Verdict & veracity
Verdict & veracity
Dealing with the George Zimmerman case, the letter “‘Open season' on black men” (July 25 and TribLIVE.com) laments a caring father's belief that the country's promised principles of justice do not apply to black men. I can understand his conclusion that Zimmerman was unfairly found “not guilty.”
His letter echoes many lies concerning the facts of the case that have been fed to the public by the media and certain black agitators for the past two years. The Trib does its readers a disservice in allowing these misconceptions to stand and not calling those perpetrating the lies to task for inflaming the passions of blacks against whites.
Trial testimony documents that Zimmerman was not told to stay in his vehicle, that he started following Trayvon Martin because he was asked by the police operator, “Where is he (Martin) going?” When told he didn't need to follow the suspicious person, he said “OK” and was returning to his vehicle when accosted by Trayvon.
Trayvon's girlfriend, Rachel Jeantel, testified that she believed Trayvon struck the first punch. Photographic evidence shows Trayvon's punches broke Zimmerman's nose, and eyewitness testimony had the 5-foot-11, 158-pound Trayvon on top as he smashed Zimmerman's head into the sidewalk numerous times.
I venture that few have read the trial testimony and depositions, leading to how the jury correctly found Zimmerman “not guilty.” The media have done very little to publicize the facts. If you question that verdict, read more at dlas.org/questions-zimmerman-verdict/.
Stanley J. Penkala
Show commenting policy
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 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.
- Clueless on law
- Who’s responsible?
- NK-A consolidation a travesty
- Incomprehensible hatred
- Banding helps birds
- Not one more drop
- Overlooked by PUC
- Expanding their options
- Buffer zones needed II
- The bell tolls
- Ignorant on marriage