Town Square

Post a New Topic

here is a MAN among mere men

Original post made by Hoodies are great, Los Altos, on Mar 28, 2012

props to Representative Bobby Rush!

I love this guy.

Web Link Video about a minute, it will restore your faith in politicians, worth the time.

He is shouted down by the raving lunatic serving as the acting chair, about wearing hats, while Mr Rush quotes the Book of Luke

�The Spirit of the Lord is on me / because he has anointed me / to proclaim the good news to the poor. / He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners / and recovery of sight to the blind, / to set the oppressed free.�

There goes a MAN.


Comments (8)

Like this comment
Posted by Ken
a resident of Midtown
on Mar 28, 2012 at 10:58 am

We have seen this theatre before. Remember Tawana Brawley? Al Shaprton brought us that one. Now Sharpton and Bobby Rush are still out there fanning the flames. Of course, Jesse Jackson is always there. Spike Lee has joined the fray, by passing on a bogus address for the current location of Zimmerman. The innocent residents at that address are feeling threatened, as they should, because the lynch mob is out there to get Zimmerman.

Obama has decided to jump on the bandwagon, before the facts are known. He did that before with Skip Gates, throwing the white police officer under the bus.

The Hispanic man who shot the black youth in Florida claimed self defense. The majority of the press claimed white racism.

The man accused, Zimmerman, is now running for his life. Whatever happened to innocent, until proven guilty? What law did he break?

Will Obama's DOJ come in to protect the man who has already been convicted in the public arena?

Like this comment
Posted by Hoodies are great
a resident of Los Altos
on Mar 28, 2012 at 11:56 am

I thought this was about hoodies.

Silly me.

ken, if you want to make this forum about a man instructed by the police to not chase a kid, who then chased and shot the unarmed kid and then claimed 'self defense', then by all means, go ahead.

Sounds like you rather make this about yourself and your Fox views, so go ahead. You made a lot of claims:

"The majority of the press claimed white racism." Nope. They reported on a lot of people who claimed racism because of the 'f****** ***n' remark on tape, Web Link there's a lot of op-ed folks making the claim too, but I haven't seen the 'media' make that claim. Prove it.

"Whatever happened to innocent, until proven guilty?" Nothing, why do you ask? Isn't it odd that a man can chase down an unarmed kid and shoot him and not be investigated for murder?

"What law did he break?" Ummmm, that's a tough one, uhhhh,, hmmmmmm, maybe, ummm, golly, maybe MURDER?

After instructions to not chase, Zimmerman chases and kills a kid with an iced tea and some skittles and is never held for an investigation. And you want to indict corporate media and the president.

I'd rather talk about hoodies. Ken, do you have a hoodie?

Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Mar 28, 2012 at 12:03 pm

Ken is way off base.
Zimmerman stalked Martin and then executed him. Martin was defending himself, using Florida's Stand Your Ground Law. The police told Zimmerman to not follow Martin--he did not comply and executed him.
Martin was not given the luxury of being innocent until proven guilty--he was murdered by a cold-blooded vigilante.
the Samford PD tried to gloss over this matter by not carrying out a full investigation--the current police chief is on leave and should be fired.
All normal people should be outraged by this event--the people that are painting Martin as a criminal have issues with people of color.

Like this comment
Posted by Ken
a resident of Midtown
on Mar 28, 2012 at 12:25 pm


Were you there? How do you know what went down? If the so-called victim (unarmed as he was) was beating on Zimmerman (Z), and Z used his legal weapon to defend himslef, what law did he break? How did Z know that the man was unarmed, as he was (possibly) being attacked? I have yet to hear that it is illegal to follow a suspicious character. The $64 question, at this point, is who provoked a fight? However, even that is not a murder...depends on who attacked whom, and at what point.

The undenialbe fact is that Z has already been convicted by the press, court of public opinion and the various Black leaders, like Sharpton and Rush and Lee and Obama.

If Z broke a law, he should be indicted, and put to trial. If he did not break a law, then he should not be hassled and threatened by the lynch mob. If the latter is correct, the DOJ should be going after the lynch mob, not Z.

Regarding the media, and racism, they report that which they believe to be true.

Simple question, once again: What law did Z break? Isn't 'probable cause' a precursor to an indictment?

Another angle is whether Spike Lee and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and Barack Obama should be indicted for promoting public mayhem. There is probable cause in each of those cases. It won't happen, but it is something to think about.

Our laws are more important than individual cases.

Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Mar 28, 2012 at 12:33 pm

Ken--you are showing your bias.
Shouldn't the real question be what law did Martin break?
Martin was taking advantage of Flroida's Stand Your Ground Law, when he was executed by an armed vigilante. If Martin attacked the armed vigilante, it was in self-defence.
The outrage over this is due to the local PD's joke of an inquiry--the police chief is npow on leave and will probably lose his job.

Martin has been convicted in the press by people like Ken, republican leaders and various racist organizations. Martin did not getto enjoy "innocent until proven guilty"--he was executed by a vigilante.

the only "public mayhem" being carried out was that by the armed, racist vigilante and the racist thugs that are supporting him.

Like this comment
Posted by Hoodies are great
a resident of Los Altos
on Mar 28, 2012 at 12:46 pm

Ken - you are correct, there are many unanswered questions and we can thank many of the people you mentioned for forcing someone to answer those questions. Zimmerman himself brings the racist element in the recording of the call.

Your empathy is spectacular - referring to an unarmed kid who was chased and shot as "the so-called victim"

Good thing you are defending the REAL victim here - the man who disobeyed police instructions and the very rules of his volunteer job to go shoot someone.

Zimmerman chased an unarmed kid and killed him. You can't claim self defense after you chase someone, against instructions and engage them.

Please back up your claims:

"already been convicted by ... Obama" Please provide the statements upon which you make that absurd claim.

"...Barack Obama should be indicted for promoting public mayhem..." Please provide the statements upon which you make that opinion.

All I saw was this: “But, obviously, this is a tragedy,” he added, noting that we all have to “do some soul searching to find out why something like this happened.”

“I think every parent in America,” he said, “should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative to investigate every aspect of this and that everybody pulls together — federal, state, and local — to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened.”

“But my main message,” he added, “is to the parents of Trayvon Martin. You know, if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon. And, you know, I think they are right to expect that all of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves and that we’re going to get to the bottom of exactly what happened.” Web Link

Ken - you didn't answer the question about your hoodie - I think I found it Web Link

Like this comment
Posted by Ken
a resident of Midtown
on Mar 28, 2012 at 1:00 pm

"he was executed by a vigilante."

He was? Based on what facts? If the block monitor was following a suspicious character, there is no law against that. Execution is a very strong word, in this case. If Z only shot after he was being beaten by Martin, that is self defense. If Z threatened Martin, and provoked a fight, knowing that he ahd a gun, and was willing to force the issue, then that is another matter.

The central issue, in my mind, is the law. The facts of the case will decide if a law was broken, or not. Z has already been convicted in the court of public opinion. Sad, but true. If a law was not broken, then Z should walk. If Z broke a law, including harrassment, then the law should reflect that fact, and he should be prosecuted. However, the lynch mob should not be driving this process.

If Martin attacked Z, when only angry words were exhanged, then Martin broke the law, and Z defended himself.

Like this comment
Posted by That User Name is already
a resident of another community
on Jul 16, 2012 at 12:45 pm

That User Name is already is a registered user.

The George Zimmerman defenders have been following some other shiny object in the news recently.

They've had no comment about Zimmerman having his bail revoked because he lied about having multiple passports and lied about his finances under oath. Zimmerman was re-released after his bail was raised from $150,000 to ONE MILLION dollars.

Slowly, more information comes out:

"'Witness 9' tells prosecutors Zimmerman molested her for years, Orlando Sentinel, July 16, 2012

A woman told authorities that while they were children, murder suspect George Zimmerman sexually molested her for a decade, according to prosecution records released today. The woman, identified only as "witness 9," said the abuse started when she was six and ended when she was 16."

Web Link

Lying to the judge about money, lying about passports, an increased bail to one million dollars, reports of abuse, and on and on.

Yet still, one has to wonder why an armed man chased an unarmed teenager against all volunteer watch rules and against all common sense, confronted him against police instruction, and murdered him.

Chasing an unarmed teenager and getting out of your truck to engage and murder him is not self defense.

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

This time we're not lying. HONEST! No, really!
By Douglas Moran | 12 comments | 965 views

Couples: When Wrong Admit It; When Right; Shut Up
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 850 views

One-on-one time
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 605 views