Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Home RSS
 
 
 

Questions about Zimmerman verdict

August 4, 2013
Weirton Daily Times

To the Editor,

Right off the bat, let me be very clear about the right-wing lunatic fringe and its seemingly masochistic desires to be publicly flogged in print - I neither have the time nor inclination to become bogged down in those petty and personal displays of stupidity and ignorance.

Having said this, I have already spent too much time on the likes of the tea party scribes.

My issue is the murder of an unarmed, black, 17-year-old boy, who was doing no harm, breaking no law and minding his own business.

Before you lose your minds over this, be aware, this is not the only verdict that I disagree with. I believe that O.J. Simpson and Casey Anthony were also set free after committing horrific crimes.

Now, imagine if you will, an adult black man who shoots and kills an unarmed white boy who was breaking no laws and minding his own business. Tell me, with a straight face, that it would have taken 44 days to make an arrest.

What is confounding to me is how many lies can six people believe before they say "We don't believe a word that you say, George."

Let's examine the convoluted, pretzel logic story that George Zimmerman has poorly woven.

Lie No. 1 is that when he was asked by the dispatcher if he was following Martin, he answered and was told "We don't need you to do that." His reply was "OK."

Lie No. 2 was a CYA -in his attempt to say that he was complying with police, he said that he was checking a street name in a complex where he lived for four years. He was watch captain and the area consisted of exactly three streets.

Lie No. 3 occurred on his BFF Sean Hannity's stupid little show. Hannity asked if Zimmerman had ever heard of stand your ground laws. His reply was that he had never heard of them. Fine, except that he college professor testified that they were indeed covered and that Zimmerman had received an A.

Lie No. 4 is that in the police video explanation of his version, he shows where he drew his firearm. It was clearly behind his hip, on his back.

A contortionist could not accomplish this maneuver without dislocating his shoulder and lifting the combined weight of the pair off the ground.

Even is could have managed this amazing feat, then why didn't he shoot Martin in the shoulder? This action would have left Martin able to speak, and stories could easily unravel.

The threads of this disturbing tapestry have pulled apart to reveal the fiber of deceit woven by a guilty man.

What kind of man, having knowledge that a teenager was doing no harm, would have still stocked and killed him?

Last, the awful truth -at the end of the Hannity interview, he was asked if he had any regrets or if he would have done anything differently. His reply was, he would not have.

Bob Atkinson

Weirton

 
 

EZToUse.com

I am looking for: