Wednesday, July 17, 2013

American Justice: If at first you don't convict . . . try, try again

Anyone who has half a brain (this excludes Jersey) should be extremely upset at the DoJ's decision to
investigate George Zimmerman on civil rights charges.  Generally, I try not to insult my readers, but sometimes I can't help myself.  So I'm sorry Jersey, but you, and everyone who agrees that George Zimmerman is racist, are all completely and utterly hopeless.

This situation should be turning the collective stomach of America.  Not long after the news of George Zimmeran's acquittal hit the presses, detractors were calling out for more charges to be levied against GZ.  Why?  Because they're morons.

And now, bowing to the pressure of people who enjoy ignoring facts and completely fabricating ideas about a man they've never met, the grand court jester himself, Eric Holder, has decided to open an investigation into George Zimmerman to determine whether or not he committed a hate crime.

Yes, you heard it right.  The Department of Justice is going to determine whether or not a man is racist.

This is so wrong on so many levels that I hardly even know where to begin.  First of all, this is clearly a revenge move because the race baiters weren't given the revenge they so hungrily sought.  And let's make this perfectly clear: this is not about justice, this is about revenge.

Justice is everyone getting what they deserve.  George Zimmerman got what he deserved: an acquittal, because the prosecution could not prove beyond a shadow of a double that Zimmerman committed murder, and a jury acquitted him of the charges.  THAT is justice.

Travyon Martin already received justice because he thought it'd be a bright idea to jump an armed man.  I'm sorry, but if you mount a guy and proceed to bash his head in on the pavement, you deserve to be retaliated against.  It's called self-defense you morons.  And unless any of the GZ haters can actually PROVE that it wasn't self-defense, then you all need to shut the fuck up and accept reality.  (Since an actual team of lawyers couldn't even prove it, my bet is that none of you can, so give up before you make yourselves look even more intellectually handicapped).

To anyone who believes that George Zimmerman is a racist, I pose a few important questions.  Answer them, or please excuse yourself from the conversation and go sit at the kiddie table.

What evidence do you have to suspect that George Zimmerman is racist?  Is it because George Zimmerman is not black, and Trayvon Martin is black?

Does this mean that every white man who ever kills a black man should be investigated on civil rights violations?

Should black men who kill white men be investigated on civil rights charges?

How can any human determine whether or not someone is genuinely racist?

How can you prove that George Zimmerman would not have followed Trayvon Martin if he was white?  How can you honestly prove a hypothetical situation?

And one more time:  Beyond the fact that a white man killed a black man, what evidence do you have that George Zimmerman is racist?

Here is exactly what will happen with the investigation.  The DoJ will have to interview people that know GZ or have at least met him.  These people will say the same thing that they have been saying all along "I have never known him to be racist."  Will the DoJ stop with that?  Probably not.  I'm willing to keep an open mind--but so far there is absolutely no basis for this investigation other than the fact that a half-white man shot a black teen.

And what if the investigation yields nothing?  What if the DoJ determines that George Zimmerman isn't racist and didn't commit a hate crime?  Will everyone stop?  Will the American people finally come to the realization that they were functionally retarded for believing GZ to be racist even though they've never met the guy?

This is a sad day for America.  The government has been demanded to judge the heart of a man even though a legal trial determined that George Zimmerman, in effect, did not have evil or malicious intent.  And now, because the court of public opinion hasn't been satisfied, the government is going to continue to try Zimmerman on loads of trumped up charges until they find SOMETHING he's guilty of.

As the old saying goes, if you don't succeed, try, try again.  Welcome to Oceania everyone.


Anonymous said...

but Rachel Jeantel said it was racist Jackie.

Be Honest.

Silverfiddle said...

Excellently stated, Jack.

Investigations like this are the equivalent of punishing people for thought crimes.

I hate to continue invoking Mr. Blair, God rest his soul, but it's almost as if governments have designed their playbooks around his writings.

I understand using hate or prejudice as an aggravating factor.

Beating someone up because they grabbed your lady's ass at a party could be justified.

Doing the same just because someone is gay is a crime, so I understand the importance of determining motive.

But to simply find someone guilty of racism and no other charge?

That is a tool of an agenda-driven mob using the overwhelming force of the state to bash their enemies into submission.

I love the flaming finger, btw...

Jersey McJones said...

Why do you keep saying that I think Zimmerman is a racist? Where did you get that from?


Jack Camwell said...

Thanks, Silver. It's an oldie but a goodie.

Jersey, if I've misinterpreted what you've said, then I'm sorry.

Be that as it may, suggesting that stand your ground is stupid is equally as retarded as asserting that Zimmerman is racist.

Self-defense, even if it calls for deadly force, should never be against the law. It goes against every human being's natural right to defend himself.

I know you don't believe in such things, and you think that we should all just bow to the will of those who are stronger than us, but in the real world, self-defense is not a bad thing.

Jersey McJones said...

Well, "stand your ground" laws are intensely stupid. Stupid nonsense for the base conservative trough. It's taking the the old Castle Doctrine and essentially making it mobile and personal. Obviously no thought whatsoever goes into these stupid laws. We should not be encouraging fights to the death on the streets of America. It's slobby.


Anonymous said...


For once, please, answer my questions, don't call me a moron, don't call me stupid. Resist the urge to spout nonsense rhetoric. I know you can do it.

Question #1: If it is a mobile castle doctrine, why was GZ on trial?

The so called "Stand your Ground" is just a section of the law they altered so you don't have to run away when faced with imminent danger when out and about. It is not a license to kill, clearly. You and everyone else are blowing this way out of proportion. If you cannot prove that your life was in danger, then you are going to go to jail. I don't see freak mass murders in Florida, yet I do see them in Chicago, where only the criminals get the guns.

Question #2As a democrat, are you actually admitting there is such a thing as bad policy, or did those hacks just fuck up the phrasing?

It seems to me the main issue people have with these laws is they sort of encourage people to be armed. As I said before, a good guy with a gun is a good thing, a shitheel with a gun is a shitty thing. You honestly think that a well armed populous will explode violent crime somehow, yet data shows it's just the opposite in this country.

Question #3: What is your grand theory on what a better system would be?

Seriously, what gives, you bitch and moan, but never offer a tangible alternative.

Silverfiddle said...

Question #4: How in the hell does the Stand Your Ground law have any bearing on this case?

The defense didn't invoke it!

It was included, for some reason, in jury instructions, but it never came up in the trial.

More cawing boobies and squawking nuthatches propagating leftwing propaganda and mininformation into the insane asylum echo chamber.

From NBC News:

Zimmerman did not invoke Florida’s "Stand Your Ground” law and ask for an immunity hearing before the trial, but the jury that acquitted him received instructions that borrowed language from the statute, specifying that if “he 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.”

So, Jersey, what part of this statement do you disagree with, and be specific and spare us the fleck-spittle insults:

If you are attacked in any place where you have a right to be, you had no duty to retreat and you have the right to stand your ground and meet force with force.

What do you disagree with in that statement?

Anonymous said...

this bastard comment section keeps eating my responses after i see them posted.