Sunday, February 7 , 2016, 5:45 am | Fair 43º

Randy Alcorn: Trayvon Martin Case — Racism or Reality?

By Randy Alcorn, Noozhawk Columnist |

Responding to the recent acquittal of George Zimmerman in the killing of black, 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, President Barack Obama spoke about racial prejudice in America, particularly as it affects black men. Concurring with the many people protesting the Zimmerman verdict, Obama contends that racial profiling led to Martin’s death, and that such profiling is epidemic in America.

Yes, racial profiling of black men, especially young black men, is common in America, but is it a manifestation of persistent, widespread racism? While racism certainly still exists in America, its pervasiveness is questionable. The vast majority of nonblack Americans are not racist, especially the younger generation, as Obama mentioned, for whom race is virtually a nonfactor. Tens of millions of white voters twice elected Obama, a black man, president. More important, racial integration throughout society is now more the norm than the exception. And mixed-race marriages only turn the disapproving heads of the nation’s most primitive cultural Neanderthals.

While blatant racism may explain some of the profiling and harassment of black males, especially by police, most of it stems from instinctual prejudice.

“The stark reality is that crime happens in communities of color,” New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said in a recent ABC Nightline broadcast. He went on to say, “About 70 percent to 75 percent of the people described as committing violent crimes — assault, robbery, shootings, grand larceny — are described as being African-American.”

Kelly’s observations are not unique to New York City. Credible statistics from around the nation report that violent crimes are committed by black males in far greater proportion to their percentage of the overall population.

Regardless of the social/economic explanations for such criminal behavior, it is difficult for folks — both black and white — to get around their reflexive cautious apprehension of young black men, and to not err on the side of personal safety. Such an atmosphere of mistrust can have terrible unintended consequences, especially when it is embraced by law enforcement.

The Trayvon Martin case is just such an example. Was Martin profiled by Zimmerman? Most probably. Did Zimmerman have reason to be cautiously suspicious of Martin? Given the realities of who commits crime in America, yes. That Zimmerman bears the greater culpability for Martin’s death by precipitating the unnecessary confrontation with Martin, is true, but that is a subject for another column.
Reasonable people may understand that most young black males are not dangerous criminals, but the perception is that most violent crime is committed by young black males — a perception validated by facts and reinforced by empirical observation. The vast majority of Americans does not judge people by skin pigmentation, but rather by behavior. And here is where black America has a problem. Profiling of young black men will not stop until their demographic group behavior becomes less criminally violent.

A final thought on this sorry case; maintaining the myth that white racism permeates American society is essential for those who benefit from the racism industry. The likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson owe their fame and fortune to it, while thousands of black Americans continue to benefit from special considerations, e.g. various affirmative-action policies, they claim are needed to offset continuing racial inequities.

Aiding and abetting the racism industry are the media vultures, always looking for something bleeding; they never hesitate to pick at the racism scab, and wasted no time in covering the Trayvon Martin incident as one of lingering racism in America.

Every year, hundreds of black kids are killed by other black kids, but can we recall any of these killings receiving the focus that the Martin case has? The killing of the black teenage girl who had attended Obama’s second inauguration and was shot dead a week later by black gangsters on the streets of her Chicago neighborhood occupied national headlines for about a week then faded away. If her killers were caught and tried, where was the extensive national coverage? Had her killers been white, however, you can bet there would have been national coverage.

Had Zimmerman not been armed and Martin had severely beaten him, maybe killing him or leaving him disabled, would this case have commanded such ongoing national attention?

The racism industry and the media vultures cannot bank on old white guilt forever. White America is not responsible for black behavior, black America is.

— Randy Alcorn is a Santa Barbara political observer. Contact him at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address), or click here to read previous columns. The opinions expressed are his own.

» on 07.21.13 @ 10:19 PM

The welfare food stamp black leaders Jesse and Sharpton make their money on racism..the Blacks should be embarrassed by these wackos.
Get a job and tell the Mexicans to go home, abolish 21st century slavery.
Welfare food stamps and section 8 is the Dems giving you free stuff for your cheap vote.

» on 07.22.13 @ 06:19 AM

A rational response arguing that the non rational, emotional responses to skin color no longer exist.  But they do.  We see the Turks and the Armenians, the Serbs and the Bosnians, the Irish and the English fight battles that have been crossing generations but we assume that a few short years have healed all the divisions in our own nation. 

When rational mind tells us that judging a person on the color of their skin is wrong, it is hard to believe that non verbal, emotional part of our brain might respond differently.  But there are tests that let you take a peek at your emotional responses; responses that happen even before your rational mind can form an opinion and often color that opinion.  Why not take the test yourself Randy?  You can find one at

» on 07.22.13 @ 07:33 AM

Well stated Randy.

» on 07.22.13 @ 07:49 AM

Very well said Randy. Thank you

» on 07.22.13 @ 08:26 AM

“We should not kid ourselves. Things have gotten better, but they are still shameful. Consider the following:

1. Black Americans are twice as likely as white Americans to live in poverty.

2. Black Americans are twice as likely as white Americans to be unemployed.

3. The median family income of black Americans is only 67 percent of that of white Americans.

4. The average white American family’s net worth is 22 times greater than that of the average black American family.

5. The average white American family is 58 percent more likely to own a home than the average black American family.

6. Black American eighth graders are almost three times more likely to read below basic reading levels than white American eighth graders.

7. Black American students are more than twice as likely to drop out of high school as white American students.

8. Black American college students are 42 percent less likely to graduate college in four years that white American college students.

9. Black American males are six times more likely to be incarcerated than white American males.

10.  Black American criminal defendants are sentenced to death three times more often than white American defendants when the victim was white.

11.  Black American criminal defendants are sentenced to 10 percent longer prison terms than white American criminal defendants for the same crime.

12.  Black American drivers are three times more likely to be searched when they stopped for a traffic violation than white American drivers.

13.  A white American is four times more likely to become a lawyer than a black American.

14.  A white American is three times more likely to become a doctor than a black American.

15.  The United States Senate includes 96 white Americans and 0 black Americans.

16.  White Americans are almost twice as likely as black Americans to think that black Americans have made significant progress in recent years.”

from: Geoffrey R. Stone: Race in America A More Perfect Union, the Huffington Post 7/22/13

» on 07.22.13 @ 08:48 AM

Great comments.

Here is a situation that happened in Santa Barbara last summer.

5 obviously black youths bought snacks in a convenience store around 10 PM.  They went outside, stood in the intersection just outside the store, stepping aside only reluctantly when cars drove by.  They live in the area.  All they had to do is stand on the sidewalk and talk and joke around and little notice would have been taken.  Instead they chose to stand in the middle of a 4 way intersection.  The store owner said they were good kids.  My thought was/is then why the display?

I was at the store.  If they had been Anglo or Hispanic I would have said something.  And here it comes, “but” since they were jerking around in the intersection with plenty of sidewalk options, had a good 35 years on me, and out numbered me 5-1 I said nothing.  10 minutes or so later they left.

When does the ethic of the black leaders and parents say, do that and you are anti social and stupid and then back it up?  I grew up with Negro adult family friends, who never felt any hesitation to say something if I or my brother were out of line.  So what has changed and why?

(by the way Negro is high English for black & in Hispanic cultures Negro is the word for black)

» on 07.22.13 @ 09:38 AM

Excellent article, as always, Mr. Alcorn.  I expect you will now be called a racist for quoting the stats on crime.

» on 07.22.13 @ 09:45 AM

Yes, there are racist whites in America.  There are racist blacks in America.  There are racist Hispanics in America.  In fact, you can pick any cultural persuasion you like and there you will fine racism.  We used to call it prejudice.

There are other forms of prejudice in America as well.  Religion is full of prejudice.  Then you have class prejudice.  White collar looking down upon blue collar, and the elite blue bloods looking down upon everybody but themselves.  In the field of education, the structure reeks of prejudice.

The definition of prejudice is: an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge, or; an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics (Merriam-Webster).

Based on the definitions above, people with a good education can still harbor prejudices.  People with means can also harbor prejudices.  Conversely, people without means or education harbor many prejudices.  Critics of prejudice contend that lack of knowledge is the culprit leading to prejudice.  I would suggest that even though literacy and education play a part, the primary factor in most prejudices are born from cultural affections.  In other words, acceptance of other who are not like you.

Santa Barbara is my home.  Until I left the area in my early twenties, I had never experienced racial prejudice.  My senior year of high school, the homecoming queen was a beautiful black girl.  In other places, however, cultural divides exist that engender prejudice of all kinds.  But by and by, the impact of communication and social media has homogenized much of our cultural beliefs, and made us more accepting of each other.

The only exception to this rule is personal safety.  I’ve traveled in many countries and most states in the U.S., and bad neighborhoods are scary no matter where you are.  When it comes to personal safety, anybody could be your enemy.  As hard economic times continue I expect that more and more people will become desperate and engage in activities that are not safe for the rest of us.

Was George Zimmerman justified?  The jury thought so.  We’ll probably never know the whole story.  But I wouldn’t be surprised if Trayvon Martin’s fears caused him to act in a way that provoked even greater fear in George Zimmerman’s heart, and cost young Trayvon his life.  In this case, I believe that fear lead to the sad outcome, not racism.  And George will have to carry that knowledge with him for the rest of his life.  There are no winners here, only losers.

» on 07.22.13 @ 10:00 AM

“That Zimmerman bears the greater culpability for Martin’s death by precipitating the unnecessary confrontation with Martin, is true”

I am not sure how Alcorn concluded the above. The witness statements and physical evidence introduced at trial suggests just the opposite. Martin precipitated the confrontation by sucker punching Zimmerman in the nose while Zimmerman was retreating to his car. I challenge anyone here to provide a shred of evidence indicating Zimmerman triggered the incident.

» on 07.22.13 @ 10:49 AM

I say excuses. When is the African American community going to realize they are their own worst enemy. Of course there’s some racism. That’s never going to go away. In a culture dominated by hip hop crap mentality i.e. degrading women, drug using, promiscuity, no wonder they have little success. The black community needs to hear the logic espoused by Dr. Ben Carson and former Fla Congressman Allen West and not race dividers like Al (Mr. Charlatan) Sharpton, Barack (Mr. Phoney) Obama and the Rev. Jesse (Mr. Philanderer) Jackson.

» on 07.22.13 @ 01:38 PM

On July 14, 2013,in Sanford, Florida, George Zimmerman was found “Not Guilty” in the shooting death of African-American teenager Trayvon Martin.

The jury contained no male and no black.

It’s well known that Zimmerman, armed with a handgun and repeatedly on record as being suspicious of the presence in his community of black men, went in search of Martin despite being warned by authorities not to do so.

This was a racially motivated verdict by typical members of an intensely racially bigoted community. It is what I thought would happen – the reason I did not follow the trial daily on TV, though I had done just that in the Jodi Arias trial.

US Attorney General Eric Holder has announced that the Justice Department will consider the US government’s charging Zimmerman with a criminal “racial hatred” crime. Regardless of the merits of this, such a charge by the US government will never take place. The Democratic Party, in 2014 and 2016,  has too many votes to lose in Florida, Virginia and North Carolina, to name just a few Southern states.

Anyone who does not acknowledge the continuing pervasive racial bigotry in the South is a wishful thinker or lives in a cave. The only thing that will guarantee equal treatment for blacks in the South is the vigorous enforcement of law, as happened despite immense Southern resistance in the 1960s. No “law” entirely in the control of Southerners will protect any minority.

I was born in 1927 in Richmond, Virginia – a city the local radio station then called “The Capitol of the Old Dominion” and “Down where the South begins.” As a child, I saw every day, and could not understand, the unfairness of the attitude toward, and treatment of, people then called “colored,” “nigras” or worse. I vehemently argued about this with my parents, uncles and aunts and grandparents. They all – even my law-professor pal uncle, pooh-poohed my concerns. (He would always say, “Things are so much improved now.”)

On Robert E. Lee’s birthday, we school children were marched to the base of his statue on Monument Avenue to put our pennies in a box to help maintain the memorial.

Abraham Lincoln’s birthday was not observed.

When my father regained his job in New Jersey, after having lost it during the Depression, we moved there a final time. When I was mustered out of the Navy in 1946, I returned to Virginia to begin college at Hampden-Sydney, a school recommended by my uncle. There were no blacks in attendance. For English class I wrote a poem protesting racism which was published in the school paper because the professor liked one of the lines in it.

After a stint in the Drama Department at Catholic University in Washington, D.C.. I launched a career as an actor on Broadway with a performance as Tybalt in the Dwight Deere Wiman production of “Romeo and Juliet,” starring Olivia De Havilland.

Many years later, living in Los Angeles doing film and TV, I periodically (1970s-1990s) visited my ailing father who’d retired to the small town of Tappahannock, VA to be near his married sister. Each week I’d drive my Dad to his local poker club, and sit in at the game myself. The most common scornful joke among its players was, “You’d f—-k up a nigger wedding.”

In 1999, my wife Lorrie and I took a car trip around the US and Canada. I was uneasy having to drive though Mississippi, the state whose law officers somehow never found the murderers of three young civil rights workers in the 1960s. However, in Natchez we spent a night at an inn that had been recommended by a friend. It was the custom there for guests to mingle before dinner, then all sit together at a large dining table. Two men from another part of Mississippi asked where we were from. When we said, “California,” one laughed and said, “Oh that’s where all the fags are.”

Further on, we stopped at Hampden-Sydney so I could revisit my old campus. A student had been assigned to guide us. He was informative and very polite. I asked him if now blacks were students at the college. Misunderstanding my motive, he replied, “Yes, but they’re not very comfortable here.”

In ways not enforced by law, nothing had changed then and, in the same respect, nothing has changed now.

The nation-wide protests of the Zimmerman-Martin verdict give justifiably unhappy people an outlet for their outrage and sense of injustice. But like the 1960s riots in L.A., they will accomplish little to advance equal justice in the United States. Southerners are what they are.

William Smithers





» on 07.22.13 @ 04:17 PM

Mr. Smithers,

There is no doubt that racial bias and/or prejudice exists today- within races and between races.  I as a white person has been discriminated against, insulted, beaten up, and more by non-whites, but also by whites.  And, I’ve seen it happen the other way too.  I see it today in the subtle ways that really hurt for the long term, with the lack of standards being held to in education, where poor or non-whites are held to a lower standard of performance than others.

The issue is not whether racism exists, but if it exists to the extent that you suggest.  I would argue that you cannot infer ‘all’ southerners, as is implied by your statement:

“The nation-wide protests of the Zimmerman-Martin verdict give justifiably unhappy people an outlet for their outrage and sense of injustice. But like the 1960s riots in L.A., they will accomplish little to advance equal justice in the United States. Southerners are what they are.”

Some southerners, sure.  Some westerners, sure.  Californians, sure.  Northerners, sure.  The extent to which you or I cannot put an exact percentage on, but we would have to agree it exists everywhere.

Has it improved? I believe it has.  Interestingly, in my racially integrated family, I see it happening today in the form of animus by the older minority side of the family, for circumstances long ago, not forgotten.  Both from what happened to them, and from what they did to avoid it happening to them, and in some instances for what they did do.

Where we need to exercise caution is not to let this become yet another excuse to treat people differently, hold them to a lesser standard, and in so doing, prevent them from achieving the opportunity this country presents to us all.

In jury trials, we need to insure the evidence carries the day.  Not the mob or that national opinion, often affected by the press prior to the facts of the trial.

Some racists, yes.  All, no.  Are we moving in the right direction, I think yes.  We must be careful in our labeling or we end up doing the same type of thing that you seem to want to correct.

» on 07.22.13 @ 04:19 PM

Smithers, I would advise you to keep quiet when you obviously don’t know the facts. The only thing that is somewhat accurate in you shameless diatribe is that you didn’t watch the trial and you are completely ignorant of the facts in this case.

“It’s well known that Zimmerman, armed with a handgun and repeatedly on record as being suspicious of the presence in his community of black men, went in search of Martin despite being warned by authorities not to do so.”

This statement is totally fictitious. Show me the evidence that supports this ridiculous assertion. You have concocted an illusion spun out of whole cloth. Read the transcripts of the trial and then be prepared to apologize to Zimmerman for your scurrilous and malevolent aspersions.

» on 07.22.13 @ 08:42 PM

Want to ensure lots of comments? Write an article about race. Want to really bait people? Mention Sharpton and Jackson—makes it really easy to mask your contempt.

» on 07.23.13 @ 08:39 AM

A jury found George Zimmerman not guilty of murdering Trayvon Martin, beyond a reasonable doubt, under Florida’s misguided self-defense laws. That verdict does not relive Zimmerman of the responsibility for causing the confrontation and killing the unarmed Martin by shooting him in the heart. Although Zimmerman was not convicted of a crime, he will have to live with the guilty memory of his cowardly and fatal actions the rest of his life.

» on 07.23.13 @ 09:39 AM

Gramps, please get your facts straight. Stand-Your-Ground was not used as a defense in Zimmerman case. Justifiable homicide, the same self-defense used in every state in the country, was the reason he was acquitted. The verdict absolutely relieves him of responsibility since he didn’t do anything wrong. Please tell me in specific detail (evidence and facts) what his guilty and cowardly actions are. Since you probably didn’t watch the trial, have no understanding of the evidence, you are conjecturing based on preconceived notions that fit your extremely biased beliefs.

» on 08.12.13 @ 09:27 PM

Lou, you simply imply without basis. What an old fart.

The kid was walking to his dad’s house. Zimmerman confronted him, and as any young man would be, Martin was offended by the effrontery of the little big man. You simply don’t get it because you have most likely never had it happen to you.

Had Zimmerman confronted me this way, when I was 17, he would have gotten the same - likely much worse. He had no right to confront Martin. It’s too bad Martin didn’t find the gun before Zimmerman, the little coward, pulled it. The only reason this jury let Zimmerman go was that the charge was too ambitious.

Zimmerman should spent 2-3 years in prison for this. He should be forbidden from owning or using firearms for life. He should have to do a lecture circuit - make an example of himself - for every other would-be vigilante. He should have to tell his sad story over and over again until he is too old and his voice is too weak to be heard.

» on 08.12.13 @ 11:58 PM

Rambler, you obviously didn’t watch the trial nor are you aware of the overwhelming evidence that vindicated Zimmerman. You said that Zimmerman confronted Martin but you have absolutely no evidence to support this scenario. In fact, all the evidence suggested just the opposite. Zimmerman was walking back to his car when confronted by Martin, who for reasons only he knows, decided to circle back and confront Zimmerman rather than proceeding to his house, which was less than 100 yards from where the fight occurred. The only eyewitness to the fight testified he saw Martin on top, pummeling Zimmerman who was on the bottom, and indicated it was Zimmerman who was screaming for help. The foremost forensic pathologist in the world, Vincent Di Maio, who everyone acknowledged is the expert in the field, testified that the injuries on Zimmerman were consistent with Martin sucker-punching Zimmerman, breaking his nose, and then repeatedly slamming his head against the sidewalk. Zimmerman had multiple lacerations on the back of his head and, of course, the broken nose. Zimmerman also had grass stains on the back of his shirt. Martin had absolutely no physical injuries except the bullet wound and lacerations on his knuckles, consistent with injuries sustained from punching another person. The gun forensics also supported Zimmerman’s version of the story.

There was a reason why the Sanford Police Dept refused to press charges. They didn’t have any evidence to pursue the case. It was only when a couple of race-baiting civil rights lawyers who saw a way to make a lot of money by suing the condo association and the city, did this case become a cause celebre for the liberal media and Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson and their followers.

What should really scare you and all people who cherish our civil liberties, is that a special prosecutor without a shred of evidence charged Zimmerman with 2nd degree homicide in order to placate the multitude of African-Americans and others who were not aware of the facts and just assumed this had to be a racist act. This was a political prosecution. The prosecutor never presented the case to a grand jury and certainly did not have probable cause to charge Zimmerman. Even Alan Dershowitz said the prosecutor should be disbarred. He said the trial “bordered on the criminal”.

Now I know everyone would like to believe that Martin was an innocent, angelic child, but if you look at his Facebook and Twitter posts as well as his school and legal records, this couldn’t be further from the truth. Even though the prosecutor tried to illegally suppress this exculpatory evidence, thankfully a whistleblower from the prosecutors office leaked the information to the defense team. Martin had been suspended many times from school. A school official found numerous pieces of jewelry and burglar tools in his backpack. He was a drug dealer and a self-proclaimed street fighter, as he described himself in his many Facebook posts. He also had a number of conversations with friends about a drug concoction called “lean or purple drink”. Apparently, this is a mix of codeine (prescription-strength cough medicine), candy and a soft drink.  Martin had gone to the 7-Eleven to buy Skittles and a watermelon drink before confronting Zimmerman at the condo complex. (He was in Sanford because his mother had just kicked him out of her home in Miami because she couldn’t control his behavior) According to Wikipedia and many other sources, it is common knowledge that both substances are commonly used in this drug cocktail and can make someone extremely aggressive. Interestingly, the autopsy report on Martin showed a congested, discolored liver consistent with excessive drug use. None of this evidence was presented to the jury.

There was much more evidence that vindicated Zimmerman but I think I will stop at this point. It is quite irritating to listen to all the know-it-alls who are sure that Zimmerman is guilty but know none of the facts in the case. Every time I hear someone say that Zimmerman followed Martin after he was told not to, I have to laugh at their willful and total ignorance of this case.

» on 08.13.13 @ 07:32 AM

Lou, you like to skip ahead. You want us to skip ahead to after Zimmerman accosted Martin. That’s right, he accosted Martin. He was told, by the police, to leave Martin alone. They told him this because he would be in the wrong to question a free citizen under some false assumption of authority.

For Zimmerman to carry a gun and stop and question a young American man implies authority, superiority, and power over that young man. None of which Zimmerman had a right to. It is a very deep affront to any American with any sense of self worth.

Zimmerman is foolish and power-hungry. He is a weak human being in every sense of the word, and from what I can read, his only contribution to society will be the sad lesson this episode teaches: little men seeking power over others are a cancer. He should have run for school board instead - at least no one would have died.

» on 08.13.13 @ 11:17 AM

“He was told, by the police, to leave Martin alone.”

Rambler, you made that up out of whole cloth. First, the police never told him to leave Martin alone. Zimmerman was following Martin because the dispatcher (not the police) was asking him what he looked like and where he was going. The dispatcher at one point asked him if he was following Martin and Zimmerman said yes. The dispatcher said (exact words), “you don’t need to do that”. Zimmerman immediately responded,“okay”. The recording of the call actually shows that Zimmerman stopped following when advised not to do so.

Whether you like it or not, those are the facts.

» on 08.13.13 @ 05:41 PM

Man, you really have a vested interest in Zimmerman, don’t you? “Whole cloth”? Really? Have you just finished reading a book, Lou?

I believe that Zimmerman is a dangerous man who precipitated a fatal encounter by following and confronting a person who had done nothing wrong. It was an unwarranted attempt at intimidation. People, especially Americans, don’t like it when you intimidate them, especially when they are minding their own business. This is not East Berlin circa 1975.

Maybe Martin made a mistake in reacting to this man following him with some kind of intent (not any intent that could be construed as friendly). But Martin had much less time to mull that over, and was not the one initiating the situation. Zimmerman had the advantage, plus the hidden weapon.

All this other crap about Martin’s facebook page and his liver and the hearsay regarding the contents of his backpack are irrelevant. That’s why they were not admissible. Learn the law and why it is the way it is, and stop trying to prejudice this case with gossip and hearsay.

Did Trayvon Martin have a criminal record? Was he doing anything illegal when Zimmerman confronted him?

The dangerous person here was clearly Zimmerman. He wanted a confrontation, he armed himself in order provide a means for killing somebody. He could have simply reported a strange person walking in the neighborhood and left that person alone, but he did not.

» on 08.13.13 @ 07:10 PM

Lou, Rambler is not accustomed to letting the facts get in his way, though he seems to have some strong opinions.  This is one of them.  Court transcripts clearly show that Zimmerman never confronted, accosted, or otherwise approached Martin.  It was Martin who chose to elevate the situation and caused his own death, no less so than if he had stepped in front of a car.  And to the person who mentioned they would behave as Martin did, really?  You would attack someone for checking you out?  That’s not what civilized people do.

» on 08.13.13 @ 07:49 PM

I hear you socaljay. Some people are wedded to a false narrative given to them by people who are either close-minded or just oblivious to the facts regardless of their saliency. Anybody who followed the trial and thought Zimmerman was guilty is either not paying attention or is just clueless.

» on 08.13.13 @ 09:39 PM

Couple of little old gossip bags. The prosecutor charged him with 2nd degree murder, which could not stick. That does not make Zimmerman innocent - it makes the prosecutor inept.

You both better keep your creepy selves from trying that crap. Zimmerman got the last “get out of jail free” card.

I’m surprised your fearless leader didn’t rise from his hole to squeal a tough guy monologue on this one. Just his kind of boloney.

» on 08.13.13 @ 09:44 PM

Another creepy neighborhood watch story:

» on 08.13.13 @ 11:28 PM

Oh please, your news story example is totally different. It bears no semblance to what happened in Sanford.

Rambler, you are losing it. I am not even sure what you’re talking about. However we do agree on one thing: the prosecutor is definitely inept, but I would also add corrupt, too.

BTW, I hope Zimmerman makes NBC pay a huge settlement for their libelous editing of the dispatcher call which made Zimmerman look like a racist. Since you seem to know very little about this case, let me refresh your memory. NBC filed a report editing out the dispatcher asking if the guy is black, white or Hispanic. The only part of the tape they broadcast had Zimmerman gratuitously saying the guy looks like he is up to no good and he is black. Only problem is that Zimmerman was responding to the dispatcher’s question as to the race of the person. This was typical of the news coverage in the immediate aftermath of the incident.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made through PayPal below, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments.

Thank you for your vital support.


Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.