear whether Z or M was doing the screaming. Given these elements, it isn't surprising that the jury found Z not guilty, under the beyond the reasonable doubt standard. There is a difference between being guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and being actually guilty. I'm not defending Z, he may actually have been guilty, I wasn't there.Delete
J Good did not identify the color of Martin's clothing, he just said the guy on top had dark clothing and the guy on the bottom had white or red clothing. Much of Good's testimony does not seem particularly reliable.
It is not clear Zimmerman had a broken nose, there is no direct evidence to confirm this. The medical examiner said Zimmerman's head was not bashed or banged on concrete - which matches the eyewitness testimony - and said his injuries were minor, very insignificant, and not life-threatening
J Good's testimony was about downward arm movements, not hitting. Even on the 911 call, he referred to their action as wrestling.
I think the verdict was quite surprising, and apparently many of the jurors were uncertain at best, but swayed by at least one that was very certain Zimmerman was not guilty. No matter how I look at the case, I can not see how Zimmerman reasonably feared for imminent great bodily harm or death to justify killing Martin. I am certain he should have been found guilty. Going forward, he appears to be a menace. I hope the justice system finds a way to curb his violent tendencies.
Martin could have defended himself by staying inside his home when he got there (according to his conversation with Jeantel). He could have defended himself by not confronting Zimmerman at any time but just going about his business (not off the sidewalk or on the lawn casing homes but walking down the street). He could have defended himself by not punching Zimmerman at all. There is no justification for assaulting another person. There is also no evidence that Zimmerman threw any punches (no abrasions on his knuckles as there were on Martin's). The assumption that because Martin cannot tell his story, he must be given the benefit of the doubt about everything, is wrong, especially when it contradicts evidence supplied by various witnesses, including his friend Jeantel and neighbors, not just what Zimmerman said (which tends to be supported in the gist, if not the details). Martin's actions contributed to this outcome.Delete
Much of what you say is true, but the law does not require Martin to stay inside his home. Neither does it require him not to confront Zimmerman in a public place. There is no evidence that Martin assaulted Zimmerman. His blows could have been justified had Zimmerman threatened him. Zimmerman says it was the other way around, but there's no independent witness to what happened.
Martin is not being given the benefit of the doubt. He has no use for it. Zimmerman was given the benefit of the doubt.
Keep in mind that everything that Jeanel testified to about her last conversation with Martin is hearsay.
David in CalReplyDelete
There is no information that Zimmerman voted for Obama. His brother only claimed that he is a registered Democrat and tangentially campaigned for Obama within the family, but there is no evidence for these claims.
We must find out so that in the event it isn't true, we can continue to persecute him on behalf of Dear Leader.Delete
Too bad Bob didn't bother to spend 5 minutes googling about Ms. Scheibe or he would have discovered that she and her mother have been negotiating for a paid national TV interview. It would thus be obvious that this altercation was a set up to make her interview more newsworthy/ratings worthy.ReplyDelete
Mainstream news media conspiring to set people up even at the risk of getting them criminally prosecuted should be a big story.
"Mainstream news media conspiring to set people up even at the risk of getting them criminally prosecuted should be a big story."ReplyDelete
We tried to make it one, Lionel, but we were just called America-haters and Saddam-lovers.
So are the Kardashians "the other"? How about Paris Hilton, or the Duck Dynasty magnates? People get covered in the media because they've been featured in the media. At this point race has little to do with coverage of Zimmerman - he's a Famous Person, so we have to see what's happening to him (or you do - or you feel it necessary to write blogs about him and his coverage).ReplyDelete
Say, BOB. What kind of help do you think these two fine Americans
Türk Porno Resim, Türk Porno, Türk Porno izle, Türk sikiş,ReplyDelete
Porno, Porno izle, Sikiş izle, Türk porno,Mobil Porno,
Porno, Porno izle, Sikiş izle, Türk porno,Mobil Porno,
Porno, Porno izle, Sikiş izle, Sikiş, Türk porno, Mobil Porno,
Porno, Sikişme izle, Türk Porno, Kızlık Bozma, Porno izle,sikiş,
Porno izle, Porno video seyret, Türk porno ve sikiş seyret, Porno,
Türk Porno izle, Türk Pornosu, Türk Sex, Türk Sikiş,Türkçe Sex,
Türk Porno, Türk Pornosu, Türk Sikiş, Türk porno izle, Porno izle, Porno,
Porno, Sikiş, Porno izle, Mobil Porno, Türk Porno, Sikiş izle, Seks izle