Type to search

George Zimmerman: President Obama Amped Up Racial Tension Against Me

National News Top News Tribune News Service

George Zimmerman: President Obama Amped Up Racial Tension Against Me

Share
President Barack Obama delivers remarks on the verdict in the George Zimmerman trial for the killing of Trayvon Martin, in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House, July 19, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Chuck Kennedy)

By Rene Stutzman, Orlando Sentinel (TNS)

ORLANDO, Fla. — In his first public comments since the U.S. Department of Justice announced it would not prosecute him for violating Trayvon Martin’s civil rights, George Zimmerman says he was victimized by President Barack Obama.

The president should never have allowed the DOJ investigation and is guilty of ramping up racial tension when he said, “If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon,” Zimmerman said.

Zimmerman is the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who killed Martin, an unarmed black 17-year-old, in Sanford on Feb. 26, 2012, setting off civil rights demonstrations across the country and beyond.

A Seminole County jury acquitted Zimmerman of manslaughter in 2013.

Zimmerman went into hiding after the shooting and still tightly guards his privacy.

He has rejected most media request for an interview but on March 8 video-recorded an interview with his Tampa divorce lawyer, Howard Iken, of Ayo and Iken PLC.

In it, he faulted the media for portraying him as a racist and the criminal justice system for bringing him to trial but saved his harshest criticism for Obama, whom he accused of trying to prosecute “an innocent American.”

“For him to make incendiary comments as he did and direct the Department of Justice to pursue a baseless prosecution, he by far overstretched, overreached,” Zimmerman said.

The president, who he referred to as “Barack Hussein Obama,” should have told the public, ” ‘Let’s not rush to judgment,’ ” Zimmerman said.

On Feb. 24, the Department of Justice announced that it would file no charges against Zimmerman and was closing its 3-year-old investigation.

According to Iken, federal authorities have not returned to Zimmerman the Kel-Tec 9mm semiautomatic pistol that he used to kill Martin.

Iken interviewed Zimmerman in Orlando.

“Do you have a clean conscience at this point?” the lawyer asked about the shooting.

“Yes, sir.”

“Do you wish (it) … had turned out differently?”

“I believe that the American judicial system failed in the sense that I should not even (have) gone to trial, but I do believe that the jury process succeeded,” Zimmerman said.

He said he’s convinced there’s nothing he could have done differently that would have allowed both he and Martin to survive their confrontation that night.

“In all fairness, you cannot as a human feel guilty for living, for surviving,” he said.

“Are you the same person right now that you were five years ago?” Iken asked.

“Absolutely not,” Zimmerman said. “I have to have my guard up. … I still believe that people are truly good at heart, as Anne Frank has said, and I will put myself in any position to help another human in any way I can.”

Photo: President Barack Obama delivers remarks on the verdict in the George Zimmerman trial for the killing of Trayvon Martin, in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House, July 19, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Chuck Kennedy)

Tags:

You Might also Like

93 Comments

  1. Pathetica March 23, 2015

    So, could not be avoided – not if he skips the part about not getting out and following the kid. But, oh well…

    Reply
  2. toptwome March 24, 2015

    George Zimmerman deserves all the hate he gets from people who know he is a murderer and a racist creep.

    Reply
  3. L0C March 24, 2015

    How dare this killer and wife beater compare himself to Anne Frank

    Reply
  4. MVH1 March 24, 2015

    He is getting what he deserves, scorn from the world. He is a tragedy waiting to happen, whether he inflicts it on others or finally himself.

    Reply
  5. The lucky one March 24, 2015

    Interesting, when asked if he wished (it) had worked out differently I thought the questioner was referring to the night he murdered Martin but Zimmerman, seeing himself as the victim, replied that he should not have been tried for killing an unarmed man he was stalking.

    Reply
  6. Grannysmovin March 24, 2015

    He care about one thin -being in front of a camera and doesn’t care how he gets there. No Zimmerman – we had a Band-Aid on this sore and when we elected the first
    African American President we pulled off the Band-Aid and the scab came off and
    exposed a deep festering racial infection.

    Reply
  7. InformedVoter March 24, 2015

    The news media convicted Zimmerman even after all the evidence showed he was not at fault. The police investigation, followed by a grand jury investigation showed Martin was the guilty party. Then the two stooges, Holder and Obama, played the race card. Well, it blew up their faces. Shame on Holder and Obama!

    Reply
    1. Grannysmovin March 24, 2015

      What exactly was Martin guilty of, defending himself agains an older man who had no authority to follow him? For all the unarmed 17 year old thought he was being stalked by a preditor. Zimmerman’s actions caused the racial tension. Zimmerman was found not guilty based on the “stand your ground law”. He was free and what did he do, got himself in more trouble with the law. Was that Obama and Holder’s fault? People are upset with Zimmerman, not because of what Obama or Holder said, but because he was responsible for the death of a 17 unarmed teenager.

      1. InformedVoter March 24, 2015

        Oh Bull! Martin was checking out houses to break into. Zimmerman was doing his job as a neighborhood watch volunteer. The only people that are “upset” with Zimmerman are racist against latins. Martin’s story about keeping out of the rain is laughable. The two stooges played the race card, just like they had in the past and in Ferguson. Zimmerman did not get in trouble with the law. He was forced into a trial because of the race cards. Fortunately, the truth survived and Zimmerman was found innocent. The only guiilty parties were the media, the two stooges and Martin.

        1. Grannysmovin March 24, 2015

          Where was the evidence – video – pictures. Zimmerman was not on duty, and as a watch volunteer he was not suppose to follow anyone. Zimmerman is latin? The only racist on this site is you, He was found not quilty not the same as innocent. OJ was found not guilty, but was he innocent? You have your pov and I have mine – have a nice day.

          1. InformedVoter March 24, 2015

            Zimmerman was on duty. At his trial, it was proven that Martin circled back and started the confrontation. Zimmerman is latin. Holder and Obama played the race card. The low information fools who have expressed “outrage” are racist. They must be. They have ignored the evidence that clearly shows that Martin was the one responsible for his own death. And finally, yes, OJ was innocent in the eyes of the law. BTW, part of the evidence was a recorded phone conversation that proved that Martin was the one who started the confrontation. Also, pix showed that Martin was in the process of killing Zimmernman when he fired his gun. There had been break ins in the neighborhood and Martin’s school locker had stolen goods in it. Zimmerman did mankind a favor when he “removed” a thug like Martin.

          2. Grannysmovin March 24, 2015

            Didnt Zimmerman say he came across Martin on his way to the storore? Jurors in the murder trial were shown photos today of Trayvon Martin’s body lying in the grass shortly after he was killed – not pics of what actualy happened. No pix showing Martin was in the process of killing Zimmerman when he was shot. Martin told her he saw a man watching him so he put his hoodie on and kept walking.
            “I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast,” the girl told the network. “I told him to run, but he said he was not going to run.”
            Eventually, Martin thought he had lost the man. But then Zimmerman returned and cornered him, the girl said. Here’s how she told it to ABC News:
            “Trayvon said, ‘What are you following me for,’ and the man said, ‘What are you doing here.’ Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell. I called him again, and he didn’t answer the phone.”
            Cell phone logs, which were given to ABC News, backed up the girl’s story that she was on the phone with Martin about five minutes before police arrived on scene.

            “Women’s jewelry and a watch found in Trayvon Martin’s school backpack last fall could not be tied to any reported thefts, the Miami-Dade Police Department said Tuesday.’ So the Police lied right? Becaiuse there were breakin’s does not mean he had the right to stalk a young teenager. You have no proof he was a “thug” other than Faux News – so much for “InformedVoter” Have good night.

          3. InformedVoter March 25, 2015

            Boy have you got your infomation messed up. NO, Zimmerman never said he said he saw Martin on the way to the store. The conversation you quote was fabricated by Martin’s girlfriend. The experts tore her story apart. The timeline she stated was proven false. Martin circled back and confronted Zimmerman. Eye witness statements verified Martin was slamming Zimmerman’s head on the cement. The pix confirmed the injuries to Zimmerman. During the trial, the ABC version of the cell logs were shown to be incorrectly reported – they lied trying to defend why they convicted Zimmerman without having all the facts. The only thing you got right is that the police could not connect the jewelry to any burglary. They said it was common that exact descriptions of stolen items were rare. The police added that they were “certain” that the items were stolen.

          4. charleo1 March 25, 2015

            Since the incident occurred more than 150 yards from the truck Police told Zimmerman to wait in, at the entrance to the sub-division. The evidence showed Zimmerman pursued Martin, not
            that Martin, “circled back around.” If Zimmerman would have followed the instruction of Police, as neighborhood watchers are
            supposed to, this would have never happened. Fact matter idiot!

          5. InformedVoter March 25, 2015

            Zimmerman never spoke to the police. The dispatcher (a civilian said “we don’t need you to do that” when Zimmerman said he would try to determine where Martin was. Martin was two houses from his father’s house (verified by cell pings) when he told his girlfriend that he was going back and take care of that explitive white explitive. So, you are wrong. The trial evidence showed that Martin did circle back and jumped Zimmerman. Martin didn’t think that when you jump someone that they might just be packin’. The carrying a weapon legislation was approved so that folks could defend themselves from thugs like Martin. Martin died because his balls were too big and he hated white folks. Facts do matter. You need to get your facts straight!

        2. highpckts March 24, 2015

          That is also BS! As a neighborhood watch person he wasn’t even supposed to be carrying a gun! Geezus!

        3. Lafollette March 25, 2015

          Go back to your TV. Your talking points are stale.

        4. Allan Richardson March 25, 2015

          Uninformed voter, what EVIDENCE was there that he was checking out houses to break into? NONE, unless, like his stalker and killer, you consider being a black teenager in an all white, or oughta be all white, neighborhood, “evidence”. And no one CARES whether Zimmerman is Hispanic or not. What they care about is a cop wannabe who didn’t pass the mental tests to be a real cop, playing detective by stalking a kid he didn’t “think” should be in the neighborhood, with NO LAW ENFORCEMENT INSIGNIA on his car or his person, in DISOBEDIENCE to the 911 operator who was trained to follow CORRECT procedure in order to stop this very type of act from occurring.

          You are just making up the facts to fit your own prejudices. There was NEVER any evidence presented to show that the kid WAS ACTUALLY looking for burglary opportunities, only that Zimmerman said he THOUGHT that was the case.

          1. InformedVoter March 25, 2015

            Low information folks like you are easy pickings. Zimmerman first observed Martin as Martin was sneaking in between houses. As a neighborhood watch person, seeing someone sneaking around houses should have demanded that the snooper should be checked out. The 911 operator is NOT a cop or even a police cadet. They receive two weeks training and then turned loose. No one has the obligation to follow their advice. And for the record, the advice given was “we don’t need you to do that” when Zimmerman said he was going to continue to observe what Martin was up to. As to stalking, Martin was two houses from his father’s house (verified by cell pings) when he told his girlfriend that he was going back to take care of that explitive white guy. Martin was looking for trouble and found it.

    2. johninPCFL March 24, 2015

      Yes, it’s legal in FL to stalk a person, start a fight with them and wimp out, then shoot the person dead. Zimmerman showed the NRA up for all its glory. Murder-for-hire is now legal.

      1. InformedVoter March 24, 2015

        What have you been smoking? Martin started the fight. When Zimmerman found him lurking around, most likely looking for a home to break into, Martin became the law breaker by attacking Zimmerman. Home watch groups are found everywhere and are fully encouraged by police. And what did the NRA have to do with this? If the two stooges had thier way, no one would have a gun. That’s the tactic used by Hitler and the two stooges are trying to repeat that act. Just about everyone is thankful to Zimmerman, the exception being racists against latins.

        1. johninPCFL March 24, 2015

          Yes, Zimmerman lawfully stalked his victim, and everyone is thankful to Zimmerman for a much broader definition of “Stand your ground”, which now has been used over a dozen times in defense of gang members and other murderers.
          Yes, calling for restrictions so that the mentally ill have no access to guns is the same as “no one would have a gun”, especially you. So, stock up while you can. Buy all the ammo you can carry, and borrow the money to do it! Ooga-booga! Ooga-booga!

          1. InformedVoter March 24, 2015

            Holder and Obama are after more than resticting mentally ill from possesing guns. Chicago has one of the toughest gun laws in the nation, yet they lead the nation in the number of murders with a gun.

          2. johninPCFL March 24, 2015

            Yeah, but simpletons like you haven’t figured out that since it’s a local law, and there is no way to arrest a “straw man” until after he’s sold his illegal cache, you can (damn near) walk to Indiana (or Wisconsin), buy all the high-powered weapons you want, and sell them in Chicago.

            “20% of all handguns recovered in crime in 2000 were originally purchased as part of a multiple sale.” A multiple sale is one where two or more guns are purchased in the same transaction or within five days of one another. So it seems that one way to reduce the number of guns going to criminals is to limit gun purchases to one per week.

            But gee, criminals don’t care about laws, right? A national “Straw Man” law might be nice, but the last time a “one gun per week” limit was proposed the NRA went batshit crazy. After all, sane folks might want to boost their collection, right?

        2. Allan Richardson March 25, 2015

          Where did Zimmerman get the evidence that Martin was “most likely looking for a home to break into?” The ONLY factor which would have made Zimmerman think the kid did not “belong” in a gated community was his being BLACK! And how did MARTIN know that ZIMMERMAN was not “looking for a home to break into” or worse, “looking for a child to kidnap, molest and kill” when Zimmerman began STALKING Martin? Was there ANY insignia on Zimmerman’s clothing, or ANY sign (a stick-on magnet, maybe) on his vehicle, SHOWING he was a neighborhood watch volunteer? NO! Perhaps that is WHY the 911 operator TOLD HIM NOT to stalk Martin! If YOUR kid were walking around your neighborhood, and an UNKNOWN man in a vehicle were found to be following HIM (or worse, her), what would YOU expect your kid to think? Neighborhood watch volunteer who suspects I am a criminal? Or serial killer/rapist looking for a victim?

          Even the prosecution did not bring up this possibility, which means they expected Martin to somehow KNOW this stalker was helping to enforce the law, and not himself a lawbreaker. The testimony from Martin’s friends certainly indicated that Martin was fearful of SOMETHING. So even if Martin did throw the first punch, HE was acting in self defense. Unfortunately, he didn’t have a gun and the man he thought was attacking him did. But the white police, prosecutor and jury chose to believe that the DEAD BLACK BOY was the criminal, making anything Zimmerman did perfectly OK, INCLUDING disobeying the 911 dispatcher, not waiting for police, not showing that HE had a legitimate (as opposed to criminal) reason to be driving around following teenagers, and threatening the boy so that the boy felt he had to fight back.

        3. highpckts March 27, 2015

          Are you smoking something? Where are the facts to support that the kid was “looking for a home to break into”?? He was black and out at night! That is excuse enough to be killed now a days! Especially in FL!! As a good lawer would say ” that is pure supposition”!! You found the black kid guilty before he was killed! Geezus!

          1. InformedVoter March 27, 2015

            You sent 3 posts, so I’ll address them all here. My comment about white/latin addressed the post that Zimmerman was white. Zimmerman is as latin as Obama is black.
            A police officer sees 2 guys leave a bar, get into a car and drive off. One of the guys he saw is driving. The officer observes and then pulls the car over. The pasenger is drunk, but the driver never had a drink and tests 0% alcohol level. The officer pulled them over for possible cause. An on duty Zimmerman observes a hooded person sneaking between houses and calls the police. If there was no probable cause, the police dispatch would have told Zimmerman to forget it.
            Throughout this entire post, all you low information folks have said Zimmerman should not have had a gun, he should have obeyed a civilian order, that he stalked, etc. All those items are false. If it was wrong to carry a gun while on watch or disobey the poliice dispatch, etc. then the 3-year DOJ investigation would have led to charges against Zimmerman. If the DOJ could have charged Zimmerman with spitting on the sidewalk, they would have.
            All you low information jerks think that Zimmerman broke the law while checking out a probable cause suspect in a neighborhood that had breakins are wrong. If ANY of Zimmerman’s actions, like carrying his gun, etc were wrong, then why didn’t the DOJ charge him with those offenses?
            Try reading the trial transcripts that clearly show that Martin sought out Zimmerman, and started the fight. All your low information freinds that quoted the garbage against Zimmerman, have had their “facts” torn to shreds by me. Zimmerman broke NO law in performing his duties as a watch person. Martin died because he went after an explitive white explitive. If Zimmerman didn’t have a gun, and the police arrived, they would have arrested Martin for assault with intent to commit murder.
            All you low information folks didn’t have even one fact correct in this case. You should try information sources other than the lame stream media and The National Memo.

    3. shays01 March 24, 2015

      Re-read Zimmerman’s final comment. In it, you see the bald hypocrisy that allows him, and people like him, to defend their fearful and racist sentiments. If he truly believed that people are good and that he would go out of his way to “help another human in any way I can,” then he would not have stalked, then pursued, Trayvon Martin to the ultimate confrontation (which he demonstrated he could not handle or control). No … he would have asked Trayvon if he needed some help.

    4. highpckts March 24, 2015

      Shame on you for not getting your facts straight and wanting so badly for this to be all about race! Your sheets are showing!

      1. InformedVoter March 24, 2015

        My facts are correct, and you should know it. The police investigated the death and decided not to press charges. Then a grand jury investigaed and decided not to press charges. Holder and Obama put pressure on the Florida folks and so charges were made. Many legal experts commented that charges should not have been brought. The two stooges made this about race, not me. For anyone to still claim that Zimmerman should have been charged and be upset because he’s found innocent, could only feel that way because they are racists against latins.

        1. johninPCFL March 24, 2015

          Yes, the police decided that since anyone can now shoot anyone else to death in FL they had no case to make. Since the AG presented the data that anyone can shoot and kill anyone in FL with minimal provocation, the jury also found that there was no case.

          All that’s necessary to legally murder a person in FL today is for the person to resist being murdered. After all, you can fear for your life (Zimmerman’s defense) while trying to kill someone else (as Zimmerman showed.) The AG in FL has also passed on over a dozen gang murders since then for exactly those reasons.

        2. Lafollette March 25, 2015

          Latins? You’re reaching.

          1. InformedVoter March 25, 2015

            I just love low information folks like you. One of Obama’s parents is black the other white. So he’s black. One of Zimmersman’s parents is latin the other white. So he’s white?
            Oh, I get it – you are racist against whites!

          2. Lafollette March 25, 2015

            Another silly talking point. Congratulations.

          3. InformedVoter March 25, 2015

            How dense can you be? You respond that “latins. You’re reaching”. So I provide proof that latin was correct and you say silly talking point? When your unmarried mother found out her baby (you) was going to be dense, it’s too bad she didn’t believe in abortion.

          4. Lafollette March 27, 2015

            The great thing about the Internet is that you get to have arguments with nitwits who think they’re geniuses.

          5. Mr Corrections March 26, 2015

            Wow – this is the dumbest post in this thread, and there’s a lot of competition from your earlier efforts.

          6. highpckts March 27, 2015

            Oh my God, I just love your twisted logic! Only a true Republican can do that!

        3. charleo1 March 25, 2015

          Zimmerman was found not guilty, not innocent.

        4. highpckts March 27, 2015

          First and fatal flaw – why was Zimmerman carrying a gun when he knew he wasn’t allowed as just a neighborhood watch person?? Just as in Ferguson, the Grand jury and police were rigged! And racists against Latins??? Please!

    5. Mr Corrections March 24, 2015

      I must have missed the part where there was a reason to chase down and murder a child without any reason beyond that child’s skin tone.

      Fortunately, the political support you and your craven ilk rely on is entirely based on elderly white voters, who will soon be dead. Then we’ll finally have the votes be able to fix this problem by the most obvious means – banning firearms.

      I hope that helps!

  8. Carolyn1520 March 24, 2015

    Why is anyone even giving Zimmerman aka POS face time?

    Reply
  9. marriea March 24, 2015

    How did President Obama amp up murder charges against him? Zimmerman, in his quest to play cowboy, in my opinion, was the first to bring up race in the incident when he decided to play cop after being told not to. He was the one who followed Trayvon, instead of going up to him and introducing himself as a community watchperson and asking Trayvon if he was lost. He, in his desperation, to become relevant brought all of this on himself. I’m sure that many would like to see Zimmerman, in their minds, guilt free, but that he is still talking about it, shows that what little conscience he has is bothering him. If as some would like to believe, that the media convicted him, Oh well. If Trayvon had been white, the situation would never have played out this way and even Zimmerman and his supporters in their heart of heart knows this. Ok Zimmerman, you got one, who knows, you might even end up getting two. But I hope he lives to a ripe old age knowing that nothing the president nor anyone else can take the blame for, it’s yours, you wanted it, now wear it. YOU ARE A MURDERER!!! It doesn’t matter that the courts went in you favor, proceedings for the most part are a sham, in you heart you know what you did and why.

    Reply
  10. A_Real_Einstein March 24, 2015

    You got away with murder, George. Time to go away before you turn into another Durst, God willing.

    Reply
  11. whodatbob March 24, 2015

    Good for George for calling Obama out for race bating. The and Holder did the same in Ferguson.

    Reply
    1. shays01 March 24, 2015

      You’re kidding, of course …

      1. whodatbob March 24, 2015

        Just read all three replies to my post. The findings of both DOJ reports were accurate. DOJ’s 1st report exonerated Officer Wilson of any wrong doing, he was justified in shooting Brown and Wilson’s actions were not racially motivated. If you had paid attention to Obama and Holders statements in the beginning Wilson committed a racial hate crime. That people is race bating at the highest level of government. Holder and Obama bought into the “don shoot – hands up” gentle giant lie.

        The second report outlined the quagmire of problems existing in Ferguson. But does not excuse Obama’s nor Holder’s (2 trained attorneys) incorrect statements at the beginning.

        1. shays01 March 24, 2015

          Read the reports there closer, Mr Supremacist. The DOJ includes lots of testimony that contradicts, or at least challenges, every single one of Darren Wilson’s statements. It “disqualifies” said testimony for “contradictions” without ever stating what the contradictions are or the relative importance of those contradictions. It also concludes that, based upon the evidence that it DOES consider (greatly limited, by its own admission), that officer Wilson possibly felt he was threatened and therefore had a right to defend himself.
          Never mind that the guy against whom he was defending himself had already been shot, had run away at least 180 feet, and was teetering/tottering/”lunging” toward the officer, he fired off something like 12 rounds in just a few seconds to “make sure” the sucker was dead. Given that Wilson precipitated the confrontation and did so contrary to every single rule of police action taught in Criminology 101, this “exoneration” is pure bull pucky.
          As to George Zimmerman … the guy with an extremely well-documented anger-management issue … don’t even get me started.

          1. whodatbob March 25, 2015

            As to George Zimmerman — even a nut case tells the truth. Holder, Chief Battier, and his political cover did more to increase racial tension then any missteps made by State Troupers or St. Louis County Police who took over crowd control in Ferguson after Brown was killed.

            As I stated the report on City of Ferguson outlines the quagmire of problems there. That is a big problem that needs fixing!

            Other report, investigation into the shooting of Michael Brown by Officer Wilson concluded that physical evidence and witness statement supported Wilson’s version of the incident. No evidence to the contrary exist. All witness who testifies otherwise retracted their statements when questioned under oath.

            Believe what you like, do not let the facts get in the way!

          2. shays01 March 25, 2015

            This is just untrue. The report concludes that the physical evidence and witness statements “do not contradict” Wilson’s version, and that it is “reasonable to presume” that he felt like his life was threatened. The report does NOT say anything about witnesses retracting their statements … only that some were discounted because of contradictions in their testimony (either statements contradicted by the physical evidence, or self-contradictory statements). It also acknowledges that there are some parts in the sequence of events that cannot be determined. To wit: it is not clear whether Michael Brown reached into the car and punched/choked Officer Wilson or whether the officer reached out of the car and grabbed Brown by the shirt collar; it is equally unclear whether Brown was trying to raise his hands, hold up his pants, or was clenching his fists in some aggressive gesture before Wilson fired multiple volleys in three separate rounds, ending with the fatal shot to the head. These two points are extremely important, but both are dismissed. “Oh well!”

          3. whodatbob March 25, 2015

            You can interpreted the report through your rose colored glasses however you want. Obviously, you are one of the true believers that Wilson “murdered Brown”, Holders words and nothing including the DOJ investigation will bring you to the truth. All the other peripheral stuff does not lesson the fact that Wilson is not guilty.

            All the entry wounds indicated Brown was facing Wilson and moving towards Wilson. Wilson had reason to shoot Brown.

            Since report does not contain any contradictory testimony to the testimony collaborating Wilson’s version, then all the witnesses who told the hands up don’t shoot lie must have recanted that lie. Even Holder had to except the truth. Killing Brown was not racially motivated and justified.

          4. shays01 March 25, 2015

            My glasses are crystal clear and seem to have fog penetrating capabilities that yours are lacking. Let the fog of institutional racism blind you to the truth … karma ultimately takes its cut.

            I have not said that Darren Wilson “murdered” Michael Brown, though your impaired vision and snarky racism have led you to draw that conclusion. The report clearly states that Brown was facing Wilson when shot nine times (even the tenth wound in his wrist/arm was from the front), and asserts bluntly that he was NOT shot in the back. While firing those rounds in THREE SEPARATE volleys suggests over-kill, it does not equate to “murder.”

            Here is what I am saying. The Ferguson police department and the white elites of Ferguson ran a blatantly racist police state. Even you have admitted as much. Wilson is a worker bee in that system. He has and had an attitude that precipitated this confrontation. As he himself testified, he first drove past the two boys walking in the street and, through his open patrol car window, told them to get on the sidewalk. Some say his language was rather abusive, but that has been stricken from the DOJ report because it could not be corroborated. My guess is that he gave an imperious order from his car as he drove past, and the boys told him to f*ck off. Hence the slamming on of the brakes and the accelerated reverse, swerving to put his car diagonally in the street and blocking the forward motion of the two boys.

            Next, he did something that all police officers are taught in Enforcement 101: Don’t accelerate a situation that you can’t control, and don’t put yourself in a vulnerable position. What did Wilson do? He opened the door and tried to get out, bashing it into Brown as he did so. The door bounced back on him, keeping him trapped inside. The next part is disputed … and is left as a disputed point in the report (as I pointed out) because there is no way to verify or corroborate the two versions — either Wilson reached out and grabbed Brown and pulled him towards the door, or for some reason the kid decided to attack a police officer in his car with his bare hands.

            A peace officer concerned with jaywalkers would be out in the street, on foot, and talking to the boys … not imperiously commanding them to get on the f*cking sidewalk while cruising past. This is a White Lord who was confronting some uppity black boys who violated the central tenets of his basic training.

            So Brown gets shot, breaks the hold that he had on Wilson or the hold that Wilson had on him, and runs away. He runs almost 200 feet before stopping. No shots are fired, but Wilson has leaped out of the car and is in pursuit. How far behind him was he? That is not said. But Brown stops running and turns around. Here, the testimony is disputed, again. If you would actually read the report, you will see that DOJ does not state what happened next, and does not have any conclusions about what happened. Brown is said to have put his hands to his waist, as if holding up his pants. He is said to have raised his arms with fists clenched, apparently in a position of self-defense or aggression. He is also said to have been trying to raise his hands, perhaps in surrender. Some say he stumbled forward, others that he charged forward. He did not move very far forward, no matter what he was trying to do. We’ll never know, because Wilson opened fire, firing off those three separate volleys of 3-5 shots each.

            No one “recanted” their testimony. Some conflicted with the physical evidence and was discounted. But a lot didn’t. All the DOJ could conclude was that it was “reasonable” to believe that Officer Wilson felt threatened, and therefore by the rules of engagement, did not use excessive force. But no actual threat is mentioned in the report, and there is no concrete evidence that an actual threat existed. There is just the conclusion that Wilson “felt threatened.”

            My guess is that he felt threatened all the time, and didn’t have the self-discipline to control his own fear when the situation spun out of control … a situation that HE created by over-reaction and his tough-guy attitude. He called for back-up, incidentally. Why didn’t he wait for it?

          5. whodatbob March 25, 2015

            Never said you used the term murdered, Holder’s first announcement was the DOJ would investigate the murder of Michael Brown by a white police officer Wilson was racially motivated). A biased statement by a racist Cabinet member. t was like throwing gasoline on a smoldering fire. DOJ investigation into shooting of Brown proved his allegation to be biased and wrong. Holder’s statement showed him to be every bit as bigoted as all the white supremacist we are trying to rid the nation of. You continue to post as a true believer that Holder’s statement (murder of Michael Brown racially motivated).

            DOJ’s other investigation proved what most people in the metropolitan St. Louis area knew. Ferguson and all the little municipalities in north St. Louis County are screwed up! Hopefully, this will cause all to change the way they operate.
            We can look for improvements.

          6. shays01 March 26, 2015

            Now you are just lying. You claim you never said I used the term “murdered,” but here are the exact words to which I was replying: “Obviously, you are one of the true believers that Wilson ‘murdered Brown’…”. Hence my response, because you had no reason to make that assertion.

            Your next series of assertions are perhaps even more offensive. Of course the Department of Justice is going to investigate civil rights violations perpetrated by a white officer against an unarmed black boy in a racist community dominated by racist police practices. There is no other way for a black Attorney General to make such an announcement so your assumption that it was a “biased” statement is meaningless. Erik Holder is not a racist. He is the victim of racism, and you are a primary example of the type of racism to which he is subjected, hiding behind a veil of deniability because your racism is not overt. A black man cannot be a racist in this country, because racism is a tool of oppression used by a majority over a minority.

            The investigation, as I have been arguing (without refutation from you, I would point out … certainly not with specifics), did not conclude the confrontation was racially motivated. Far from it. It concluded only that Officer Wilson did not use excessive force and that he had no premeditated (e.g., racially motivated) reason to shoot Michael Brown.

            Holder’s statements demonstrate nothing of the sort that he is “every bit as bigoted as all the white supremacist we are trying to rid the nation of.” What a steaming pile of poo. There is no such thing as “reverse racism,” though all people of color (and other minorities) in this country have lots of good reasons to be suspicious of, and to even mistrust and dislike, white people. You clearly do not have a firm grasp on the concept of racism, and confuse it with prejudice or even bigotry. Racism is bigger than both, and is endemic to society.

            Your final paragraph supports my argument. Darren Wilson was a member of the “screwed up” police force that you acknowledge needs to change. He was arrogant, superior, and authoritarian … and it put him in a situation that he could not control. A police officer cannot lord it over the citizens he serves, especially if the basis for the lording is race, and cannot allow his anger or pride to draw him into a situation he cannot control … that is an invitation to create an unnecessary confrontation that can only have a tragic ending. This is the way that institutional racism operates.

          7. whodatbob March 26, 2015

            Reread my post. First Open your eyes and brain! Rather than misinterpreting the post to fit what you believe.

            Of course Holder needed to investigate the death of Michael Brown. By announcing the DOJ was going to investigate the murder of Brown he made a bigoted announcement siding with those who tried and convicted Wilson. As a trained attorney he knew better. As Attorney General came off as a bigot attempting to bias the investigators . Investigation into the shooting of, or killing of Michael Brown was proper unbiased wording. His announcement incited the mob that was growing in Ferguson. His investigation concluded that Brown was not murdered but it was a justifiable killing.

            How screwed up and racist Ferguson’s police force and municipal court system is. The shooting of Michael Brown was found to be justified and not racially motivated.

            You are free to believe what you want. But the DOJ’s investigation states it was justified and not racially motivated.

          8. shays01 March 26, 2015

            I have read your post. Several times. I disagree with your interpretations, find your comments to be stubbornly obtuse, and conclude myself that you have not actually read the DOJ report but instead are relying upon the interpretations of others. My disagreement rests on two points.

            • The first is that you are dead wrong about the conclusions reached by the DOJ. It did not conclude that the shooting was “justified,” as you claim. That is just plain false. That was not even its intent. It was trying to determine whether there was a just cause to file charges against Darren Wilson for the shooting of Michael Brown, and whether his civil rights had been violated. As the report states, to successfully convict Wilson, the government would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) Wilson acted unlawfully, (2) willfully, (3) that he deprived Brown of a Constitutional right, and (4) that the deprivation resulted in bodily injury or death. There was no question that Wilson was on duty and acting lawfully and that the actions resulted in Brown’s death. Therefore, what needed to be established was whether his use of force was “reasonable,” and did he fire the shots with “willful intent” (in turn meaning he did so without perception of a reasonable threat).

            Sparring you all the explanation, the report concludes (a) “For all of the reasons stated, Wilson’s conduct in shooting Brown as he advanced on Wilson, and until he fell to the ground, was not objectively unreasonable and thus not a violation”; and (b) “because Wilson did not act with the requisite criminal intent, it cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt to a jury that he violated” the principle of willfulness. The final line of the report says, in summary, “For the reasons set forth above, this matter lacks prosecutive merit and should be closed.”

            Nothing about justification. No conclusion that race was not a factor. You have made that up. You can read the report yourself … the key witness’s testimony was discounted, IN FULL, because of minor disagreements at various stages of the event and with some of the forensic evidence, even though large parts of his testimony were consistent with the testimony of other witnesses, and with other parts of the the forensics. Most important have to do with the events before Wilson put his car in reverse and the conflict at the car. You’ll have to read that, yourself. Trust me, however, that you have it dead wrong.

            • Secondly, you are echoing the blatantly reactionary and right-wing talking point that Erik Holder (and, by extension, Barack Obama) is a racist, which is patently false. A victim of racism cannot conjure up the power of the majority and turn it back on the majority to impose anything even resembling racism. It doesn’t work that way. I explained that to you already, but you patently ignore that simple fact. Nor did Erik Holder “prejudice” by using the word “murder.” Darren Wilson did, in fact, murder Michael Brown. He may not have done so with original intent, and he may not have done so willfully … but he created a situation from which there really was no alternative. We are tired of bullies using their badges to intimidate and/or goad, and … if the goading results in tragic outcomes … then hiding behind those badges and the self-righteous power some people in society bestow upon them. When I was younger, the excuses were always “He was trying to escape,” (justifying shooting in the back) or (after throwing down a gun), “he pulled a gun on me.”

          9. whodatbob March 27, 2015

            I have read the report several times and disagree with your conclusion. Points 1, 2, 3 & 4 in second paragraph of your post, crux of the report, support my conclusion. Points a & b in paragraph three also support my conclusion, “was not objectively unreasonable and thus not a violation” is a lot of verbiage to say justified. You may prefer to use different terminology, but Wilson was cleared of murdering Brown.

            Nothing in the report states that Wilson acted improperly.

            Holder’s use of the term “murdered” was a prosecutors ploy to get a grand jury to indite.

          10. shays01 March 27, 2015

            Again … there is nothing in the DOJ report stating that Officer Wilson was “justified” in killing Michael Brown, or that it was a “justifiable” homicide. It concluded that it could find no intent to kill, and that as far as Officer Wilson was concerned, he felt threatened. There is a world of difference between “feeling” threatened and the existence of an actual threat, and the report goes out of its way to explain that it cannot determine whether the threat was REAL, or not. And there is also a world of difference between a “justified” killing and a killing in which there is not enough evidence to warrant a prosecution.

            There is PLENTY in the report to suggest that Wilson acted improperly. I’ll focus just on the pre-fight events, because had they not unfolded as they did, there probably would not have been any “killing” to justify. The report describes these events from a number of perspectives, and opens a lot of questions which the report never addresses.

            So here comes Officer Wilson, driving up this street, where he sees two boys walking single file in the middle of the street. As he drives by, he shouts out of his open window “Get on the f*cking sidewalk.” Let’s analyze this event for a second. Officer Wilson is a thug with an attitude. He works for a racist police force in a racist town run by a racist city council that is making about half of its revenue by harassing, intimidating, and entrapping black citizens. He has a badge and a patrol car, and he is used to the black people he exploits to be intimidated, polite, submissive and subservient. But instead of silence and acquiescence (even if glum or sullen), one of these boys shouts back at him to go f*ck himself. He slams on the brakes, throws the car into reverse, swerves diagonally across the street to block the path of the boys, and shouts out the window, “What did you say?”

            This is all pretty confrontational, wouldn’t you agree? Designed to command fear of authority, and fear of him as a person. Why? Because it has worked in this town, and he expects it to work here. Unfortunately, it doesn’t.

            So how do we know this is what happened. Because Witness 101 said so. The report does not refute or contest this testimony, and given the nature of the community, it makes a whole lot of sense that this is precisely what happened. This sequence of events, however, is ignored by the DOJ and Witness 101’s testimony is discounted, overall … not this part and not because this part is contested; but ALL of it is discounted because some of his other testimony was questionable. I’m not buying this.

            So, after the fact, Wilson claimed that the reason he stopped these two boys was that they matched the description of the cigarillo robbery that he claims had just been broadcast. This is bullshit. He DID call for a backup (see the radio report section), but he said nothing about burglary suspects. He also did not wait for the backup to arrive, which is the logical thing to do when robbery suspects who strong-armed their victims are being confronted … as well as the thing all police officers are trained to do. Nope. He opened the door of his patrol SUV … either to exit it (inadvisable) or to smack Michael Brown with it. But the door didn’t open, and he was trapped inside the car.

            Next, he claims that Michael Brown attacked him inside the car and they ended up wrestling over the gun, which discharged. Witness 101 (corroborated by a second witness) says that Officer Wilson reached out and grabbed Mr Brown by the throat or neck and pulled him towards the car. This testimony also is not refuted nor rejected … it is just printed and left there without comment. The comments are directed to the gunshot wound to the thumb, which Witness 101 did not describe. Forensic evidence proves that this DID happen, but it does not prove WHEN it happened, or whether the physical confrontation between the two was initiated by Brown or Wilson.

            I admit that I believe it was the latter … mostly because Wilson has lied about everything up to this point.

            The rest is pretty straight-forward. There is lots of conflicting testimony and evidence, which is what leads DOJ to conclude it does not have compelling evidence to erase reasonable doubt that Officer Wilson “murdered” Michael Brown. So it says it will bring no charges. As explained, above, this is not an admission that the killing was “justified.” I conclude, however, that Wilson acted improperly through most of the tragic sequence of events.

            Holder’s use of the word “murder” is neither here nor there. Most of us know that a premeditated murder did not occur, but that a white police officer shot and killed yet another black child because he could get away with it. Use of the word “murder” is more than reasonable. Holder’s comments, however, had nothing to do with the Grand Jury. The case was presented by the City Attorney of Ferguson. The prosecutor is not connected to the DOJ, and he, too, is a racist pig that argued for the defense to the Grand Jury, which is essentially unethical and unprofessional. But that is a different story

          11. whodatbob March 27, 2015

            You like to use a lot of verbiage to say nothing. All the testimony of events leading to the shooting was presented and so noted in the DOJ report. DOJ conclusion Brown’s death was not a racially motivated murder. You can believe otherwise but DOJ findings do not support your belief.

            Your ignorance of the investigation is evident in your last paragraph. The opening sentence shows you to be a vile bigoted racist pig. Shame on you!

            A Grand Jury does is convinced to determine if there is enough evidence to get a conviction. Is so an indictment is issued. If a grand jury does not believe there is enough evidence to convict no indictment is issued. The City of Ferguson has no say in the Grand Jury proceedings. It is the duty of the prosecuting attorney of the jurisdiction, St. Louis County, in which this case is assigned to present all evidence. There is no defense. Yes he was called every name in the book.

            In essence Holder’s DOJ investigation reached the same conclusion plus stated there was no evidence to support racial motivation. So, the DOJ investigation agrees with the Grand Jury decision to not indite for lack of evidence.

            The irony is that all you bigoted racist pigs who called the Prosecuting Attorney of St. Louis County an unethical, unprofessional, racist pig are what you sat he is. He is owed a public apology by all you bigoted racist pigs.

          12. shays01 March 27, 2015

            I said plenty, and you have yet to refute or challenge a single point that I have raised. You seem to think that stubborn repetition of the same idea over and over again makes it true. It doesn’t. If there is a reference to racial motivation (or lack thereof) in the DOJ report, it would be real easy to shut me up by quoting it. You can’t, because it is not there.

            My first sentence in the last paragraph (“Holder’s use of the word ‘murder’ is neither here nor there”) contains not a shred of racism, suggesting … yet again … that you really do not understand the concept. If you mistakingly meant the second sentence of the last paragraph, I can see how a person confused about the meaning of racism would not understand what I said, but there is no racism in that sentence either … other than to define it (a white police officer killing a black kid because he could get away with it). You seem extremely hung up with your confused idea of what constitutes racism, but have no problem turning your hatred on me. Many times.

            A prosecuting attorney in a Grand Jury hearing does not present evidence for the defense. Period. He presents the evidence of a crime having been committed. No defense attorneys are allowed, no cross-examination of witnesses takes place. The last thing a prosecutor does is discredit witnesses. If there is exculpatory evidence, the prosecutor does not present it (and if it is truly exculpatory, he brings no charges in the first place).

            St Louis county is one of the most racist counties in the United States. Do you want to see American Apartheid? There is a metaphorical but visible line in the community separating the black from the white residents there that is missing only a physical wall to keep them apart. Check it out.

          13. whodatbob March 27, 2015

            Thanh you for confirming my thoughts on the operations of a Grand Jury. Purpose of a grand jury is to determine is enough evidence exist to obtain an incitement. If no indictment defense not needed. If indictment is issued a trial is ordered, then a defense attorney is needed.

            Holder’s inference that a white policeman murdered an innocent black child without having all the facts was a biased racial comment. His investigation showed him to be wrong and his remark to be racist. He does not have the balls to apologize.

            Have you ever lived in St. Louis County? Before you judge St. Louis County or any other place by hear say, Spend some time there to discover the truth for yourself.

            I have lived in the City of St. Louis all of my adult life, most in diverse neighborhoods. Blacks, whites, middle class, lower class, good people and not so good. Does not take long to sort the good from the not so good, skin color is never a determining factor. Yes, seems both blacks and whites have the same or similar percentage of not so good. Never read about these things. Bad press, does not sell. Only bad race relation items sell. Keep the the blacks and whites angry with one and other.

          14. shays01 March 27, 2015

            The purpose of a Grand Jury is to determine if there is enough evidence to warrant a trial, in which case it issues an indictment (not “incitement”). It does not concern itself with exculpatory evidence … that is, evidence proving the defendant is innocent. That’s what the trial does. In a Grand Jury hearing, only evidence showing guilt is presented and the Grand Jury weighs whether it warrants that trial. This is why it is commonly said that any prosecutor can get an indictment against just about anyone, if they really want to. It is essentially unheard of for a prosecutor to present the defense argument at a Grand Jury hearing, let alone to dismiss his own evidence.

            Again, the DOJ report did not find that a black child was not murdered. It found that a black child’s civil rights were not violated (because Darren Wilson had an objective reason to fear that he was in danger, and so his use of deadly force was not unwarranted) and it found that it did not have enough evidence to present so as to eliminate reasonable doubt in a jury hearing the evidence. This is a far cry from proving that a murder was not committed. Eric Holder is NOT wrong, nor did he utter a racist comment. He said the DOJ would investigate the murder of a black youth by a white officer, both of which are true and correct statements.

            I have not lived in St Louis, or St Louis County. Never been there. Don’t really want to go, either, except possibly to see a baseball game. Here’s some things that inform me:
            http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17361995
            http://pulitzerarts.org/series/crossing-delmar-divide
            http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/in-st-louis-delmar-boulevard-is-the-line-that-divides-a-city-by-race-and-perspective/2014/08/22/de692962-a2ba-4f53-8bc3-54f88f848fdb_story.html
            http://www.stlmag.com/news/the-color-line-race-in-st.-louis/
            http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/8/18/st-louis-segregation.html

          15. whodatbob March 27, 2015

            Thanks for agreeing with me again! You keep using copious amounts of words in an effort to disagree with my conclusion. Yet each of your post supports my conclusions.

            Thanks for finding a typo.

            Thank you for not wanting to come to St. Louis. We do not need mentally deficient Bigots like you!

            I am tired of reading your lame attempts to prove the DOJ’s report states something to support your biased opinion of the shooting of a thug who attempted to bully an officer. No good ever comes out of that. Unfortunately for Michael Brown he made a judgmental error. He will never have a chance to do that again.

          16. shays01 March 27, 2015

            Wow, you have a serious reading comprehension disorder. I’ll keep this short, to see if that helps. Find anything in the DOJ report that discusses race, racial discrimination, bigotry, or racially motivated murder. Copy and paste it into your response and indicate where you found it. Case closed. You win. If you can’t, admit and recognize that you are way out in right field and wrong. The end.

            Calling me a mentally deficient bigot seems connected to your need to defend Darren Wilson and to irrationally conclude that the President and the Attorney General are reverse racists and bigots. The Grand Dragon couldn’t put it better. If you really believe that you have no similarities with the Grand Dragon, you might want to seriously reexamine your belief system.

            I am not defending, nor have I ever defended, “a thug who tried to bully an officer.” I have said that the officer was the bully, that the officer precipitated the situation and, either through arrogance, stupidity, anger or frustration put himself in a situation that he could not control without that situation spinning wildly out of control. I have not said this before, but it is analogous to the situation George Zimmerman created for himself … the one difference being that Darren Wilson had a badge and the force of law behind him.

            What I HAVE been doing is disputing and trying to correct your erroneous reading of the DOJ report, your hysterically inaccurate assertions regarding what that report proved and concluded, and your absurd assumptions about the President and the Attorney General.

          17. whodatbob March 27, 2015

            My interpretation of both DOJ reports comes from the point of view lets withhold judgement until all facts are aired.

            Each investigation is separate, each tackling different issues. In one investigation the DOJ found Ferguson to be in violation of multiple Federal laws and regulations. As stated earlier I agree with DOJ’s finding. In the DOJ investigation of Wilson DOJ found he had not violated any Federal laws nor regulations. And again I am in agreement with the DOJ’s findings. You do not agree with the DOJ’s findings in this investigation.

            You are wrong Darren Wilson and George Zimmerman in not a good comparison. Better comparison is the three bully thug Michael, Travon and George.

            As for my thoughts on Holder his DOJ proved him to be wrong when he made his biases murder comment.

          18. shays01 March 28, 2015

            Whatever motivation you may have had to wait for the DOJ report (“withhold[ing] judgement until all facts are aired”) has long since passed, now that the DOJ report has aired the facts. Now, to be factually accurate, your interpretation must be based on the facts aired by the DOJ report. I have summarized them for you, accurately (if not accurately, you have had plenty of time to correct my errors), and I have quoted specific passages that refute your interpretation. Grow up and grow a pair. Admit that you exaggerated, introduced elements that were not a part of the investigation, and have incorrectly used the “racist” label on exactly the wrong folks.

            I have not referred, at all, to the investigation of the community of Ferguson, other than to agree with you that what has been revealed is a severely racist City Council, judicial system, and police department. I have limited all of my comments to the report on the murder of Michael Brown. With respect to that investigation, the DOJ has concluded that when Darren Wilson shot and killed Michael Brown, he FELT threatened and was therefore entitled to use excessive force, and thereby was not prosecutable under those statutes. With respect to the events that transpired, the DOJ concluded that the evidence — eyewitness, forensic, and autopsy — was contradictory and could not definitively lead to a conviction on civil rights violations. Technically … and the law is, at best, about technicalities … this is correct, and I do not disagree with it. I DO disagree with the fact that the DOJ disregards the precipitating actions that created the situation in which physical conflict and ultimately a shooting were necessitated. Those initial actions, initiated and perpetrated exclusively by Officer Wilson (who had multiple alternative courses of action from which to choose), are a product of the racist police department and City Council policy in which he worked, and needed to be taken into consideration.

            I believe I am correct in this conclusion, and that the DOJ is wrong.

            Darren Wilson and George Zimmerman both precipitated interactions that did not have to occur, or which could have played out in very different ways had they handled the situation (and themselves) differently. Both took actions that seem to have put themselves at risk of serious … if not deadly … injury; they escalated a conflict that didn’t need escalation, allowed the situation to spin out of control, and were unable or incapable of handling the situation that they created. That is how they are similar.

            In no way do I view a member of a minority community a “bully” who turns on a member of the majority community who is attempting to intimidate or harass him. I agree that there are better … or at least safer … ways to address the taunts and threats of an armed thug (with or without a badge), but understand completely at least the temptation to strike back. In the movie theater, most of us cheer when the (usually white) good guy finally stands up to the antagonist and fights for his dignity.

            The DOJ report proved nothing wrong about Eric Holder, or his comments.

          19. whodatbob March 28, 2015

            So much wasted verbiage to put a different spin on your interpretation if the DOJ report to justify your disagreement with the conclusion of said report.

            You have stated in every way imaginable not enough evidence to convict does not prove him innocent. However, you seem to be an intelligent person so I assume you are aware the prosecutor must prove the accused is guilty in order to get a conviction. DOJ states there is not enough evidence to convict, three Corners reports and witness statements support Wilson’s account of the incident and negating the other account. If a prosecutor is unable to secure a conviction the accused is declared innocent (cleared of all charges) and free.

            No need to refute or correct “facts” you quote. DOJ conclusion your facts are not enough. Wilson is not guilty.

          20. shays01 March 28, 2015

            And yet you still cannot or will not cite anything from the actual report to show that what I say is incorrect. I have only one conclusion … you, too, would fit in well with the Ferguson rulers.

          21. whodatbob March 29, 2015

            All you have posted over an over need not be validated nor proven incorrect. It is all part of the Department of Justus investigation. DOJ after a comprehensive review of all evidence determined no charges were to be filed against Wilson.

            Since you believe DOJ’s conclusion is wrong and should be challenged you need to bring your concerns to the Attoeney General of the United States. Maybe this investigation is flawed and a new one is needed. Until you are able to get a new DOJ investigation with a conclusion agreeing with your belief you are wasting your time.

          22. whodatbob March 27, 2015

            No matter what names you call me nor how you attempt to spin the DOJ report, you are unable to change the fact that Wilson will not be tried in Federal Court. He is free and clear. Sorry you are unable to accept the truth in DOJ’s report.

          23. shays01 March 28, 2015

            To distinguish between the various posts to which I am responding, you said, “No matter what names you call me nor how you attempt to spin the DOJ report, you are unable to change the fact that Wilson will not be tried in Federal Court. He is free and clear. Sorry you are unable to accept the truth in DOJ’s report.” I have not denied the findings of the DOJ … I have denied (and successfully refuted) your interpretation of what the DOJ reported. The DOJ did not find Darren Wilson “not guilty,” as you keep insisting, nor did it exonerate him. It found that the evidence supporting an indictment was contradictory and that a case could not be built that would convince a jury to convict (a reasonable doubt would exist). It also found that Darren Wilson FELT threatened, and therefore did not use excessive force, as defined by the law. Whether he actually WAS threatened the DOJ report could not determine.

            Darren Wilson IS free. We will see whether he is clear of any civil action that might be taken against him.

            You have, once again, failed to point to ANY of the specific findings or conclusions in the DOJ report that support your assumptions and your assertions. I have given you three separate offers to prove me wrong by doing so. You stubbornly refuse to do so, or to admit that you were wrong. Putting your head in the sand and relying only on partial and incorrectly interpreted evidence is not the best way to try to persuade someone that your opinion should be listened to.

          24. whodatbob March 28, 2015

            Your second paragraph denies the conclusion of DOJ’s report. Civil Action suits are not based on criminal guilt. They are a money grab. Neither Federal nor State Government will take action against Wilson. Brown’s family may attempt to cash in on the death of their son. That could be a difficult with conclusion of DOJ report. Again your long winded spin is meaningless.

          25. shays01 March 28, 2015

            Three paragraphs is a “long winded spin.” You definitely have reading comprehension issues. You also have basic cognitive issues. My second paragraph denies nothing, and civil lawsuits are an integral part of the American justice system. Ask OJ. Short enough for you?

          26. whodatbob March 29, 2015

            Keep trying! You wanted DOJ’s findings to be different but it is what it is. The conclusion will not change. You are free to disagree with DOJ conclusion but you come off as a fool in your effort to change the opinion of those who agree with the DOJ conclusion.

          27. shays01 March 29, 2015

            I think there’s nothing left for you and I to say. You claim to wish to discuss the DOJ report, but refuse to actually talk about it, instead constantly repeating what you erroneously believe (or were told) it says. Without offering any honesty or integrity, I am talking with a windmill. I leave the last word to you …

          28. whodatbob March 27, 2015

            Perhaps you should read the report with an open mind. Murder of Brown is not proven nor is racial motivation.

            Nice try.

          29. shays01 March 27, 2015

            As said (repeatedly), I have read the report. With a mind as open as one can in a post-racial society. Race is not at issue in the DOJ report. A charge of murder is not going to be brought, according to the report, because there is no evidence that Darren Wilson willfully … or with intent … shot and killed Michael Brown. Additionally, Officer Wilson felt that his safety was endangered and therefore, the force that he used was technically not excessive.

          30. whodatbob March 27, 2015

            Race is the only issue. The Feds can only bring charges if Brown’s civil rights were violated. Sorry Buck O!

          31. shays01 March 27, 2015

            There you go, again. Violation(s) of a person’s civil rights certainly can involve race, and any discriminatory behavior based upon race usually involves a civil rights violation … but people have rights that are not race-based. Like the right to not be snuffed. But why should you take MY word for it (obviously, you don’t). Here is selected passages FROM THE DOJ INTRODUCTION, explaining what the investigation was for and what it found [with comments added to explain things to you in basic English]:

            “At approximately noon on Saturday, August 9, 2014, Officer Darren Wilson of the Ferguson Police Department (“FPD”) shot and killed Michael Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old. The Criminal Section of the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Missouri, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) (collectively, “The Department”) subsequently opened a criminal investigation into whether the shooting violated federal law. The Department has determined that the evidence
            does not support charging a violation of federal law.” [Michael Brown, an unarmed 18-year old is NOT identified by race, nor is race introduced or mentioned as a factor in the investigation. It is a criminal investigation into whether the shooting violated federal law. It did not.]

            “… Part II summarizes the federal investigation and the evidence uncovered during the course of the investigation, and discusses the applicable federal criminal civil rights law and standards of federal prosecution. ” [The federal crimes that might have been violated include Michael Brown’s civil rights]

            “The principles of federal prosecution, set forth in the United States Attorneys’ Manual (“USAM”), require federal prosecutors to meet two standards in order to seek an indictment. First, we must be convinced that the potential defendant committed a federal crime. See USAM
            § 9-27.220 (a federal prosecution should be commenced only when an attorney for the government “believes that the person’s conduct constitutes a federal offense”). Second, we must also conclude that we would be likely to prevail at trial, where we must prove the charges
            beyond a reasonable doubt. See USAM § 9-27.220 (a federal prosecution should be commenced only when “the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to sustain a conviction”); Fed R. Crim P. 29(a)(prosecution must present evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction).”

            “Based on this investigation, the Department has concluded that Darren Wilson’s actions do not constitute prosecutable violations under the applicable federal criminal civil rights statute, 18 U.S.C. § 242, which prohibits uses of deadly force that are “objectively unreasonable,” as defined by the United States Supreme Court. The evidence, when viewed as a whole, does not
            support the conclusion that Wilson’s uses of deadly force were “objectively unreasonable” under the Supreme Court’s definition. Accordingly, under the governing federal law and relevant standards set forth in the USAM, it is not appropriate to present this matter to a federal grand jury for indictment, and it should therefore be closed without prosecution.’ [As described in detail by the report, Darren Wilson’s actions were objectively reasonable because he had a reasonable fear that he was in danger, and therefore did not violate Michael Brown’s civil rights … e.g., his right to live. There is no reference to race. NONE].

            Again … resolve this issue by either finding and quoting the passages from the DOJ report that make this a question of race (or that the DOJ ruled “racism” was NOT a factor) OR admit that you are freaking wrong!

        2. Mr Corrections March 25, 2015

          “Not enough evidence to prove otherwise” is not exoneration.

          I hope that helps!

          1. whodatbob March 25, 2015

            See response above.

            Never let the facts interfere in your beliefs.

          2. Mr Corrections March 26, 2015

            Thanks, but I already knew that “never let the facts interfere in your beliefs” is your philosophy – it’s evident from every ridiculously false word that you post.

            I hope that helps!

    2. Grannysmovin March 24, 2015

      The DOJ’s report of the racially charged Ferguson police department is Obama’s fault? The resignation of police chief and firinng of three cops/city employeE IS Obama’s fault? What about a Judge that was forced to step down because of his actions – Obama’s fault? This was going on for years but they still have to elect a new D.A. when the time comes. What you do not understand these instances that start the protest are not where the anger stems from, but from years of watching it happen over and over again.

    3. highpckts March 24, 2015

      I’m hoping you are using satire! If not, you are no better than Zimmerman!!

  12. Lynda Groom March 24, 2015

    Sorry George, but perhaps killing another human being and your behavior since that tragic night have shown your true character. Nice try, but playing the victim while the family of the real victim suffer is just disgusting.

    Reply
  13. Joseph Kelsall March 24, 2015

    No, Mr Zimmerman, I needed nobody to ramp up my hatred of you and your ilk. You are the racist. You are the murderer. I didn’t believe a word of your testimony when I heard that you were a pretend cop.

    Reply
  14. highpckts March 24, 2015

    Seriously? This guy has the nerve to accuse the President for spurring racial bias? Are you freaking kidding me? Oh Hell! Why not. Everyone else blames the President if the wind doesn’t blow in the right direction,etc.,!!

    Reply
  15. charleo1 March 24, 2015

    Zimmerman is sure, “there is nothing he could have done differently, that would have allowed both him, and Martin to survive their confrontation that night.” Of course, that’s the way things go in small backwater Southern towns. Where the thought is, the Blacks, you know, have to be kept an eye on. Nothing racial there. No more so, than after being let out jail in another small Southern town in Mississippi, in ’64. The local Sheriff saw as how, three young Civil Rights activists, James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner, ought to be followed out of town by a number of his Deputies, and other concerned, “Neighborhood Watch Captains.” You know, just to be sure there ain’t no more break-ins, and such. And who knows what happened to cause that confrontation on that dark bridge? No witnesses among the dead. But, I imagine there was no way both groups were going to survive whatever took place that night between this group of armed men, and these three unarmed kids. Maybe the Deputies feared for their lives? Maybe Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner were dope smoking thugs? What we do know is, there was no investigation, no prosecutor, or any Grand jury ever seated to ask for a single indictment over the incident. Nor was any search party ever formed to locate the boy’s bodies. Until the President called upon the Director of the FBI. And ordered a Federal investigation be launched by the DOJ. And so it remains to this day, in these small backwater Southern towns.

    Reply
  16. Andy Dufresne March 24, 2015

    When dealing with liberals, it’s important to remember that they couldn’t care less about the Constitution.

    Reply
    1. Mr Corrections March 24, 2015

      What does the Constitution have to do with randomly executing children for having the wrong amount of pigmentation in their skin?

      1. johninPCFL March 25, 2015

        Well, the thirteenth amendment outlawed slavery except as punishment for a crime. The GOP, and conservatives in particular, are convinced that having colored skin is a crime, so the reinstatement of slavery of non-whites is constitutional. If they resist slavery, that’s treason and execution is the punishment. Age is not an issue.

    2. charleo1 March 25, 2015

      When dealing with RWNJs it’s important to remember, that they could’t KNOW less about the Constitution if they tried. That RWNJs are 10X more likely to disagree with the Constitution than any other group. And also 10X more like to support changing the Constitution than any other group. That RWNJs are 10X more likely to see nothing wrong with putting Constitutional Rights up for a vote. And try to use the Constitution to advance their own agenda, in much the same way as RWNJ Evangelicals, use the Bible. Picking, and choosing the verses they like, ignoring the ones they don’t. While ignorantly harping on, and on, and bitching about both to everyone else, to the point of making most people gag. So believe me, Liberals know about the Constitution. And Wingers, and the Constitution.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.