Sharpton Logic: We Must Lower Legal Threshold For Federal Hate Crime Charges To Make It Easier To Get To People Like George Zimmerman…

In an expression of logic that can only come from the mind of Al Sharpton – he expressed the following perspective:

sharpton becomes a victim

“The intent to prove that Zimmerman did it because of his race, that is the legal threshold. Unless we change that legislation, we end up where we are in terms of the Trayvon Martin case”. (link)

And there you have the actual view.

Federal law defines hate crime as a crime carried out because of “race”. Sharpton wants to remove the hurdle of “racial intent”; in essence changing the definition so that any crime committed by a non-black, against a black person, can be considered a federal crime.

Think about that for a moment.

This entry was posted in Anti-White Intifada, BGI - Black Grievance Industry, CRS, Cultural Marxism, Dear Leader - Creepy POTUS Worship, Notorious Liars, Police action, Political correctness/cultural marxism, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Racism, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

101 Responses to Sharpton Logic: We Must Lower Legal Threshold For Federal Hate Crime Charges To Make It Easier To Get To People Like George Zimmerman…

  1. peppie says:

    It’s easy to see that once the foundation crumbles you’re at the mercy of the jackals.

    Liked by 8 people

  2. Daniel says:

    That there is “hate crime” which makes crime more serious at all is a problem. It is another term for “thought crime” and was a dangerous invention from the very beginning. It is a tool of suppression. Consider a comment made anywhere — on the internet, in public or even in private concerning anger or frustration. Then, later the person is placed in a situation to defend his life. Suddenly self-defense becomes a murder and a hate [thought] crime.

    The whole idea has to go.

    Liked by 9 people

    • nivico says:

      Intent (the thought or purpose behind a criminal act that was in fact committed) is an essential element of pretty much every criminal statute or law (except in cases of strict liability crimes such as speeding, statutory rape, etc).

      Thought crime, on the other hand, is the notion of criminalizing thoughts themselves with no requirement that there be an accompanying criminal act.

      Like

      • Daniel says:

        Quite right. And that is already established in the justice system and it’s called “Motive.” The addition of “hate” allows the government to include all manner of unrelated circumstances to cloud the picture of evidence in crimes.

        The idea of “hate” turns an objective criminal justice system into a social[ist] justice system.

        Liked by 3 people

        • nivico says:

          Sometimes ‘hate/bias’ is undeniably the motive even by reasonable and objective standards… and in those cases it arguably should be treated as an aggravating factor.

          Deryl Dedmon, for example, expressed his intent to go “f$#% with some n$##@!^” and then he went out and ran over and killed James Craig Anderson with his truck.

          His victim didn’t just happen to be black, and Dedmon wasn’t convicted of a hate crime based on flimsy circumstantial evidence that this one time he posted a nasty comment online about minorities. He was convicted of a hate crime because it demonstrably ~was~ a hate crime.

          Now if you were to argue that the problem with ‘hate crime’ statutes is that they are only selectively investigated and enforced when the alleged perpetrators are white, I would wholeheartedly agree with you!!!

          Like

          • Chip Bennett says:

            Was the victim somehow more-dead because the perpetrator had an “aggravating factor”?

            Crimes are actions, the motives for which (other than establishing mens rea) are completely irrelevant. The charge, prosecution, conviction, and sentencing should be based solely on the action, and not on the thought behind the action.

            Do not victims have a constitutionally protected right to equal protection under the law? Why should the justice served for a white victim of a white perpetrator be any different from the justice served for a black victim of a white perpetrator?

            Like

            • nivico says:

              “The charge, prosecution, conviction, and sentencing should be based solely on the action, and not on the thought behind the action.”

              “All statutes describing criminal behavior can be broken down into their various elements. Most crimes (with the exception of strict-liability crimes) consist of two elements: an act, or “actus reus,” and a mental state, or “mens rea”. Prosecutors have to prove each and every element of the crime to yield a conviction. Furthermore, the prosecutor must persuade the jury or judge “beyond a reasonable doubt” of every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged.”

              https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/criminal_law

              Like

              • Chip Bennett says:

                Your selective quote omitted the part where I mentioned mens rea – and mens rea is merely the intent to do harm, and requires no racial animus in order to establish.

                Establishing why someone intends to do harm to another is unnecessary.

                Like

                • nivico says:

                  Ok, let me ask you this…

                  Do you believe the IRS should be under fire for specifically targeting conservative organizations for a higher level of scrutiny when applying for tax exempt status?

                  If you take ‘motive’ out of the equation, then the IRS technically did nothing wrong.

                  If you add ‘motive’ back in, then the IRS is guilty of discrimination.

                  Like

                  • doodahdaze says:

                    The IRS is a government agency and does not have the ability to have a motive. The employee however can have mens rea or criminal intent. There are so many possible criminal violations there is not enough room to list them.

                    Like

                  • doodahdaze says:

                    Try this one on for size and 20 years in Leavenworth.
                    18 U.S.C § 1519
                    Issue: Whether Mr. Yates was deprived of fair notice that destruction of fish would fall within the purview of 18 U.S.C. § 1519, which makes it a crime for anyone who “knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object” with the intent to impede or obstruct an investigation, where the term “tangible object” is ambiguous and undefined in the statute, and unlike the nouns accompanying “tangible object” in section 1519, possesses no record-keeping, documentary, or informational content or purpose.

                    Like

                  • Chip Bennett says:

                    Do you believe the IRS should be under fire for specifically targeting conservative organizations for a higher level of scrutiny when applying for tax exempt status?

                    If you take ‘motive’ out of the equation, then the IRS technically did nothing wrong.

                    IRS should be under fire for violation of equal protection. The crime is in the targeting of one group on the basis of ideology. The motive for targeting conservative groups is irrelevant; the evidence is obvious that they did.

                    What if the powers that be merely had an axe to grind with a geographic area, and targeted midwest groups? Again: the motive for the targeting is irrelevant; it is the act that is discriminatory, and therefore criminal.

                    The calculus is simple:

                    Did Party A harm Party B?
                    Was that harm intentional?

                    #2 is sufficient to establish mens rea.

                    Let’s take a counter example from the inter-racial murder: should someone be punished more harshly because the murder was carried out for racial reasons, rather than, say, the perpetrator found out that the victim was having an affair with the perpetrator’s wife, and killed him for revenge (for the sake of simplicity, it’s pre-meditated rather than a crime of passion)? Why or why not?

                    Like

              • doodahdaze says:

                What if the victim was only 1/2 black?

                Like

    • moe ham head says:

      in reality all crimes aren’t hate crimes

      Like

      • Chip Bennett says:

        in reality all crimes aren’t hate crimes

        If you’re talking about malum prohibitum crimes? Sure. But all malum in se crimes are hate crimes, by definition.

        Liked by 3 people

        • joanfoster says:

          We have dropped the bar so low for Sharpton that the guy can shamelessly talk about crime and be in arrears at the IRS to the tune of $4 million – only in America.

          Hate crime legislation was not well reasoned and unless it is going to be adjudicated among all races and classes of people, it should be repealed.

          Liked by 2 people

    • doodahdaze says:

      I don’t think it has ever been challenged in a court of appeals that I know of.

      Like

  3. freepetta says:

    We must heighten our standards on what is considered a good role model and recognize what is a race baiting, money hungry, tax evading, murdering, FBI informant etc etc etc piece of trash.

    Liked by 5 people

  4. Kin Mapper says:

    Is it disputed that Michael Brown was shot
    (1) with hands up;
    (2) pleading “Don’t Shoot”;
    (3) on his knees.
    or that Trayvon Martin was jumped by George Zimmerman and only when Trayvon Martin turned the tables on Zimmerman was Trayvon Martin shot?

    Not in the black grievance community as that is how they have sold it that way

    and sold it readily to the majority of black America.

    Take a poll and see why the black majority now despise Whitey as a class. No news media cared to undo all that that each news media had done to make it appear that the little black male child was the one being attacked by the gun toting white viginlante.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Kin Mapper says:

      Which is our greatest enemy:

      the black grievance slime or the indifferent news media on EVERY channel.

      Liked by 1 person

      • MaryfromMarin says:

        Tough call.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Phooey says:

        Yep. Evil like BGI and BHO will always exist and seek power, it’s the (deliberate) lack of sunlight that has allowed them to thrive and is killing this country.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Chip Bennett says:

        People who uncritically believe anything and everything fed to them by the media don’t get a pass, either. People who allow themselves to believe what they want to believe, in order to justify their own, underlying racist beliefs, are just as much a part of the problem.

        Liked by 3 people

      • bofh says:

        “indifferent news media”

        I’d settle for that in a hot flash. What we’ve got is activist media.

        Like we used to tell the ref’s at our kids’ games… “if you can’t be just, at least try to be arbitrary”.

        Liked by 1 person

      • manickernel says:

        People always joke that lawyers are the lowest of low, journalists now have that distinction.

        Liked by 2 people

      • jackdempsey says:

        The news media is not indifferent. As Anita Dunn said, ” We own the media.
        When you own the media, you own the message.”

        Like

        • Kin Mapper says:

          Fox News is not so owned yet it is cowed or indifferent to the reality that Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown are portrayed as an innocent child or near child rather than each appearing to be convictable of felonious assault, the latter on a law enforcement officer, had they not confronted their “stalker”. In Michael Brown’s case, it is though that the video of the clear strong arm felony robbery is disputable and the first assault on the officer and the evidence of it is disputable.

          No media feels the duty to correct the Big Lie which polls will show still holds in each case. That only white prejudice caused the deaths of these two young black men and the actions of these young black men were not the main caused of their deaths.law

          Take a national poll of blacks and see how much the MB case is seen still as white cop murdering black kid. So many talking heads on all the major channels, yes Fox News had one or more, said that defamation without any exclusion of it only being a possibility.

          When is the officer going to sue all the defaming talking heads, some including lawyer and at least one Harvard law professor, all the media that published defamation and all the independent organizations who transmitted on their own decisions, others defaming the officer.

          It is time for the true story to be shoved down and into the heads of the liberals and the majority of the black community who believes it is not defamation of the officer and make the deep pockets pay and issue an apology. Still there are years left to see how the damages are to this man and his life and his family, before the statute of limitations on the defamations ends, so long as the evidence is collected now.

          Still for the matter to be openly discussed the Harvard Law professor, if his statement is as clear defamation as I recall, should be sued now with his network that allowed his false and defamatory opinions on the air to remain uncontradicted that hour, that day and that week. His name is Charles Ogletree and his august title is available at Wikipedia but do note he is LAUGHABLY the founder of Harvard’s “Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice”.

          Surely there is some near honorable lawyer eager to take such cases All lawyers need to be caught with all their failures in being ethical and standing against the unethical and the criminal among their number. They do not.

          Like

  5. True Colors says:

    Someone should propose a law that it is a crime for any black person to ever be killed by a non-black under any circumstances.

    That is what these people are really asking for, so let’s put it to a vote.

    TC

    Liked by 5 people

  6. F.D.R. in Hell says:

    When the Moslem sleeper cells in America spring into action,
    this proposal will be moot. 👿

    Liked by 4 people

    • Kin Mapper says:

      The Moslem sleeper cells are not my immediate concern, but the time may come where they require my purchase of an effective weapon.

      For now it is the murders acquiesced to in the year or two leading up to the J.V. team comment of a year back. There was no media coverage and thousand almost certainly were slaughtered as village after village were taken unannounced here in America. Fallujah a major important Iraq city fell in early January and USA media barely covered it.

      We had an implicit to the Iraqis of some protection and Obama just allowed it.

      I join John McCain and am as ashamed of my country’s leaders, most all of them. on Ukraine and so much much more:
      “Sen. John McCain says he’s ashamed of the United States, President Obama and himself for how America has failed to help Ukraine defend …”

      We are worthy of scorn.

      Like

  7. yakmaster2 says:

    What amazes me is that some ‘News’ organizations still pretend they don’t know Sharpton is a bitter old nutter. I mean, the folks who package the news possess enough analytical skills to decipher that his statements are always illogical. Nonsensical. Bloviations.
    Yeah, I do realize they’re pandering to the low infos, but it’s as if they’re selling bottled urine and labeling it lemonade. And the rest of us are watching their target audience buy it and drink it. Ewww.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Al Sharpton creates conflict, which is essential to drama and entertainment, That’s all he’s good for. Pumping ratings (and ad revenue) keeping his show on the air, and keeping the humidors of network executives stocked with expensive Cuban cigars. They have long since abandoned the concept of reporting news, along with all conscience over the consequences of their irresponsible programming.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Col.(R) Ken says:

      Well said, we shal never hear the truth, unless Sharpton falls out of favor. Now to the important part of your post where are those Cuban cigars?

      Like

  8. justfactsplz says:

    I’m all for changing the hate crime law. It should be amended to include bounties by the Black Panthers, Polar Bear Hunting, robberies, rape, and bodily harm done to whites by blacks. There ya go, I fixed it.

    Liked by 5 people

    • TKim says:

      We are told we have hate. Blacks are told they have fear and are under the thumb of white privilege and hundreds of years of slavery and Jim Crow and no options and lots of expected rage and dope the white man brought to the ghetto and micro-racism by white folks who really aren’t just minding their own business on the bus they’re disrespecting you and the whole BGI play book.

      We are headed toward a country where even a traffic fatality could be called a hate crime.”She wasn’t concerned about the black mother ahead if her in her mini van, she was racing home in her luxury car to her gated white neighborhood!”
      The inverse: “This privileged white mother was only thinking about herself and was no doubt enraged to see a black woman driving an expensive car she couldn’t herself afford that she deliberately stomped on the brakes [accelerated, swerved, slowed].”

      We already see a mob going after presumably innocent people because a black boy suffocated himself in a gym mat. When a parent wants the BGI attention, the media rounds, the wardrobe and stylist, the easy cash and the lawsuits, everything from a pediatrician’s misdiagnosis to a teacher’s giving a failing grade to a simple playground scuffle will be the Trayvon Lotto.

      Maybe State Farm can start to issue BGI policies.

      Liked by 4 people

  9. tappin52 says:

    I say that we propose a new law that if prosecutors are proven to have lied and manipulated information in the pursuit of persecuting an innocent man, they be immediately disbarred and charged with obstruction of justice and defamation.

    Liked by 6 people

  10. TexasRanger says:

    Dealing With Barack Hussein Obama and DOJ Attorney General Eric Holder’s Buddy Reverend Al Sharpton.

    Fire – ‘Race Pimp’ Al Sharpton From MSNBC…..

    Like

  11. maggiemoowho says:

    Al Sharpton committed a hate crime against the entire world the day he was born, I guess you could say his mother committed a hate crime by giving birth to that disgusting creature. Sorry, I can’t stand the ignorance of the BGI and the pathetic Martin family. They need to look in the mirror and realize they are responsible for TM’s death, not George. Take the responsibility of having kids, you take the responsibility to raise them right.
    Sadly, only about 5% of the Black population feel that they have a responsibility to raise and provide for, their kids. Anyone who thinks it “takes a village” to raise your child, should seek birth control or better yet, keep your legs closed, all it takes is a good set of parents.

    Like

  12. angie says:

    If I had read Sharpton’s comment in a fiction book, I would have stopped reading it because the comment is so absurd. Let’s change the law to suit Al. That little man has an ego the size of his head.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Bill O Rights says:

    Al should be careful what he asks for. He just may get it,

    Today they come for me, tomorrow they come for thee.

    Like

  14. amwick says:

    OK Sundance, I thought about it for a moment, got confused, actually read the link, got more confused, honestly I tried. “The intent to prove that Zimmerman did it because of his race, that is the legal threshold,” Which means that any investigation that starts has already passed the threshold for a hate crime? I guess that whole innocent until proven guilty is out the window on Al’s planet. Still can’t wrap my brain around it. The terrible thing is that he brazenly advises POTUS.

    Like

    • You have just expressed my very thoughts….this is so twisted I couldn’t comprehend it.

      Like

    • The more terrible thing is that POTUS considers his advice worth listening to. The most terrible thing is that Obama is POTUS. So many evil things pour out of that alone!

      Like

      • Kin Mapper says:

        Although so much evil by our criminal (yes criminal check the fraud on the US admitted to by Gruber in lying as a plan to fool Congress and the American citizenry as the only way to be Un-Affordable Care passed patently violating (for oh so many elected Democrats ALL OF WHOM ARE SUBJECT TO FEDERAL LAWS as are judges of all stripes)
        “8 U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

        If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. ,,”

        and neither media nor Democrat nor Replubcan nor lawyer has ever discussed this criminal conspiracy under the terms of violations (this and others that alsocan be found) of federal…

        criminal code.

        But this is nothing compared to already allowing nuclear weapon materials production by a terrorist state of Iran sworn to wipe Israel off the map and then Iran shall come for us, or more wisely doing both at the same time as they want at least one hit to be made on the territory of my USA before the outbreak of their religiously-predicated and predicted end of times.

        Obama in this way is worse than Hitler.
        Look it us.

        Like

    • John Galt says:

      “I thought about it for a moment, got confused”

      It’s really pretty simple. “But resist we much… we must… and we will much… about… that… be committed.”

      Clear now?

      Like

  15. doodahdaze says:

    This Bobble Headed Boob will have to repeal the constitution first. I can’t wait til the long arm of the law catches up to him.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. joshua says:

    When do they start calling “Polar Bear Hunting” assaults “Hate Crimes?” They are only blacks attacking whites due to skin color and race. When do riots and lootings by all black mobs against non black businesses and property become HATE CRIMES. If never, then the LAW is unconstitutional as it treats different people in different ways.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. Bill says:

    This IMHO sadly this is where we are headed:

    Liked by 1 person

  18. sloth1963 says:

    Help me out here. If no crime was committed, how can it be a hate crime? Never mind.

    Like

    • John Galt says:

      It’s like a do over. Under Sharpton’s proposal, after the jury in the state case acquitted GZ of non-bias homicide charges, the feds would get a do over to try him on the same charges in federal court. Obozo / Holder would use “prosecutorial discretion” to bootstrap their way over the double jeopardy hurdle presented by the Constitution. It’s a bit hard to understand if you’re not an affirmative action self-proclaimed Constitutional law scholar.

      Like

      • Kin Mapper says:

        Double Jeopardy does not always attach on even similar federal and state crimes due to their seemingly slight differences. Here the federal crime is radically different than the murder charge made on an unindicted, alleged by information to avoid potential failure to get an indictment before any grand jury, GZ and could have been dispensed with, subject to the first indicia of race based mens rea (here the mental state of racial animus a person must have for the charges to even be brought) ever popping up, at the completion of the murder trial, regardless of the verdict.

        The guy GZ just wanted to protect his community as many of us have tried when we see something suspicious in our neighborhood and really did everything right from my perspective, as the surprise jumping and pound and ground beat down was not to be anticipated and GZ was not required to be able to defend himself with equal methods from such a vicious assault rather than protecting his own life. However it would have been a different matter absent the mounting of GZ by TM and the sufficient blows to show a physical fight as to clear right to shoot. It still might have been self defense (as no one has the right to come at an armed man to beat him under the rule that the gun is not allowed to be used unless the other has one as well-which is what many blacks claim proves the officer was in the wrong even if everything claimed by the officer was true).

        Like

        • John Galt says:

          In the absence of the element of bias / animus, Sharpton’s proposed federal crime will indeed be the same as the state homicide charges, and double jeopardy will indeed attach.

          Like

          • Kin Mapper says:

            Yes I agree and no I do not agree. It is easy to write the law to be sufficiently different as to avoid double jeopardy as ruled by our courts. The nuances possible are mind-boggling and illogical at times, but our courts allow judges to commit crimes from the bench such as ruling prior to hearing both sides, and can with little effort make black and white into convoluted grays.

            Merely a pre-amble that this law Is only to be applied to those homicides inflicted upon claimed victims of different races might suffice if you get the right judicial panels.

            Sgt. Stacy Koon was convicted of violating civil rights having not inflicted one hit nor even possibly coming into any contact with Rodney King.

            The law in America is a corrupt game with lawyers willing to watch criminal acts and believe that as officer of the court they are not obliged to report the felony of a judge intentionally violating minimal due process as might be required under 18 U.S. Code § 4 – Misprision of felony, to wit:

            “Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both”

            I have had a lawyer delete the showing of her awareness of possible felonies under this code section for fear it might be applicable to her even after the fact (which I truly doubt is the case).

            Like

  19. Chip Bennett says:

    The race baiters just don’t get it: they’re focusing on the racial threshold, while ignoring the other criterion: there was no commission of a crime.

    As I said before: George Zimmerman could have been the second coming of David Duke, but it didn’t matter, because he acted lawfully in self-defense. Even racists have the right of self-defense.

    (Oh, and then there’s that small matter that George Zimmerman was not, in fact, a racist – that mountains of evidence point to exactly the opposite conclusion. And in a great twist of irony, the manufactured witness Rachael Jentel actually portrayed Trayvon Martin as the more racist of the two.)

    Liked by 4 people

  20. sonjay says:

    Maybe the law should be that whenever a person of one race kills a person of a different race, that is automatically a hate crime and must be prosecuted as such.

    I wonder if Sharpton would like the outcome of such a law?

    Like

    • Chip Bennett says:

      Maybe the law should be that whenever a person of one race kills a person of a different race, that is automatically a hate crime and must be prosecuted as such.

      Or maybe the law should be that whenever a person unjustifiably kills another person, that is a crime and should be prosecuted and sentenced accordingly?

      What difference does the skin color of either person matter? Is someone more dead because they are murdered by someone of a different color? If someone murders someone of the same skin color, is the victim only mostly dead. (If so, let’s bring in Miracle Max. We can revive the victims of about 90% of all murders.)

      Like

  21. Dean says:

    Mark Twain once said that, “A classic is a book that everybody’s heard about but nobody’s read”. THAT is very apropos to this case. If people would actually listen to the 4 minute NEN call they will see that GZ wasn’t even sure if TM was black in the first place. He said, “I think he’s black”.

    Like

    • Dixie Darling says:

      I thought the operator asked GZ if TM was black. GZ didn’t even bring the subject up himself. Which accentuates your comment even more. Not sure I’m remembering correctly so somebody correct me if I’m wrong.

      Like

  22. Al Sharpton continues to whip this up to promote his false premise. The BGI wants us to excuse criminal behavior because we’re racists – THAT IS THE FALSE PREMISE. The BGI is demanding NO consequences for violent crimes committed by blacks against whites. I’ve heard it said, “George Zimmerman should’ve just taken his beat down.” “George Zimmerman should have stayed in his truck.” Even though he was the neighborhood watch captain, according to them his proper reaction to witnessing a suspicious, hoodie-clad black male was to be a coward and let the potential threat escape. Because George Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin to keep him in sight until the police arrived, it’s George Zimmerman’s fault that Trayvon Martin ambushed and assaulted him. Insanity!

    Like

    • Kin Mapper says:

      ” it’s George Zimmerman’s fault that Trayvon Martin ambushed and assaulted him”

      I read in an AP report yesterday that it was GZ who confronted Trayvon, which is the kind of front the media, across the board, maintains:

      that GZ stalked Trayvon, a minor child, into a figurative corner and forced Trayvon to defend himself. Maybe so, but not reflected by any testimony in court I can recall, only by the family and the race baiters. Trayvon ambushed GZ is a good way to describe the testimony and brought surprise to drop on the back GZ, fists and elbows, ground and pound techniques and MMA techniques to prevail in the battle of what turned before total victory into a one-sided gun fight as the unofficial watch captain had a final defense not expected, but in hand-to-hand combat being badly lost required either its use or the weapon’s loss to the winner, who appeared intent on more serious assault. GZ is not terribly bright, but no one in such a situation being beaten to a pulp (with no referee to call the fight) can be blamed for resorting to a deadly weapon if available (and similarly to that degree as to an officer who had already lost an assault on his weapon to a out-of-control alleged felon as to not electing to take a full speed knockdown onto the road by a body with 40 to 40 percent mass then the officer carried, irrespective of whether the officer had taken a mechanics sub-course in h.s. physics as all guys know about moving objects such as here done by an LSU back under the title “Leonard Fournette destroys a Texas A&M defender at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flAZz8mEIOo).

      I was the volunteer secretary on the board of a condo, at the pool who heard our wood gate loudly abused and in my bare feet stood up and walked into the rough asphalt (and hot) parking area wearing only swim trunks and dark glasses. Despite my best efforts to retreat from the miscreant, the much larger (white) fella assaulted me for “eyeballing him” it would seem as I said nothing.

      What Trayvon did is not normal, but is normal for those who are doing bad things, even in day light as in my case, and it appears from what GZ said and from Trayvon’s past that Trayvon was doing a check of viability of entering an apartment later. Caught doing so, Trayvon did what my guy did (who was a bouncer type at Bennigan’s) and reversed the tables with a surprise attack. Had I had gun in the back waistband of my swim trunks during the assault, it would have been drawn and reversed the very one-sided contest to be myself preventing him from further harm. Instead I just yelled for all to call 911 (at their apartments which would take time as this was before the day of the ubiquitous cell phone). As it was daylight, it was a scream of sufficient caliber

      The media HAS A DUTY TO never FAIL to tell these two stories as the evidence, the officer’s testimony, the two crime scene investigators and yes even GZ, since all were basically consistent, has established the facts to be. Then add that this is disputed by whomever, but not make the disputed claims the sole front to display to those who barely remember any other details.

      Liked by 1 person

  23. mcfyre2012 says:

    It’s time to make Al pay the millions he owes in taxes or send him to jail for tax fraud.

    Liked by 1 person

  24. John Galt says:

    Sharpton puts me in a quandry. Yesterday, I was sure that Melissa Harris-Perry was the most idiotic member of the BGI crew. Today, I’m not sure.

    Liked by 1 person

    • JohnP says:

      There does seem to be a contest for “Most Blithering Idiot” going on. I think the thought of MSNBC crumbling kicked off the contest and they figure CNN will hire whoever comes up with the most unsupportable story. My money is on Sharpton, he has a whole warehouse full of “Al Sharpton” bubblehead dolls he needs to move.

      Liked by 2 people

  25. Rachelle says:

    If we lower the threshold maybe it will be easier to prosecute Al Sharpton.

    Like

    • John Galt says:

      I think the feds could successfully prosecute Sharpton under existing law. 18 USC 241 for example.

      https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241

      Like

      • Kin Mapper says:

        Section 241 et seq. and the previously cited 18 USCode §371 are among the criminal laws that it appears a no-brainer that Prof Jonathan Gruber confessed to in his many YouTube video when taken as a conglomeration and suggested the names of many who must be considered (and for whom Gruber should be used to make air tight cases) in actuality or by innuendo.

        Al would be harder to convict as Gruber is so easy and yet no one out there would discuss it, except this one no one.

        Like

    • Dixie Darling says:

      I hope all the players in this fiasco burn in hell for what they did to GZ. That poor man will never be the same again.

      Liked by 1 person

    • nivico says:

      “That much said, Serino … worked under the assumption that Zimmerman had reached a “faulty conclusion” about Martin’s activity at the time Zimmerman spotted him.” – Cashill

      It still amazes me that the first we ever heard about the slim jim being found discarded in the bushes at the scene was during the trial…

      And even then, even with it being known that a burglary tool and stolen property had been confiscated from Martin in a prior incident, no one seemed to want to put 2 and 2 together and consider the possibility that Martin was casing homes.

      Every suspicion that GZ conveyed to the NEN about Martin’s behaviors that night were later corroborated by evidence, and yet folks still want to pretend that GZ’s suspicions were unfounded.

      Liked by 1 person

    • nivico says:

      I have to disagree with Cashill’s claiming that GZ should sue the DOJ for violating the ‘spirit’ of the right to a speedy and public trial. The right to a speedy trial doesn’t kick in until charges have been formally brought against the defendant, and that is often only after a lengthy investigation.

      That being said however, it is interesting to consider that:

      1) Prosecutorial immunity does not apply to statements made in the press (just ask Mike Nifong)

      2) The recent DOJ press release might be considered a good example of ‘defamation by implication’. The entire statement seemingly implies that GZ is guilty, but they just couldn’t gather enough evidence to meet the burden of proof to prosecute him.

      3) “Specific charges of criminal conduct are so inherently factual that these statements cannot be considered [nonactionable] opinion unless no reasonable reader would believe the publication was accusing the plaintiff of committing a crime.”

      Liked by 2 people

      • nimrodman says:

        Yes, consider this sentence in the DOJ statement:
        “This included investigating whether there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman violated Section 3631 by approaching Martin in a threatening manner before the fatal shooting because of Martin’s race and because he was using the residential neighborhood.”

        Seems to infer as a “known” that Zimmerman approached Martin “in a threatening manner”.

        I’m sorry, but was there eyewitness testimony during the trial that he did?

        Like

        • nimrodman says:

          … and that statement also infers that they couldn’t prove beyond reasonable doubt that Zim did so “because of Martin’s race.”

          In other words, one way to interpret that sentence is that Zimmerman “approached Martin in a threatening manner” but they simply couldn’t prove he did so “because of Martin’s race.”

          Or as nivico said in his item #2, ‘defamation by implication’. He’s guilty but we just can’t prove it.

          Like

  26. ouroborosredux says:

    The guy is a clown… but a scary clown considering the number of brain dead that mindlessly nod their heads in agreement when he speaks…

    Like

  27. polk8dot says:

    Hey, why the heck not? It is only a logical progression on the downslide of American culture.
    The progressives have already destroyed so many of our values, what’s a few more rungs down the ladder? It started so innocently, right? No more scoring in sports activities for kids – if they can’t all WIN, we have to lower the standards to make them all winners. Declining middle and high school graduation rates introduced the next progressive solution – passing scores just for showing up, extra grades for ‘special social circumstances’. If the kids are too lazy to learn, or teachers too lazy to teach – yeah, we have to make sure they all graduate anyway, poor little snowflakes. College students unable to get through a course of study, because their partying is cutting into study time, or lack of basics from high school makes it impossible to comprehend the simplest course content? No biggie – we’ll just introduce classed on ‘women studies’, ‘black studies’, ‘the psychology and sociology of the TV show “Survivor”‘ etc., with smart sounding names and no educational value whatsoever. After all, everybody deserves to graduate college and if they can’t – well, it is up to the progressives to fix this social injustice.
    The harbingers of doom stated with lowering admission and graduation standards for women in the military, then in the emergency services (EMT, Fire Dept. etc.). Because if a woman can’t carry a body as heave as a guy, it is only fair she NOT be required to. If she can’t match a man’s physical endurance, well – not her fault. It’s those pesky, sexist standards that are standing in the way of her dreams, and progressives can’t have that. Poof! Special handicaps will ensure ‘equality’ for women in theretofore purely, traditionally male occupations.
    Democrats unable to enact their agenda the legal way? No problem – just open the borders, prohibit voter ID requests, and voila – you got yourself an insta-illeg’ocrat voting block. Because if the laws are not allowing the coning of America, there is clearly something wrong with the laws!
    The examples are too numerous and frankly too disheartening to continue the list.
    But, objectively speaking, this latest foray from Sharpton is just a next logical step that was easy to anticipate and should not come as a surprise. Typical progressive agenda in motion – start with little things, innocuous enough for people to be willing to just ascribe you good intentions, and then slowly move on to bigger, more important, more conservative values, and erode them to nothing.
    If anyone even needed a proof or a reminder that we are in the fight for our survival with the enemy within, the fight to ensure lasing of our ideals, our core beliefs – what more proof do they need?

    If this SH!T does not get stopped in a hurry, we have so much more to look forward to: drivers’ licenses given out to anybody for the asking on their 16th birthday, because hey, everyone should be able to drive, and tests are simply unfair! Why not free airline tickets to everybody, forever? After all, we all would like to travel, and curbing those wants should be unconstitutional!
    What else? Oh, shoooot! Almost forgot. Permanent vacation time for every employment-age adult. Everybody gets a government salary for life, without restraints. Restraints are UNFAIR, and thus antithetical to the progressive ideology.. Look forward to all criminals being set free, too, because the law can’t be enforced if it limits anyone’s rights to do as they please, followed by restitution to all formerly imprisoned criminals, for us destroying their lives with our harsh, unfair laws. Maybe pilot licenses to anyone who wants one, with no certification required, because… yeah, as Steven Green of PJTV says, ‘because, Democrats’. No medical licenses – anyone can be a doctor, because medical school is inherently discriminatory with their exams, and labs, and internships, etc.
    And finally – anyone, from anywhere in the world, can run to be the President of the United States. Because we now do everything and anything we want, consequences be damned… and, oh yeah, because, Democrats….

    One final thought – the survival of our nation as an cohesive entity is now in doubt. Enemies foreign are circling the wagons, looking for the next open space to thrown to sucker punch at. We can weather those, because they are easy to see coming. What we are inherently blinded to are the enemies within, because their ideology, their hate of America is so divergent from everything that has been bred into us from childhood, so abhorrent to accept, their motives so beyond comprehension for the patriots, that we are rendered defenseless against it by virtue of our virtue.

    Lord, how I hope and pray that the awakening comes before it is too late. Otherwise…. somebody just shoot me 😦 when the progressive Utopia descends, because the jungle will have nothing on that nightmare.

    Liked by 1 person

    • nimrodman says:

      Good synopsis, but spelling autocorrect may have maligned your prose.

      What would be the “coning” of America? I can’t discern what word you intended there.

      “Because if the laws are not allowing the coning of America …”

      Liked by 1 person

      • polk8dot says:

        Thanks, nimrodman. I really hate my tablet at times. I usually use my regular laptop, but sometimes things can’t be helped. My bad. I should have caught it. Here is what I mean:

        con – (kŏn) (Slang conned, con·ning, cons)
        To swindle (a victim) by first winning his or her confidence; dupe. A swindle. Of, relating to, or involving a swindle or fraud: a con artist; a con job.

        Like

  28. skeptiktank says:

    What is really needed is to lower the standards to prove defamation,libel, and slander in order to protect people like George Zimmerman from the likes of Sharpton and the rest of the crew at NBC.

    Like

  29. taqiyyologist says:

    NAN is a hate crime.

    Like

  30. czarowniczy says:

    Dear Al, we’ve lowered so many standards when dealing with Special Peoples why not just go whole-hog and use a lowered standard of justice when dealing with them? I suggest you go to Wally World, buy a large box of crayons, some wide-ruled paper and get started on a Special People’s “Federal Rules of Evidence’ right now.

    Like

  31. Dawnasong says:

    Nazi Germany and a racist agenda. Only this time the Nazis are black, black Muslims, and Muslim terrorist! They’re all terrorist, and they’re agenda is to rewrite our history and destroy all other races! It’s evil and it’s deplorable! !!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s