Open season on facts I
Miles S. Adams Sr.'s letter “‘Open season' on black men” (July 25 and TribLIVE.com) is filled with hardly credible opinions not supported by the facts. George Zimmerman was not “playing ‘cops and robbers'” when pursuing a young black man. He was performing a neighborhood watch in his own community, which had been terrorized recently by gangs of male teens.
Zimmerman was not a racist, targeting blacks. In fact, in FBI investigations, he was completely exonerated from being racist by 30 witnesses. He saw a young man, dressed as the gangs often were, in a neighborhood where he was not known.
Obviously, Zimmerman must have first verbally challenged the young man. All Trayvon Martin had to do was identify himself as a stranger in the area, visiting his father and returning from the store with snacks. Is this so difficult? If Trayvon had answered instead of attacking and holding Zimmerman on the ground and pounding his head on the concrete, there would have been no further actions necessary.
Zimmerman was correctly exonerated by the jury for reasons of self-defense. Our black citizens in this country have no reason to feel they have a target on their backs. The only reason they are possible suspects is that gangs of young black men are giving law-abiding citizens reason to fear them.
If the black population wishes to correct the need for “neighborhood watches,” they must address the problem of lawlessness by their own people.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com 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 â 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.