Powered by TypePad

« With Friends Like This... | Main | They're Safe »

April 13, 2012



Jeralyn is a real life criminal defense attorney (she helped represent Tim McVeigh) and she went to the trouble to research the Florida law before expressing her opinion.


If these links to respected lefties you might see on television get repetitious, help me find more.

I am a lefty. I don't see this case as a left vs. right issue.


-- I am a lefty. I don't see this case as a left vs. right issue. --

I'm to the right of Barry Goldwater. Wouldn't see this as a right/left case, but for the left using it at a foundation for flogging its usual gun "control," anti-self-defense, and race-baiting themes.


How Not To Draft A Probable Cause Affidavit


I would expect Jeralyn to take the defense side of this case. She's a competent defense attorney, and taking that side is a natural fit for her.

Marcia Clark is/was a competent prosecutor, and she naturally does well at defending the prosecutions actions.


This "quote of the day" item on the right hand side at whitehousedossier.com made me smile.

"It's true, I've never worked a full day. I've also never slept a full night."
- Ann Romney
A note from our attorneys: This is not a real quote

Some guy

I don't see this case as a left vs. right issue.

Me either. It appears however to be a left vs. left issue.


"Marcia Clark is/was a competent prosecutor"

So long as you don't mean to suggest she was competent in the OJ case. "Come over here and try on these gloves."


The lefties commenting at Talkleft seem to be deeply troubled by the idea that a judge can decide that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute someone for murder. And want the discretion to rest in the hands of the prosecutor. And the jury. The idea that someone the police and the prosecution decides committed a crime might go free because there is insufficient evidence to support the charge is now anathema. The old saw that it is better for 10 guilty men to go free than for an innocent man to be convicted no longer applies when "justice" is to be served out.
I wonder whether they will be so gung-ho about juries if the jury acquits Zimmerman.


-- So long as you don't mean to suggest she was competent in the OJ case. "Come over here and try on these gloves." --

No, I didn't mean to extend it that far. Just that she held the post and did the job, so has a bias or perspective of a person who comes from that side of the fence.


I saw many of the same glaring deficiencies jeralyn did. Especially the glaring lack of substantiation for using words like "profiled" and "confronted."


when Dershowitz and (Mark) Levin both find the charging affidavit meritless, you know you've achieved something.

And re the war on Women, the Daily Caller has a new item showing the RepublicanDemocrat male chauinist pigs in action:

"A former North Carolina Democratic Party staffer was sexually harassed by a party official, made a financial settlement with the party and signed a non-disclosure agreement to keep the incident quiet.

“If this hits the media, the Democratic Party, our candidates, and our credibility are doomed in this election,” reads one email exchange between state Democratic leaders.

An email chain between those Democratic leaders, obtained by The Daily Caller, indicates the executive director of the North Carolina Democratic Party, Jay Parmley, and the alleged sexual harassment victim both signed non-disclosure agreements."



-- The lefties commenting at Talkleft seem to be deeply troubled by the idea that a judge can decide that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute someone for murder. --

It happens more often than they realize, just via different detail issues. Exclude a certain body of evidence, and the case is worthless, etc. The jury doesn't decide that.


I've said since the whole 2nd degree murder stuff started up that this is a setup.

Zimmerman could possibly be found guilty of something less than 2nd degree murder, so raising the bar so high means that this is a "punt" to the court to undertake the same exercise that the police had early when they released Zimmerman based on their findings. In this case, either the judge or a jury will make that determination now rather than the police. I solves the problem for the police and the prosecutor (assuming she doesn't mind a small blot on her record). Anything else would have produced a riot .. or worse.

You could say that it's all political but that would be too crass.

Thomas Collins

The judge disclosed tha her husband works for a law firm a member of which is going to be commenting on the case for CNN. Although neither the prosecution nor defense team has yet asked that she be taken off the case, the lead defense attorney is concerned. See LUN.


-- The lefties commenting at Talkleft seem to be deeply troubled by the idea that a judge can decide that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute someone for murder. --

Do they realize that prosecutors do this every day?


"The lefties commenting at Talkleft seem to be deeply troubled by the idea that a judge can decide that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute someone for murder."

Obviously they're not Law & Order fans. Poor McCoy was always getting his cases tossed out, so that his boss could then have the scene where he says, "If you don't have enough evidence to make your case, go find some!"

Seriously, these guys want a country where the state can just willy nilly charge you for a crime, even without sufficient evidence, go through the motions of a trial and slap you prison?

Come to think of it, that is exactly the kind country they want to impose on us. Every now and then the mask slips . . .


The lefties commenting at Talkleft seem to be deeply troubled by the idea that a judge can...judge?


if the self-protective tactics that are being described here are going on, then why couldn't the defense lawyer be trying to protect the judge by getting her off the case? She is the wife of a NeJame employee and NeJame is not only working for CNN, he was the lawyer who recommended O'Mara to the Zimmerman family.


Cheney has some good instincts, marlene you want to explain this;



Palate cleanser:

Witness lists for John Edwards corruption trial released

Edwards dropped out of the presidential race on Jan. 30, 2008. It has not yet been decided whether he will testify in his own defense.

But if the former candidate does take the witness stand, the case could hinge on which admitted liar the jury chooses to believe -- Edwards, who appeared on national television to deny having an affair with Hunter and fathering her child, or Young, who claimed in a written statement that the baby was his.

If convicted, Edwards faces a maximum penalty of 30 years in prison and as much as $1.5 million in fines.


Casey Anthony’s lawyer: George Zimmerman’s a victim of prosecutor's ‘political prostitution’

To prove Zimmerman was guilty of second-degree murder, Corey will have to show Zimmerman acted with a “depraved mind” when he shot Trayvon.

“The only evidence we have now is what Zimmerman says and what an eyewitness says – that Trayvon was beating him,” Mason said. “Well, if that’s the case, this shouldn’t reach a jury. There’s just no evidence showing he acted with a depraved min. If Zimmerman was being beaten, it’s clearly a homicide. He had a right to carry his weapon. He had a right to confront a person who was walking around in a hoodie in the rain around dark when there had been crimes in the neighborhood.”

But will it get to a jury?

Mason said there will be a hearing under Florida’s Stand Your Ground law – which expands the right to use deadly force -- and the charges could be dropped then by a judge. But, Mason said, “people are using Stand Your Ground to obfuscate the facts of this case. This comes down to the fundamentals of homicide. What’s the evidence? The burden of proof is on the prosecution. It’s not on George Zimmerman. And you can’t blame Stand Your Ground for this tragedy.”



Scarborough never dissapoints, and by never I mean always;



REally is that your final answer;



"“If this hits the media, the Democratic Party, our candidates, and our credibility are doomed in this election,"

Democrats have credibility? I thought they lost it all when John Kerry was running around America leading demonstrations in support of North Vietnam while loyal Americans and their Allies were fighting in Vietnam.


I expect the Murder 2 charge will be amended to add lesser offenses like manslaughter. The big charge is the attention-getting advertisement designed to take the fire out of the mob. Even for the professionally outraged, it's hard to keep up the intensity when you appear to be getting what you wanted.

The idea is to stretch it out a bit. The first hearing isn't for another six weeks, then who knows how long in motions for change of venue, etc., then finding a suitable venue, picking a jury. It's going to drag on to disperse the mob.

When a jury acquits GZ, there will be trouble, but not nearly so much violence as if the prosecutor let him go now.

So the state and city save on the risk to life and property, the ravenous blood lust of the mob is satiated temporarily, and the only one screwed is GZ and his family, who must wait for his vindication in an open and shut case of self defense.


--I am a lefty. I don't see this case as a left vs. right issue.

Posted by: myiq2xu | April 13, 2012 at 01:08 PM--

Then please hang around and comment on issues other than this.
All we get are cretinous trolls like buub and wee dublin Dave.


How do the same people who loved super-rich Terayza (whose money came from her dead Republican husband) and voted for her super-rich husband (whose money came from first his ex- and then his current wife) then turn around and attack Ann and Mitt Romney for being rich and "out-of-touch"?

I mean, I know why, but I'd like to see some justification on that. If any libs reading want to give it a shot, please do.

Rob Crawford

When a jury acquits GZ, there will be trouble, but not nearly so much violence as if the prosecutor let him go now.

I don't agree. It doesn't matter when it happens -- if Zimmerman gets justice, there will be riots.

Keep your eyes open for stunts to keep the anger up.


Keep your eyes open for stunts to keep the anger up.

This kind of threat has been going on since 2008 by this bunch of goons. This was stated if Obama did not win the Democratic nomination. They are bullies and until someone calls their bluff and tells them to "bring it" they will continue to threaten mayhem if they can't have their symbolic pound of flesh that have to be paid by idiotic and cowardly public officials who find human sacrifices to appease these monsters. They are demanding tribute.

Captain Hate

Scarborough never dissapoints, and by never I mean always;

Dear God that was painful to endure. Nooner was kind of lucid considering she looked like she'd been nipping at the "arthritis medicine" already until she started crying about McCarthy and got hung up on the word "mischief". Steele was genially clueless as he takes El JEFe at his word. Meeka, Donny Douche and whoever the third stooge (Ratner?) are idiots and Scarblowhard is just an MSLSD tool (he sounded like Crazy Larry) who would fill his pants if Allen West came on his show ready to rock.

Danube of Thought

OK, so Jeralyn is now a loony wingnutter.

How on earth did this happen?


Gosh, busy at work, no links cuz Captcha hates me, but quickly scanning headlines, it looks like the GZ/TM judge is already having to recuse herself because of her husband's connections.

Thomas Collins

The latest I've seen, cc, is that Zimmerman's lead attorney has indicated it is likely he will file a motion asking for the judge to recuse herself. See LUN.


Andy McCarthy has weighed in at NRO. His close:

If I were a cynic, I’d say that an ambitious special prosecutor — exploiting the rabble-rousing of the U.S. attorney general and the racial grievance industry — filed an exceedingly serious charge for which she lacks evidence, second degree murder, in order to bask in the mob’s adulation while pressuring Zimmerman to plead guilty to a lesser charge, manslaughter, on which the special prosecutor runs a high risk of losing if Zimmerman forces a trial. So I’m sure glad I’m not a cynic.

very interesting from Jeralyn's blog:

((Update: I just watched the hearing video. It was hard to hear, but it sounds like Zimmerman and his family signed papers with the CNN Analyst/lawyer acknowledging they knew he would be commenting on the case, and O'Mara is concerned they may continue to share information with him as the case progresses for the purposes of getting their views heard. O'Mara seems more concerned with whatever ongoing relationship may exist between his client's family and the lawyer/analyst than the information that was shared in the past. He says he's still looking into the nature of the ongoing relationship. The judge asked that he make a decision on whether to seek to recuse her as soon as possible and before they get into the bail hearing set for next Friday))


Andy McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, takes a fellow NRO writer to task for being an ignoramus about the affidavit:


Chubby beat me to it, TomC, but here is some further info also on the judge possibly recusing herself.


Thanks jeannebodine. That McCarthy piece is a must-read on the affidavit. Very very detailed and thorough.


and thanks to centralcal too...having trouble keeping up with the threads...

Thomas Collins
"Anchor Gary Tuchman speculated that it was because 'she’s young.'"

That's an interesting tidbit from your 5:17 PM link, cc. Apparently the anchor said this before he knew the reason the judge might recuse herself. Even if he was kidding, it strikes me as a pretty juvenile thing to say.


Even if he was kidding, it strikes me as a pretty juvenile thing to say.

As a former CNN junkie (many years ago, now) I can tell you Gary Tuchman is no spring chicken, but he is probably the nerdiest of CNN reporters (who knew he made it to anchor? unbelievable!).


jeanneBodine-- many thanks-- McCarthy really explains in detail the things I found weak in the affidavit. He really unloads on Corey for the overcharge, and the complete lack of specificity of malice to make out a Murder 2 Charge. According to Rattler, though, McCarthy does miss the boat about a Prosecutor charge being standard practice in Florida, rather than a GJ. In all, MUST READ.

Travis B

"When a jury acquits GZ, there will be trouble, but not nearly so much violence as if the prosecutor let him go now."

I hope it drags on. Demand for firearms is unbelievable. Every gun I want is on at least a 90 day backorder. The Obama administration should win an award for gun salesmen (and women? or is it salespeople?) of the year.

Rob Crawford

Travis -- how's ammo?

I want some JHP for my pistol, and it's over a buck a round. Can't afford to practice with it, can't afford not to...


Since Zimmerman turned himself in, does he get to claim the $10K bounty put out by the NBP? (h/t Treacher).

btw, I plan to ask this question again if I don't see an answer, which given the deluge of threads and my complete collapse in trying to keep up with all the comments is pretty likely.


Learn to reload Rob. 124gr JHP is just $0.086 apiece if you buy by the 1k.



Per bullet of course... Used brass, powder, primer, you're looking at at $0.12-.15/round

Travis B

"Travis -- how's ammo?"

Ammo is not as bad. At least not until Homeland Security starts filling their order for 450MM rounds. I mainly look for FMJ (9mm & 45acp), slugs and buck (no "assault" rifles allowed here).


Heh. McCarthy cuts right to the chase: "This affidavit is not law, it is agitprop"

Travis B

If Fitz's bud finds the affidavit weak than it must be real bad.

Next from the MSM: Repub prosecutor purposely overcharges, doesn't investigate and puts weakest evidence forward to allowed Z to walk.


If by not a LEFT or RIGHT issue you mean that it's a RIGHT vs LIBTARD issue then you are correct.
Libtards are emotionally disturbed.


Totally agree with you, Gus.


I am a lefty. I don't see this case as a left vs. right issue.

That's because you appear to be a rare honest lefty, myiq. Although this guy seemed pretty honest in the Flood the Zone thread (before he tried to walk this back):

Actually, the political capital progressives will garner from this, regardless of the outcome, will be priceless priceless.

1.We have a President and a party that have re-solidified their relationship with the African-American community after a turbulent couple of years.

2.The "Stand your ground" law is on it's way to being repealed in Florida..........what?I felt my life was threatened by that law.I had to act.

3.African-American anger is being re-fueled with all sorts of civil rights goodies coming down the line-good luck with repealing Afirmative action now,righties.

4.Tighter gun control laws(psssst.when we say "control" we really mean don't mean "control"....one step at a time).

Whatever the outcome, Democrats just got themselves a bunch of legislative rewards.

Posted by: DublinDave | April 04, 2012 at 01:39 PM


"Contrary to CNN's First Assumption, Prosecutors Say Zimmerman Didn't Use Racial Slur"

I find the whole racial slur business odd. With the movies & music nowadays & even the conversations I hear out in the world...does anybody really care if slurs or cursing are used? That NBPP woman used racial slurs on the radio. So what. This is the society the libs have given us.
I thought they hated prudes. The selective outrage is confusing.

Jack is Back!

After reading Andy McCarthy I am embarrassed to having thought Corey yo be a stand up non-political type. She has lost me.


Why can't African-Americans ever identify themselves as Americans instead of by skin color?


((That's because you appear to be a rare honest lefty, myiq))

that could be true for myiq, but often lefties don't think an issue is left-right because they think they are at the center or moderate and see all questions in the light of moderates (themselves) versus right wing extremists (traditionalists and conservatives).

Rob Crawford

That NBPP woman used racial slurs on the radio.

But she's allowed. Because they expect less from her.


Yes, Janet, but that was after cementing that notion so 91 % of African Americans, 59% of
Hispanics, and 38% of Whites, feel that the shooting was unjustified, in a bogus Reuters poll, of the muddle.


"Why can't African-Americans ever identify themselves as Americans instead of by skin color? "

how are they going to claim entitlement and mistreatment if they don't identify themselves in a way where people can quickly identify them as entitled and mistreated?

After 50 years of hard work creating a very specific victim narrative, Democrats can't allow them to identify as anything else. And if they try - "Uncle Tom!!!"

Carol Herman

Florida is very stratified. On top, now, are the Cubans. The middle class that ran from Castro at the end of the 1950's.

Blacks on the other hand, can't get out from under. If you didn't see some Black players on sports teams, you wouldn't see them at all.

Now, what you have is that Obama wants a race war! He wants to send out the troops to "save the day" ... or save "whatever." And, if this case doesn't do it, then nothing will. And, his election is lost.

It seems crazy to think that Obama actually wants a race war! But he does!

And, the media? They're suiting up for "one last try."

I learned a lot from the Rodney King Riots. I know they lasted 3 days. And, the LAPD were USELESS! But neighborhoods began protecting themselves with guns. I learned back then that a mob (on the 3rd day), that had collected up on Walnut, in Pasadena, (a block up from PCC) ... got "disbanded" in a hurry ... when a sniper's rifle shot landed right next to the big toe of the organizer. And, the crowd went into retreat.

And, the Rodney King Riots came to its end.

A Florida "riot" ... is probably a poor bet right now.

And, George Zimmerman, whose family has discovered being the center of attention, is probably NOT going to get hurt in prison, while he awaits "justice."

With the Internet on the scene?

Justice happens sooner rather than later.

While today, you "know" the name "Marsha Clark." And, Nifong. So where are they now?

Race relations? Obama didn't make anything better. What's got holes in it? His "Hope & Change" bumper sticker.

While Obama's only real hope is the stupidity of the republican party.


The place has really gone to the dogs, now
Roger you know than to anger the Momma Grizzly.



Andrew McCarthy writes: ``This affidavit is not law, it is agitprop: invoking, for example, the explosive term “profiled” but carefully avoiding any discussion of what it means and failing to note that (a) there is no evidence of racial profiling, and (b) absent an invidious racial component there is nothing wrong with profiling (indeed, we want police to do it so that innocent people don’t get hassled).’’

Wow. You have to love how easily McCarthy gives his game away. Police should profile because they know what guilty people look like, and therefore don’t have to hassle innocent people??? Back in the real world, profiling doesn’t work for exactly that reason: innocent people come in all colors, shapes and sizes. Heck, even some 17-year-old Afro-Americans are innocent, which I suspect might shock McDarthy. (He must be beside himself that Derbyshire was keel-hauled off the National Review cruise for merely pointing out that you can tell how innocent people are by their skin color.)
But McCarthy isn’t happy just putting his foot in his mouth on profiling. Oh no, he’s got to keep gobbling for more. Like this gem about how, since it was illegal for Zimmerman to chase down Martin, the evidence that he did so is not relevant. “Bad judgment is not a crime.” WTF?? That is EXACTLY the crime Zimmerman’s being accused of: horrible, malicious, murderous judgment. No one suggests Zimmerman left his house that morning with a plan to hunt down Martin. He didn’t even know who Martin was. Rather, the case is that Zimmerman was unreasonable -- depraved -- in resorting to lethal force. His decision to chase Martin is absolutely relevant to that.
As for the profiling question, the prosecution should welcome an in-depth, thorough discussion of what profile Zimmerman might have used to avoid murdering innocent people, (per McCarthy’s ludicrous suggestion that it works that way) especially given the evidence that his profile was dead wrong this time. We have a list of the 911 calls Zimmerman made over the years and there are numerous incidents where he reports suspecting Afro-American males of being up to no good. How many of those calls resulted in arrests and/or convictions? I’m going to go out on a limb and guess it’s a goose egg. (“These assholes always get away.’’) And I’ll go even further out and guess that there’s another big zero: the number of times he reported a suspicious white person and cited the reason for suspicion as “he’s just walking around looking at the houses.”
Profiling is a terrible line of questioning for the defense. How long did Zimmerman observe Martin before deciding to call 911? If it’s say, less than two minutes, it’s just not plausible that he could in that time make a reasonable judgment as to what Martin might be doing and whether he was a legitimate target of suspicion. If it’s longer than, say, two minutes, it raises the question of why, after observing him for that amount of time, he finally decides to call the police, and still only has “he’s looking at all the houses’’ as the reason for suspicion. Keep in mind, this all ostensibly takes place from the seat of his truck.
Profiling? The defense will avoid that question like the plague.
McCarthy’s screed is riddled with misdirection, misrepresentations and absurdity. In attempting to dismiss Martin’s mother’s identification of her son’s voice, he says: “Neither the affidavit nor the mother’s information discounts to [sic] possibility that Zimmerman called for help.’’ But it obviously does. Firstly, why would two people simultaneously scream for help? And Martin’s Mom said the one voice was her son. Moreover, voice experts back her up by saying the voice isn’t Zimmerman.


And I can fully understand why cboldt and his ilk do not want examples of concealed carry murders to affect the discussion of gun control. Facts -- like the details of how and why Zimmerman murdered Martin, and what actually happens when handguns are used in self-defense -- are anathema to their position, and, therefore, have no place in the discussion.


oops. meant to type: Like this gem about how, since it was NOT illegal for Zimmerman to chase down Martin, the evidence that he did so is not relevant.

Danube of Thought

Looks like the Powerline guys have left the Wingnutosphere--they think Z sholuld be charged, probably with manslaughter.

I know nothing of Florida practice, but the affidavit would not be acceptable in a California court. The affiant must swear that he has first-hand knowledge of the facts he alleges, and state the basis for that knowledge. Where he does not have first-hand knowledge, he must state that he is alleging those facts only on information and belief.

But I am sure Corey knows what she is doing in her state. I'd be interested to see some examples of other charging affidavits from murder cases in Florida, so as to determine how far, if at all, this one deviates from the norm. Can't do it from Munich.

Danube of Thought

"...what actually happens when handguns are used in self-defense..."

There is a treasure trove of data on the subject, and those data overwhelmingly favor the use of firearms in defense of the person or the home. That is why when people are allowed to vote on gun-control measures, such measures usually go down to defeat.


Not many press accounts / opinion pieces that the charging affidavit is weak. Dershowitz, Lott, McCarthy, and Ken @popehat. All of the other pieces I've seen, taking the side of "weak or worse" are either "no name commentators" or based on some combination of the four.

Other than David French at NRO, I haven't seen neutral or positive critiques of Corey's charging affidavit.

David French's conclusions are all conditional on "If the prosecutor can prove that Zimmerman continued his pursuit to the point of initiating a confrontation with Martin," "if that was Martin calling for help." French's point is that the affidavit contains key assertions - well, yes, that's a cake walk. But where is the supporting evidence?

Is anybody defending the affidavit as concise, persuasive, and presenting even a strong case for manslaughter? FireDogLake?, Kos?, The usual suspects are not jumping for joy.

Add one more to the still-short "the affidavit sucks" pile.

What Does the Prosecutor Have on George Zimmerman? - John Hindraker - April 13

The Affidavit is on its face a political document. ...

But if the prosecutor isn't even prepared to allege, let alone prove, that it was Zimmerman, not Martin, who started the fight, one wonders what chance she has of convicting Zimmerman of anything.


((Not many press accounts / opinion pieces that the charging affidavit is weak. Dershowitz, Lott, McCarthy, and Ken @popehat. ))

cboldt, I read yesterday that the casey anthony lawyer said it is a garbage document made by a political coward who wants only to be re-elected.


Ahh, I'd forgotten that one. Cheney Mason.

It's political prostitution

The fact is there is lots of racial bigotry in this case and a lot of it is coming from the side of Trayvon Martin's family. I can understand why his family is upset. They lost a child. But they weren't at the crime scene. None of us was.


CBS News today:

Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law allows even the original aggressor in a fight to use deadly force - if that person becomes reasonably afraid of being killed or seriously hurt. Trial lawyer Richard Hornsby has litigated 15 "Stand Your Ground" cases - none of them homicides - and won them all. Hornsby told CBS News he thinks Corey's affidavit is more significant for what it leaves out than for what it includes. "The moment George Zimmerman fired that shot is the key question in this entire case," Hornsby said. "Did he reasonably believe he had to fire that shot to defend himself? And the fact (Corey) completely left that out, begs the question, does she not have any evidence to refute his version of the events?"


Cecil Turner

It's funny, but on the critical points, the affidavit reads just like the Atlantic article Tom rightly ridiculed a couple weeks ago. And my take on that remains the same:

I love it. Nobody to blame for the altercation. "A fight broke out." Happens all the time, usually when it's raining.
Now it's "a struggle ensued" . . . but that's the extent of the narrative drift.

Obviously, it was raining.


Media is pretty funny. Corey has a tough case, it says. Well, if she has a tough case, it's because she doesn't have evidence that Zimmerman did what she charged him with.

Yeah, I'd say she has a hard time proving things without evidence. That does tend to "complicate" the situation.


"Wow. You have to love how easily McCarthy gives his game away. Police should profile because they know what guilty people look like, and therefore don’t have to hassle innocent people??? Back in the real world, profiling doesn’t work for exactly that reason: innocent people come in all colors, shapes and sizes."

Okay, fine, I'll be the one to bite since everyone else ignored the lunacy.

And in doing so, I'll ask a simple situation based question:

Situation ~ Man robs bank; robber is young heavy-set Black male wearing all dark clothing. Police arrive on the scene moments after he leaves the building, and start canvasing the area. Police see a roughly 70 year old white woman in a flowery sun-dress pushing a stroller while canvasing the area.

Question: Should the police arrest said 70yo woman as a suspect?

THAT is what the lack of "profiling" gets you - absolutely EVERYONE, no matter how impossible their guilt would be, is assumed a suspect and/or arrested and its sorted out after the fact.

The real case situation: Zimmermans neighborhood has been robbed up to possibly 20 times (reports vary) recently, with each robbery being conducted by a young black male when such information was known.

So Martin, a young black male, is standing around the neighborhood seemingly looking in windows. To ignore the possibility this man is looking to rob a home is akin to ignoring the smell of gas in your house.

Zimmerman was not only correct to question Martins intent in being there, he was also doing exactly what nearly any person on the planet would want from their neighbors in a similar situation.

To say a person should ignore such a simple situation as your neighbors house possibly being robbed is really saying never pay attention if any crime is ever committed.

"yeah, I saw the guy carrying the gun down the street before he started shooting at the Democrat Politicians, but I didn't feel I should say anything because I know we aren't supposed to profile people or question their motives or anything..." - could you imagine the outrage the Left would have if such a statement was made, say, prior to the Giffords shooting. Guaranteed they would be calling to have such a person locked up as negligent or something.

But then again, if you do pay attention and then become involved because of it - we'll you're evil for paying attention... Typical Liberal-Logic-Loop

Tom Maguire
I don't see this case as a left vs. right issue.

Nor should it be, since we are dealing with real people and not competing narratives.

However, the narratives on offer from the Times (my metaphor for the conventional left) is that we have a racist police department covering up for the newly discovered "white Hispanic" ethnic bloc; and guns are bad, bad REALLY bad.

Not a fact-oriented discussion.

The comments to this entry are closed.