Skip to main content

View Diary: Meet George Zimmerman's Racist Defender(s) (183 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't understand how you came up with this. (10+ / 0-)
    I don't generally assume that a defendant in a criminal trial has to comment on someone who is on TV commenting favorably for the defendant on that criminal trial. Unless a criminal defendant has first done something to embrace the commentator, the criminal defendant doesn't have any obligation, it seems to me, to comment on someone who goes on tv to comment about the criminal case.
    In light of this:

    George Zimmerman surfaces in voicemail to supporter
    by Joy-Ann Reid | March 23, 2012 at 4:25 PM

    Frank Taaffe, a former block captain at the Sanford, Florida gated community where Zimmerman shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin on February 26th, said Zimmerman left a message on his phone, which Taaffe released to the media on Friday...

    “Hey Mr. Taaffe,” the message began, “This is George. Um, first and foremost, I wanted to say I am very sorry for the loss of your son, and, um, I can’t imagine what you must be going through. Um, secondly, I wanted to thank you for doing everything you’ve been doing. Um, I know you don’t have to, and I appreciate it, and you’re truly setting an example for me for the future of, uh, doing the right thing even when it’s tough, and, uh, I appreciate it. I’ll talk to you soon. Thanks.”

    George and Taaffe
    April 2012, two days before George Zimmerman was arrested for the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, he huddled with a fellow neighborhood watch volunteer, Frank Taaffe. According to Taaffe, who disclosed the meeting on Fox News, Zimmerman asked him to share "several talking points" with the media. Taaffe obliged. Indeed, as Zimmerman's legal drama unfolded over the next year and a half, Taaffe emerged as his most visible and outspoken defender. He gave hundreds of interviews to media outlets, ranging from the New York Times to Fox News to CNN, and made near-daily appearances on cable news shows during Zimmerman's trial.

    The worship of guns requires human sacrifices evidently. ~richardak

    by denig on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 07:30:58 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Not public statements (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pi Li

      I don't think Zimmerman has any business being out there making public statements about anybody.  

      I'm sure the Goldman family probably communicated with Chris Matthews, too, during the Simpson trial, since he was so pro-prosecution.  I don't think that makes them responsible for Chris Matthews.  

      Here, Taaffe apparently was a neighbor.  He was not some official spokesperson of the Zimmerman defense.  If the Zimmerman defense had adopted Taaffee in some public way -- if Taaffee appeared, or spoke, ON BEHALF OF the Zimmerman defense, I'd completely agree.  As it is, what we have is that Zimmerman left a private voice mail for a neighbor, thanking him for saying things good for Zimmerman -- a voice mail that TAAFFEE (apparently as some sort of publicity seeker) released to the public.  And TAAFFEE (if you consider him credible -- questionable right there)  is making public his account of another private conversation with Zimmerman.  

      Again, if you look at something parallel -- there were lots of people the Simpson defense was communicating with during the Simpson trial., like Leo Terrell.  He clearly was told what points the defense wanted to make.  And those people would go on various talk shows to comment -- not officially on behalf of the Simpson defense. And he parlayed that into a more public media career. Terrell has made some controversial statements over the years. I am not implying that he's on a par with Taaffee.  What I AM saying is that Simpson, or the Simpson defense team, doesn't get to take credit for the good stuff Leo Terrell says, and doesn't get tarred with the controversial stuff he says, because he was never adopted by them as a spokesperson.  

      The people who DID adopt Taaffee as a spokesperson (the media outlets) are the ones who need to distance themselves from him.

      •  I clearly refuted your original statement. (9+ / 0-)
        Unless a criminal defendant has first done something to embrace the commentator
        By showing you that he had indeed done just that.

        In light of this, your post is non-responsive.

        The worship of guns requires human sacrifices evidently. ~richardak

        by denig on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 08:03:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  See title of diary. (8+ / 0-)

          Defender(s) are here at dKos, too. And totally immune to logic, reason or anything else. coffeetalk is one of GZ's more ardent Defender(s).

          Ho'oponopono. To make things right; restore harmony; heal.

          by earicicle on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 08:07:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I have never (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib, Pi Li

            "defended" Zimmerman. I don't know him, don't know anything about him, don't know whether he's a good person or the scum of the earth.  I have no interest in "defending" Zimmerman, either with respect to what happened the night with Martin, or in his personal life.  

            Frankly, his personal life is of no concern to me.  And I would be happiest if we never heard from him again.  

            I have commented on the evidence at trial, and the law at issue in the trial, as I am a lawyer and that's how I see things.

            •  Oh, please, at least have integrity enough to (8+ / 0-)

              own your actions.

              "Southern nights have you ever felt a southern night?" Allen Toussaint ~~Remember the Gulf of Mexico~~

              by rubyr on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 08:55:29 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  There is a difference (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                VClib, Pi Li, denise b

                between believing (as I did after watching the trial) that the prosecution did not meet its burden of proof at the trial, and "defending" Zimmerman.  

                The first is a legal conclusion, which I commented on as a lawyer.  

                The second is a moral conclusion -- and I've NEVER done that.  

                Some people here confuse the legal conclusion that the prosecution did not meet its burden of proof under the law with "defending Zimmerman."  They are not the same, unless you think that Zimmerman was not entitled to the same legal process as any other defendant. If that's what you think -- that Zimmerman was not constitutionally entitled to have the prosecution meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt -- then I guess discussing the fact that the prosecution did not meet its burden of proof might be "defending Zimmerman."  

              •  Hmmmm (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                VClib

                This is a progressive site, we believe in due process of law. Please take your pro-police state, anti-Fifth Amendment rhetoric to Red State where it belongs.

                Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

                by Pi Li on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 10:45:18 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  This just too rich. I would be laughing my (7+ / 0-)

                  head off if I could just stop puking.

                  Maya Angelou: "Without courage, we cannot practice any other virtue with consistency. We can't be kind, true, merciful, generous, or honest."

                  by JoanMar on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 11:06:25 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Ditto. Red state!! ha ha ha ha Let's see, if (7+ / 0-)

                    you don't like murderers of young, black men and the people who defend them, you belong at Red State. ha ha ha ha ha

                    "Southern nights have you ever felt a southern night?" Allen Toussaint ~~Remember the Gulf of Mexico~~

                    by rubyr on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 11:08:59 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Police State Defender. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      VClib

                      Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

                      by Pi Li on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 11:09:38 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You seriously need to look inside yourself. (6+ / 0-)

                        You can do or be or say or write anything you want to, but I don't have to like it and I can call it exactly what it is. You may have noticed that a huge number of people feel the same as I do. Are all of these people misunderstanding you?

                        "Southern nights have you ever felt a southern night?" Allen Toussaint ~~Remember the Gulf of Mexico~~

                        by rubyr on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 11:17:54 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Tell you what (4+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          HairyTrueMan, VClib, coffeetalk, denise b

                          I can't speak for coffeetalk, or Adam B, or VCLib, or any of the other numerous attorney's on here who have been called "Zimmerman defenders", but show me a SINGLE instance where I "defended" Zimmerman, or his behaviour, I'll admit you're right and won't post on this topic again.

                          This site has quite a good search function, so it should be no problem. During your search you might stumble across the numerous posts where I said that Zimmerman likely profiled Martin b/c of his race, and that had he been black he would have been arrested that night, and that there are serious problems with regard to race in the criminal justice system...in between my repeated remarks regarding his stupid behaviour, both that night and since then.  Just ignore those posts, and find bits where I defend him, and get back to me.

                          If you want to have an ounce of integrity, you, and others pushing the "Zimmerman defenders" meme, will back up your accusations with facts.

                          Fair?

                          (this where where you tell me you can't be bothered to look, and that all of us lawyer types are just hiding behind legal "mumbo jumbo", the Constitution, due process, and stuff like that).

                          Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

                          by Pi Li on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 11:29:20 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Don't throw AdamB under the bus w/the rest of you. (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            doroma, JoanMar, a2nite

                            We know that he actually cares about the legal stuff. That he is  not just one of the Defender(s).

                            And it is pathetic that you are calling proud civil rights advocates 'police state defenders.' It's sick, actually. Something only a cheeto-eating keyboard warrior would do. I bet you've never fought, marched, protested, worked or lobbied for ANYTHING. Coward.

                            Ho'oponopono. To make things right; restore harmony; heal.

                            by earicicle on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 11:42:12 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You have no idea what you're talking about (5+ / 0-)

                            One thing I do know, however, with 100% certainty, it that I've sent more 100% more people to prison for hate crimes than you have, and have done more for AA victims of crime and their families than you have. This, I can say with utter certainty. I can also say, with absolute certainty, that I understand the legal issues on this case more than you do. I can also say, with equal certainty, that you cannot find a single instance where I defended George Zimmerman or his actions. No.a.single.time.

                            Oh, BTW, some of the people commenting in this diary have, in fact, accused AdamB of being a Zimmerman defender...and others called him worse than that on this issue. So get your facts together, and try again.

                            Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

                            by Pi Li on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 11:53:05 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Thanks for that "Cheeto eating warrior slam nt (0+ / 0-)

                            nosotros no somos estúpidos

                            by a2nite on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 04:19:10 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  Look in the mirror first Zhole defender nt (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        JoanMar

                        nosotros no somos estúpidos

                        by a2nite on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 04:23:15 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  Yup, rubyr (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      JoanMar

                      nosotros no somos estúpidos

                      by a2nite on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 04:17:38 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Why do you hate the 5th & 6th Amendments so much? (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    HairyTrueMan, VClib

                    Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

                    by Pi Li on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 11:09:06 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Oh please. (6+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  a2nite, earicicle, poco, JoanMar, bluezen, doroma

                  This is complete and utter BS.  You know full well no one here -- and I mean no one -- is suggesting that Zimmerman should not have received all the procedural protections to which any defendant is entitled under the Constitution.  That's a complete red herring.

                  What people here have claimed is that Zimmerman's crime, arrest, prosecution, and trial were infected with racism.  Your (and coffeetalk's) efforts to maintain that the verdict was all about "reasonable doubt" ignores the racial aspect of the entire case.  Things like "reasonable doubt" and "reasonable fear" are inherently subjective, and in this country, people's understandings of them will be affected by racism.

                  Your claims elsewhere that those criticizing Zimmerman are "police state defenders" are richly ironic.  For black people, this country has long been a police state (see, e.g., NYC's stop and frisk policy), so it's more than a little strange for you to accuse them of supporting a police state.  Their argument is that "justice" in this country is anything but colorblind.  If you don't see that, well, then there's not much I can say to you.

                  "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                  by FogCityJohn on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 03:45:18 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Indeed (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    coffeetalk, VClib
                    You know full well no one here -- and I mean no one -- is suggesting that Zimmerman should not have received all the procedural protections to which any defendant is entitled under the Constitution.  That's a complete red herring.
                    You know what's also a red herring? Calling experienced attorneys, including prosecutors, PD's, and in private practice (who mostly turned out to be correct) who discussed the legal aspects of this case, and tried to explain the law, "racist Zimmerman defenders". No one -- and I mean no one -- is defending Zimmerman here. So thanks for playing, I'm glad you got the point.
                    there's not much I can say to you.
                    A right I encourage you to exercise vigorously. :)

                    Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

                    by Pi Li on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 03:57:18 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Oh yeah (6+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      a2nite, earicicle, poco, JoanMar, bluezen, doroma

                      That's right.  You're the experienced prosecutor, the one from that unidentified state in which you're a member of the bar, which state may or may not be Florida, but which you can't say because it would give away something about your identity.  

                      You weren't describing the "legal aspects of the case."  You were ignoring the racist aspect of it.  

                      And I thank you for playing too, Ms. Mysterious International Prosecutor Lady.

                      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                      by FogCityJohn on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 04:05:20 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Hey (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        coffeetalk, VClib

                        That's Professor Mysterious International Prosecutor Lady to you!

                        I wonder whose irony meter is truly broken, Mr. Police State Defender? ;)

                        PS...Sorry for not discussing the aspects of the case in the way "FogCityJohn" would have liked. :)

                        Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

                        by Pi Li on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 04:11:02 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  X2 FCJ (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    JoanMar, FogCityJohn, doroma

                    nosotros no somos estúpidos

                    by a2nite on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 04:14:46 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Where? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                coffeetalk, Pi Li

                Show us.

                If you can make an accusation like this you can back it up. I would like to see it.

            •  F'ing liar to boot. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              earicicle, doroma, a2nite

              Maya Angelou: "Without courage, we cannot practice any other virtue with consistency. We can't be kind, true, merciful, generous, or honest."

              by JoanMar on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 09:49:24 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  you really should not call someone that (5+ / 0-)

                unless you have evidence to back it up.  Which you do not.  

                As I said, I have certainly pointed out the law and how the law applies in certain situations -- even when the law supported arguments made by the defense.  That is not "defending Zimmerman -- it is pointing out the law, and how it would apply to the facts of the case, depending on what the jury concluded.  I discussed the fact that the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof.  Neither of those constitutes "defending Zimmerman," unless you think that pointing out that the constitution and the  law applies even to people we do not like, and even to the actions of people we do not like, is "defending Zimmerman."  

          •  earicircle - I haven't read a single person who (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Pi Li, denise b

            "defended" Zimmerman. What I did see was a group of people, primarily lawyers, who commented from the outset that the state had a weak case. When they wrote about the challenges the state would have they were labeled "Zimmerman Defenders". There was also a huge amount of misinformation on the Zimmerman case that was part of many diaries and comments and some of the so-called "Zimmerman Defenders" tried to help people understand the facts. In the end the analysis of those who thought the state had a weak case proved to be correct. There is nothing about the analysis of a case, and reminding people of the rights of any defendant in a criminal trial, that should lead anyone to believe they "defended" GZ. Personally I think GZ is a deplorable human, but the state did have a weak case, and never met the burden of proof.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 09:55:35 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Anti-Fifth Amendment Crowd (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              VClib

              These police state defenders always show up in these Zimmerman diaries.  What's their problems with the Fifth Amendment?

              Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

              by Pi Li on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 10:41:53 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  ear+icicle=earicicle. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              doroma, Tonedevil

              I've only been here five and a half years. How can I trust anything you say when you can't even be bothered to address me by my name? Let alone own up to what you're really doing.

              Look into your heart, VClib. Do you want to keep defending this 'deplorable human' here? Is that really what you want us to think when we see VClib: the Kossack who felt compelled to keep arguing--arguing, arguing, arguing--on behalf of such a DEPLORABLE human being?

              Ho'oponopono. To make things right; restore harmony; heal.

              by earicicle on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 11:36:07 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I personally find it very offensive to be called (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Pi Li, coffeetalk

                a Zimmerman defender when I have never once defended GZ, or his actions on the tragic night when Trayvon Martin was killed. I have made many comments on the actions of both Zimmerman and Martin as it relates to criminal statutes in Florida, about which there was a torrent of misinformation written here at DKOS.

                Maybe Pi Li has it right and we should refer to you and others who use the term "Zimmerman Defenders" as "Police State Defenders" because that's what you communicated. You didn't want a fair trial, you just wanted GZ to be found guilty by any means possible. I was surprised by how few people here defended the rights of the accused, when that is the normal view held by progressives. Defending the rights of the accused isn't the same as defending the person.

                Regarding how people here view me I have been here for seven years and written 29,000 comments and a dozen diaries. There is a large body of work for people to read and make a judgement. A very small part of that body of work is related to the Zimmerman/Martin case.

                My apology for the typo regarding your handle.  

                "let's talk about that"

                by VClib on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 12:08:02 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Re: typo. (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  poco, a2nite, Tonedevil, doroma

                  Apology accepted. My handle is a tricky one. Hence the handy 'ear+icicle' trick to help you remember.

                  Whatever your previous body of work, I am telling you this: You are contaminating it all by your relentless defense of ANYTHING having to do with the indefensible, deplorable person who shot a child through the heart, and then stood there while that child EXSANGUINATED without rendering first aid.

                  My unsolicited advice: stop. Just stop.

                  Ho'oponopono. To make things right; restore harmony; heal.

                  by earicicle on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 01:47:09 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Please stop using the term Zimmerman Defenders (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Pi Li

                    It would be helpful for you, and others, to drop the use of that term because there are no Zimmerman Defenders at DKOS. If you, and others, stop using that term, and demeaning knowledgeable members of the legal community who blog here at DKOS, I would be happy to never comment about George Zimmerman again.

                    "let's talk about that"

                    by VClib on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 02:10:37 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Why is it (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                coffeetalk, Pi Li, Kasoru

                that not a single person making these accusations and slurs can point to a single time when this person defended Zimmerman's actions?

                You can repeat the same lie a million times, it's still a disgusting lie. A million people can repeat it a million times and it's still a disgusting lie.

          •  Let's see it (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Pi Li

            Where?

        •  I guess we disagree on "embrace" (0+ / 0-)

          by that I meant something public -- naming them a spokesperson, or naming them a representative.  

    •  Coffeetalk (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite, bluezen

      is someone I envision as a corporate attorney - one who always sees the client's point of view, and looks into the legal code to find arguments that support, and then sticks to that no matter what.

      And I expect that in his/her comments here.

      I am not religious, and did NOT say I enjoyed sects.

      by trumpeter on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 10:04:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site