ShareThis Page

Stick to governing

| Monday, July 22, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

Having followed the Trayvon Martin case from the beginning, it is obvious that the Obama administration has done anything possible to convict George Zimmerman.

Would blacks want justice applied to them in this manner?

Six female jurors unanimously concluded that the prosecution failed to prove that George Zimmerman did not act in self defense and fear for his own life while his head was being beaten on the pavement. This was particularly evident when the prosecution's best witnesses actually supported the defense's contentions.

But the case won't stop. Certain civil rights leaders — Al Sharpton, Ben Jealous of the NAACP, and Eric Michael Dyson from Georgetown University — are demanding that the Justice Department prosecute George Zimmerman a second time under the Civil Rights Act for committing a “hate crime.”

This is particularly ludicrous given that the prosecution could not show any evidence that George Zimmerman acted hatefully or with animosity toward Martin because of his race.

It is well past time that this administration started minding its own business (unemployment, the deficit and foreign affairs, all of which are in shambles) and stop interfering in state and local issues in order to prosecute this man twice.

With all of the other issues on our table, doesn't this administration have anything better to do than promote racial disharmony?

Michael Contes

New Kensington

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.