NPR Says The Jury Was Racist

I was listening to NPR last night, and they accused the Zimmerman jury of being racist because they didn’t discuss race as a motive. In the twisted mind of progressives, being color blind makes you racist. Apparently Zimmerman would have been happy to have been beaten to death by an Hispanic punk.

Their next story was a call to end all gender classifications. They said it was sexist to describe people as being  women or men, because it discriminates against people who cut their nuts off and call themselves women.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

62 Responses to NPR Says The Jury Was Racist

  1. ralphcramdo says:

    I think it really strange the Zimmerman case is getting so much attention from the media and I’ve never heard one news story about all the shootings in Obama Land Chicago.

    • Strange? You’re kidding, I hope. Long nurtured Black racism is being pandered to, and all those pandering want their prejudice accepted as the moral standard for everyone–and right now (remember the phrase, “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore!”). This is essentially a mob mentality, primed and eager for war.

    • Jorge says:

      The media, especially the liberal media, just love exploiting tensions between the races. After fostering racial discord, the same left wing idiots in the press than feel progressive by siding with the blacks in the subsequent confrontations.

  2. Blade says:

    Like an old Southpark episode, this case has accidentally opened a portal to an alternate universe, strange anomalies are popping up when least expected.

  3. gator69 says:

    How do you listen to NPR? I gave up on them over a decade ago. It has to be the worst radio in the Western Hemisphere.

  4. philjourdan says:

    In the twisted mind of progressives, being color blind makes you racist.

    I would like to draw your attention to this link and definition:

    a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

    Specifically the bolded part. You are exactly correct with your statement. Racism is not always a white sheet and a burning cross. Today, more often than not, it is a knife in the back or a damning with faint praise, which liberals are very good at doing.

  5. Jeffk says:

    Yes, juries should show compassion to juvenile delinquents with histories of wrong-doing, suspended from schools and sent away to their divorced fathers. Show racial tolerance if the juvenile is of color. That’s what juries should do. Forget all the facts allowed in the trial, too.

  6. Bob says:

    The racial narrative started when the media reacted to Zimmerman’s last name. Instead of getting the facts first or dropping the racial narrative, he became a “white hispanic”, a very novel description. What makes Zimmerman more unique is he may be the only white Hispanic with a black grandmother. Except for the media narrative and race hustlers like Holder, Sharpton and Jackson, this had never had anything to do with race. Zimmerman and Martin both made mistakes that ended up in tragedy.

    • David says:

      Zimmeman made, maybe, three mistakes, and two of them are somewhat pedantic. He was seen by TM following him. (Something he had a right and duty to do) He may not have simply said to T.M., and this is assuming TM gave him time to explain, “Look we have had a lot of recent breakins, and you were out in the rain, moving betweeen houses, and so I wanted to see what was up. Perhaps his only other mistake was not showing the gun earlier. That alomost cost him his life. OTOH, if Martin had attacked him regardless of the pointed gun, and Zimmerman had shot him for fear of his life, Zimmerman would likely now be wronglry convicted of murder. So it is very possible that the only Zimmerman avoids the murder in this insane world, is to let the bigger stronger teen boy smash his head repeadedly into the concrete.

      • gator69 says:

        “You don’t draw your gun to scare someone off, you don’t draw the gun and shoot to “wound” someone either. If you’re taking out your gun it’s because you need to use it that instant because if you don’t you might end up a dead man.”

        This is why CCW classes are critical.

        • Richard T. Fowler says:

          “[Y]ou don’t draw the gun and shoot to “wound” someone either.”

          Please explain why non-deadly force is never preferable to deadly force when it is available as an option. Thank you.


        • gator69 says:

          Did you read the entire link I provided?

        • Richard T. Fowler says:

          Of course not. The quote I repeated is weapons-grade nonsense and I have neither the time nor the pain threshold to click through to see if there’s some context that you missed. The quote on its face is nonsense, and I’m just interested in whether you will defend it or disagree with it. Thanks.


        • gator69 says:

          Richard, I provided the link as a courtesy and do not understand your open hostility towards me of late.

          I am working from an iPhone and do not have the time or patience to paraphrase the source to ease your boredom. The man who wrote the info is an expert, why not ask him?

          Have you taken a CCW class?

        • Richard T. Fowler says:

          Hang on man, you think I’m being openly hostile to you?

          FYI I only even addressed to you because you’ve been friendly to me lately. I was trying to return the favor.

          Please. Chill. Out. You don’t want to talk about anything with me, that’s fine. I thought we could talk about something me might agree about, since there are many things we do agree about. And now you’re telling me I was openly hostile. The last thing I want is hostility between the two of us. You are just misunderstanding me.

        • gator69 says:

          Sorry Richard, but I bristle a bit when people refuse to read source material before proceeding with a discussion. It is an alarmist tactic to badger.

          Brandishing a weapon is a crime, and a big no no for folks who value their CCW license.

        • Richard T. Fowler says:

          The apology is appreciated. FWIW I do not feel I was badgering you by not reading the source material before proceeding with a discussion. I was responding to a posted excerpt, and as I said my reason for doing so was to find out if you really support the statement. It was done in a spirit of cooperation and constructive debate. I truly didn’t have time to read the page. I have now done so but I don’t see any relevant context because the article is not really about the matter I raised. That matter is just mentioned in passing. Actually it seems that it could have been cut out without detracting a bit from the article’s point. Anyhow gotta run again so last word to you for now, if you want it. RTF

        • Tom Bakert says:

          Hi, Gator69. It’s not hard to imagine a scenario where you need to use a gun that instant but have the clear opportunity to disable an assailant by wounding rather than killing him. I don’t own a gun, have no military or law enforcement background and know very little about the rules of self-defense with a handgun. I would be reluctant to take a life when a bullet to a leg would do the trick and I’m interested in knowing why this is a bad idea, beyond letting a criminal testify against me. Thanks in advance for your reply.

        • gator69 says:

          Hey Tom! If you have the opportunity to carefully select a nonlethal shot, then the jury may decide you were not in immediate danger. The ONLY time you pull your weapon is when you are convinced it is kill or be killed. The only time I might brandish, is on my property, if threatened. But then a CCW argument does not apply there.

          This ain’t Hollywood.

          Have you taken a CCW class?

        • If you shoot with the intent to injure someone, they will probably sue you and take you to the cleaners.

        • gator69 says:

          Yep! “Maiming” becomes a concern. The best advice I received was that if you pull your gun, you may as well pull your wallet and surrender your weapon.

          If you want to deter or slow your attacker, might I suggest mace or a stun gun. But you will still get sued.

        • Richard T. Fowler says:

          Steven, then in that case where you reasonably believed your life was in immediate danger if you did not shoot, but there was a nonlethal disabling shot available and you chose to take a lethal shot instead because otherwise you might get sued, then you are not killing to save your life. By your admission you are killing to save yourself from having to defend a frivolous lawsuit.

        • philjourdan says:

          In our litigious society, you are correct. But in order to find you at fault, they have to find there was no risk to you. AND your intent was to kill with no risk to you.

        • You are not allowed to shoot an assailant unless you believe that life is threatened. CCW classes advise that you make sure the assailant is not going to have second chance to kill someone.

        • Richard T. Fowler says:

          Fine, Steven. I was original asking whether it is ever preferable to shoot to wound. I meant not from a legal standpoint but a moral one.

        • It is immoral to let your life be ruined by a scumbag who means to kill you.

        • Richard T. Fowler says:

          I think I hear a very, very, small “yes” in there, somewhere. 😉

          Gotta run, catch you later. RTF

        • Ben says:

          There are many open-carry states, including California. You are displaying a holstered weapon at all times. Liberals consider this brandishing, and open-carry adherents are relentlessly hounded by LEOs.

          Search youtube for multiple examples. One poor soul spends many minutes dealing with the county sheriff, then as he walks away from that encounter, local LEO harasses him again.

        • Tom Bakert says:

          Hey gator69: Good answer. I think I get it. WRT to the CCW class, no, but I will if I ever have reason or intent to own a handgun. My son is a marksman and that was the reason for my interest. Great discussion thread!

        • phodges says:

          Richard…this not gator or anyone else’s opinion. It’s called “the LAW”

          I suggest you take a ccw class, and you will see the many reasons why the law is so.

        • Richard T. Fowler says:

          A CCW class is not a source of law or an official authority on its interpretation, nor is it permissible for the class to be used to push any particular religious doctrine.

          George Zimmerman tried to do exactly what I said is sometimes preferable to shoot-to-kill. I’m sure you don’t believe that he violated the law by trying, nor could you possibly believe that he would be a violator if and only if Trayvon Martin had survived.

    • Justa Joe says:

      At some point you’d think that the latins would say ot the Sharptons of the world, “enough is enough. Get off of Zimmerman’s back already.

      • philjourdan says:

        Latinos do not have the embedded power structure of blacks. They have some who aspire to be a Sharpton or Jackson, but the liberal elites refuse to recognize them. So some may be calling for the heads of Sharpton and Jackson, but the MSM will never relay the information.

  7. RickD says:

    Reblogged this on Reality Check and commented:
    NPR is racist!

  8. DarrylB says:

    Hey, the MSM loves getting certain crowds into a frenzy, helps it sell their ware, Then some such as Holder do their thing, which is something of the worst in exasperating and intensifying racial divisiveness. At the same time there are rational black leaders who are very upset at these actions which ultimately hurts us all. There are a few who would be terrific presidents.
    BTW, if Zimmerman is characterized as a Hispanic White, then is our president an African White?

  9. higley7 says:

    Remember, “racial tension” is the politically correct term for “Black racism” against other. The “tension” suggests two groups facing off each other, but it is really Blacks attacking other groups who do not fight back. Hmmm . . . maybe we should; then, they’ll see a body count. Blacks mostly attack in numbers, preferring to vastly out number the prey, which makes them mostly cowards who hide in the mob.

    Sure, it is likely that Trayvon was casing the buildings and did not want to be observed. Zimm did nothing wrong at any point. The “fracas” started when Trayvon decided to attack the “cracka” instead of heading home. THAT was the key decision and it was Trayvon’s.

  10. Otter says:

    Steve, not sure you will see this with all the commenting going on, but thought you might find this interesting

  11. Jason Calley says:

    Why do you shoot to kill when your life is in danger from an attacker? Because no one is good enough to shoot and merely disable in that situation. When you are REALLY frightened, and REALLY under attack, you will be doing well to aim for and hit the center of mass. The adrenaline and psychological terror alone is enough to spoil your aim. “I’ll just shoot him in the leg!” Bull. You’re not that good. I’m not that good. No one is that good, except for make believe characters from cheap novels and Hollywood thrillers. If you are in a situation where you are in imminent danger of being killed, the best case senario is that you will do what you have trained to do, and you DON’T train to shoot targets in the leg. Maybe your attacker will live, maybe he won’t. Your job is just to stop him from attacking and killing you.

    • Richard T. Fowler says:

      First, I didn’t advocate shooting a leg as the only possible non-lethal shot. There are sometimes non-lethal shots that are not in an arm or leg.

      Second, in your scenario you suggest that it is my job to shoot-to-kill my attacker. That’s not my job. It may be an option that’s technically available to me, but it’s not my obligation.


      • Jason Calley says:

        “It may be an option that’s technically available to me, but it’s not my obligation.”

        Good point, you are absolutely correct on that. There certainly are philosophies and religions which would disagree with you. Judaism and some schools of Christianity, the Sikh religion — these all (I believe I am correct on this) say that we have a positive duty to protect innocent lives, including our own, from murderers. In my humble opinion though, you are correct that YOU have a prefect right to NOT defend yourself.

        Still, I hope you would. I would not like to think of someone killing you when you could be the one left alive instead of the murderer.

  12. B.C. says:

    To those saying that anyone should “shoot to wound”, there’s a reason that all LEO agencies use targets that look like the one seen in the link below: (No endorsement of the site is implied. It’s just one of the first images to come up in a quick search.)

    You’ll note that the “Sweet Spot” is dead-center mass. You never pull out your gun unless you intend to use it (fire it) and you don’t fire it unless you intend to drop someone in his tracks. Anyone who would ever utter the words “Why didn’t he just shoot to wound him?” should never be allowed anywhere near a gun. (Or sharp objects, for that matter.)

    Real life isn’t a Hollywood movie.

    • Richard T. Fowler says:

      “[Y]ou don’t fire it unless you intend to drop someone in his tracks.” If you mean unless you intend to kill him, you and others have said that, but I’ve made an argument that it’s sometimes a judgment call whether to shoot to kill.

      As for the words that shouldn’t be uttered, I didn’t write those specific words. That having been said, who could be better trusted not to deliberately and improperly use a weapon against someone than a person who really doesn’t want to use it at all?

      • kuhnkat says:


        Apparently you didn’t understand what was previously said. If you have time to THINK and AIM for a non-lethal shot you are NOT in a situation where you can legally shoot the person.

        • Richard T. Fowler says:

          I understood it just fine, thank you, and it not only not true, it is most decidedly not what the law says. You are speaking of interepretations and not absolutes. The law means one thing and only one thing. George Zimmerman understands that the law allows him to make this judgment in the situation he was in, and that’s why he made the judgment he did to try for a nonlethal shot, and that actually played a major role in the deliberations regarding his guilt or innocence of criminal homicide.

        • kuhnkat says:

          Richard, pick a few cases of white shooting blacks and get back to me and we can discuss them.

          Theory does not keep one out of jail.

        • kuhnkat says:

          “George Zimmerman understands that the law allows him to make this judgment in the situation he was in, and that’s why he made the judgment he did to try for a nonlethal shot, and that actually played a major role in the deliberations regarding his guilt or innocence of criminal homicide.”

          You are going to have to present the section of the transcript where this was discussed as George did NOT testify. I believe what he told the police is that there was a struggle over the weapon so any idea of trying to place a shot is only in your ridiculous lack of FACTS on the case. In fact George stated he did not draw his gun until Trayvon tried to pull it.

  13. gator69 says:

    “George Zimmerman understands that the law allows him to make this judgment in the situation he was in, and that’s why he made the judgment he did to try for a nonlethal shot, and that actually played a major role in the deliberations regarding his guilt or innocence of criminal homicide.”

    Trayvon was killed by a single bullet THROUGH HIS HEART!

    IF George was attempting a nonlethal shot, he failed miserably. When your life is at stake, you do not take unnecessary risk, and you aim for center mass. Period.

    I will give George loads of credit for firing only one shot, especially if his story is 100% accurate.

    Take a CCW class, and discuss your ‘scenarios’ with the instructor, you will learn much.

  14. Richard T. Fowler says:

    George did testify to the police, and his testimony was that he tried shoot nonlethally. He gave his reason for that, which was that he believed that Christian teaching holds it to be immoral to do otherwise. For crying out loud, I didn’t say he didn’t hit the heart, though it was a marginal hit. This conversation was never about the morality of firing the gun, only the moral preferability of trying to shoot without killing in cases where such a shot is available. The Zimmerman case is such a case. I’ve now deflected quite a few straw men from various commenters, and I have yet to see most folks understand that I was discussing morality and not legality. Or perhaps this is understood but people are more comfortable changing the subject.

    Again, a CCW class is not a source of law or moral truth, so I would not place the instructor’s comments over legitimate sources when it is in conflict with them. And the last thing I would do is subject myself to religious instruction from someone who I already know to be wrong.

    Oh also as far as the law, I am not espousing mere theory but what the law says. Zimmerman was judged not on his race but on what the law says about the situation he was in. That speaks louder than a thousand CCW instructors.

    • gator69 says:

      Morality is stopping the bad guy. Trayvon’s time was going to be short wether George shot him or not. Autopsy results showed that a 17 year old already had liver damage from drug abuse. The more violent offenders we remove from the surface if this planet, the better.

      That is my morality.

    • KuhnKat says:


      You need to provide a link to the testimony/deposition/statement. Here is what he said during the reenactment:

      Zimmerman (gesturing): That’s when my jacket moved up and I had my firearm on my right side hip. The jacket moved up and and he saw — I fell like he saw it, he looked at it and he said, “You’re going to die tonight (expletive) and he reached for it. I felt his arm going down my side, and I grabbed it, and I just grabbed my firearm and I shot him one time.

      Even if he did say what you claim, the fact that he shot Trayvon in the heart is indicative of the fact that in a real emergency there is little likelihood that you will have the chance to select a shot. Trying for a wound is just as likely to cause a miss and your own demise. Center of body mass.

      Having time to select your shot is likely to be used by the attornies to prove you were not in a situation where deadly force was required or allowed.

      You are really not this stupid are you Richard???

      • Richard T. Fowler says:

        If a shot is legal, then by definition there is time to select it. The only way you are not selecting it is if you are 1) spraying rounds from an automatic or 2) shooting with your eyes closed or 3) shooting at a target you cannot see or feel.

        • Richard T. Fowler says:

          Also bear in mind that I was never questioning if it is always preferable to shoot to wound; rather, if it is never preferable. And again you are trying to talk about law, while I was not.

        • kuhnkat says:

          Or 4) you have fired without aiming with the hopes you are hitting your target somewhere. Richard, why are you insisting on showing us you are more worried about losing the argument than whether we think you are a MORON?!?!?

          If you have to explain what you were and were not questioning then you did not make yourself clear to begin with. After arguing incorrectly with multiple people you cannot take mistakes like that back by trying to say you never meant it.

          Your attempt to say you were not trying to talk about law is ludicrous as you claimed you were talking about the law.

          Remember the old saying about when it is time to stop digging??? It is time to concede or just go away.

        • Richard T. Fowler says:

          Kuhnkat, I’m not worried about losing the argument at all, nor about whether you think I’m a moron. I’m not worried about anything. I also haven’t taken anything back, nor said I didn’t mean anything. Every statement about law that I made was in response to someone else who brought it up with me. What was I supposed to do, ignore it completely? My clarification to you was intended to demonstrate that I am not the one driving that debate forward. From the beginning I was not asking a question about law. If I was misunderstood I’m sorry, but I wasn’t trying to mislead. The original statement that I quoted reads as a moral question. Though it can be seen as also having a legal aspect, to me the moral aspect is the more important and I assumed my readers would see it that way as well. If someone tells me I should or shouldn’t do something, I generally assume a moral context unless I have a good reason not to. Since we’re talking about life and death, and there was no law being cited in that statement, that’s the conclusion I drew here. Hopefully that seems a little less ludicrous to you.

          As for continuing to ‘dig my hole’, I obviously disagree that that’s what’s going on here, and I’m not aware that I’ve conceded anything. Beyond that, I really don’t have more to add at this time.

    • shazaam says:

      As to how to conduct yourself after a “self-defense event” this guy has some interesting opinions.

      Fascinating that as a private citizen, you have no duty to report the event…

      The video at the end is worth the time.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s