Electric Ooga-Boogaloo

Can a too-tight hatband cut off circulation to the brain, causing the wearer to babble stupid things uncontrollably? Two influential wingnut race-baiters may need to adjust the fit of their trademark fedoras. Here’s a screen shot of the current front page of The Drudge Report:


These assholes have such a boner for racially tinged violence that they’ll just flat make shit up if protests are mostly peaceful, and from what I gather on legitimate news sites, they were, aside from a handful of arrests here and there. It’s hardly “America in Flames!”—to the palpable disappointment of many.

Here is Roger L. Simon, another fedora-sporting douche-barge:

By injecting himself in a minor Florida criminal case by implying Martin could be his son, the president of the United States — a onetime law lecturer, of all things — disgraced himself and his office, made a mockery of our legal system and exacerbated racial tensions in our country, making them worse than they have been in years. This is the work of a reactionary, someone who consciously/unconsciously wants to push our nation back to the 1950s.

Yeah, I’m sure Barack Obama wants to go back to the 1950s so his parents can get arrested for miscegenation, he can use the separate bathroom facilities and not eat at the Woolworth’s lunch counter. Simon probably tries to fit the fedora on his ass and elbows every morning before remembering that it goes on his empty head.

[X-posted at Balloon Juice]


Posted by Betty Cracker on 07/15/13 at 11:51 AM • Permalink

Categories: NewsPoliticsNuttersOur Stupid Media

Share this post:  Share via Twitter   Share via BlinkList   Share via del.icio.us   Share via Digg   Share via Email   Share via Facebook   Share via Fark   Share via NewsVine   Share via Propeller   Share via Reddit   Share via StumbleUpon   Share via Technorati  

Hi Betty,
an interesting feature that I have not heard anywhere involves the huge number of Spanish-speaking television and radio stations.

While black and white opinions have been tested, for some reason the conversation that goes on based on Spanish-speaking outlets has been neglected by both left and right exponents.

I live in a small town in the southwest, and here the Hispanic population is significant. As best as I can tell, the opinion of Spanish speakers is entirely supportive of Zimmerman. The television and radio outlets are largely supportive of Zimmerman.

It is peculiar when all of this ideological, inflammatory rhetoric is spewed, Hispanic opinion is neglected.

Personally, my view is that Florida law being what it is, the jury basically had little choice but to find him not guilty.  Having served on a jury in a high-profile murder trial, I can tell you that very few will have subjected the matter to as much rigorous scrutiny as the jurors have.

I also feel that it is unfortunate that President Obama decided to comment publicly on a trial before a verdict was reached.

I don’t find Obama’s remarks so much as unfortunate as they were an answer to a direct question that I believe he could not and should not have evaded, @Formerly Amherst. When the first black president is asked about a case in which race may be considered to have played a factor, I think it is only honest for him to mention that he can feel empathy for the victim’s family because he could have also been the father of a black male. It’s an uncomfortable truth that the appearance of Martin in a hoodie is supposed to be the trigger for Zimmerman’s fear of the tall young man. His appearance. I don’t think his race was totally incidental to that. And Obama’s remarks weren’t directed specifically as to Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence, but rather, the justice system in that Florida community.

I think that any inflammatory rhetoric is indeed regrettable. As is the way the victim was put on trial in the media.

I think I do, however, agree that the law as given in the jury instruction to that panel lead to the “Not guilty” verdict. They could only weigh what they were given.

@Formerly Amherst: Actually, it had nothing to do with Florida law in particular. Despite what both the mass press and the liberal blogosphere have suggested, this was not a “Stand Your Ground” case. It was straightforward self-defense, based around the defense theory that Martin physically attacked Zimmerman first.

They really are desperate for a wave of racial violence, probably because they are jealous that Zimmerman got away with killing a young black male- they really want their turn to shoot a kid under the pretext of defending their town.

And all this time I’d been laboring under the impression that I personally do not carry a weapon.  Looks like we’re all armed with a sidewalk now, and that’s enough to justify being killed in ‘self defense’. 

One thing to know about the Stand Your Ground laws: they all come from that Koch-front, ALEC.

@Vixen Strangely, my view is that everyone was a victim in this case. Trayvon, Zimmerman, both of their families, all were victims because of a series of tragic missteps and accidents.

@D Johnson, I agree with you that ultimately this is simply a self-defense case. In fact, I believe that was basically stated by the juror on CNN.  Ultimately in their decision making it came down to the processes occurring in the actual physical struggle.

Before the attack, many different points of view and scenarios could have been the case. However, those arguments disappeared the moment that the battle for survival ensued.

My point of view lies with the conclusion of the jurors.

D Johnston, the jury instructions given by the judge contain the following:  ‘‘If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself.’’
Emphasis mine.

Complete jury instructions here.

Comment by Origuy on 07/16/13 at 02:08 PM

@Formerly Amherst: I agree, which is not a popular position in liberal quarters right now. There’s been a lot of misinformation about this case, and unfortunately most of it came from the left.

@StringOnAStick: Well, bashing someone’s head into the sidewalk would be considered aggravated battery in any jurisdiction in the country. I realize that most liberal blogs have been ignoring the evidence that Martin was the aggressor, but the jury wasn’t allowed to do that.

You’re free to believe whatever you want, of course, but the evidence presented at trial simply does not support the liberal narrative in this case.

@Origuy: Irrelevant. The “stand your ground” provision (technically Florida statute 776.032) is a specific defense that would have to be raised at trial. It never was. You need to remember that “stand your ground” is strictly a media/political term and has nothing to do with the actual law.

@D Johnson, you make a lot of sound points.

When this tragic event unfolded, I was in the dark like everyone.

Since that time things have come to light.  Zimmerman dated a black girl at one point and took her to the prom. He was mentoring a couple of black kids whose father was in prison. Even after the subsidy was cut off, they continued to live with the Zimmerman family, and George Zimmerman tried to help them break the cycle that had led their father to prison.

The FBI thoroughly investigated this case and found no suggestion of racially based thought or action.

The liberal side of the spectrum has been taken on a ride that ultimately can lead nowhere. Thank God there are still some liberals with integrity, like Alan Dershowitz, who insist that the truth be the basis for decision making regardless of where the chips fall.

There may be a number of reasons to be dissatisfied with our society, but this case is not one of them.

@D Johnston - there is conflicting evidence as to the severity of Zimmerman’s head wounds.  This statement “Well, bashing someone’s head into the sidewalk would be considered aggravated battery in any jurisdiction in the country.” is actually speculation.  We don’t know if Martin was “bashing” Zimmerman’s head into the sidewalk or if they fell together and Zimmerman’s head basically got scraped.

And “liberal narrative”?  Guy with gun targets teen with hoodie, follows him (ignoring police dispatcher’s advice), engages with him and shoots him dead is a “liberal” narrative?  More like the truth I think.

I’m going about my business and doing nothing wrong.  But you—despite instructions from the police to do nothing—stalk and challenge me.  You are not a cop.  You act toward me in a menacing, hostile way.

I’m supposed to wait until you actually assault me before I can respond?  When I’ve been minding my own business and the entire interaction has been initiated by you, a hostile stranger?  And then you have the “right” to pull a gun and kill me?

If that is not insane, what is?  If that is not a legal, open invitation for gun-wielding racists, paranoids, thugs, pretend-heroes, and jerkoffs to provoke and then kill whomever they want, what is?

Page 1 of 1 pages

Sorry, commenting is closed for this post.

<< Back to main