3 things:

1. Let the legal system handle this, not the media. That's what it's for. Innocent until proven guilty?

2. The city of Sanford, FL, has a race relations problem, and you cite an example from 1946? Seems like they're atypical of most cities.

3. See #1.

No, Chip, you've got it all wrong. This is a classic case of white on black hatred (ignore for the moment that Zimmerman is Latino) and MUST be front page news so the guilty schmuck can have a fair trial.

Why is it the left doesn't rail whenever it's a black on white crime case? If Zimmerman had won a Nobel Prize, would the Brian Crawfords of the world still refer to him as a "White Latino?" Where is the angst about Spike tweeting Zimmerman's address for the whole world to pile on? Suppose he had been killed by a mob? Think there'd be an outcry to have Spike charged as an accessory to murder? Even better, since he gave out the wrong address, attempted murder/assault/affray? Alas, on these issues, we'll continue to hear the "sound of crickets".

Wonder if The One will suggest Spike made a "stupid decision" this time. I'm betting not.

Once again Mr. Crawford you forget facts and only use rhetoric to express your opinion. Currently in this country "hate" crime expressed in "White on Black" crime or "Black on White" crime is almost non existent. (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm)

But facts shouldn't get in the way of going Al Sharpton on us and proclaiming that race hate is alive and well... and just about every good white/hispanic democrat in Florida is gunning for a black man. (Zimmerman was white/hispanic and a democrat.)

I don't think Mr. Zimmerman was justified or correct in this shooting. But I also don't think this is epitome of race relations in this country. You and several others are proclaiming this event to be an example of a larger problem, when the data (facts my friend) show that this is an aberration of the norm. I eagerly await your letters to the several young men who shot and killed numerous teens in the Chicago area over the past month.

Hi Brian - Are you proposing some sort of mental test for anyone who wants to own a gun or are you against gun ownership in general? There are hundreds of thousands of responsible gun owners in our country. They are not going out and shooting people just because they own guns. Besides, even people who are not supposed to have guns still end up getting them (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-cops-charges-filed-after-girl-4-shot-in-ankle-while-jumping-on-bed-20120325,0,1245314.story). Gun control laws will not change that. Plus, even if guns were outlawed, there are plenty of other ways to kill people. Using a case like this to call for gun control is like using a case in which someone was killed by a drunk driver to call for cars to be outlawed.

Guns do not kill people. People kill people.

In this case, he could have just as easily been armed with another weapon and the results could have been the same. He could've used a knife, he could've used his car, a car key, a baseball bat, a crowbar, his bare hands -- the gun is not the issue as much as the situation and the parties involved.

Plus, describing Zimmerman as a "fairly typical (if slightly obsessed)" gun owner is a generalization not supported by fact. He is certainly not typical of the gun owners I know.

And yes, I am a former LEO and I am a gun owner.

You go girl! :-)

We have no way of knowing whether or not Zimmerman would've left his car without a gun. Perhaps he took karate lessons at some point and felt he could handle all comers. That is pure speculation.

As for training, there is a difference in firearm training and conflict resolution. There is no "properly confronting someone with a firearm." Law enforcement training in terms of weapons use, aside from the proficiency requirements, is about using a higher level of force than your attacker -- the level of force necessary to end the threat. You could argue that Zimmerman's failing was in conflict resolution not in appropriate use of his weapon once engaged in the struggle -- again, without knowing exactly what happened, who can say?

As for requiring some type of LEO training for concealed carry, that wouldn't stop anyone who wanted to carry a gun from carrying a gun. It also wouldn't stop anyone from having a gun in their car or home.

As nice as it is to imagine that common sense can be legislated, it cannot. Let's face it, passing a training program indicates nothing other than the fact you can keep it together under controlled circumstances and perhaps pass a written test designed so that most people would pass. It has absolutely no bearing on what might happen in a real life situation.

THE TRUTH: This case will be decided by the FACTS, and unless you were there witnessing it, YOU DON'T KNOW THE FACTS. That is up to the grand jury and if necessary, a criminal and/or civil jury to decide. That is how the law works; we do ...not try people in the PRESS, and not even on FACEBOOK or the Patch Just sit back, take a deep breath, and let the system work its magic. If the "tryers of facts" determine he is guilty of murder, then he is. If they decide not, the he is not. No more complicated than that. Some of you say "race most DEFINITELY played a role in this...." or "race most definitely DID NOT play a role in this". But face it, you have NO IDEA. Stay tuned and let the best criminal and/or civil justice system in the WORLD decide the facts. Thank you.

Hi Brian - I guess we'll just add this topic to our "agree to disagree" list ;)

I am shocked that it took Brian this long to come up with the 'gun control' argument - or any argument at all about this case for that matter. Come on man, you are slipping.
When are these liberals that want to abolish the 2nd Amendment going to realize that CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY THE LAWS? That's why they are criminals. So, guns get outlawed - or you're no longer able to legally carry a concealed weapon. Then a criminal, who doesn't care about laws, confronts you with a gun. What then? At least as a permit holder I have a chance to protect myself or my family.
But as the liberals say........'Can't let a good crisis go to waste'.
The narrative has turned from the tragedy of a senseless killing to advancing the liberal agenda no matter what the cost......ONCE AGAIN.

Brian, I think the majority of posters are trying to tell you to avoid a rush to judgement, but the tone of your 'open letter' indicates that your mind is already made. No one is defending George Zimmerman, be he guilty or innocent.
We don't know the full facts of what happened, nor does the media; 'communion' photographs of the 'victim' and sinister vintage photos of the 'accused' should not muddle your thinking.
I would hope that if I'm ever on trial and you are serving on my jury, that you don't have your decision made in advance based on your beliefs, pre-conceived notions, or ideologies.

I wonder if the same people talking about fact versus opinion on this thread jumped on the Casey-Anthony-is-guilty bandwagon. A jury of her peers didn't think there was enough evidence to convict Anthony but the whole world seemed to think it knew what really happened. I think the overall idea that violence is a problem — to what extent I don't presume to know — when it occurs is an acceptable point to make. Especially when it's so senseless, as it APPEARS to be in the Zimmerman case. But that's just my opinion. I'll leave the fact-finding to law enforcement.

I get a little weary of those who think they know what happened in a given situation because of what the media is saying. Since nobody knows the facts of the case, we speculate. I've been involved in hundreds of investigations, and I've never seen the media get one completely right (and many times they have it completely wrong). Let the man be tried and convicted, or not, based on the evidence.

If you feel that people should not be allowed to be armed, then by all means, lobby for more gun control, but recent trends, up to and including supreme court decisions, seem to show that the legal opinion favors less restrictions on the second amendment. I've been a cop for ten years and never had a problem with someone who legally owns a gun. I'm in favor of an armed, polite, society.

I am probably going to take an unpopular position with my opinion. However, I believe that the stand your ground law is a good law. ( Florida Statute -776013 -012-032) The problem lies again in my opinion, with the application and the interpretation of this law. it unfortunately, has been perverted in its application. Twenty three states have followed and have adapted similar laws.
The Tampa Bay Times reported it had found 132 cases where law have been invoked. 74 defendants had been cleared. This means that 74 victims / citizens were able to defend themselves or family.
Again I opine that we live in a world where active shooter scenarios have become common place. The last thing an active shooter wants is a gun fight. They go where innocent children and families gather. Empty their clips, then turn the gun on themselves. And the police or swat never arrived on time. Not their fault. I believe the best hope and defense for innocent people in an active shooting scenario. Is a Law biding citizen with a license to carry and the right to stand your ground. But again that is my oppinion.

There's a couple of facts that are totally being ignored by the liberal media and folks like Brian. Zimmerman is Latino, but has family members who are black. When a large part of your direct family is black, I think that may disqualify you from being able to be called a racist. Also, if Zimmerman and Martin got into a fight, that means that Zimmerman didn't have his gun pulled when he confronted Martin, so the idea he went all Dirty Harry on him really doesn't float. We don't know what happened, we can be pretty sure that Zimmerman acted in a way he shouldn't have, but again not positive. For all we know, Martin could have been ducking around vehicles, shining a light in windows obviously looking for valuables, had something on him that looked like a weapon, hell, could have been caught trying to break into a vehicle. Or, not. You don't know. Neither will we, unfortunately.

Brian - "I haven't claimed this was a hate crime and I've tried to stick to what are widely accepted as the undisputed facts of the case." Yet, you start out with the facts of Sanford having rocky race relations and the story about Jackie Robinson, and make mention of this 17-year old boy "who happened to be black." Uh huh. No claims related to a hate crime there.

Most importantly, though, are your thoughts regarding guns. Nowhere that guns have become more widely accepted has gun crime gone up. In fact just the opposite. There is no data to support an idea of 'more guns in law-abiding citizens' hands resulting in more crime or more danger to police officers,' as I've seen promoted often. Also, there is not one documented case, ever, of a police officer being shot by a weapon for which that person had a permit. Not once.

If you disarm the public, criminals have free reign. Look at all the countries that have outlawed guns and look at the crime statistics. Look at our own fair city of Kennesaw and how much good it did for them to dictate that every home have a gun. Crime actually dropped, not increased. Are you going to have idiots that act stupidly ever so often? Undoubtedly. Will you cure more of that than you cause by allowing people to carry guns? Also undoubtedly.

Kristen I believe its going to be a very difficult case because in order to get a charge of Murder / manslaughter. You have to prove intent. Who was the aggressor. I believe the 911 tape answers that one. i think the best way they may go is in a hate crime case. either way its tough.

I don't think you have to prove intent to get a charge of manslaughter. I could be wrong. But intent may be fairly easy, since he followed and wouldn't back off, even when it was suggested to him. Hate crime will be harder.

As far as the profiling goes, here's one that has YET to be discussed. The profiling of a TEEN MALE. Is that possibe in this case? A cocky teen (not unusual for a male when he's a teen) that refuses to talk to the man and answer his question and it escalates. Teen males, late at night and wala- a common profile. My son was white as the driven snow and blonde but got pulled over often, probably because he was young and male and in a beat up vehicle driving like a teen.
I heard Rusty Humphries discussing this the other day and he had a thought. maybe circumstances dictated BOTH feeling threatened in some way and each was reacting to how they felt. One of those wrong place wrong time and not enough info from either- tragedy follows. Thing is, it could have been that simple, but some have jumped to judgement and made it to be more than it is. tragedy all the way around.

Its apparent that the injuries George received proves that he was attacked so he had the right to use deadly force.

In dishing out his standard liberal pablum (something he does with great relish, and a touch of hypocrisy) Brian Crawford has once again placed the liberal agenda in a spotlight that shows its many warts. Regarding Trayvon Martin, the only issue that anyone should be concerned with is that life for a 17-year old has ended. Yet it is clear that liberals care less about tragedy and more about using it to promote their political agenda. Oddly enough, that agenda serves to increase the very racial tension they rail against.
As viewed through the eyes of liberals, every disagreement, confrontation and personal assault is racially motivated or a consequence of racial tension-- regardless of the race of the parties involved. Had George Zimmerman been black, this tragedy would most likely have been viewed as inconvenient to the cause, and either ignored, or Zimmerman's actions would have been cited as resulting from his being a victim of racial prejudice.
Several Democrats (including Rahm Emanuel and Hillary Clinton) have expressed the opinion that politicians should never let a crisis go to waste. It's difficult to think of a crisis more distressing than the death of a young person. And for liberals, it must be inspiring that so many are using the death of Trayvon Martin to promote their cause.

Here's a very interesting take on this by Juan Williams, a very fair minded black commentator. I only mention his race because this has been made into a racial issue and his perspective is one to be admired and listened to. He brings some things to the table that no one on here has thought of and gives much food for thought.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303404704577307613183789698.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h#articleTabs%3Darticle

Before anyone says anything about Mr. Williams working with Fox News, you might want to note that he is a noted liberal black reporter. He is there to bring an opposing perspective. But he is fair minded and is one of the rare people who will look at facts and is able to see both sides.

The liberal spin on Mr. Williams' comments will be both predictable and contrived. Just as predictable will be the liberal community's embrace of The Doctrine of No Faultness and The Doctrine of Associated Irrelevance. I created these doctrines some time ago as tongue-in-cheek references for conservatives who are trying to understand liberal philosophy. And while they are a bit whimsical, these doctrines have a very strong kernel of truth at their foundation.
Mr. Williams has cited well-documented facts in his editorial. One can rest assured that race-baiting liberals will launch personal attacks against him for doing so. And they'll undoubtedly invoke the techniques of "The Doctrines" in their attempts to refute the facts, and discredit Mr. Williams. (If you'd like to read the doctrines, click the following link. ) http://bit.ly/HD7pMm

Brian- I'm sure you're concerned about the financial rewards my "shameless self promotion" generates. Indeed, last year, I earned zero dollars promoting my doctrines and I'm on track to double that this year. I have also been shameless in promoting "Give Hunger the Boot", a program I started that has raised over $7,000 in food and financial contributions for our local food co-op in less than six months. It's probably difficult for you to understand the way many of my activities are woven together to ultimately benefit others.

Brian- I respect everyone's right to have, and express an individual opinion, even-- or more to the point especially-- those who disagree with me. Consideration of an honestly presented opposing opinion is one of the best ways to learn different perspectives. What I find objectionable is the false presentation of honesty and objectivity, and the ensuing rush to a flawed judgment that inevitable follows.

Discussion concerning the unfairness of the judicial system and racial profiling are best left to another time and place. The rush to judgment is that this is a racially motivated crime, and that Zimmerman is guilty of murder, even though he has yet to stand trial.
Many people carry loaded weapons and never shoot or kill anyone. Had Zimmerman been carrying a crow bar, baseball bat, knife or any number of other items, the outcome of his confrontation with Martin might very well have been the same. You can theorize that Zimmerman carried a loaded gun because he wanted the ability to defend himself if attacked, or you can view his decision to arm himself as being motivated by other less noble considerations. But the fact is, we don't know his motivation and we don't know whether he fired out of fear for his life or because he felt he had something to prove. If anything, Zimmerman may be guilty of using poor judgment, but it's impossible to make such a statement because the relevant facts aren't known. However, you have been promulgating the idea that Zimmerman is guilty of murder simply because he was carrying a loaded gun. Had Zimmerman killed Martin with a baseball bat, would you be asking him if his desire to carry a ball bat was worth what it had wrought?
Again, the tragedy here is that a conflict that could and should have been resolved in a reasonable manner resulted in 17-year old losing his life-- not the fact that George Zimmerman was carrying a loaded gun.

This is so disappointing Brian. I expected better. But, so be it. As for Zimmerman, first you paint him as a racist, then say you never called him a racist, then say if the known facts paint him as a racist so be it. So what is it-- do you or don't you consider Zimmerman a racist? I hope my "pompous pontifications on the evils of Liberalism" help guide you in your decision.

All news outlets state that Martin was racially profiled. So was race involved? Yes. I would stop there. I will not call Zimmerman a racist, but the profiling has racially motivated overtones. You cannot ignore that fact.

Its almost like some people always want to jump right to..."why are the race baiting" or why is the race card being pulled....but profiling did have a factor in this case. This cannot be denied.

Anyone involved in law enforcement uses profiling. The point that most people are unaware of, or choose to ignore, is that not all profiling is racial in nature. If a police officer sees anything that looks out of place or suspicious (even something that at first glance is seemingly harmless, like a car parked in a shopping center long after all the stores are closed) he or she is going to investigate because something doesn't fit the normal profile of the area.
Racial profiling is an entirely different matter. In fact, you could consider it a pro-active form of prejudice-- a person is prejudged because of ethnicity. Racial profiling obviously exists, and it is just as obviously wrong. However, race-baiters promote the concept that racial profiling is behind every incident in which a member of an ethnic minority is a victim or a perpetrator. It appears that the baiters prefer reverse racial profiling-- regardless of the circumstances or evidence, the police and private citizens should turn a blind eye if a member of an ethnic minority is involved. Greg, if you listen to or read the UNEDITED 911 call, you may see a slightly different picture of the racial overtones of Zimmerman's actions. I don't think there's any question that Zimmerman over-reacted and used terrible judgment when he pulled his gun. But to blame this whole incident on racism is to deny that any other motivation plays a significant role when certain actions are taken by an individual.

Greg, did you read the article by Juan Williams? It gives a lot of incite as to the how's and why's those kinds of profiles exist right now. lay it at the feet of what we allow in our society and what the media perpetuates. Please read it and then give a few thoughts. Dave, I've really enjoyed your insightful and non-condescending tone. You make a good case and thre tone is refreshing. All in all, we wouldn't even have heard of this case had the law not let Zimmerman go. Unfortunately, the law in Fla. is different than in GA.We base our assumptions on how ga. would react based on our laws. Maybe the law needs a little tweaking.

Tammy-- Thank you. It is never my purpose to be condescending or patronizing, even though some people take umbrage at my "pompous pontifications on the evils of liberalism". I find that's a fairly typical response when I pose questions that are inconvenient to promoting a cause.
However, I have to disagree with you regarding the reasons this case has drawn a spotlight. I don't think there's any question that Zimmerman used poor judgment and caused a tragedy that could, and should have been avoided. But the reason it has become a cause celebre is that race-baiters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have earned a very comfortable living publicizing events like this in "defense" of the black community. Unfortunately, they only thing they are truly interested in defending is their income stream-- as witnessed by the fact that they. are moved to action only when an event has racial overtones. There's no money to be made railing against black-on-black crime, so as Juan Williams pointed out, it is ignored by the race-baiters.
The fact that Zimmerman wasn't arrested was simply the spark that got the fires of hypocrisy burning quicker than they would have otherwise. And those fires have certainly been instrumental in having Zimmerman tried and convicted in the court of public opinion before all the facts are known. At least that's my "pompous pontification" on the subject.

Game, Set and Match to Dave Emanuel. Wasn't even close.

Brian- Why don't you write an open letter to Shawn Tyson. My guess is because you don't have the faintest idea who he is. Let me enlighten you. He is a 17-year old black male from Florida and he was involved in a shooting. (You can click on the link below for the media account.) Why don't you pose the same questions to him that you did to George Zimmerman. Questions like-
-What happened in Shawn Tyson's life that filled him with so much hate that he could so casually kill two people?
- Was your heart filled with hate that night or did you simply get in over your head?
- Did your courage abandon you as you imagined a secret weapon hidden under James Cooper's and James Kouzaris' shirts?
- Did it occur to you that hoodlums don't usually have British accents and walk about asking for directions?
-Did carrying a loaded gun make you feel empowered? Glamorous? Heroic?
- What were you thinking when you heard that terrible explosion and realized you had put a few bullets in James Cooper? I guess you didn't care because you turned around and put a few bullets in James Kouzaris.
There are many more questions, but you should have the idea by now. But my guess is that you have absolutely no desire to write a letter because the shooter is black and the victims are white. And that combination does not serve the race-baiting liberal agenda.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/29/florida-teen-faces-life-sentence-in-slaying-british-tourists/?test=latestnews

You have no idea how this equates to the Trayvon Martin case? That truly puts your political myopia in perspective. Where is the outrage and the drum beat for racial equality when the perpetrator is black and the victims are white? You say you would gladly ask Shawn Tyson the same questions, but the fact is that you didn't. And you have no interest in doing so because neither black-on-black nor black-on-white criminal actions serve the liberal agenda. All sarcasm and smart-ass comments aside, reread your original post. And re-examine your original motivation for writing it. Can you honestly say that you would have been moved to write your open letter to Zimmerman if the racial composition of the incident had been different? I'm not trying to elicit a response. The only person you have to answer to is yourself.

"Hey, you forgot to let us know how you feel — please enter a comment." This sentence appeared after I deleted my comments and decided that I could not comment or respond to the comments written here. Dear Patch, I didn't forget to let you know how I feel. This (the comments) is all just overwhelming, painful and sad for me (to read). Now you know how I feel, and no, I do not want to receive email updates for this Blog Post.

Brian, I think the problem here is reading COMPREHENSION; as it is with so many sites on the internet these days. I applaud you for using your right to freedom of speech, albeit appearing to be in direct opposition to the tradition of your area, a liberal. I am now wondering if you are not a Republican as well. :-) If not, you must be really well-loved! LOL and JK

You wrote: "But there are also your family and friends who are now facing endless questions and accusations. What kind of family raises such a racist? You're his friend, are you a racist too?" I re-read this statement because initially I was not certain just what you were saying; however, after re-reading it, it is clear to me that you are posing questions that Zimmerman's family and friends may be asking, not saying that Zimmerman is racist, that it was a hate crime, that it was black-on-white, or anything else. I imagine Zimmerman and his parents are now asking many of the same questions. Why did I get out the car? If only I had stayed in the car as the dispatcher suggested. Why did you get out the car? You should have stayed in the car! Reading COMPREHENSION!