ChrisWeigant.com

What To Call It?

[ Posted Thursday, March 29th, 2012 – 17:52 PDT ]

[This is going to be one of those short columns which rambles around and doesn't really go anywhere. Just to warn everyone in advance.]

The topic of the week in the political world has been President Obama's signature health care reform law, officially the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Early on, most folks realized that "PPACA" wasn't really the best thing to call it (although some still do use this term, pronounced "puh-pack-ah"). In general, Democrats stink at this whole "name a bill so its initials spell something" game on Capitol Hill. If this had been a Republican idea, my guess is it would have been called something like the "REAGAN IS AWESOME Act," or something equally clever (no, I'm not going to take the time to figure out something that spells that, but if you've a mind to, or to suggest an equally-plausible Republican name, feel free to do so in the comments). Getting back to the Democratic law, however, most Democrats have taken to shortening the name to just the "Affordable Care Act" or "ACA" -- up until very recently. I haven't heard anyone attempt to pronounce ACA yet (ack-ah? ass-ah?), instead just the initials are used. But while "Ay Cee Ay" is better than "puh-pack-ah" it still doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.

Of course, I am being deliberately obtuse here. Early on, before the law even passed (I am not interested enough in that factoid to check whether it is true, I should mention), Republican opponents labeled it "Obamacare." Or, sometimes, "ObamaCare." Before we get to that, though, we have to run through a quick history, which is mostly accurate (but not obsessively so), of the use of "-care" to name these things.

While Medicare and Medicaid go back to 1965, I can't truthfully say they have always been called that. The federal government's involvement with medical care actually goes back to the early 1900's, just after the turn of the century, but the consolidation and expansion that Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law is what everyone means by "Medicare." [As I said, I barely bothered to research this, but I did find the first Medicare signup card, issued to Harry S Truman and witnessed by L.B.J. at the bill signing ceremony. The consolidation and expansion was originally Truman's idea, so this was a staged photo-op type of thing, as a courtesy to him.] What I did not find in my admittedly-underwhelming five minutes of research was when the term "Medicare" was first used. So, without a shred of evidence either way, I'm going to assume that it was called this all along.

I remember, a few years back, when the health care reform battle began (or "the most recent round of it" I should say), I first had occasion to type "Medicare" and "Medicaid." When I first did so, I spelled them "MediCare" and "MedicAid" which is how I always assumed they were spelled (having never used either, I have no personal experience to go on). But when I did fact-check it, I was surprised that they both only have a leading capital letter: Medicare and Medicaid.

The first use of "slap '-care' on someone's name" in my memory (once again, shoddy research rears its ugly head) was what got labeled "Hillarycare" (or "HillaryCare"). This was Hillary Clinton's attempt to get a health care reform bill through Congress so her husband could sign it into law. It failed. So did many other bills introduced at the time by members of Congress to compete with the Hillarycare proposal, but none of them was ever named "SenatorJonesCare" or anything similar.

Fast forward to Barack Obama, and the PPACA. Initially, both Obama and the Democrats found "Obamacare" demeaning and insulting and they refused to use it. This led to years of watching Democrats interviewed on television in exchanges such as:

INTERVIEWER: So why did you vote for Obamacare, and what do you have to say about it now?

DEMOCRATIC OFFICEHOLDER: I did indeed vote for the Affordable Care Act, and I think the ACA is going to...(etc.)

Valiant efforts to stop the usage of "Obamacare" largely failed, however. Within the past week, the White House finally threw in the towel, and fully embraced "Obamacare." The political advisors finally figured out that if the legislation actually becomes well-liked after its full implementation, using the term Obamacare would remind everyone who got it passed -- Obama's legacy, to put it another way. The president has been saying things like: "You want to call it Obamacare? Fine, I'm Obama and I do care!" which would have been more effective a few years ago, but is still worth making the attempt in an election year.

Since it is indeed an election year, a law from the past has been rebranded using this "Name-care" formula. Once again, this was done by political opponents (although this time, from the same party). At some point very early on, during the Republican debates, people started slamming the former governor of Massachusetts for signing "Romneycare" into law. One even cleverly made the point sharper, by using the meld of "Obamneycare," although (I believe, as I am too lazy to look it up today) the candidate who coined the term chickened out by not using it in an actual debate, when everyone expected him to. Huntsman? Maybe it was Huntsman, he's always been rather forgettable.

Which leaves us with dueling "-cares" for the general election: Romneycare versus Obamacare. This only leaves one question, that of capitalization. Is it HillaryCare, RomneyCare, and ObamaCare? Or Hillarycare, Romneycare, and Obamacare? Inquiring minds want to know. Since all three are neologisms, there is no long history to inform us.

I'm going to -- forevermore on these pages, as an editorial policy -- come down on the side of Hillarycare, Romneycare, and Obamacare. I have two main reasons for this decision. The first is that it conforms with the term being customized (and eponymized, if that's even a word) -- the root name "Medicare." While surprising to me personally (see above), this is not "MediCare," so we're going to call this a general rule: one capital letter per term.

The second reason I'm going with "Obamacare" is that this is the way Obama's campaign has now begun using it (do a web search for "I like Obamacare" to see this, as once again, I am too lazy to do so for you in order to provide a link). On Obama's official campaign site, the word is either all capitalized ("OBAMACARE") or used with only the initial capital "Obamacare." Since neither Mitt Romney nor Hillary Clinton is likely to ever attach such an imprimatur on their namesake terms, we're going to rule this decisive and final.

Now I just have to figure out if Obamacare is going to cover Chronic Pundit Laziness Syndrome or not....

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

82 Comments on “What To Call It?”

  1. [1] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    according to michelle malkin, it was tim pawlenty who coined the term "obamneycare."

    http://michellemalkin.com/2011/06/12/pawlenty-debuts-new-term-obamneycare/

  2. [2] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    nypoet22 -

    Well, see, I just knew it was one of the forgettable ones...

    Heh.

    -CW

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    While surprising to me personally (see above), this is not "MediCare," so we're going to call this a general rule: one capital letter per term.

    OK, so Crapcare, it is... :D

    The president has been saying things like: "You want to call it Obamacare? Fine, I'm Obama and I do care!" which would have been more effective a few years ago, but is still worth making the attempt in an election year.

    I disagree... Consider this very loose analogy..

    Ship Magnate I P Freely builds the Titanic. During all the time of her building and her sea trials, people want to call the Titanic, The Freelyship.. Freely rebels against that, swears that the term is pejorative and insists on calling it The Titanic.

    However, on April 8th, 1912, Freely has a change of heart and really wants people to know that The Titanic is "his" ship. So he adopts the name The Freely Ship with great gusto and aplomb...

    A week later, The Freelyship hits an ice berg and sinks...

    Now I axe ya....

    Was embracing The Freelyship REALLY such a good idea?? :D

    It also works with The Hindenburg too.. :D

    On another note, howz this for irony..

    If I were one of those "rabid partisans" that some people here accuse me of being, I would swap out "Crapcare" for "Obamacare" just because it would forever tie Obama to the complete and utter train/plane wreck that is Crapcare...

    But I am not, so I won't.. :D

    Michale.....

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    When all is said and done, there is only one thing to call Crapcare...

    D.O.A

    Taylor Marsh makes a good point as well..

    http://taylormarsh.com/blog/2012/03/pop-goes-the-obama-bubble/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+taylormarshcom+%28Taylor+Marsh%29

    It's not as if the Obama Administration couldn't see this coming.

    They heard it from Republicans. They heard it from Democrats. They heard it from Independents & NPAs.. They even heard it from CW.COM

    **NO ONE** liked the mandate...

    Which is why it makes absolutely NO SENSE that Obama would have embraced "Obamacare" a couple weeks before the great wreck...

    To act all shocked and surprised by this really only shows one thing and one thing only..

    Obama and his advisers are completely out of touch with mainstream Americans..

    Michale.....

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    OK, so Crapcare, it is... :D

    Not for long.

    nypoet22,

    Michelle Malkin? Are you kidding me? There is no place for that kind of asinine nonsense anywhere near CW.com

    In future, let's try to refrain from dropping links like that, shall we? No one worth their own salt would click on it, anyway. Life is far too short.

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not for long.

    We might find out as early as today... :D

    Michale.....

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's an interesting side of Crapcare that has received little or no attention

    "Insurance does not equal care."
    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/30/what-doctor-knows-about-obamacare/

    Michale.....

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    To act all shocked and surprised by this really only shows one thing and one thing only..

    Obama and his advisers are completely out of touch with mainstream Americans..

    Not-So-Smooth Operator
    Obama increasingly comes across as devious and dishonest.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303816504577312043447691520.html?mod=WSJ_article_comments#articleTabs%3Dcomments

    Ahhhh That explains it...

    Michale.....

  9. [9] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Which is why it makes absolutely NO SENSE that Obama would have embraced "Obamacare" a couple weeks before the great wreck.

    In other words, Obama did something that was unpopular because he believed it was the right thing to do.

    In other words, he didn't play politics. Something you claim you admire.

    How come you aren't praising him?

    -David

  10. [10] 
    akadjian wrote:

    How come you aren't praising him?

    Let me rephrase. How come you aren't praising him for that?

    Obviously, you don't have to praise him. But when someone does something which you claim to admire, it seems odd that you would then take the person to task for doing that same thing you claim to admire.

    -David

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    In other words, he didn't play politics. Something you claim you admire.

    That's just it.. He WAS playing politics.. He figured that Obamacare was a shoo-in.. So, all of the sudden, he was PROUD for it to be called Obamacare..

    Apparently, he had some inside information that Obamacare was going to sail thru the SCOTUS. So he figured he would jump on the bandwagon and claim the name...

    Somebody done did him wrong...

    Michale....

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's how I see it anyways. No other explanation fits the evidence...

    Michale.....

  13. [13] 
    dsws wrote:

    Lots of things were named by their detractors, but the Big Bang is the only other one that springs to mind.

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    "hu...huh....hu..hu..hu... He said 'Big Bang'.. huh..uh...hu...uh..."
    -Beavis

    :D

    Michale....

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    HURT: Brutal week for Obama, the worst of his presidency
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/29/hurt-was-week-was-obama-style/#contentShared-tab

    Wonder what this is going to do to his poll numbers...

    Michale.....

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    While it's probably too late, I would like to nominate the following Democrats for the MDDOTW awards:

    Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton for stoking racial violence and racial hatred by claiming "blacks are under attack"...

    Spike Lee for being a TWIT and sending home address information about a completely innocent couple to all his followers...

    Rosanne Barr for also being a TWIT and sending home address information about George Zimmerman's parents..

    To all the Democrats who, totally ignoring the facts and reality, formed, what only could be described as a lynch mob, and demonized a hispanic Democrat. And, without ANY shame whatsoever, created an environment of racial hatred over an incident that had absolutely NOTHING to do with race...

    No matter how you slice it and irregardless of ANY alleged "rabid partisan"ship, Democrats looked small, petty, sad and pathetic this week...

    Michale.....

  17. [17] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    michale,

    Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton for stoking racial violence and racial hatred by claiming "blacks are under attack"...
    [snip]
    And, without ANY shame whatsoever, created an environment of racial hatred over an incident that had absolutely NOTHING to do with race...

    are you kidding me? blacks have been under attack ever since lincoln freed them from slavery. sometimes the progress we've made toward reducing the explicit influence of racism lulls us into forgetting that it's still very much alive. while zimmerman himself (overzealous wannabe cop) may not have been motivated by racism, the failure of police to immediately treat the shooting as a crime is in my opinion absolutely racist. do you seriously think they would not have behaved differently if the teen who got shot had been white?

    liz,

    Michelle Malkin? Are you kidding me? There is no place for that kind of asinine nonsense anywhere near CW.com

    come on, we're talking about the origins of the term "obamneycare," so how objective a news outlet do you think we're going to find?

    ~joshua

  18. [18] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joshua,

    Not being objective is one thing, spewing nonsense of a completely asinine nature on a regular basis is quite another.

    I'm not the link police, or anything ... it's just that links like that seem so entirely out of place here ...

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    blacks have been under attack ever since lincoln freed them from slavery.

    Oh come on. This is the 21st century. Blacks are no more "under attack" these days than any other race..

    We've elected a black President fer chreest's sake..

    This "victim" mentality is the problem. Not some fantasy "attack"...

    , the failure of police to immediately treat the shooting as a crime is in my opinion absolutely racist.

    Assumes facts not in evidence. The facts at the time clearly showed what had occurred. The additional evidence that has come out since Democrats started their hate-mongering campaign simply re-iterates that the Sanford PD made the right call...

    do you seriously think they would not have behaved differently if the teen who got shot had been white?

    Given the EXACT same set of circumstances, except their being a black Neighborhood Watch person who had helped PD on many occasions and a white perp dressed in a hoodie, a 'gangsta' wannabe in an area that has seen a lot of burglaries by white teens??

    Yes.. The Sanford PD would have reacted exactly the same. I have absolutely NO DOUBT of that whatsoever.

    There is only ONE cause to the death of Trayvon Martin. Parents, teachers and friends who, either by commission or omission, allowed their child to enter into a world where the only likely result would be a bullet in the chest or a jail cell..

    I know... That's cold and heartless.

    But it also happens to be accurate..

    Michale.....

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    There is only ONE cause to the death of Trayvon Martin. Parents, teachers and friends who, either by commission or omission, allowed their child to enter into a world where the only likely result would be a bullet in the chest or a jail cell..

    Amend that to read:

    There is only ONE cause to the death of Trayvon Martin. Parents, teachers and friends who, either by commission or omission, allowed Trayvon Martin to enter into a world where the only likely result would be a bullet in the chest or a jail cell..

    Michale.....

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh come on. This is the 21st century. Blacks are no more "under attack" these days than any other race..

    We've elected a black President fer chreest's sake..

    This "victim" mentality is the problem. Not some fantasy "attack"...

    Allow me to clarify this so that my meaning is not misunderstood..

    I have no doubt that there are white people in this country who are racist and hate blacks. I will further concede that, among these racists, there are people who would take their racism into the arena of violence..

    Just as I have no doubt that there are black people and hispanic people who are racist hate whites and would take that hatred into the arena of violence.

    But, to suggest that there is some co-ordinated "attack" against a specific race by another race is nothing but hate/fear mongering..

    Something that REAL racists like Jackson and Sharpton excel at in extremus...

    Just wanted to make sure I was clear on my point...

    Racism does exist in this country today. No doubt about it..

    But a conspiracy by white people to "attack" black people??

    Com'on! That's way WAY over playing the race/victim card...

    Michale.....

  22. [22] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    But, to suggest that there is some co-ordinated "attack" against a specific race by another race is nothing but hate/fear mongering..

    that's not what i suggested. racism against black people for the most part isn't a coordinated attack, it's a belief system that's deeply ingrained in the culture. when an unknown black man walks into a store, people of all races clutch their belongings tighter. when a black person is stopped by the police for a minor traffic infraction, they are ten times more likely than white or hispanic people to be searched, and ten times more likely to go to prison. that's not a knock on cops in particular, it's just the way people in our culture are conditioned to behave. most people would not behave that way if it was a person they knew (or a presidential candidate), and that's a testament to our progress as a nation. the form that racism takes today is largely beneath the surface, but it's absolutely there. the fact that zimmerman was even THOUGHT of as a "Neighborhood Watch person who had helped PD on many occasions," as opposed to a wackjob vigilante who racially profiles and stalks children, says as much about our society as it does about him. i can't believe you're going all giraldo and blaming the hoodie for what happened. what about the kid's right to stand HIS ground when a strange man was stalking him?

    ~joshua

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    that's not what i suggested.

    But it IS exactly what Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are suggesting...

    . when a black person is stopped by the police for a minor traffic infraction, they are ten times more likely than white or hispanic people to be searched,

    Why do you think this is??

    Could it be based on something different than racism???

    the form that racism takes today is largely beneath the surface, but it's absolutely there.

    No argument. Racism exists...

    But an "attack" on black people???

    No way, no how...

    what about the kid's right to stand HIS ground when a strange man was stalking him?

    That's just it...

    Zimmerman attempted to approach Martin, but failed. It was **MARTIN** who instigated the final event by approaching Zimmerman **AFTER** Zimmerman had lost him... Using the Stand Your Ground reasoning, then it's clear that ZIMMERMAN had the right to stand his ground, not Martin.. It was Martin who approached Zimmerman. It was Martin who attacked Zimmerman.
    These are the facts..

    Zimmerman, for all intents and purposes was a Security Guard for the gated complex. Not only did he have a RIGHT to approach Martin, he had an obligation.. It was his DUTY to ascertain Martin's bona fides.. It was Private Property and, even though Martin had a right to be there, Zimmerman did not know that.. I am sure that Zimmerman would have done the exact same thing if it were a white person in a hoodie or a purple person in a hoodie..

    There is absolutely NO evidence to support the claim that race had ANYTHING to do with this incident...

    There is certainly NOTHING in this incident that would indicate that black people are "under attack".

    Zimmerman is a Democrat fer chreest's sake.. :D

    Michale.....

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Look at the statistics of how many white people kill black people and how many black people kill black people.

    If black people are indeed "under attack" it seems clear that they are "under attack" from other black people...

    Michale

  25. [25] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    No argument. Racism exists...

    But an "attack" on black people???

    No way, no how...

    It was Martin who attacked Zimmerman.

    These are the facts...

    perhaps your definition of "facts" is a bit more expansive than mine, and your definition of "attack" a bit more limited. attacks aren't just physical, they're verbal, cultural, in speech, in writing, in people's body language. failing to prosecute someone who deserves it, regardless of whether or not the crime itself was racially motivated, is a kind of attack. the facts of the case are here:

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/03/trayvon-martin-case-timeline-of-events/

    i don't care if the guy is a democrat, republican or socialist workers' - he claimed to be neighborhood watch, carried a firearm (which neighborhood watch are explicitly NOT supposed to do), disobeyed direct police instructions to back off, continued to stalk the teenager who hadn't done anything wrong, then shot him when he got scared and fought back, which MARTIN had every right in the world to do. Zimmerman then misrepresented those events to the police, who apparently shrugged and took him at his word, completely ignoring pleas from the family to investigate further. THOSE are the facts!

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    It was Martin who attacked Zimmerman..

    That is a fact...

    That is the ONLY relevant fact...

    Further, I don't consider 'We don't need you to do that' a "direct order".. At BEST it was a suggestion.. The 911 operator is not in the best position to give suggestions OR orders to on-scene security personnel..

    Finally, ABC News is not the best source of information on this issue. The reported on the PD video that there were no injuries on Zimmerman, when it is clear as a bell that Zimmerman had a large gash on the back of his head..

    1. There is NO evidence to contradict Zimmerman's account of the incident.

    2. There is NO evidence to support the claim of racism by the racist hate mongers...

    Michale.....

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lemme ask you this..

    If Zimmerman was a Sanford police officer, would we be having this discussion??

    Michale.....

  28. [28] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Hey Joshua,

    Not sure what the answer is but bringing this up because I'm interested in your thoughts.

    A race fight is the fight Republicans love. Why? Simple demographics. Blacks are in the minority. So every chance they get, they'll look to bait people into the race fight.

    It's also why they love to cite Jesse Jackson and/or Al Sharpton. Why? Because both of these representatives of the black community keep seemingly playing into their hands. I'm not sure why they do but neither of them seem to have realized that this is what Republicans want.

    President Obama on the other hand completely understands the game conservatives play. You see it in everything he says and has done since before he was elected. The election couldn't be about race. Republicans tried to turn it into a race battle by linking him to William Ayres (a black criminal) but they never succeeded.

    And he struck the right tone when he said Travyon "could have been my son."

    Here he's not talking about race, but rather something everyone can associate with. A kid goes out to buy candy and gets shot by some overzealous neighborhood gun nut.

    Please note I'm not disagreeing at all with the assessment of the situation, but I would suggest that we need to find new ways to win people over on issues like this.

    Yes, our country has problems. Just look at our jails. Crimes are committed at relatively equal rates by white/black/hispanic people. Yet what do our jails look like? 80%+ black/hispanic. That says that those in charge of incarceration are selectively putting blacks/hispanics in jail more than whites. a lot more. This makes no sense unless something other than just crime is involved. So I agree with you 100%.

    Where I struggle is that all of this information is drowned out by the mock 'racism' theatre which is our national discussion. I want change more than anyone, but I believe people like Mr. Sharpton are being used to keep this theatre alive. Just look at how often Sharpton is featured on Fox. They love the guy.

    To me, he's an Alan Colmes.

    Any thoughts on how to fight this fight appreciated. I think Sharpton and Jackson are simply out-of-date. They're still fighting the same way they fought in the '60s oblivious to the way the game has changed around them. Interested in your thoughts.

    -David

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Republicans tried to turn it into a race battle by linking him to William Ayres (a black criminal) but they never succeeded.

    Uh... Bill Ayers is as white as they come..

    "Larry is not white. Larry is clear."
    -Bill Murray, SPACE JAM

    :D

    And he struck the right tone when he said Travyon "could have been my son."

    I couldn't disagree more..

    Obama didn't say it could have been his son. Obama said, "If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon Martin."

    Now what the frak does that mean??

    It seems Obama was injecting race into the issue with that "he would look like" garbage...

    Michale....

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    by some overzealous neighborhood gun nut.

    Assumes facts not in evidence...

    That's my WHOLE point in this issue. Ya'all are speaking about a totally different incident that what actually occurred..

    FACT: Martin was "gangsta".. His tweets show this quite clearly..

    FACT: Martin had been busted at school for drugs and possession of burglary tools. He also was caught with dozens of pieces of jewelry he said a "friend gave him"..

    FACT: Martin attacked Zimmerman without provocation.

    None of these facts are in dispute...

    So, please explain to me how you can go from a conscientious Democrat Neighborhood Watch person to an "overzealous neighborhood gun nut"...

    I would very much like to know the thought process that got you from Point A to Point B.

    :D

    Michale.....

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    A race fight is the fight Republicans love.

    I am also constrained to point out that absolutely NO REPUBLICANS have been involved in this...

    It was Democrats and Democrats ONLY who made this incident about race...

    Democrats own this thing lock, stock and barrel.

    Michale....

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's been asked what would happen if a black man shot a white kid under these circumstances..

    Roderick Scott Trial: What’s Wrong with New York?
    http://themartialist.net/?p=306

    Apparently, not a thing...

    And in THIS case, Scott wasn't even a security guard and New York doesn't even have a STAND YOUR GROUND law...

    So once again, the cry of racism is proven wrong..

    Now, granted.. Scott was charged by an overzealous prosecutor who acted in a completely unprofessional matter thru and thru...

    I bet if Sharpton and Jackson were there, they would accuse the prosecutor of racism...

    But the simple fact is, Scott was found Not Guilty...

    And, did you see the resemblence between Cervini's parents and Martin's parents??

    Both thought that their child was the perfect angel when the facts clearly showed that they weren't...

    In both cases, it was the kids themselves that took the actions that led to their own demise...

    So, let's put that little racist-equivelancy to bed right now, shall we...

    Michale.....

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    With regards to the above article.....
    Here are the last couple paragraphs..

    Fortunately, Roderick Scott is not bitter. “I feel that justice was served today,” he sad after his legal ordeal. His lawyer was diplomatic but more pointed: “I just want to say that I hope this case sends a message to families out there to watch their kids, to know where they are and what they are doing.”

    That lawyer’s message is clear: If your kids live like garbage, trade in garbage, and contribute nothing to thier community but garbage, they very well may die like garbage. If that happens they have no one to blame but themselves… though their parents ought to think good and hard about whether they share responsibility.

    Now, keep in mind, that this is a WHITE kid we're talking about, not a black kid..

    But, the funny thing is.... It shouldn't MATTER whether it's a white kid or black kid..

    It SHOULD be the same, regardless of race, right???

    Michale.....

  34. [34] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    david,

    Because both of these representatives of the black community keep seemingly playing into their hands. I'm not sure why they do but neither of them seem to have realized that this is what Republicans want. President Obama on the other hand completely understands the game conservatives play. You see it in everything he says and has done since before he was elected.

    ultimately i don't think it matters much. society has shifted to the point that racism is not socially acceptable, at least not in public. whether it's fought with bluster or with charm ultimately doesn't matter much, because the public has a pretty good BS detector about such things. the trayvon martin case has gotten so much play because it lays bare a double standard. zimmerman isn't just white, he's also politically connected. it's not just about race, it's also about economic class. that's the dimension of the case that isn't being discussed much.

    Any thoughts on how to fight this fight appreciated. I think Sharpton and Jackson are simply out-of-date.

    true, but i'd rather have the discussion out there in archaic terms than not at all. if sharpton and jackson hadn't spoken out on the issue and revved up the general populace, president obama would never have had the stones to enter the fray at all. as for the backlash accusation that the calls of racism are themselves racist, i think most of the public has moved beyond that as well. it's just one of the many levels on which the discussion is had, and on the whole it's good that we're having it.

    Michale,

    FACT: Martin was "gangsta".. His tweets show this quite clearly..

    again, fast and loose with the definition of the word "fact." all of your alleged "facts" in this case are unproven assertions, not actual facts. some, like the assertion that there is no evidence to contradict zimmerman's account, are absolutely untrue. as to this specific assertion, there is no evidence that martin was part of a gangsta subculture, much less an actual gang. if a few tweets in "gansta" language were evidence of actually being one, that label would fit more than half the children in urban america, regardless of race. you're parroting the whole "smear the victim" campaign.

    I am also constrained to point out that absolutely NO REPUBLICANS have been involved in this...

    It was Democrats and Democrats ONLY who made this incident about race...

    you're actually completely right about this. the perp is a democrat, the victim was probably a democrat, and the people talking about it in the media are mostly democrats. you've always said that the left is just as capable of racism as the right, we're just in disagreement about which democrats are being racist. oh well.

    ~joshua

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    again, fast and loose with the definition of the word "fact." all of your alleged "facts" in this case are unproven assertions, not actual facts. some, like the assertion that there is no evidence to contradict zimmerman's account, are absolutely untrue. as to this specific assertion, there is no evidence that martin was part of a gangsta subculture, much less an actual gang. if a few tweets in "gansta" language were evidence of actually being one, that label would fit more than half the children in urban america, regardless of race. you're parroting the whole "smear the victim" campaign.

    Sorry, Joshua.. There are more than a "few tweets".. There are two different TWIT accounts going back several years..

    theblaze.com/stories/is-this-trayvon-martins-twitter-account/

    dailycaller.com/2012/03/29/second-trayvon-martin-twitter-feed-identified/

    It is clear from these TWITS that Martin was definitely part of the 'gangsta' culture.. This is a fact, there can be no argument on that. Twits that advocate and, in some cases, authenticate violence committed by Martin..

    You see, the problem here is you and David and everyone else has been manipulated by the Democrats and the Left Wing MSM..

    They want ya'all to believe that THIS is Martin..
    newsone.com/files/2012/03/Trayvon_Martin.jpg

    .. when in actuality, THIS is Martin....
    cdn2.dailycaller.com/2012/03/Photo_on_2010-06-17_at_16.05__2_DC.jpg

    Democrats and the Left Wing MSM want you to believe that THIS is Martin...
    colorlines.com/assets_c/2012/03/trayvon-martin-thumb-640xauto-5598.jpg

    ... when, in actuality, THIS is Martin...
    wagist.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Ax26X.jpg

    The evidence is clear and unambiguous. Martin was "gangsta" or, at the very least, he fancied himself to be..

    Further, there is absolutely NO credible evidence that would indicate that this incident has ANYTHING to do with race...

    The ONLY piece of evidence is a garbled word in the 911 recording that NO ONE can agree what it says...

    That's the ONLY possible evidence of racism and it is VERY tenuous at best...

    Democrats made this about race. Period...

    If you were to be a fly on the wall at the investigators office, you would likely see a chart similar to this:

    sjfm.us/temp/evidencechart.jpg

    Note the evidence block on the Left. Each piece of evidence is corroborated by each other piece of evidence.

    This is your main evidence block. It is highly unlikely that ALL this evidence would be wrong. The Zimmerman testimony is substantiated by the SPD Report, the physical evidence and the "John" testimony. The "John" Testimony is substantiated by the SPD Report, the 911 Calls and the physical evidence.

    Each piece of evidence supports and substantiates each other.. Therefore, it's nearly inconceivable that this evidence is false..

    Now, look to the right evidence block. This is "outlier" evidence.. Evidence that doesn't fit... The girlfriend's testimony is suspect because it came out about the same time that Jackson and Sharpton got involved. Plus, her statements don't jibe with the other eyewitness accounts.. Phone records will determine if she is lying or not..

    The ABC Video evidence is another outlier, as it is in conflict with all the other substantiated evidence. However, the ABC evidence actually SHOWS a large gash on the back of Zimmerman's head.. ABC and Democrats simply ignore that.. Further, there is a SECOND SPD Contonement
    video that clearly shows that Zimmerman was attacked..

    There is pending evidence as well. Martin's autopsy report will show if Martin had drugs or alcohol in his system. If there is, then that would tend to substantiate the left Evidence Block.

    As I said, this is something similar to what you would see in the Investigator's office, although it's likely that their's would be a LOT more complete than mine..

    But, for anyone who can look at the evidence objectively, the facts are clear...

    Martin attacked Zimmerman.. Martin would have likely killed Zimmerman, if Zimmerman hadn't shot him...

    Michale.....

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/was-trayvon-martin-a-drug-dealer

    The more evidence that comes to light, the worse it looks for Martin...

    Michale....

  37. [37] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Uh... Bill Ayers is as white as they come.

    Sorry, Michale. I meant to say Reverend Wright. It's hard to remember all the crazy conspiracy theories.

    I am also constrained to point out that absolutely NO REPUBLICANS have been involved in this.

    So no Republicans are talking about this? No pundits? If not, where are you getting all of your speculation about Travyon being a criminal? Who's creating those web links you sent?

    Let's be honest, Michale, all either side has when it comes to the actual case itself is speculation.

    That said, in the realm of punditry, there are many conservative pundits who love to talk about blacks only as criminals. This is what I'm talking about. Why is this? It's because if they can turn a political fight into 'white vs. black' they believe they can win. Look up: Nixon southern strategy.

    i'd rather have the discussion out there in archaic terms than not at all.

    Great point, nypoet. And you may be right about President Obama jumping in because of the public pressure. I would simply like to see people such as Sharpton up their game.

    society has shifted to the point that racism is not socially acceptable, at least not in public.

    In some senses yes. However, in many senses, I believe it's simply gone more underground. Overt racism you will very rarely see. What's seen instead is what I'd call the criminalization of race. In other words, it's ok to go after criminals. So let's brand black people as criminals and then, anything goes. This is why it's interesting to look at who is incarcerated compared to crimes actually committed. The incarceration rates don't match the crime rates.

    This is a very similar strategy used against Occupy Wall Street - brand them as criminals.

    Unfortunately, what's happening is that so much more is being symbolically attached to this case - all of the very real issues about race and economic privilege which you mentioned - that the case itself is something of a backdrop.

    -David

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    So no Republicans are talking about this? No pundits? If not, where are you getting all of your speculation about Travyon being a criminal? Who's creating those web links you sent?

    Most of the weblinks are just people like me who are interested but have no dog in the hunt..

    Compare that to how many Democrats blasted thru the airwaves last week saying that Martin was "hunted down like a dog" and "Shot While Walking Black" and other complete garbage like that.

    Martin was shot and killed for one reason and one reason only.

    He attacked Zimmerman with the intent to kill him..

    I am also surprised you didn't comment on how the Left Wing MSM is trying to manipulate public opinion. Aren't you always discussing with me how the MSM does things like this???

    Why does the media insist on using THIS pic of Martin:
    newsone.com/files/2012/03/Trayvon_Martin.jpg

    Instead of THIS one:
    wagist.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Ax26X.jpg

    Why does the media insist on using THIS picture of Zimmerman:
    http://media.klewtv.com/images/120325_george_zimmerman_thumb.jpg

    Instead of using THIS one:
    http://cdn2.dailycaller.com/2012/03/George-Zimmerman-tie22.jpg

    Blatant manipulation. The kind of manipulation you've condemned in the past..

    Wouldn't you agree that this kind of MSM manipulation should be condemned???

    Michale....

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    GGrrrrrrrrrrrr

    :D

    Michale...

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Unfortunately, what's happening is that so much more is being symbolically attached to this case - all of the very real issues about race and economic privilege which you mentioned - that the case itself is something of a backdrop.

    Would someone.... ANYONE... please point to me ANY shred of evidence (beyond the garbled coon/goon reference) that indicates this incident was about race???

    One IOTA, one SCINTILLA, one MICROBE of evidence that indicates race is an issue..

    JUST ONE....

    The ONLY "evidence" that this issue is about race is that Martin was black and Zimmerman isn't... That's it.. That's all ya got..

    It was NEVER about race until Jackson, Sharpton and the Democrats MADE it about race...

    Michale.....

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    That said, in the realm of punditry, there are many conservative pundits who love to talk about blacks only as criminals. This is what I'm talking about. Why is this? It's because if they can turn a political fight into 'white vs. black' they believe they can win. Look up: Nixon southern strategy.

    While that may or may not be accurate (we can debate that another day.. :D) I am constrained to point out that NONE of that has ANYTHING to do with the Martin/Zimmerman issue..

    Absolutely NOTHING...

    The Martin/Zimmerman issue is as straightforward and black and white (no pun intended) as can possibly be..

    A gangsta wannabe attacked a Neighborhood Watch volunteer.. The volunteer shot the 'gangsta' in self-defense..

    That's it... That's what the Sanford PD determined at the time, that's what the evidence pointed to... And all the further evidence collected since then points to the same conclusion..

    A clear cut and unambiguous case of self-defense...

    If there is ANY legitimate evidence that disputes this conclusion....

    "I am all ears."
    -Ross Perot, 1992 Presidential Debates

    Michale.....

  42. [42] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Would someone please point to me ANY shred of evidence (beyond the garbled coon/goon reference) that indicates this incident was about race?

    I don't know as it is. I certainly haven't said there is. But there seems enough that's suspicious to investigate further.

    The lead detective on the case didn't believe Zimmerman and wanted to charge him with manslaughter. But the state's attorney office stepped in and said there wasn't enough evidence.

    Maybe that's true, but the shooting of an unarmed person looks suspicious. Especially when different people are telling different stories.

    A gangsta wannabe attacked a Neighborhood Watch volunteer.. The volunteer shot the 'gangsta' in self-defense.

    However, it also doesn't appear that there's any evidence to prove your claim. Zimmerman's testimony. That's all I've seen. That's a little shaky given he was the shooter.

    Doesn't it seem like it would be worth investigating more?

    While that may or may not be accurate (we can debate that another day.. :D) I am constrained to point out that NONE of that has ANYTHING to do with the Martin/Zimmerman issue.

    Yes. That's exactly what I said, Michale. Unfortunately, people are attaching other issues to the case.

    Similarly, none of the "Martin smoked marijuana" or "Martin was a gangsta" has ANYTHING to do with what happened.

    -David

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Maybe that's true, but the shooting of an unarmed person looks suspicious. Especially when different people are telling different stories.

    The only people telling different stories (Parents, GF, etc etc) are people who weren't even there...

    However, it also doesn't appear that there's any evidence to prove your claim. Zimmerman's testimony.

    You apparently didn't look at my chart of evidence, did you?? :D

    http://sjfm.us/temp/evidencechart.jpg

    There is MUCH more than just Zimmerman's testimony.. And the really telling fact is that all that testimony corroborates each other...

    Similarly, none of the "Martin smoked marijuana" or "Martin was a gangsta" has ANYTHING to do with what happened.

    I disagree... If Martin sang in the choir and was a church altar boy for real (instead of just in his parent's mind) than Zimmerman's testimony would not be believable..

    The fact that Martin was immersed in the gangster life is certainly relevant to what occurred that night...

    Michale....

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me give it to you from a cop's perspective..

    If I rolled up on that scene and saw a man on the ground, hoodie, tats, gold teeth/bling, I would think to myself, "thug"..

    I then look at a man whom I have seen before in the context of him being security for the gated complex. I see him beat up and bloody...

    This indicates to me what has occurred...

    Race has absolutely nothing to do with it.. It doesn't matter to me, as the responding officer, whether the guy on the ground is black, white, pick or purple..

    It doesn't matter to me that the guy who was attacked was white, brown, black, green or purple...

    I look at the evidence on the scene and it tells me the story...

    Granted, it's not always so clear cut... But when you have a perp on the ground in tats, hoodie and bling and a bloody victim... It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what happened..

    That's just common sense and two and a half decades of Security, Military and LEO...

    Michale.....

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/neighbor-defends-george-zimmerman-03302012

    More evidence to add to the evidence chart..

    You see what I am getting at??

    The more evidence that comes up, the more it's clear that SPD made the initial call dead on ballz accurate...

    The Parents and Democrats are not doing ANYONE any favors by pushing this. Least of all themselves..

    Do you think that the Hispanic community is going to take kindly to Democrats demonizing one of their own??

    Michale.....

    Michale.....

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/nbc-to-do-internal-investigation-on-zimmerman-segment/2012/03/31/gIQAc4HhnS_blog.html?hpid=z6

    This is the kind of the crap that makes people think it was a racial incident..

    But, as you can see, the story was manipulated for that expressed purpose...

    Just like when the MSM runs the picture of Martin that is like 5 years old and all sweetness and light and the pic of Zimmerman is Satan incarnate..

    It's pure and unadulterated manipulation.. By the Media and by Democrats...

    It's sickening...

    Michale....

  47. [47] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Why did Zimmerman continue to follow Martin after the police told him to not to?

    Why didn't the lead detective believe Zimmerman?

    Why not simply investigate and try to get to the bottom of what happened?

    Yeah, that MSNBC piece was a hatchet job. I'll give you that. They left out the context of the call to make it appear Zimmerman was racist. But still, there's a lot that doesn't seem to add up.

    -David

    BTW- The picture of Zimmerman which you dislike was a mug shot from 2005 when he was arrested for assaulting a cop. By your standards, does this make him a thug?

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why did Zimmerman continue to follow Martin after the police told him to not to?

    A-The police didn't "tell" Zimmerman anything. At best, it was a suggestion.

    And

    B-A 911 operator doesn't have the authority to tell ANY on-scene security personnel what to do or not do on private property..

    Finally it doesn't even matter, because after the 911 op made the suggestion, Zimmerman lost Martin behind the houses..

    In effect, the incident was over.

    But then MARTIN followed ZIMMERMAN, when ZIMMERMAN went back to wards his vehicle.

    It was MARTIN who instigated the final contact that resulted in his death...

    Why didn't the lead detective believe Zimmerman?

    Knowing head detectives as I do, I am nearly positive that it wasn't so much that he didn't believe Zimmerman, it was more like he was afraid of the political fallout of not prosecuting for the killing of an unarmed teenager..

    Much like the Prosecutor in Greece NY, in the Roderick Scott case..

    Why not simply investigate and try to get to the bottom of what happened?

    Because that is NOT what the Democrats are hysterically calling for.

    Democrats want an arrest, REGARDLESS of whether or not it's warranted..

    I am all for a complete investigation. I have never said otherwise..

    But, fer chreest's sake.... Can't Democrats/Jackson/Sharpton et al just shut up about and LET the authorities investigate??

    Democrats and many in the black community formed what could ONLY be described as a lynch mob.. Or do I need to point out the $10K bounty for Zimmerman, "Dead Or Alive"...???

    Yeah, that MSNBC piece was a hatchet job. I'll give you that. They left out the context of the call to make it appear Zimmerman was racist. But still, there's a lot that doesn't seem to add up.

    For example???

    BTW- The picture of Zimmerman which you dislike was a mug shot from 2005 when he was arrested for assaulting a cop. By your standards, does this make him a thug?

    7 years ago??? The context?? Naw, I am not too bothered by that. In most cases, a man is usually better than the worst thing they have done...

    And anyways, it wasn't assaulting a cop. It was resisting arrest *WITHOUT* violence...

    But it's interesting you should bring that up??

    Since you (apparently) believe that arrest is noteworthy in the context of the current incident, then you HAVE to also believe that Martin's crime and drugs and gangsta Twits are ALSO relevant.

    No???

    Personally, I blame Martin's parents and teachers more than anyone else for Martin's death..

    Either by omission or commission, his parents and his teachers failed him. Failed him miserably..

    Michale...

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-31/news/os-trayvon-martin-naacp-march-sanford-20120331_1_trayvon-marchers-arrest-chest

    See what I mean??

    They don't want an investigation. They want an "arrest". Even if it's not warranted..

    Actually, they don't even want an arrest.

    They want a good old-fashioned lynching...

    "I am 17 years old. I'm a high school student. I'm a young black man," Mitchell said in a fiery speech that moved the crowd. "I could be the next Trayvon Martin."

    Yes, you could be. If you go all gangsta and try to beat a neighborhood watch captain to death, you COULD be the next Trayvon Martin..

    Here's a clue for you.

    Don't do it... Then you won't become the next Trayvon Martin..

    Jeeeze, what are they teaching kids these days???

    Surely ain't common sense...

    Michale.....

  50. [50] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Personally, I blame Martin's parents and teachers more than anyone else for Martin's death...

    so a kid gets in a scuffle with a self-appointed neighborhood watchman who was carrying explicitly against the regulations for neighborhood watch, who stalked the kid against the explicit instructions from the police dispatch. the kid gets shot and dies, and now it's the teacher's fault? you HAD to come after the teachers?

    *sigh* everyone else does.

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    so a kid gets in a scuffle with a self-appointed neighborhood watchman who was carrying explicitly against the regulations for neighborhood watch, who stalked the kid against the explicit instructions from the police dispatch. the kid gets shot and dies, and now it's the teacher's fault? you HAD to come after the teachers?

    There are so many factual errors in this, it's hard to know where to start...

    First off, even though papers have been saying "self appointed" it's simply not the case. A fellow Neighborhood Watch captain has stated that Zimmerman was assigned the duties. He didn't pursue them on his own..

    Further, the management of the gated community had put it out to all residents that they are to call ZIMMERMAN for assistance, instead of the police in all matters except a real emergency...

    You see my point? The Left Wing MSM had it in for Zimmerman from day one.. And, as we saw with the NBC report, they don't let little things like FACTS get in their way..

    I am actually surprised that ya'all have been manipulated so easily... The cutesy picture of Martin and the serial killer picture of Zimmerman.

    Zimmerman didn't "stalk" anyone, any more than a police officer on patrol would have "stalked" Martin while he was casing homes...

    As far as the teachers?? I was struck how, early on, several of his teachers downplayed the disciplinary problems Martin had and tried to pass it off as "just being late."

    We come to find out that the problems Martin had were with drugs, burglary tools and stolen property..

    It's called being an enabler..

    Let's be clear. Martin was shot and killed because he was trying to beat an innocent man to death...

    His death was tragic but it was COMPLETELY avoidable if his parents would have took the time to be involved in his life...

    The teachers do bear considerably lesser responsibility, but responsibility nonetheless...

    Perhaps if they hadn't let things slide and covered for Martin, had actually punished him for the burglary tools and the drugs, he might be alive today and a better person...

    Next to parents, the teacher is the biggest influence in a young man's life... I don't have to tell you that..

    I am not saying that ALL teachers are bad.. I couldn't because I married one.

    But you simply cannot deny that these teachers, in enabling and covering for Martin, put him on the path that ultimately led to his death...

    The Parents, the Democrats, many in the black community and some people here are trying to make Zimmerman the scapegoat..

    The facts say otherwise...

    Michale.....

  52. [52] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Can't Democrats/Jackson/Sharpton et al just shut up about and LET the authorities investigate?

    But that's just it ... there wouldn't have been any investigation if it hadn't been raised as an issue.

    All they wanted was an actual investigation. Not blindly trusting the guy with the gun whose story seems pretty shaky.

    7 years ago??? The context?? Naw, I am not too bothered by that. In most cases, a man is usually better than the worst thing they have done.

    Your idea of who is a "thug" and who isn't seems completely arbitrary.

    Anyone who you don't like who has a tattoo seems to be a thug, yet someone with a history of assaulting police isn't.

    Why do you have to make him a "thug"?

    This doesn't seem to have anything to do with whether he actually committed any crime.

    In fact, it seems like you're perpetuating the smear campaigns you claim to despise.

    To paraphrase, why can't you just shut up and let the police investigate?

    -David

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    But that's just it ... there wouldn't have been any investigation if it hadn't been raised as an issue.

    Raising it as an issue is one thing.

    Offering a DEAD OR ALIVE bounty on an innocent man is quite another..

    As for the investigation?? As I said, all the "new" facts coming out only re-enforce the idea that Sanford PD made the right call...

    Anyone who you don't like who has a tattoo seems to be a thug, yet someone with a history of assaulting police isn't.

    "A history of assaulting police"?? Com'on!! :D

    "There you go again.."
    -Ronald Reagan

    Why is it that Zimmerman's past actions have bearing but Martin's do not??

    As to what makes a thug?? Did you read Martin's twits???

    It's a factual statement that Martin was, indeed, a thug. Or, at the very least, he fancied himself one.

    This doesn't seem to have anything to do with whether he actually committed any crime.

    You mean, other than drugs and burglaries and vandalism and assault with intent??

    In fact, it seems like you're perpetuating the smear campaigns you claim to despise.

    I simply state the facts and provide evidence to back them up...

    Why won't you address these facts?? Why won't you tell me what "doesn't add up"??

    To paraphrase, why can't you just shut up and let the police investigate?

    Ignoring the fact that asking me to "shut up" is like asking the climate to stop changing.. :D

    We're on a blog, debating the issue. It's a far FAR cry from demanding an arrest when it's not even known if any crime had been committed other than be Martin. It's a far FAR cry from offering a DEAD OR ALIVE bounty on an innocent man.. ..

    Strange how there is no condemnation from the Left (or on here) over that gross and perverse action, eh??

    Ya'all don't seem to mind blatant and ongoing media manipulation, if it suits the agenda of the Democratic Party..

    What is REALLY ironic is that, when you really look at things, this is only going to HURT the Democratic Party at election time. The GOP will be reminding the Hispanic Community over and over again how Democrats demonized and offered a DEAD OR ALIVE bounty for an innocent hispanic man...

    That's why you don't see much coming from the Republicans over this.. Why stop an opposing Party when they are gift-wrapping their own political demise..

    Michale....

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'll say again.

    If there is ANY evidence that disputes the conclusion that Martin was the perp and Zimmerman was the victim and that fits all the other physical evidence, then let's see it.

    Let's air it out and examine it.

    But there simply isn't...

    There is not ONE shred of credible evidence that would indicate that Martin was the victim and Zimmerman was the perp...

    Michale....

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    The autopsy report will be the definitive piece of evidence that will likely resolve all the questions in this case..

    If it shows that Martin had drugs and/or alcohol in his system, it would explain how he could best a man who had him by 100 pounds.

    If it shows the bullet entered his chest from a downward angle, then it would colloborate Zimmerman's and eyewitness testimony..

    On the other hand, if it shows that Martin only had skittles and ice tea in his system and was shot in the back, I think we can safely assume that Zimmerman and the eyewitnesses are full of crap..

    What ya'all say??

    If the autopsy shows the former, can we agree that Zimmerman's and the eyewitness testimony is what occurred???

    If the autopsy shows the latter, I would have to admit that Zimmerman was the monster and Martin was the innocent victim.

    Michale.....

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Screen%20Shot%2020120401%20at%20104310%20AM.png?h=315&w=420

    Somewhere in this country, there is a rodeo clown who is looking for their hat... :D

    Michale.....

  57. [57] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Why is it that Zimmerman's past actions have bearing but Martin's do not?

    They don't and no one claimed they did.

    You claimed the opposite.

    You claimed that one person's history matters but you're willing to ignore the other's.

    I'm simply pointing out that your view seems quite biased and arguing that what matters is whether any crime was actually committed.

    Why won't you tell me what "doesn't add up"?

    We've told you. Again and again. Zimmerman's testimony seems suspect. Even to the SPD. The unnamed witness testimony is also less than convincing.

    Also, considering Florida's self defense law, if Trayvon considered himself threatened by someone stalking him, couldn't he have acted in self defense?

    If he had a gun, under Florida law, wouldn't it have been legal to shoot his stalker?

    The facts seem to indicate that Zimmerman was stalking Martin. For no visible reason. Is this cause to believe there's "imminent use of unlawful force"? If so, how to apply Florida's law?

    Let's assume you're right for a second and Trayvon did attack Zimmerman. Under Florida's law, if he believed he were threatened with "imminent use of unlawful force," he could have shot Zimmerman. If he could have shot Zimmerman, wouldn't he have been justified in confronting him?

    Here is where there seem to be a lot of issues with the law itself. What are the standards for "imminent use of unlawful force"? Near as I can tell there are none.

    Let's just let the investigation go on.

    -David

  58. [58] 
    akadjian wrote:

    What ya'all say?

    I'm willing to abide by the results of a thorough investigation.

    As far as the Florida gun law though, I think that this incident reveals some potential issues with similar laws that might merit looking into.

    -David

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    They don't and no one claimed they did.

    You claimed the opposite.

    You claimed that one person's history matters but you're willing to ignore the other's.

    I'm simply pointing out that your view seems quite biased and arguing that what matters is whether any crime was actually committed.

    OK, so it's YOUR claim that past actions do not matter at all.. OK, just wanted to make that clear..

    OK, let's look at Zimmerman first. (as an aside, I thought Democrats hated this "attack the victim" mentality. :D )

    OK, anyways. Here is what my thinking process is..

    Zimmerman's past has no bearing on this incident because the nature of the crimes have no relation to the current incident.

    Let's look at the crimes..

    First was resisted arrest. First with violence, but then it was dropped to Resisting Without.. The whole thing was dropped after Zimmerman completed an alcohol treatment class. So alcohol was involved...

    The second "incident" wasn't even a criminal issue.. Zimmerman and his ex-fiancee took out dueling restraining orders and nothing ever came of it..

    The third "incident" was a frak'in speeding ticket, fer chreest's sake!!

    So, while I completely agree that Zimmerman's past IS relevant, I see nothing IN that past that would dictate and/or influence his actions in the here and now.

    Now, let's look at Martin..

    Drugs.. Violence.. Burglary..

    ALL of this is in Martin's past and ALL of it is relevant to the incident at hand...

    I am also constrained to point out that Zimmerman's past was 7 years ago...

    Martin's "past" was within the last weeks and months of his life..

    All of these facts are in the investigator's mind as they sift thru the evidence..

    You can bet that, if this does go to trial, the pasts of Martin *AND* Zimmerman will be presented because it is relevant..

    But I think a jury will conclude as I have. That Zimmerman's past doesn't appear to be relevant to the incident whereas Martin's certainly does...

    I am not claiming that Zimmerman is a saint.. I am not claiming that he is right and moral incarnate... He might be a total scumbag...

    But he IS the victim in this case. That's what the evidence overwhelmingly shows...

    We've told you. Again and again. Zimmerman's testimony seems suspect.

    For what??? Point to me a statement by Zimmerman that is "suspect".. Point to me a statement by the eyewitnesses that "doesn't add up"..

    I have been specific up the wazooo. Point to me one piece of credible evidence that "doesn't add up"??

    Also, considering Florida's self defense law, if Trayvon considered himself threatened by someone stalking him, couldn't he have acted in self defense?

    No. Look at it this way.. Let's assume you are correct. That Zimmerman was "stalking" Martin. No evidence of this, but let's say for the sake of this comment, that Zimmerman was "stalking" Martin..

    In that case, we have TWO crimes.. Zimmerman stalking Martin and Martin attacking Zimmerman.

    But, here's the kicker..

    The first "crime" had already ended... Zimmerman lost Martin behind the houses.. The "crime" was done. Martin got away..

    But, Martin DIDN'T leave the scene.. According to the eyewitness, Martin followed Zimmerman, approached Zimmerman and attacked...

    So, by your own statements, Martin cannot use the STAND YOUR GROUND defense...

    But Zimmerman can, because HE was attacked. Again, according to eyewitnesses..

    But SYG doesn't come into play because, after being attacked, Zimmerman didn't have a chance to flee.. His *ONLY* option after being attacked was to employ deadly force...

    As pure a case of self-defense as you are ever to likely see...

    Let's assume you're right for a second and Trayvon did attack Zimmerman. Under Florida's law, if he believed he were threatened with "imminent use of unlawful force," he could have shot Zimmerman. If he could have shot Zimmerman, wouldn't he have been justified in confronting him?

    Martin could have shot Zimmerman, if Martin had done it WHILE Zimmerman was "stalking" him. In that case, Martin COULD use the SYG law and likely prevail.. Of course, there would be questions as to why Martin had a gun in the first place and that would likely put him in the "criminal" category and Zimmerman in the "victim" category..

    No. Self-Defense laws and the SYG law do not come into play if you instigate the contact...

    Which Martin did. Martin instigated the final contact that resulted in his death...

    While Zimmerman did ATTEMPT to instigate contact initially, such actions were completely consistent with Zimmerman's duties. He had an OBLIGATION to initiate contact with a stranger in that neighborhood..

    Let's just let the investigation go on.

    I am all for that. But the Democrats and Sharpton and Jackson won't allow that. They put up bounties, the scream racism where none exists.

    Hell, even Martin's FATHER says that racism wasn't part of this..

    If Democrats would shut up about this, you likely wouldn't see another post from me again about it.

    As an aside, I have to say that I am very surprised at the longevity of this.. I would have thought, after Obama's bonehead "stupidly" remark, this would have all quietly faded.. No more embarrassment for the Martin family..

    At first I thought it was just a smoke screen for the debacle that was the Crapcare/SCOTUS event..

    But Democrats seem to be pushing it more than ever..

    What I can't understand is why. Democrats are absolutely MURDERING their chances with the hispanic community..

    Michale.....

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm willing to abide by the results of a thorough investigation.

    Fair enough.. And I am certain that your idea of "thorough" and my idea of "thorough" are quite similar..

    I am just as certain, however, that Democrats idea of "thorough" and many in the black community's idea of "thorough" is George Zimmerman guilty of Crimes Against Humanity..

    Nothing has been said or done by Democrats to dispute my belief that Democrats just want a lynching of George Zimmerman.

    What about HIS rights??

    Michale.....

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's approach this from another angle..

    Let's postulate, for the sake of this comment, that George Zimmerman's testimony is a true and factual account of what happened. That all the eyewitnesses that saw Martin attack Zimmerman. That all the physical evidence that corroborates the eyewitness testimony is 100% dead on ballz accurate..

    In short, what Zimmerman said happened is EXACTLY what did happen.

    Postulating all this....

    Would you agree that, in the parlance of cops, this was a "good shoot"??

    Michale.....

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    For what??? Point to me a statement by Zimmerman that is "suspect".. Point to me a statement by the eyewitnesses that "doesn't add up"..

    I have been specific up the wazooo. Point to me one piece of credible evidence that "doesn't add up"??

    I am not being facetious or sarcastic here..

    I am sincere. If I have missed something, by all means, point it out to me..

    Because....

    "I don't wanna miss a thing..."
    -Aerosmith

    :D

    Michale......

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trayvon Martin: ABC enhances George Zimmerman video
    http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-04-02/news/os-trayvon-martin-enhanced-video-040212_1_reporter-matt-gutman-abc-news-neighborhood-watch-volunteer-zimmerman

    So much for the claim by the Martins' lawyer that the ABC Video was the "smoking gun" that proved Zimmerman guilty...

    It goes on and on.. Each new piece of evidence that comes to light simply confirms Zimmerman's and they eyewitnesses' version of what transpired...

    If the parents and Sharpton/Jackson/Democrats were smart, they would drop this before the autopsy results are made public.

    They will save themselves a LOT of embarrassment and save what little is left of their child's reputation..

    Michale.....

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why did Zimmerman continue to follow Martin after the police told him to not to?

    OK, I finally listened to Zimmerman's 911 call. I was hoping for a transcript, but none is forthcoming, so I went ahead and listened to the call.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFRP545ZhP8

    Here's the interesting thing:


    911 Op: Are you following him?

    Zimmerman: Yea..

    911 Op: We don't need you to do that.

    Zimmerman: OK

    At this point, there is some huffing and puffing as if Zimmerman has stopped to catch his breath. Then he talks normally and the gist of the conversation indicates that Zimmerman is heading back towards his truck.

    Now, I am on record as stating that the 911 Op doesn't have the authority to tell on-scene security what to do on private property.. This is true....

    However, the evidence shows that Zimmerman acquiesced anyways. When the 911 Op said, "We don't need you to do that." it appears that Zimmerman said OK and broke off pursuit...

    Like I said, the more we learn, the more it appears that Zimmerman was justified in what he did...

    Michale.....

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here the best compilation of the physical evidence that I have seen..

    http://www.wagist.com/

    Further, you can ready the official police report here:

    sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Twin%20Lakes%20Shooting%20Initial%20Report.pdf

    You'll have to cut and paste that last link...

    Michale.....

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxs5Woss__k

    Our representatives, in all their glory... :^/

    Of course not. Of course Democrats aren't stoking the racial fires... :^/

    Michale.....

  67. [67] 
    akadjian wrote:

    In that case, we have TWO crimes. Zimmerman stalking Martin and Martin attacking Zimmerman.

    Not necessarily so under Florida law. Remember under current Florida law, you can "stand your ground" if there is evidence of "imminent use of unlawful force". In this case, if Martin attacked Zimmerman because Zimmerman was pursuing him, it seems he could just as equally have claimed self defense.

    This is why I say there seems to be a lot of issues with the law. "Imminent use of unlawful force" and the law seem quite vague.

    -David

    p.s. The good news for you, Michale, as a Florida resident, is that it looks like you can shoot just about anyone you want :) Just claim self defense!

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not necessarily so under Florida law. Remember under current Florida law, you can "stand your ground" if there is evidence of "imminent use of unlawful force". In this case, if Martin attacked Zimmerman because Zimmerman was pursuing him, it seems he could just as equally have claimed self defense.

    IF Martin had attacked while Zimmerman was pursuing him...

    But the fact is, Martin *DIDN'T* attack Zimmerman while Zimmerman was pursuing him. Martin attacked Zimmerman AFTER he (Martin) had eluded Zimmerman.

    Apparently after Zimmerman had abandoned the pursuit at the behest of the 911 Operator...

    p.s. The good news for you, Michale, as a Florida resident, is that it looks like you can shoot just about anyone you want :) Just claim self defense!

    As long as the evidence supports such a claim, I really don't have a problem with it..

    Imagine a world where you can be assaulted to the point of death (as Zimmerman was) and then face a criminal accusation for defending your life..

    There is an old adage amongst cops that is certainly relevant to this..

    It's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6"

    Michale.....

  69. [69] 
    akadjian wrote:

    It's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6"

    My point exactly. The law lends itself to "shoot first, ask questions later". I couldn't have said it better.

    -David

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    My point exactly. The law lends itself to "shoot first, ask questions later".

    Which is infinitely preferable than having a lot of dead innocent victims...

    It seems to me that questions of guilt or innocence or justifications are not the issue with you and the Trayvon Martin incident..

    It seems that your issue is with the concept of deadly force and self-defense..

    Would that be an accurate assessment??

    I am not pointing fingers or making judgements (at least not yet.. :D).. I am just trying to ascertain exactly where you are coming from...

    Michale....

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    Putting aside the issue of justification and deadly force...

    One of my biggest beefs is with the blatant and ongoing falsehoods and manipulation by the media AND by Democrats to pursue the racist angle, even though it's clear that no racism was part of this incident.

    So if you have a fundamental disagreement with the concept of deadly force and self-defense, we can agree to disagree on that...

    But we can discuss and debate the manipulation and falsehoods by the MSM and Democrats...

    :D

    Michale

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    My favorite MSM Manipulation/Construct is the term, "White Hispanic"....

    This allowed them to fuel the racism fires...

    On the "Utterly Moronic" scale, it's right up there with "Kinetic Military Action"..... :D

    Michale...

  73. [73] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Would that be an accurate assessment?

    I believe in a lot of things. Many of them the same as you. Justice and fairness being two of them.

    My issue with the Florida law is that all a person has to do to use deadly force is believe that the other person is going to cause great bodily harm to him/her (see law below). To me, "belief" is far from evidence. Look at all the mistaken beliefs we have in this country :)

    In fact, I know a lot of people who "believe" things which are contradicted by evidence.

    -David

    Florida Law:

    Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

    (1)?He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    My issue with the Florida law is that all a person has to do to use deadly force is believe that the other person is going to cause great bodily harm to him/her (see law below). To me, "belief" is far from evidence. Look at all the mistaken beliefs we have in this country :)

    But, David, you are omitting the most important word of the law:

    ==============================================
    Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

    (1)?He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony
    ===============================

    It's that word reasonably that prevents the law from becoming a No-Limit Hunting License.

    The courts have established that "reasonably" means that a reasonable person of sound mind and judgement would conclude that their life or the life of another was in danger...

    In other words, if you can't convince the cops or the courts that it was a *reasonable* belief, yer scrooed...

    Now, let's apply this to the Martin incident. Given all the physical evidence and the eyewitness testimony, could a *reasonable* person of sound mind and judgement conclude that an innocent life was in danger??

    Abso-tively and posit-lutely.....

    It's that word *reasonable* that separates men like George Zimmerman from thugs like Trayvon Martin (http://www.youtube.com/user/zxzxmi99/videos)...

    Michale.....

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    In other words, a person can't just "believe" that their life is in danger to employ deadly force.

    They have to REASONABLY believe that their life is in danger...

    Michale.....

  76. [76] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Michale,

    What person doesn't "reasonably" believe their own beliefs? :)

    All joking aside.

    There's enough holes to drive a truck through in Florida's law. I think it's quite reasonable to believe your life is threatened by someone following you with a loaded weapon.

    The irony of the law is that "reasonable" is being applied to people pointing guns at each other.

    -David

    p.s. I see you're back to your conservative thug bashing again. *sigh*

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, isn't this interesting...

    The letter also described how Zimmerman was one of “very few” in Sanford, Fla., who spoke out publicly to condemn the “beating of the black homeless man Sherman Ware on December 4, 2010 by the son of a Sanford police officer.”
    “Do you know the individual that stepped up when no one else in the black community would?” the family member wrote. “Do you know who spent tireless hours putting flyers on the cars of persons parked in the churches of the black community? Do you know who waited for the church?goers to get out of church so that he could hand them fliers in an attempt to organize the black community against this horrible miscarriage of justice? Do you know who helped organize the City Hall meeting on January 8th, 2011 at Sanford City Hall??”

    “That person was GEORGE ZIMMERMAN. Ironic isn’t it?”

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/02/zimmerman-family-member-calls-naacp-racists-says-there-will-be-blood-on-your-hands-if-george-is-hurt/

    Apparently, George Zimmerman is not the racist zealot that some would like us to believe...

    Michale.....

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    There's enough holes to drive a truck through in Florida's law. I think it's quite reasonable to believe your life is threatened by someone following you with a loaded weapon.

    Then why did Martin turn around after escaping from Zimmerman???

    How did Martin know that Zimmerman HAD a loaded weapon???

    The irony of the law is that "reasonable" is being applied to people pointing guns at each other.

    Pointing a gun at someone who is obviously trying to kill you is not only reasonable... It's logical..

    p.s. I see you're back to your conservative thug bashing again. *sigh*

    I ALWAYS bash thugs... They deserve it. They are the scum of the earth, preying on the weak and defenseless..

    Martin simply discovered that one was not as weak as he would have hoped..

    I find it hard to shed a tear for something like Trayvon Martin...

    He lived as a thug and he died as a thug...

    Michale.....

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you are still insisting that Martin is the victim, maybe this will change your mind..

    http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/evidence-that-trayvon-martin-doubled-back

    Michale.....

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    Directly from the Sanford Police Department's Investigation Site.


    Q-If Zimmerman was told not to continue to follow Trayvon, can that be considered in this investigation?

    A-Yes it will; however, the telecommunications call taker asked Zimmerman “are you following him”. Zimmerman replied, “yes”. The call taker stated “you don’t need to do that”. The call taker’s suggestion is not a lawful order that Mr. Zimmerman would be required to follow. Zimmerman’s statement was that he had lost sight of Trayvon and was returning to his truck to meet the police officer when he says he was attacked by Trayvon.

    I hope this puts to rest the idea that GZ was required to follow orders. A) It wasn't an order, 2) Even if it were, it was an unenforcable order and 3) GZ in fact, DID follow the suggestion..

    Michale.....

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    Forgot to add this in {80}

    Trayvon Martin Investigation
    http://sanfordfl.gov/investigation/trayvon_martin.html

    I know, I know.. This equine is beyond, WAY beyond deceased..

    But like I said, it's rare that I am THIS right about an issue.. :D

    Michale.....

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    Two arrested in brutal hammer beating in Seminole
    http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-04-02/news/os-two-arrested-seminole-beating-20120402_1_victim-arrest-affidavits-crimeline

    I am sure that Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and all the Dem CongressCritters who pursued George Zimmerman with such a vengeance, will show equal fervor when condemning these two scumbag thugs....

    Right???

    {{chhhiiiirrrrrppppp}} {{chiirrrrrrrrrpppppp}}

    :^\

    Michale.....

Comments for this article are closed.
[Powered by WordPress]