-75 votes

Why People Should Be Outraged at Zimmerman's 'Not Guilty' Verdict

This is exactly how I feel about this whole mess.... I don't agree with many of Cenk's politics but I do respect him for speaking honestly about his beliefs. He seems like an honorable man.

The reaction of many of my fellow patriots regarding this tragedy really disappointed me and the reaction of the scumbag opportunist across this country who are now destroying their own cities is even more disappointing.

It appears that many of us are falling for the same old divide and conquer routine.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I like this dude on the Turks...sometimes...

But the jury found the facts supported that Trayvon broke the law by assaulting Zimmerman and Zimmerman was defending himself. Case closed.

Do I think that people should be tested on either side of that event...I don't know what police policy is...but it seemed unfair...hell...we are tested when we get in a car accident.

If Zimmerman could be convicted of being a dumb ass cop wanna be for getting out of his car and setting the stage for the tragedy...he is guilty as hell...but there is no law against that.

I do think what everyone is NOT talking about is "rules of engagement" for neighborhood watch programs...are there any? They may have prevented this needless killing of a kid... That being siad...stop showing the 11-12 year old "angelic" pictures of Treyvon, he was 17, 156 lbs, 5-11, in trouble in school for fighting,(also smoked pot and did Lean...though pot is not a big deal)...he was a bit of a thug wanna be....as much as Zimmerman was a cop wanna be...

Now I remember...

Now I remember why I don't watch the TYT. I didn't like the way they spun the positions and happenings of the Ron Paul campaign, so I quit watching them years ago. Now, out of curiosity I watch this and can't believe they even have a following. I won't be watching anything of theirs for a long time and probably never!
The Turk is a jerk - he yanks the chains that will get him the most attention. Truth matters not. It's all about ratings and creating more division among the "conservative" and "liberty" movements.

Freedom is the ability to do what you want to do.
Liberty is the ability to do what you ought to do.
"Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." 2 Corinthians 3:17

It is JUST amazing how many

It is JUST amazing how many people still have ZERO clue about the facts and evidence in this case. Just astonishing... and yet they talk out of their ass.

Cenk is a damn media race bating maggot.

1. He continues to show a picture of Trayvon when he was 11/12 years old, instead of THEESE pictures that accurately represents Trayvon before he was killed:

http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/ht_trayvon_martin_photos_ll_1...
http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/4f70934e69bedde7130...
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/130523170103-01-tray...
http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/trayvon-m...

2. They continue to lie about Zimmerman following Tray. non-emergency operator told Zimmerman "we don't need you to do that." (follow him AFTER he asked which direction Tray was going and any normal person would go to see what direction he was going. Zimmerman then said "OKAY." And there is ZERO evidence he followed him after that, because he even said that Tray had disappeared, and according to Zimmerman he kept going straight to get the name of the street.

3. Zimmerman was a lousy fighter according to his teacher during the testimony.

4. Tray was bragging about all his fights and how he beat up people by getting them in their nose. He called himself a "gangsta" and was pursing buying a gun (illegally)

5. According to Rachel who was on the phone with Tray, Tray was down by his Father's house when Zimmerman was on the 9/11 phone. PROVING That Tray was far away down the T-Path hundreds of feet from Zimmerman who was walking back to his car. Either two things happen. A) Tray went back to confront Zimmerman, OR B) Tray hid to then confront Zimmerman. NO, Zimmerman did NOT follow Tray because then the fight would have taken place much further down the T-Path.

6. Zimmerman was beat up. Tray didn't have a scratch on except[t the gun shot. Zimmerman screamed for help for 45 seconds. No one came and he shot ONCE. He did NOT know Tray was killed until later at the police station. And he was elated to hear there was video tape (which there wasn't).

That is PURE AND SIMPLE SELF DEFENSE!! End of discussion!!

If you disagree, I will take you on a debate on facts and evidence.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

Again, Zimmerman even

Again, Zimmerman even admitted that he followed Martin, but only because he wanted to find out where he was going, not because he wanted to confront him. We can't ask Martin, because Martin is dead.

Zimmerman was trained in MMA.

Wow, Trayvon bragged about all his fights. Zimmerman actually got in trouble for assaulting a cop. He was accused of spousal abuse as well. He also had made 46 calls to 911 over the past year, to complain about things like a "7 year-old Black kid walking suspiciously".

Zimmerna's own injuries were insignificant according to the medical examiner. Zimmerman says he screamed for help, but he has no proof. The audio evidence suggests that both screamed for help at times.

It is undeniable that Zimmerman initiated this whole mess.

In fact, listen to the interview juror B13. She even says that Zimmerman is guility of bad judgement, but that she said he shouldn't' be punished because he has learnt his lesson.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

lolz

any thinking human looking at the picture of zimmerman's broken nose knows that is not "isignificant."

first, getting poked, accidentally, in the nose is disorienting. it's painful. it causes your eyes to water. it is massively not comfortable.

second, getting punched in the nose can easily lead to death.

third, your commend it's insignificant" tells a huge story.

Fourth, what is the punishment for "instigating" (your word). Instigating is subjective; both parties probably thought the other instigated, and independent observers likely would agree with either. But, I'm not aware of a crime for instigating. In fact, I can walk around all day long and give people dirty looks, and despite your thinking I deserve life in prison, if someone attacks me, sorry bud, they crossed the line of legality. You can place your make believe line wherever you personally want to, doesn't matter, the law is what the law is. Guilty of bad judgement... boy, let's lock all of those individuals up. What a dumbass comment

FYI

Zimmerman did not call 911. Zimmerman called dispatch. 911 is the emergency line, dispatch is the non-emergency line.

Zimmerman did nothing illegal by following Martin.

If Zimmerman had called dispatch 150 times, there's nothing illegal about that either. His neighbors admitted to calling 911 (not dispatch) at least once a week.

Head injuries are never insignificant. If a doctor tells you head wounds are insignificant, don't walk away from this doctor, run.

Remember Nastasha Richardson?

"Such bleeding is often caused by a skull fracture, and it can quickly produce a blood clot that puts pressure on the brain. That pressure can force the brain downward, pressing on the brain stem that controls breathing and other vital functions.

Patients with such an injury often feel fine immediately after being hurt because symptoms from the bleeding may take time to emerge."

http://www.today.com/id/29733775/ns/today-today_entertainmen...

Let's see, who would I want in my neighborhood? A resident trained by the local police department to be a neighborhood watch person or Trayvon Martin? To me, that's not a hard choice.

"Again, Zimmerman even

I know what your problem is. You don't read or pay attention to anything. I covered ALL your points, and you just go ahead like they weren't there...

"Again, Zimmerman even admitted that he followed Martin, but only because he wanted to find out where he was going, not because he wanted to confront him."

CORRECTION: Zimmerman admitted to following him AFTER Non-emergency operator asked him which direction he was going. ONCE he was told "we don't need you to do that." he said okay and stopped. Watch the evidence. Tray headed straight and then turned right down the T-Path to his fathers house. Zimmerman followed him to about the T-Path, then was told "not to follow" and went straight to get the street address. This is according to his testimony and it is backed by all the evidence.

Seriously, did you not read anything I wrote?????

Zimmerman's trainer said he couldn't fight... what is wrong with you??

The police assault was dismissed. Why don't you go and read the case and hear what happened.

You are just making stuff up with a bunch of utter unsubstantiated conclusions.

Insignificant injuries is nota FACT. It is an opinion based on nonsense. it was ONE medical examiner who works for the prosecution. If your kid came home one night with these injuries, you wouldn't say they were insignificant. http://annettekblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/george-injur...

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

Did Zimmerman have a legitimate claim for self defense?

Zimmerman began the pursuit of Martin. Was he acting rationally? I doubt it since he suffers a hero complex to compensate for his low self esteem, plus is somewhat paranoid which makes him often irrationally suspicious (listen to his many calls to police for other "suspects").

Martin was aware he was being pursued and this caused him to fear for his own safety.

Zimmerman can be heard chambering a round in the tape at the point where he gives his last name. Listen to it. This occurred when he was out of his vehicle and looking for Martin.

Whatever ignited the fight, it was a result of Zimmerman's pursuit of Martin. He was the aggressor in the pursuit. When he was being beaten by the more athletic Martin, he chose to shoot him, out of proportion to the beating he was taking, while knowing police were on the way, in a fight that his actions provoked. By saying he was acting in self defense perverts the intent of the self defense concept. You can't pick a fight, with an unarmed person, start to lose the fight, and then think you are in the right when you shoot him.

Justice was not served in this case, although judging by the hatred expressed in some quarters for Zimmerman, we may not have seen the end of this.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

Why don't you back up your

Why don't you back up your factually incorrect statements? Why do people continue to ignore the facts and evidence?

9/11 told Zimmerman "we don't need you to do that." Zimmerman: "okay." There is ZERO evidence that Zimmerman continued to follow him after that. Second, the 9/11 operator testified in court he did NOT give Zimmerman any orders. Actually they HAVE To tell them to stay back no matter what because of liability.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

What would have happened to

What would have happened to Zimmerman had he not shot Martin when he did?

He would have been beaten.

It doesn't matter because if you are the aggressor in a conflict, then you can't take out a gun and shoot the person who was your victim. Martin was the victim of Zimmerman who pursued Martin. The actual altercation was just the culmination of Zimmerman's aggression. The entire concept of freedom is that you have a right to act so long as you don't commit aggression against another, and if someone commits aggression against you you have a right to defend yourself. Martin was defending himself against Zimmerman's aggression, and his level of violence in his defense does not to me seem to be out of line.

If you say Zimmerman would have been killed, which is highly doubtful, then that is what he would have brought on himself by his aggressive actions, just like if you hit an intruder in your house and that blow killed him. Zimmerman intruded on Martin.

To say someone who acts as an aggressor in a conflict and then starts to lose the conflict has a right to kill his victim would open the door for all sorts of injustice. By your logic, someone who broke into your house would be able to claim self defense if you confronted him, fought with him, and he killed you when he saw he was losing the fight.

At a minimum Zimmerman should have been found guilty of the lesser charge against him because he provoked the situation in which another died at his hands.

This is my sense of justice, and I am a white person with a farmhouse full of guns, carry in my car, and am a strong believer in freedom.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

I don't get why you refer to

I don't get why you refer to Martin as the victim here ???? We obviously have two different understandings of the facts.

You are describing "Stand Your Ground."

Zimmerman's defense was not "Stand Your Ground." Zimmerman's defense was self defense.

Your use of the term

Your use of the term 'aggression' seems a bit vague to me. I don't assume to know what you mean by it? Am I engaging an act of aggression toward you right now? How about if I walk up to you unexpectedly on a public sidewalk and ask you for the time? What if I walked up to you on the street and asked you what you were doing? What if I seemed to approached you hastily? What if I shook my hands in the air crazily and blathered, "Blubbbllubdsredblub!" What if I shouted out to you, "Hey asshole!"

Where do you draw the line into what you consider aggression?

Did you have a notion of such a line before the Zimmerman trial?

Has your exposure to the Zimmerman trial moved that line?

By the way, as you have not made clear in your comment, what was Zimmerman's act of aggression in your mind?

I believe in the right to

I believe in the right to defend yourself. Zimmerman's head pummelled on the concrete, straddled by this obviously very strong youth, broken nose. There would be very little punch power available to the victim.(Zimmerman) This is not a kid behaviour with this violent assault on Zimmerman. Zimmerman had no option but to defend himself as I see it. Isn't that what we all stand for on the DP...the right to defend yourself? Why are you so quick not to believe Zimmerman?

Cenk ignores...

...the FORTY seconds of Zimmerman being recorded screaming for help.

(As does the rest of the liberal media.)

Because it wasn't

Because it wasn't conclusively proven to be Zimmerman. The two experts agreed that some of the cries were from Zimmerman, and some where from Martin; it was too difficult to tell. You only have the one neighbor who said he was 100% sure he heard the cries and that they were from Zimmerman.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Perhaps you're right...

...perhaps it was the guy on top (according to the closest eyewitness) raining blows down MMA style for forty seconds on the one with the only injuries screaming for help.

That's believable.

missing the point

it wasn't Zimmerman's duty to "conclusive prove" anything.

It was the prosecution's duty. When you say it was unclear, you are saying there was reasonable doubt up the wazoo and the verdict is therefore correct.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Not my point. I agree with

Not my point. I agree with the verdict given the evidence at hand. I am disagreeing with the assertion that it was Zimmerman crying for help.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Ok

Sorry for the confusion on my part then. Not sure how easy it is too get to that conclusion, but we all see things differently.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

braindead

You believe the person shown to be on top with the bloody knuckles was screaming for help? You can believe that.

But, who actually screamed doesn't matter, like most of what the left wants to talk about. Here's what they do prove: those yells went on for about a minute. The fight went on that long. One person was getting their head and nose busted open for that long. And even during that time there was no gun shot. All that time there was restraint from using a weapon. And all you want to talk about is someone screamed. The man was charged with improper force; just looking to shoot someone. The belief he used improper force falls flat on it's face.

Perhaps Martin was underneath

Perhaps Martin was underneath Zimmerman at one point. Some eyewitnesses weren't sure who was on top.

FYI, where are you getting the bloody knuckles from? No evidence ofthat.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

But when officers arrived, they looked at Zimmerman whose back

was soaking wet, as opposed to Martin's knees that were wet. This came up in the trial and was evidence presented to the jury. They went on to say that Martin's back was not wet, so the testimony of the eyewitness was once again corroborated by evidence in the official report. If Martin was underneath Zimmerman, then Zimmerman did not throw a punch, as there were no marks other than a previous cut on Martin's pinky, and I do not know whether it was ever suggested that Zimmerman beat his own head against the concrete, this was never brought up because of testimony that spoke to the fact Martin was on top beating Zimmerman downward in an MMA fashion.

Always remember:
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." ~ Samuel Adams
If they hate us for our freedom, they must LOVE us now....

Stay IRATE, remain TIRELESS, an

Poor Cenk

He can't see the forest for all of the emotional trees.

Very interesting, the most interesting thing is the photo behind

His head showing Zimmerman, and a photo of Martin at 12 years old to spark an emotional response which was certainly eaten hook, line, and sinker, from the OP. While listing charges against Zimmerman Cenk fails to mention that the FBI did carry out an investigation on Zimmerman, and with zero convictions of what he claimed, no racial violence in his past, there was nothing for them to use against him. The cousin's accusations were hearsay, and too little too late. The things Cenk discusses has zero bearing on self defense during an assault, this is where people are running wild on emotion and not sticking to the case. So lets say Zimmerman was a child molesting, wife beating, cop pounding, racist, it has no bearing on the 45 seconds when he claims he was attacked. Put all that aside and imagine the following.

You are walking down the street and someone jumps out and ambushes you, punches you in the face so hard you fall to the ground with a broken nose. The person then climbs on top of you and starts pounding you in the face, the result of which is the back of your head bouncing off the concrete walkway, but you have a firearm holstered, and you grab it. The beating continues and your head is getting swimmy, blood from your broken nose is flooding your throat, and then BAM. No matter what you had done previous to that moment in time, you felt your life was in danger, and this is what the jury rules on plain and simple, a justifiable self defense shooting, case closed.

Profiling someone for protecting themselves is a leftist trick, and if the tender hearted want to whine about something, where were the protests after Waco? Ruby Ridge? Oh yeah, those were religious people, right wingers and they deserved to be murdered at Ruby Ridge, and those children at Waco were definitely guilty, as one of them a year before the fire had stolen a pack of gum from the store. Martin's records were not allowed in court, but Zimmerman's past should have been an open book?

Cenk then goes on to state Martin resisted? When and where did this occur? Where was this in trial? This is breaking news to me, as from the time Zimmerman got off the 9-11 call till the neighbor heard shouting and yells for help I didn't think anyone knew what occurred? Speaking on a soap box it is easy to create the story you want, to spark emotional outrage, but when you are lying you should lose credibility, but not on the left, they suck it up like a sponge on cool-aid.

While I understand the emotional reactions many people have, it is hard to comprehend how someone can be so passionate about anything and design, create, and fabricate their own story to match their emotional response. It is irresponsible, strange, and a pure lie, and will not and did not stand up in court.

Always remember:
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." ~ Samuel Adams
If they hate us for our freedom, they must LOVE us now....

Stay IRATE, remain TIRELESS, an

The left is trying to

The left is trying to demonize self defense. If someone attacks you, the left wants you to take whatever your attacker dishes out.

That's all this civil rights charges nonsense is about; even if you aren't guilty of murdering your attacker, you still killed them, and you will be punished.

Aren't libertarians supposed to agree, that a man has a right to armed self defense? It doesn't matter what happened with Zimmerman and Martin. Forget about that. A jury has decided Zimmerman is innocent. What matters now, is whether the left will be able to bring Zimmerman to court again. If they can bring Zimmerman back to court, then they will have violated the constitutions protection against double jeopardy, and made it effectively illegal to kill in self defense, especially if your assailant is black.

Don't fall for the leftist propaganda! This is the same thing the left is always about; empowering criminals and taking your rights.

This liberal Meme of "If you disagree with me, you're Racist"

Is now clearly a sickness inside the whole liberal paradigm.

Liberals so despise "racism" and "racist", and they now have completely redefined the terms to a lower standard to simply mean, "hate against a race", which are terms that used to mean bigotry and bigot; ie a person who is prejudice against a group for personal reasons of dislike.

Lost on liberals is the added criteria to "advocate racism" and "to be a racist" one must also call for the violation of a person's individual rights (for whatever reason, (hate, distrust, scapegoating, religion, dress, etc) all based upon that person's ethnic grouping.

So now thanks to TNR and 30 years of liberal political correctness, the lines between racism and bigotry and prejudice have been blurred to the point where the terms are really interchangeable. And that suits liberals just fine. Now its the degree of your hate that determines which term is applied, --- the call to violate individual rights is all but gone from the definition. If you mildly get upset sometimes hate, then your prejudice. If you usually or often hate, then you're a bigot, and if you "always be hatin" - then you're a racist.

That is where we are today. Hence Cenk thinking "what is Zimmerman doing out there anyway?" implying, he must be 'hating'. He must be hatin' if he out there walking around carrying a gun. He must be hatin' if he said, "Those f*cking Punks always get away with it."...

To the LIBERAL, and now to many conservatives, hate is "the issue".

To the libertarian, "the issue" is whose individual rights have been violated? To the libertarian, race and hate are not relevant at all. What is relevant are individual rights for all (the right to Life, Liberty, and Property (justly acquired of course), the principle to take responsibility for one's actions, the principle of non-aggression unless in Self Defense NAP (and even here the amount of defensive force used can only be a reasonable amount needed to deflect the offensive violating force).

So we libertarians look at Zimmerman's amount of defensive force, was it reasonable? Frankly, I do not know. I was not there that night watching the fight, nor was I placed in the Jury box to review all the available evidence(which is yet another great reason for all libertarians to VOLUNTEER each month for Jury Duty - talk about having a positive effect for liberty!!!).

One thing that I think Cenk and other liberals quickly overlook is the positive result that this verdict may have on the black community. Hopefully, cases like the one where the Florida black woman who fired warning shots and go to prison for 20 years because of it, would no longer happen. Hopefully, armed black citizens will be able to prove that they were attacked and where defending themselves as best they could. Black on black crime is off the charts high, and if anyone's individual rights to life & liberty & property needs defending, its those victimized black americans.

What I am most curious to hear from my libertarian friends is this... HOW can we penetrate that liberal paradigm that says, "If you disagree with me, you're a closeted hatin' racist". It is a huge problem, for we cannot even begin to discuss things such as the minimum wage laws or welfare dependency or a multitude of things, if liberals have this deep feeling that "you be hatin'", thats WHY you say the things you say. Notice the popularity among liberals to say in reply to libertarian economic free market arguments, "don't be a hater" or "those are the policies of hate" or "you must really hate people if you think we should let them fend for themselves".

Its a tight interlocked paradigm that they have there. And sadly, I see no opening.

Treg

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

Cyril's picture

^^^ BUMP.

^^^ BUMP.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius