NRO's Rich Lowery: Al Sharpton Is Right

[pbrauer]

A year ago March NRO's Rich Lowery defends Trayvon. It sounds to me he got the story exactly right.

What is true of the stopped clock is also true of the perpetually aggrieved, shamelessly exploitative publicity hound: Through sheer chance, he occasionally will be right.


The Trayvon Martin case appears to be one of those instances for Al Sharpton. The longtime provocateur and MSNBC host has a leading role in the protests over the lethal shooting of the 17-year-old Martin at the hands of a zealous neighborhood-watch volunteer in the Florida community of Sanford.


During halftime of the NBA All-Star Game, Martin left the home of his father’s girlfriend to walk to the local 7-Eleven for Skittles and iced tea. It was about 7 p.m., and he caught the attention of 28-year-old George Zimmerman, who had taken it upon himself to patrol the neighborhood armed with a gun. He considered Martin suspicious and called 9-1-1, which dispatched police. Ignoring the 9-1-1 operator’s urging not to pursue Martin, Zimmerman followed the young man, got into an altercation with him, and shot him dead.


Advertisement


Zimmerman claims Martin attacked him from behind and he fired in self-defense. But while he was on the line with 9-1-1, Zimmerman was the one chasing Martin. At the same time, Martin talked on his cell phone to his girlfriend, complaining of a man watching him. She told him to run away, which he apparently did during the interval Zimmerman was on with 9-1-1. The girlfriend claims she heard Martin say, “What are you following me for?” before the call went dead.

The tape of another 9-1-1 call from a neighbor has yells of “Help” in the background before the gunshot. We may never know what exactly happened in the altercation. We do know this: Through stupendous errors in judgment, Zimmerman brought about an utterly unnecessary confrontation and then — in the most favorable interpretation of the facts for him — shot Martin when he began to lose a fistfight to him.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=156
​

 

[ecofarm]

There's nothing wrong with a neighbor checking out a stranger in their community. It should in no way remove ones right to self defense.

 

[ocean515]

There's nothing wrong with a neighbor checking out a stranger in their community. It should in no way remove ones right to self defense.

I believe you have it right. The fact that testimony indicated Z didn't unholster his weapon should indicate to the rational minded that he only intended to find out what Martin was up to, and hadn't drawn a conclusion Martin was any real threat.

It seems to me that if he were the racist cowboy the agitators would have one believe, he would have had his weapon drawn.

 

[pbrauer]

There's nothing wrong with a neighbor checking out a stranger in their community. It should in no way remove ones right to self defense.

True, but I can understand why a 17-year old black kid being followed by a person who appears to be white.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

True, but I can understand why a 17-year old black kid being followed by a person who appears to be white.

Had Zimmerman died as the result of the beating, would you still defend the "black kid's" actions?

 

[ecofarm]

True,

Then we agree. Community members must be free to 'check out' a stranger in their neighborhood without losing their right to self defense.

 

[pbrauer]

Had Zimmerman died as the result of the beating, would you still defend the "black kid's" actions?

Sorry, I'm not dealing with suppositions.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

Sorry, I'm not dealing with suppositions.

Yes, I believe you are. You have no idea what was going through the mind of either party that night. Only your beliefs (suppositions)..

 

[pbrauer]

Then we agree. Community members must be free to 'check out' a stranger in their neighborhood without losing their right to self defense.

I agree, but did he acknowledge who he was. Did he answer Trayvon's question? “What are you following me for?”

 

[CalGun]

A year ago we had a lot more conjecture than we have today. So what does Lowery believe today?

 

[Black Dog]

I agree, but did he acknowledge who he was. Did he answer Trayvon's question? “What are you following me for?”

We don't know what actually conspired as they are conflicting. In the end it is irrelevant as George Zimmerman, wound up being beaten either way.

 

[CanadaJohn]

A year ago March NRO's Rich Lowery defends Trayvon. It sounds to me he got the story exactly right.

What is true of the stopped clock is also true of the perpetually aggrieved, shamelessly exploitative publicity hound: Through sheer chance, he occasionally will be right.


The Trayvon Martin case appears to be one of those instances for Al Sharpton. The longtime provocateur and MSNBC host has a leading role in the protests over the lethal shooting of the 17-year-old Martin at the hands of a zealous neighborhood-watch volunteer in the Florida community of Sanford.


During halftime of the NBA All-Star Game, Martin left the home of his father’s girlfriend to walk to the local 7-Eleven for Skittles and iced tea. It was about 7 p.m., and he caught the attention of 28-year-old George Zimmerman, who had taken it upon himself to patrol the neighborhood armed with a gun. He considered Martin suspicious and called 9-1-1, which dispatched police. Ignoring the 9-1-1 operator’s urging not to pursue Martin, Zimmerman followed the young man, got into an altercation with him, and shot him dead.


Advertisement


Zimmerman claims Martin attacked him from behind and he fired in self-defense. But while he was on the line with 9-1-1, Zimmerman was the one chasing Martin. At the same time, Martin talked on his cell phone to his girlfriend, complaining of a man watching him. She told him to run away, which he apparently did during the interval Zimmerman was on with 9-1-1. The girlfriend claims she heard Martin say, “What are you following me for?” before the call went dead.

The tape of another 9-1-1 call from a neighbor has yells of “Help” in the background before the gunshot. We may never know what exactly happened in the altercation. We do know this: Through stupendous errors in judgment, Zimmerman brought about an utterly unnecessary confrontation and then — in the most favorable interpretation of the facts for him — shot Martin when he began to lose a fistfight to him.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=156
​

Rich Lowery's a smart man and I like his writing even if I don't always agree with him. It would be interesting to see what Rich has to say now, 16 months after he wrote this piece, and after hearing the evidence in the trial.

Nice cherry-picking though - I'll give you that.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

True, but I can understand why a 17-year old black kid being followed by a person who appears to be white.

One has to then wonder why and how Zimmerman ended up with a broken nose and lumps with abrasions to the back of his head. Did he shoot TM before he was knocked down? Witnesses and evidence says No.

 

[buck]

A year ago March NRO's Rich Lowery defends Trayvon. It sounds to me he got the story exactly right.

That would be before much of the evidence was known. Lets see what he says about it now:

Opinion: Zimmerman, a morality play that failed - Rich Lowry - POLITICO.com

When the national controversy over Martin’s killing first erupted, I thought it was wrong that Zimmerman wasn’t charged. I still think it was foolhardy of Zimmerman to get out of his car and trail Martin and that if he had had the sense to leave the matter at his call to the police, a tragedy could have been avoided.

But that doesn’t make him a murderer. There was always a perverse wishfulness to the Zimmerman-haters: Look how rotten and backward this country is. Look at what white-Hispanics are capable of. Look at the corruption of our criminal-justice system. Look at this poor child murdered in cold blood.

All of this suggests that Zimmerman fired in self-defense. At this point, if he is convicted of second-degree murder as charged, he will be the one failed by the Florida criminal justice system — not Martin.

Justice, in the sense of a deliberate, lawful judgment consistent with the facts, was never the driving passion of the Zimmerman-haters. They wanted a racial morality play. If Trayvon Martin had been shot by another black person, no one would have cared. Al Sharpton wouldn’t have made him a cause. Lawrence O’Donnell wouldn’t have batted an eyelash. No one outside his immediate family and friends would have ever known his name.

Oops. After all the evidence actually came out, he correctly altered his view. You still have beliefs consistent with one that does not know the actual evidence and, more specifically, the lack of any evidence to counter reasonable doubt.

 

[pbrauer]

One has to then wonder why and how Zimmerman ended up with a broken nose and lumps with abrasions to the back of his head. Did he shoot TM before he was knocked down? Witnesses and evidence says No.

You could also wonder if Zimmerman would have been that close if he didn't have heat.

 

[buck]

A year ago we had a lot more conjecture than we have today. So what does Lowery believe today?

Good question. Quite coincidentally, I just posted his current opinion...

 

[ric27]

A year ago March NRO's Rich Lowery defends Trayvon. It sounds to me he got the story exactly right.

What is true of the stopped clock is also true of the perpetually aggrieved, shamelessly exploitative publicity hound: Through sheer chance, he occasionally will be right.


The Trayvon Martin case appears to be one of those instances for Al Sharpton. The longtime provocateur and MSNBC host has a leading role in the protests over the lethal shooting of the 17-year-old Martin at the hands of a zealous neighborhood-watch volunteer in the Florida community of Sanford.


During halftime of the NBA All-Star Game, Martin left the home of his father’s girlfriend to walk to the local 7-Eleven for Skittles and iced tea. It was about 7 p.m., and he caught the attention of 28-year-old George Zimmerman, who had taken it upon himself to patrol the neighborhood armed with a gun. He considered Martin suspicious and called 9-1-1, which dispatched police. Ignoring the 9-1-1 operator’s urging not to pursue Martin, Zimmerman followed the young man, got into an altercation with him, and shot him dead.


Advertisement


Zimmerman claims Martin attacked him from behind and he fired in self-defense. But while he was on the line with 9-1-1, Zimmerman was the one chasing Martin. At the same time, Martin talked on his cell phone to his girlfriend, complaining of a man watching him. She told him to run away, which he apparently did during the interval Zimmerman was on with 9-1-1. The girlfriend claims she heard Martin say, “What are you following me for?” before the call went dead.

The tape of another 9-1-1 call from a neighbor has yells of “Help” in the background before the gunshot. We may never know what exactly happened in the altercation. We do know this: Through stupendous errors in judgment, Zimmerman brought about an utterly unnecessary confrontation and then — in the most favorable interpretation of the facts for him — shot Martin when he began to lose a fistfight to him.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=156
​

That tidbit *press account* is very good at distorting reality

I'd suggest, you do an independent study.

 

[pbrauer]

That would be before much of the evidence was known. Lets see what he says about it now:

Opinion: Zimmerman, a morality play that failed - Rich Lowry - POLITICO.com




Oops. After all the evidence actually came out, he correctly altered his view. You still have beliefs consistent with one that does not know the actual evidence and, more specifically, the lack of any evidence to counter reasonable doubt.

I don't think Zimmerman was guilty of murder, in fact I voted "not guilty" in one of the polls here at DP. But I don't believe he should have gotten off scott free either. There is something wrong in America when a 17-year old kid can't go to the convenience store for Skittles and tea and get killed on the way. I don't care what the color of his skin is. I firmly believe Zimmerman wouldn't have gotten in the situation had not had the gun. The presence of gun made them both unsafe.

 

[ARealConservative]

I don't think Zimmerman was guilty of murder, in fact I voted "not guilty" in one of the polls here at DP. But I don't believe he should have gotten off scott free either. There is something wrong in America when a 17-year old kid can't go to the convenience store for Skittles and tea and get killed on the way. I don't care what the color of his skin is. I firmly believe Zimmerman wouldn't have gotten in the situation had not had the gun. The presence of gun made them both unsafe.

you can go to the store for skittles. you can't beat up people that are suspicious of you walking to the store. most people know this, and go to the store without incident.

 

[pbrauer]

you can go to the store for skittles. you can't beat up people that are suspicious of you walking to the store. most people know this, and go to the store without incident.

Most people in this country are white and don't the same worries as does a black kid.

 

[buck]

I don't think Zimmerman was guilty of murder, in fact I voted "not guilty" in one of the polls here at DP. But I don't believe he should have gotten off scott free either. There is something wrong in America when a 17-year old kid can't go to the convenience store for Skittles and tea and get killed on the way. I don't care what the color of his skin is. I firmly believe Zimmerman wouldn't have gotten in the situation had not had the gun. The presence of gun made them both unsafe.

If that was all that happened, I would be in total agreement.

I would say there is something wrong in America where a 17 year old boy has the right to beat a Hispanic man and not stop even though he is screaming for help. Then make it so that the Hispanic man is not allowed to defend himself from such abuse, instead being forced to keep taking it.

 

[Grim17]

A year ago March NRO's Rich Lowery defends Trayvon. It sounds to me he got the story exactly right.

What is true of the stopped clock is also true of the perpetually aggrieved, shamelessly exploitative publicity hound: Through sheer chance, he occasionally will be right.


The Trayvon Martin case appears to be one of those instances for Al Sharpton. The longtime provocateur and MSNBC host has a leading role in the protests over the lethal shooting of the 17-year-old Martin at the hands of a zealous neighborhood-watch volunteer in the Florida community of Sanford.


During halftime of the NBA All-Star Game, Martin left the home of his father’s girlfriend to walk to the local 7-Eleven for Skittles and iced tea. It was about 7 p.m., and he caught the attention of 28-year-old George Zimmerman, who had taken it upon himself to patrol the neighborhood armed with a gun. He considered Martin suspicious and called 9-1-1, which dispatched police. Ignoring the 9-1-1 operator’s urging not to pursue Martin, Zimmerman followed the young man, got into an altercation with him, and shot him dead.


Advertisement


Zimmerman claims Martin attacked him from behind and he fired in self-defense. But while he was on the line with 9-1-1, Zimmerman was the one chasing Martin. At the same time, Martin talked on his cell phone to his girlfriend, complaining of a man watching him. She told him to run away, which he apparently did during the interval Zimmerman was on with 9-1-1. The girlfriend claims she heard Martin say, “What are you following me for?” before the call went dead.

The tape of another 9-1-1 call from a neighbor has yells of “Help” in the background before the gunshot. We may never know what exactly happened in the altercation. We do know this: Through stupendous errors in judgment, Zimmerman brought about an utterly unnecessary confrontation and then — in the most favorable interpretation of the facts for him — shot Martin when he began to lose a fistfight to him.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=156
​

I'm sorry, but Mr. Lowery's article is inaccurate and just plain wrong, and I'll give you 4 examples just from what was quoted here:

1. He insinuates that the yells for help might be that of Martin, but the facts brought out during the trial say different. In fact, based on the evidence and the testimony, even most Martin supporters have now conceded that it was Zimmerman who was the one yelling for help.

2. He says Zimmerman "brought about" the confrontation, insinuating he is the one responsible for it. He fails to mention however, that based on the evidence Martin had 4 minutes where he could have returned home but didn't, that Z had stopped following Martin long before that confrontation took place, and that it was Martin who made the choice to unnecessarily confront and assault Zimmerman, when there was no logical reason at that point to do so.

3. He falsely stated Zimmerman had "taken it upon himself to patrol the neighborhood armed with a gun", when we all know he was on his way to Target to do some shopping, not patrolling the neighborhood.

4. Lowery mis-characterized the confrontation as well as the shooting itself when he said that Z "shot Martin when he began to lose a fist fight to him". First, what took place that night was a beating, not a fist fight. A fist fight involves 2 people who square off and punch each other, not one person sucker punching another, pinning him down, and brutally beating him. It takes 2 people throwing punches to make a fist fight and that's not what happened that night.

Second, Lowery claims that Zimmerman shot Martin when he "began" to lose the fight to him? Well here's some news Mr. Lowery might be interested in... When a person screams and cries out for help, they haven't simply begun to lose a fight, they're waiving the white flag and conceding that they've already lost. The evidence clearly shows that Zimmerman didn't just yell for help once and then shoot... He was screaming for help and waiving that white flag of surrender for at least 45 seconds before he finally chose to fire the gun in order to defend himself. So in reality, when I said that Lowery mis-characterized that confrontation, it was a huge under estimation on my part that didn't accurately depict just how dishonest that statement really was.


Maybe I could print the article out and use it to wipe my ass... At least then it would have a useful purpose and some measure of legitimacy.

 

[buck]

I'm sorry, but Mr. Lowery's article is inaccurate and just plain wrong, and I'll give you 4 examples just from what was quoted here:

1. He insinuates that the yells for help might be that of Martin, but the facts brought out during the trial say different. In fact, based on the evidence and the testimony, even most Martin supporters have now conceded that it was Zimmerman who was the one yelling for help.

2. He says Zimmerman "brought about" the confrontation, insinuating he is the one responsible for it. He fails to mention however, that based on the evidence Martin had 4 minutes where he could have returned home but didn't, that Z had stopped following Martin long before that confrontation took place, and that it was Martin who made the choice to unnecessarily confront and assault Zimmerman, when there was no logical reason at that point to do so.

3. He falsely stated Zimmerman had "taken it upon himself to patrol the neighborhood armed with a gun", when we all know he was on his way to Target to do some shopping, not patrolling the neighborhood.

4. Lowery mis-characterized the confrontation as well as the shooting itself when he said that Z "shot Martin when he began to lose a fist fight to him". First, what took place that night was a beating, not a fist fight. A fist fight involves 2 people who square off and punch each other, not one person sucker punching another, pinning him down, and brutally beating him. It takes 2 people throwing punches to make a fist fight and that's not what happened that night.

Second, Lowery claims that Zimmerman shot Martin when he "began" to lose the fight to him? Well here's some news Mr. Lowery might be interested in... When a person screams and cries out for help, they haven't simply begun to lose a fight, they're waiving the white flag and conceding that they've already lost. The evidence clearly shows that Zimmerman didn't just yell for help once and then shoot... He was screaming for help and waiving that white flag of surrender for at least 45 seconds before he finally chose to fire the gun in order to defend himself. So in reality, when I said that Lowery mis-characterized that confrontation, it was a huge under estimation on my part that didn't accurately depict just how dishonest that statement really was.


Maybe I could print the article out and use it to wipe my ass... At least then it would have a useful purpose and some measure of legitimacy.

Keep in mind that this article was written in March 2012, right at the apex of the hype created by Crump. The media fell for it which caused many people to fall for it. As the evidence became known, many changed their minds from what they first thought, Lowery included. Even the media began correcting itself and actually reporting the facts of the case, which is why so many Trayvon supporters began complaining about an unfair media.

 

[Grim17]

Keep in mind that this article was written in March 2012, right at the apex of the hype created by Crump. The media fell for it which caused many people to fall for it. As the evidence became known, many changed their minds from what they first thought, Lowery included. Even the media began correcting itself and actually reporting the facts of the case, which is why so many Trayvon supporters began complaining about an unfair media.

Are you kidding me? March 2012?

Why in the hell did Pete post this then?

 

[buck]

Are you kidding me? March 2012?

Why in the hell did Pete post this then?

I assume this is hypothetical.

Sharon used to do similar things. She'd post some article from an expert that was written early on in the case and supported her position. I'd then search until I found a more up to date article from that same expert and his position had changed entirely. That's how I knew to go searching for Lowery's current positions. Lo and behold, his opinion changed too.