Why no discussion on this?

[mord]

THE RODENT M.J. ROSENBERG LIES ABOUT THE THE BLACK GUY THEN RETRACTS IT                http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/03/28/Media-Matters-Hypocrites-Try-to-Have-It-Both-Ways-on-Twitter   



PHOTO OF THE LAD WITH  ROSENRODENTS TWEET WITH ABOVE LINK   


Media Matters for America senior foreign policy fellow M.J. Rosenberg is in trouble over his Twitter feed again--not for antisemitism (this time), but for attacking Matt Drudge over a photo of Trayvon Martin that Rosenberg claimed was false.

Rosenberg later apologized--but when Fox News asked Media Matters for comment, a spokesperson attempted a truly bizarre equivocation (emphasis added):

    A spokeswoman for Media Matters, a non-profit organization that professes to correct what it considers conservative bias in the media, declined to comment. But the spokeswoman noted Rosenberg’s Twitter feed does not necessarily reflect his employer’s views.

Really? Is that why Media Matters and its employees routinely attack conservatives and the organizations for which they work over what they say on Twitter?

Is that why the Center for American Progress, a close Media Matters ally, attacks conservatives for what their spouses say on Twitter?

In any case, in January, Media Matters refused to back away from Rosenberg's antisemitic tweets about "Israel firsters," according to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency:

    Rosenberg deferred comment on this matter, directing queries to Ari Rabin-Havt, Media Matters’ executive vice president. In an interview, Rabin-Havt said the terminology was beside the point.

    “When we're talking war and peace, the facts that tweets come up is symbolic of how the conversation has gone awry,” said Rabin-Havt, who said the survival of Israel was critical to him personally. “We should debate this. As Israel is one of our largest recipients of foreign aid, this is an American and Israeli issue.”

Media Matters is trying to have it both ways on Twitter. It's not satisfied that liberals have home field advantage when they debate conservatives in the mainstream media. It wants to rig the rules so that conservatives can't play at all--because it's terrified that conservatives will win.

[Dr. Dan]

 

I almost replied to erroneous and naïve comments in a thread on this topic almost a week ago I think. I live on the east coast of Central (almost northern) Florida, the Space Coast (but am in law school on the West Coast of Florida right now). I am also what you might call a “gun nut” and Concealed Weapons’ Permit holder; I prefer preserver of the Const., but whatever! (lol)

 Let me tell you, I was unbiased from point go, but obviously understanding a neighborhood watchman who cares about his neighborhood is much more worthy of believing any day than a black “youth.” With murders by much younger blacks out the wazoo, I find the portrayal of a 17-year-old, 6-foot, 160-pound black as a “child” absurd, and knew there was more to the story when I heard this dreck was from Miami Gardens and his parents have different last names (a commonality among negro families).

LEGAL ISSUES: Not to sound braggadocios, but in addition to being an avid gun owner, concealed weapons holder, and logical Greek Confederate, I’m in law school, as mentioned above. Thus, my fascination with firearms law coupled with my knowledge of the law—albeit limited—might be of some benefit for those wary of supporting Zimmerman or unsure of the legal contours of this issue. I can tell you, as of yesterday, I have decided I am obligated to support him, and what follows is a brief description why.

First off, Zimmerman had every right to do what he did. While it is not advised to concealed weapons holders to “be a hero,” to look for wrongdoing, he sure as heck had every right in the world to approach (WHICH HE DID NOT, IN FACT) any person he wanted in his apartment complex and engage them. Martin had no duty to even respond or listen or anything. But Zimmerman can do as he pleases and ask whomever he wants a non-threatening question or even ensure some miscreant is up to no good.

Furthermore, the 911 operator’s statement, “we don’t need you to do that,” in reference to following the black, was in no way a lawful order. Once Martin attacked Zimmerman, apparently breaking his nose, and whaling on him, smashing his face into the concrete, Zimmerman had every right to repel this aggravated battery—a forcible felony—being committed against him with what was a very mild response in my opinion: ONE 9mm, close-range gunshot wound to the chest.

Stand your ground is a FLORIDA innovation from 2005, adopted in some form or another in I believe almost 20 other states. All it means is you do not have to FLEE when someone is committing a forcible felony against you or you *reasonably* believe a forcible felony is being committed.  THE STANDARD IS A REASONABLE PERSON STANDARD; IT’S NOT A REASONABLE ZIMMERMAN STANDARD. HOWEVER, I don’t see how stand your ground is really applicable, as Zimmerman was violently attacked and fired one shot in self-defense, fearing for his life.

Conclusion: IF any Yankee scum has a problem with how our laws are, they can go to hell and never come down here. Even if Zimmerman was in the wrong, it changes nothing about the legitimacy and prudence of our wonderful laws protecting law-abiding citizens. If there’s one state blacks should be trepidatious about rioting in, it’s the Sunshine State. G-d help them if they get wild in the Space Coast. Rebel Flags still fly high and with pride down here on the East Coast of Florida.

***

I’m leaving a lot of good points out, esp. in connection with info recently revealed; but I really can’t keep writing. One thing’s for sure: no one should have sympathy for these Nazi baboon parents cavorting around with Nazis like Shapton and Jackson  and calling for the banning of cracker honkey guns. YEMACH SHMUM VIZICRUM! Amen!

PS: JTF is making a HUGE mistake by not making a video on this explosive, popular issue.

[Rubystars]

Good video Chaim. It really shed some light on this case to know the negro was a serial criminal.

[ProJewGreekChristian]

What is unbelievable (actually it’s not) is how the Nazi Negro Panthers can publicly and officially call for Zimmerman’s death and, what’s more, OFFER A REWARD THEREFOR, and not face charges for solicitation of murder.

[Baltimore]

In this country we have something called freedom of speech. A bunch of lunatics are allowed to "protest" outside of funerals on public property and shout things about homosexuals, Jews, death, hell, etc.  People passing by these lunatics can yell back at them or call the police about them, but they can not threaten to hurt them or physically attack them. If a person at the funeral attacked and started to beat one of the so-called protesters then the attacker would be arrested and the "protester" would be the victim.

So Zimmerman can say whatever he wants to Martin and Martin can say whatever he wants to Zimmerman (both men can not threaten physical violence though), once one of the people touches the other then the person who does the touching becomes the AGGRESSOR under the law. 

So it does not matter if Zimmerman has a lot of black friends or if he said racist things in the past, it only matters if Zimmerman put his hands (or feet) on Martin. It appears that Martin touched Zimmerman making Martin the AGGRESSOR. It does not matter if Zimmerman was "watching" Martin. Looking at a person is not illegal.  Zimmerman was defending himself against an aggressor. We clearly have a case of self-defense.

[jbeige]

Why is that the question?  Because the naacp said so?  To all the people passing judgement on this case its an irrelevant question.  They use that question to demonize zimmerman and support their martyr.  The police decide whether zimmerman is legally at fault for "following" or "approaching" a person.  Last I checked, its not illegal to approach someone.

Hypothetically now, let's assume that what the police claim and what an eyewitness claims is true.  Ie that after approaching martin, zimmerman was attacked and beaten and calling for help.
Are you REALLY telling me that zimmerman brought it on himself to get beaten?
What's happening here, and its amazing to see this on the forum, is that several people are blaming the victim.  If martin really did physically assault zimmerman, how can it be that zimmerman is at fault or somehow deserves that for daring to approach martin?  Approaching someone is a crime and invitation for a beat down?  If martin really did that he's a rabid thug.

Irrelevant question that he was following him?, that it the biggest question.
In a court the first thing they would ask was why he put himself in that position, was there a need for him to put himself in harms way?
Lets just put it this way, you are walking at night wearing casual clothes and all of a sudden someone starts following you, they grab you, so you push and start punching, Boom you're shot. 

[Lisa]

Great video Chaim!

[t_h_j]

I'm not sure why people on both sides of the issue are so eager to jump to conclusions. People just need to wait for a few weeks so all the facts can come out.

[IsraelForever]

Two things:  How did that guy get the name Zimmerman? 

Second:  Have people forgotten the Tawana Brawley incident.  Oh, this wonderful girl, they all said!  She accused 6 white men (a few were police officers) of rape.  This wonderful girl.  Sharpton got involved and carried on the way he always does, even when he's wrong and doesn't know what he's talking about.  Bill Cosby got involved and started a "fund" for this poor innocent black girl.  It got really bad for one of the accused police officers... he ended up committing suicide.  So how did it turn out?  It turned out that this wonderful black girl MADE THE WHOLE THING UP! 

I know these cases aren't the same, but my point is that everyone is jumping to the conclusion that this kid could do no wrong.  Just like Tawana Brawley could do no wrong.  By the way, Sharpton never apologized; nor did he seem to suffer any ill effects of ruining 6 men's lives based on Brawley's total lie, which Sharpton supported in the most public and vicious way.

And if it turns out that Zimmerman had good reason to defend himself, you'll never hear apologizes from the kid's supporters.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Irrelevant question that he was following him?, that it the biggest question.
In a court the first thing they would ask was why he put himself in that position, was there a need for him to put himself in harms way?
Lets just put it this way, you are walking at night wearing casual clothes and all of a sudden someone starts following you, they grab you, so you push and start punching, Boom you're shot.

This has to be one of the most warped things I've ever heard.   Approaching a man is "putting himself in harms way?"  Talking to a human is putting oneself in harm's way?   Not by any possible legal definition.  Not by any degree of sanity.

Btw the scenario you described is quite different - the hypothetical approacher in your example assaulted you.   If zimmerman did that, of course he's at fault, he just attacked and killed a guy for no reason.  But he didn't do that.   And even if he did it still wouldn't make sense to say he put HIMSELF in danger.  If he went up to martin and started shoving him, then all he did was put MARTIN in danger (and then kill him) - of course, this is not what happened.

[jbeige]

This has to be one of the most warped things I've ever heard.   Approaching a man is "putting himself in harms way?"  Talking to a human is putting oneself in harm's way?   Not by any possible legal definition.  Not by any degree of sanity.

Btw the scenario you described is quite different - the hypothetical approacher in your example assaulted you.   If zimmerman did that, of course he's at fault, he just attacked and killed a guy for no reason.  But he didn't do that.   And even if he did it still wouldn't make sense to say he put HIMSELF in danger.  If he went up to martin and started shoving him, then all he did was put MARTIN in danger (and then kill him) - of course, this is not what happened.

I see you could never be a lawyer because Zimmerman did put himself in harms way, there was NO reason for him to follow anybody around, you seem to have forgotten Zimmerman was NOT the police.
I don't know about you but anybody tries to stop me when I'm walking down the street and starts to ask me question when they have NO authority to do that I'm going to walk way and if that person continues to harass me they are going to have a fight on their hands.
Here's a warped question anybody would ask in court, if Zimmerman would have minded his own business and called the police and watched tv would he have put himself in harms way?  Would the kid be alive?  That is a fact that any lawyer would ask.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

I see you could never be a lawyer because Zimmerman did put himself in harms way, there was NO reason for him to follow anybody around, you seem to have forgotten Zimmerman was NOT the police.
I don't know about you but anybody tries to stop me when I'm walking down the street and starts to ask me question when they have NO authority to do that I'm going to walk way and if that person continues to harass me they are going to have a fight on their hands.
Here's a warped question anybody would ask in court, if Zimmerman would have minded his own business and called the police and watched tv would he have put himself in harms way?  Would the kid be alive?  That is a fact that any lawyer would ask.

Approaching a person is not illegal.

You DO NOT have a right to fight a person because you don't like the questions they are asking.  Youwould be committing a crime of assault.  Saying "he provoked me by asking questions I didn't like and didn't want to talk about" will get you laughed at by police.  You are defending thug behavior.  You think violent animals have a right to beat whomever they want and the rest of us better make sure we don't get them upset or else we deserve beatings.  You are one sick puppy.  Al sharpton wouldn't even take your case.

[ProJewGreekChristian]

Approaching a person is not illegal.

You DO NOT have a right to fight a person because you don't like the questions they are asking.  Youwould be committing a crime of assault.  Saying "he provoked me by asking questions I didn't like and didn't want to talk about" will get you laughed at by police.  You are defending thug behavior.  You think violent animals have a right to beat whomever they want and the rest of us better make sure we don't get them upset or else we deserve beatings.  You are one sick puppy.  Al sharpton wouldn't even take your case.

Completely agree. jbeige has ZERO idea what he's talking about, and his statement that the views you're espousing reveal your inability to be a lawyer is laughable.

[jbeige]

Completely agree. jbeige has ZERO idea what he's talking about, and his statement that the views you're espousing reveal your inability to be a lawyer is laughable.

The problem is if it was a white kid you would be all up in arms, lets be fair about things, there was no reason for that idiot Zimmerman to confront this monkey.

[jbeige]

Approaching a person is not illegal.

You DO NOT have a right to fight a person because you don't like the questions they are asking.  Youwould be committing a crime of assault.  Saying "he provoked me by asking questions I didn't like and didn't want to talk about" will get you laughed at by police.  You are defending thug behavior.  You think violent animals have a right to beat whomever they want and the rest of us better make sure we don't get them upset or else we deserve beatings.  You are one sick puppy.  Al sharpton wouldn't even take your case.

Approaching a person is not illegal but forcing a person to answer questions is illegal and nobody except the police have that right and even then you don't have to answer their questions when they arrest you.
Zimmerman was not the police and had no legal right to question anybody.

[jbeige]

Approaching a person is not illegal.

You DO NOT have a right to fight a person because you don't like the questions they are asking.  Youwould be committing a crime of assault.  Saying "he provoked me by asking questions I didn't like and didn't want to talk about" will get you laughed at by police.  You are defending thug behavior.  You think violent animals have a right to beat whomever they want and the rest of us better make sure we don't get them upset or else we deserve beatings.  You are one sick puppy.  Al sharpton wouldn't even take your case.

You would be laughed at by the police saying the kid had to answer any of Zimmerman's questions.

[jbeige]

Approaching a person is not illegal.

You DO NOT have a right to fight a person because you don't like the questions they are asking.  Youwould be committing a crime of assault.  Saying "he provoked me by asking questions I didn't like and didn't want to talk about" will get you laughed at by police.  You are defending thug behavior.  You think violent animals have a right to beat whomever they want and the rest of us better make sure we don't get them upset or else we deserve beatings.  You are one sick puppy.  Al sharpton wouldn't even take your case.

So you didn't answer the question, if you were being followed at night by someone what would you do?
You must be an easy mark for muggers.

[jbeige]

Completely agree. jbeige has ZERO idea what he's talking about, and his statement that the views you're espousing reveal your inability to be a lawyer is laughable.

You know ZERO about things because you are being blinded because the kid was black.
The fact still remains that if Zimmerman did what he was told and wasn't pretending to be the police the kid would still be alive and Zimmerman wouldn't have gotten into a fight with him.
I guess College doesn't teach that people have rights in this country or basic law.
Do yourself a favor go to a trial when you have a chance and you will see what really goes on and what questions lawyers and prosecutors ask.

[ProJewGreekChristian]

jbeige:
I really don't have time to go through the laundry list of rants above, but you keep saying Zimmerman cannot force Martin to answer him, I guess trying to re-frame the debate, which is so typical of leftists (e.g., your pagan Mormon friend). Martin has ABSOLUTELY no requirement to answer Zimmerman's questions and Zimmerman cannot force him to answer anything. If Martin truly felt threatened by a concerned neighbor just watching this serial burglar and thus attacked him therefor, that is UNREASONABLE, esp. in light of Martin not being from that neighbor and having no excuse like never having seen Zimmerman. Thus, Martin's attack is an unreasonable response to any so-called concerns, which are fabricated anyway. No one is saying Martin "must" acquiesce in answering any questions by Zimmerman. Having said that, the record is pretty clear no questions were ever asked by Zimmerman; the only one asked was by Martin--"Do you have a f---ing problem?" then Martin proceeded to attack Zikmmerman.

If a decent black guy that cared about his community and had a concealed weapons permit, saw a suspicious Wigger, who ended up attacking the concerned citizen and smashing his head into the concrete and trying to grab for his gun to kill him, are you serious? Of course I would support the good black guy over the wigger criminal. But not only would we never have heard about such a case, it is different insomuch that middle-class or even good blacks generally are not concerned or suspicious by whites, as whites, despite being the majority, do not commit the majority of crime, and are therefore much less likely than other groups to be up to no good.

BTW, I've seen trials before, being in law school, having interned with a judge, my uncle being a judge, and my mother being an attorney as well.

[IsraelForever]

I think Bernie Goetz did the right thing by shooting and killing his attackers.  If Trayvon attacked me and broke my nose and pounded my head into the pavement and I had a gun, you can bet your last dollar that I'd shoot to kill.  Of course, I'm assuming that Zimmerman's story is the correct one... and I admit that my assumption may be wrong.  Why are Trayvon's supporters not willing to admit the same about their assumption? 

You do know that they found cocaine in Whitney Houston's hotel room, don't you?  How many of her family and friends swore that she was off drugs?

Trayvon, we are told, was a good boy and would never attack anyone. 

 

[Secularbeliever]

So you didn't answer the question, if you were being followed at night by someone what would you do?
You must be an easy mark for muggers.

Martin had a cell phone, he could have called the police if he was suspicious of Zimmerman.

[cjd]

You want me banned, and keep this moron around. I would destroy and point out the contradiction and absurdity in virtually everything he says, but then I might be accused of getting more posts by having "senseless arguments". I might also be accused of being a (*vile word) troll again, but I'll do you this favor and give you a piece of my mind.

I understand the need to defeat Obama, more than I let on, but support Romney and this lump will be the least of you worries, and you will be siding with either very dumb or very evil people. Fight Obama is the purpose, so take a lesson from the liberal rats and run an effective smear campaign. Generally, the peons only can take very little political information before zoning out [which is why Obuma has been so effective, singing, going to Mcdonalds and sneaking politics into otherwise popular activities]. A supportive campaign of Romney wold be more boring than necessary to make the dead self-cremate, and you aren't going to attract a following of anyone but those in the church of moron with it. Fight Obama, copy Mr. Ben Pesah's style or develop your own strategy, and maybe mention that any alternaive is enough to save the country from utter misery and deep evil. There's countless things you could say that would change even the mind (figure of speech) of a liberal. I have, especially with black people, without youtube accounts.

Are you willing to stifle people who denounce Romney later? Saying how Obuma is worse is kosher, but you can't want Romney and be informed/sane, you should only want an alternative to Obuma. Play to your strengths and destroy the Muslim "traitor" (if you consider him American), don't praise the Moron, or the particular talents of this forum in general will be underemployed, and you will not be remotely as effecitve as if you just do what I say (which I'm sure some sane person here has thought of).

P.s. To the people that insult me: I have money and hot girlfriends. I don't care. I will just not like you.

So be it  Who cares!  People with money and hot girl friends have better things to do besides trolling internet websites 

[Mishmaat]

So be it  Who cares!  People with money and hot girl friends have better things to do besides trolling internet websites 

Quite true. 

[White Israelite]

I have been reading the forum and the post about this situation and how I feel about it is I believe that the case against Zimmerman regardless if he was right or wrong is being used to promote a very serious agenda against gun rights, self defense, race issues, and just downright common sense.

The way the media has worked against zimmerman and promoted Trayvon is the same way the nutcases would martyr a terrorist around for killing innocent people.

I personally believe Zimmerman was acting in self defense, I think like any normal person (and I speak as a Floridian) that if I saw someone standing around in the rain looking around in the middle of the night standing outside with a phone, i'd think "what is going on" especially outside of my apartment complex. The police are not perfect but Zimmerman did call the police and he had every right to question why Trayvon was out and about and the facts are that witnesses testified defending Zimmermans story, Zimmermans phone call checks out, the police reports and even the damage done to Zimmermans nose and the back of his head prove that something happened that the media has been silent about.

The media has done everything they can to promote the racist agenda of the black panthers, to take away Floridas right to self defense and the castle doctrine, and to incite racial violence and mass looting in justification over what happened.

This is not black and white, this is not about race, say what you want about Trayvon and Zimmermans backgrounds but the fact is when Zimmerman was attacked, he had every right to use his weapon in self defense and that is what matters is what happened in that very moment.

What is wrong and immoral or for people calling for Zimmermans death and to have him imprisoned, on what grounds? The man defended himself and people have forgotten the law of the land? The right to a speedy trial or are we going back to the witch hunt days where we execute a person before hearing their case?

The question is, would people be so upset if the man that was killed was an Asian, a Caucasian or another Hispanic man? This look political more than about race.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Approaching a person is not illegal but forcing a person to answer questions is illegal and nobody except the police have that right and even then you don't have to answer their questions when they arrest you.
Zimmerman was not the police and had no legal right to question anybody.

Seems like you are confusing "asking questions" with "forcing someone to answer questions."   A very contrived response.   Congrats on joining the left's chorus line, johnson, but you're inventing this situation wholecloth.

You don't need a special "legal right" to ask a question (or several of them).  You are quite clearly very confused.