p.p.s Also, commentary from David French whom is also white.
Not to mention that most of the linked articles are from 2012 (Such as the one from Alan West), when most of the facts were still unknown.
I linked to French because he went into "White Wingnut" racism more than anyone else and as far as I know, he claims to be a conservative.
Some examples:
These assaults on a dead kid who cannot defend himself have occurred despite the lack of any credible allegation that Martin was doing
anything unlawful when Zimmerman started following him through the neighborhood.
At arguably the lowest point of the public controversy, John Derbyshire even went so far as to write a column that used the racial conversations surrounding the Martin case to suggest that the incident proved
it would be unwise for any white person to come to a black personÂ’s aid lest the black person be planning to commit a crime against the white person. The column, which appeared on the website TakiÂ’s Magazine, was so entirely beyond the pale that National Review promptly ended its many-years-long relationship with Derbyshire.
But if the public spaces belong to the law-abiding and not to aggressors, donÂ’t ZimmermanÂ’s actions raise as many (if not more) questions than MartinÂ’s?
After all, not even the most zealous Zimmerman defender has credibly accused Martin of initially doing anything other than walking home from the store—an entirely lawful act.
If a teenager is followed after sunset by an unknown man, there are two predictable reactions: (1) The teen would likely be frightened, and (2) most reasonable observers would see that fright as reasonable and the unknown man as a potential threat.
Contra John Lott,
citizens do not have a blanket right to “investigate a strange person in [their] neighborhood.” No such broad right exists in the Constitution, relevant statutes, or common law. Zimmerman’s alleged right to investigate is certainly limited by Martin’s right to walk in public spaces free from threats or threatening behavior. Were Zimmerman’s actions reasonable or unreasonable? Could Zimmerman have been reasonably viewed as a threat to Martin, and did Martin thus have the right to “stand his ground” rather than Zimmerman? Those questions will be critical at trial, and it will not be settled by the assertion of any “right” to investigate Martin.
Third,
conservatives should be the last people in America to support or defend reckless behavior with a lawfully carried firearm. Whatever the verdict, an unarmed teenager is dead because an armed citizen behaved at best foolishly. He wrongly profiled a kid as a threat (itÂ’s not known whether the profiling had a racial component), followed him on foot (at least for a time), and shot him after apparently losing a fistfight.
This is the opposite of the Duke lacrosse and Tawana Brawley cases. In both those cases, there was no actual victim (no one was actually raped or assaulted), and yet there was a rush to judgment. In this case there is unquestionably a victim and there was a rush to exonerate.
If conservatives continue to cast their lot with this killer of an unarmed man, they risk damaging their own credibility and further embolden those who would marginalize conservative voices in matters of race, crime, and justice.
------------------------------------------------------------
Now this is how a conservative is supposed to talk. He reasons things out. Looks at the big picture. Spells out what he believes it means to BE a "conservative".
And simply for the fact he is spelling out his position in a thoughtful and logical way, Republicans on the USMB will hate his guts. And no where does he join the "liberal side". No where is he glad a child died.
