A Liberal’s Take on “Stand Your Ground” and the Martin/Zimmerman Case

Only the most heartless person could view the shooting of Trayvon Martin as anything other than a tragedy.  And sadly, there are some heartless people out there like that.  I’ve listened to their disgusting little platitudes of assumption that Martin *MUST HAVE* attacked Zimmerman, and that Martin “deserved what he got.”  Well, those folks will never know what it’s like to be pulled over for “DWB”–Driving While Black.  Or even “WWB”–Walking While Black.

To pretend that racial prejudices in our judicial system didn’t play a part is a huge intellectual fallacy.  And we will go into that.  As usual, we don’t pull any punches here.

At the same time, when folks like our Attorney General Eric “Fast ‘N’ Furious” Holder; his boss, President Barack “Executive Privilege” Obama; and the rest of the antis abuse young Martin’s death as a rallying cry to take away our rights to self-defense…they dishonor the very death to which they so self-righteously claim to pay tribute.

Eric Holder recently gave just such a “speech” to the NAACP.  I will take apart Mr. Holder’s disgusting ilttle presentation of deceipt, piece by piece, so you can see just what he’s trying to do.  Yet he remains protected by all sorts of highly aggressive bodyguards with machine guns surrounding him and his.  Funny, that….

6 thoughts on “A Liberal’s Take on “Stand Your Ground” and the Martin/Zimmerman Case

  1. Assumptions? Zimmerman testified that he lost sight of Martin, when he was following him, and when he was on his way back to his car, is when Martin ATTACKED him. Whether you believe it or not is up to you. Since it was testimony in open court, it can hardly be called an assumption by other people.

      • You are correct. I erroneously said court, when I should have stated on the video Zimmerman was on by Police Interrogators. Stand your ground never came up in the trial either. Zimmerman used incredibly bad judgement, but according to the law you convict beyond a reasonable doubt, not a preponderance of the evidence in civil trials. The case should have never come to trial. The Police Chief, the local prosecutor, and the lead Detective all stated there was not enough evidence for any prosecution. Then when the case went viral, the weak kneed governor, completely bypassed the Grand Jury, and appointment a special prosecutor. The governor did this after strong pressure from the White House. The Grand Jury more than likely, would not have indicted. That is why they were bypassed. The Police Chief, who has a spine of steel, would not bring charges, when told to, because he believed it was wrong,.and was fired, refusing to back down. He wouldn’t play racial politics, like they wanted him to. Those are facts.

  2. You spent the first part of the podcast talking about how black people are prejudged and then the second half prejudging zimmerman and martin?

    • Well, not quite. In the first half, I call out Eric Holder on his fallacies. In the second half, I call the Martin/Zimmerman case as I see it. Not everyone’s going to agree with me. That’s OK; this is America, and we still get to do that here. I simply happen not to agree with the assumptions of Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity, et. al. on it, that’s all.

      I appreciate you listening, and I hope you’ll continue!

      – T

      • Of course I will continue to listen! If everyone agreed with my opinions all the time life would be a very boring place

Comments are closed.