The Day After: Widespread Angry Protests, Tactical Alerts, Some Vandalism, No Major Riots

Tyler Durden's picture

Despite the worst fears of many that this morning America might wake up to a redux of a flaming Compton and Watts, so far there have been no widespread riots or looting, even if vandalism has broken out sporadically among the countrywide angry protests.

From AFP: "Americans angry at the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the death of black teen Trayvon Martin marched in US cities throughout Saturday night, with reports of sporadic acts of violence. Spontaneous marches of varying sizes erupted in cities including San Francisco, Chicago, Washington, Atlanta and Philadelphia.

Prominent rights activists like Jesse Jackson appealed for calm. "Avoid violence, it will lead to more tragedies. Find a way for self construction not deconstruction in this time of despair," he wrote on Twitter. Martin's parents have long called for non-violent demonstrations, quoting civil rights icon Martin Luther King and the Bible. Several hundred demonstrators marched peacefully amid a heavy police presence in downtown San Francisco soon after the verdict.

Many carried signs with slogans such as "The people say guilty." Hours later angry protesters marching through Oakland -- just across the bay from San Francisco -- spray-painted cars and smashed windows, helicopter video footage posted by the Oakland Tribune showed. One vandalized vehicle was a police cruiser."

The LAPD declared a citywide tactical alert overnight due to concerns of a Rodney King repeat:

The LAPD has declared a citywide tactical alert amid a protest in Leimert Park sparked by the George Zimmerman not-guilty verdict in Florida on Saturday night.


The alert initially applied only to the agency's South Bureau -- but it was expanded to include the entire city, a LAPD sergeant said. In a tactical alert, officers can be held over after their regular shifts and do not have to respond to low-priority radio calls.


LAPD Sgt. Carlton Brown said the decision was made as a precaution amid the controversial verdict. He said there have been no reports of problems at the demonstration in Leimert Park.


"We think it's going to remain that way," he said.


Brown said he heard the crowd grew to some 200 but was now starting to dissipate.
Twitter users were posting about the demonstration Saturday night in the historically black neighborhood.


"Just drove thru Leimert Park, they're having an extremely peaceful rally." wrote user @dj_RTistic. "News vans are out and a few Black cops are there to patrol it"

Elsewhere, around the country:

In Chicago, to the cry of "No justice, no peace! No racist police!" a crowd of activists held a noisy downtown rally, the Chicago Tribune reported, while protesters gathered at Times Square in New York City to vent their anger.


In Washington, dozens of mostly African-American youths marched chanting slogans in a city neighborhood. They were followed closely by patrol vehicles, an AFP journalist reported.


A crowd of several hundred gathered all day Saturday outside the courthouse in Sanford, Florida -- and many were outraged when the verdict was read.


"It's the end of our justice system," said Ashton Summer, a 20 year-old Puerto Rican. "Justice is not equal for everyone."


The ANSWER coalition, which helped organize large protest rallies during the Iraq war, said it would hold marches Sunday in seven US cities, as well as three separate ones in New York.


"We are very saddened by the jury's verdict," said Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump after the verdict was read. "The family is heartbroken."


Rights activist Al Sharpton posted a statement on Facebook describing Zimmerman's acquittal as "a slap in the face to the American people."


"We intend to ask the Department of Justice to move forward as they did in the Rodney King case and we will closely monitor the civil case against Mr. Zimmerman," said Sharpton.


Benjamin Todd Jealous, head of the NAACP, the premier US civil rights group, said his organization is "outraged and heartbroken" over the verdict.


"We will pursue civil rights charges with the Department of Justice, we will continue to fight for the removal of Stand Your Ground laws in every state, and we will not rest until racial profiling in all its forms is outlawed."


The controversial laws allow people who fear for their lives to use deadly force to defend themselves without having to flee a confrontation.


"The jury found he acted appropriately in defending his life in accordance with the law," George's brother Robert Zimmerman Jr. said on CNN.


"I think that conjecture and speculation and emotional reaction to what people think may or may not have happened has been dominating the discussion for a long time."


Robert Zimmerman however said that "there are people that would want to take the law into their own hands ... and they will always present a threat to George and his family."

And some documentary evidence courtesy of RT:

Finally, here is George Zimmerman's brother Robert on CNN defending his brother to Piers Morgan with the counter theme: "What is Trayvon was my brother..."

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
francis_sawyer's picture

Lincecum tossed a no-no & AJ Ellis had a complete game shutout against Boston... So OAKtown got diffused...



dark pools of soros's picture

in Philly we had extra innings in both games of the doubleheader..anda  rain delay to start...  so no one really thought about this junk case

Zer0head's picture

the world was supposed to end with the sequester too


in other twitter news

this should make everyone feel good


@BarackObama 12 Jul

If Congress won't #ActOnClimate, President Obama will. Show your support: http://OFA.BO/dXzrDs

so while half of the US is watching the cougars of CNN headline news lament what a jury of 5.5 white women did

executive orders are being drafted that will impact the lifestyle and finances of most Americans and many American businesses.

Headbanger's picture

Just watch how fast the inflamatory lame stream legacy media drops coverage of this story now that it has lost all ratings value to them.

Ignatius's picture

Corporate lame-stream formula:  Get the public to form hard opinions about that which they know little or nothing about, or that doesn't fucking matter.  These guys are good at what they do "look over here, look over here".

knukles's picture

And lo and behold, even yet this morning, MSNBC is preaching the evils, racism, miscarriage of ju8stice and suggesting that it might be a grand idea to have some voices heard, (aka riots)

Will MSNBC be tried and found guilty of inciting riots?
Yelling fire in the crowded theater?

benjamin_1114's picture

Only black people are allowed to kill black people, if someone else does its racism/profiling and it turns into a great reason to riot and pillage. On to the next sideshow!

kaa1016's picture

And this is precisely the point that most who are all up in arms seem to imply. What happened to Trayvon Martin is tragic and I think Zimmerman should have at least been found guilty of manslaugter. However, blacks are killing blacks every day. Where is the outrage for that?

johnQpublic's picture

whats our country come to, when the negroes are too damn lazy to riot

Hubbs's picture

Actually, not too lazy, at least what NSA and HSA must be thinking. Instead the fact that there are no riots may reinforce the HSA's  drive toward even greater control via a  paramilitary police state. This goes hand in hand with the Boston Bombing. Nobody complained about the warrantless searches and nobody is rioting now.


Would there have been a Rodney King style riot back in Watts had the NSA been as aggressive as they are now? I wonder.


This may be signaling to the NSA " Hey we can do anything. The Boston people didn't mind us barging in their homes, and the blacks are too scared to riot after Zimmerman is aquitted. We are on the right track. More surveillance. More armored personel carriers . More control and police state.

Lost Word's picture

Problem - Reaction - Solution - NWO

NWO creates the problem in order to provide the solution - NWO tyranny.

ISEEIT's picture

Not so fast cowboy. I believe that these clowns thought they had it wrapped up. They sure as shit aren't going to let this sucker go now. Sharpton's got he some bills to pay and we need lot's of angry idiots to help obozo finish the job he was assigned.

It ain't over.

sgt_doom's picture

It's Jury Selection, Jury Selection, Jury Selection

I don't mean to sound as if I'm parsing here, but the truth of the matter in these high profile cases, and various insurance-involved cases (malpractice suits, etc.), is that much money and effort goes into precision jury selection.

When I heard the make-up of the jury, all women, all mothers, I feared that Zimmerman would be found not guilty; it seemed the greatest probability given their jury selection.

Personally speaking, the one and only time I finally made it to the point of jury selection (it was a medical malpractice lawsuit, and the majority of the jury members had been selected, but the attorneys were planning on excluding several, so the largest pool of jurors was brought in for voir dire, thirty in all, with the least likely to be selected at the very end of the line, which naturally meant I was number thirty juror possibility [never chosen, 'natch] --- being at the end afforded me the position of being next to the four Jury Selection Consultants [three men and one woman] and overhearing their whispered remarks --- said remarks pointing to the targeting of the blandest people possible, those most likely to never have questioned the status quo!).

Had this been in earlier times, but in the present tense, and a random cross section of that town been chosen, in all probability Zimmerman would have been justifiably convicted, as he should have been!

Now Zimmerman can pick up and his gun, and no doubt in the future make another attempt against an innocent victim.

Perhaps, like Ernesto Miranda (he of the Mirandizing or Miranda Warning), eventually his karma will catch up with him.

James_Cole's picture

It doesn't make sense to blame the jury for ruling on incredibly stupid laws, blame the people writing the laws. Apparently in Florida it's OK to kill someone as long as you think you're in mortal danger, has nothing to do with whether you actually are, or if there is any evidence you are - nope - only matters if you think you are.

So next time you're driving your car - anywhere in Florida - and someone drives too close it is well within your rights to pull out your gun and shoot the other driver... as long as you 'feel' you are in mortal danger - which tangentially may have been a reasonable belief (as long as you convincingly come across as a total moron, pretty common in the US) as you were theoretically in mortal danger considering you are always in mortal danger whilst driving a car. 

If the jury looked at that case and found you blameless under the law, not their fault. 

These kinds of idiotic laws go hand in hand with America's longest war, the one against evidence-based reasoning. 

However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) >> He or she reasonably believes << that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;

Fuck reality, it's all about belief!

nmewn's picture

Most people who legally carry are far more rational than any of you anti-gun dipshits. You think because someone legally has a gun they're just driving down the road looking for someone to shoot?

If someones swerving toward them, multiple times, in a car, do you think its "reasonable to believe they intend imminent death or great bodily harm to the other driver or another driver or they are intent on committing a forcible felony" with that car?

Absolutely fucking amazing.

James_Cole's picture

Most people who legally carry are far more rational than any of you anti-gun dipshits.

I'm not anti-gun, I'm anti-stupid-people-with-guns. 

If someones swerving toward them, multiple times, in a car, do you think its "reasonable to believe they intend imminent death or great bodily harm to the other driver or another driver or they are intent on committing a forcible felony" with that car? 

That wasn't my example now was it? Because it doesn't matter under this law what they were actually doing in this common space we share called 'reality' it only matters what the shooter thinks they were doing. 

Lost Word's picture

Try understanding the word "reasonably".

MachoMan's picture

Exactly...  The people on these threads can't be this daft...  trolling, plain and simple.

James_Cole's picture

I do, which is why I agree with the jury that it is reasonable to believe Zimmerman thought he was in danger of losing his life. 

Which is totally separate to whether Zimmerman was actually in grave danger from my estimation. The law doesn't concern reality.

Yesterday evening someone on here was saying they were scared to leave their hosue and go downtown in fear of Portland Oregon. Most peopel are scared idiots who are afraid of the dark so it's no stretch to believe that Zimmerman thought he was in grave danger and it also makes sense that he'd only of shot Martin if he believed that.

Which is why this law is so idiotic, Einstsein put it best "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”

This law would more appropriately be called "the justification of lethal force in the case of stupid-scared-shitless-morons."

MachoMan's picture

You have to separate the subjective portion of the law (what zimmerman was thinking at the time) and the objective portion of the law (the reasonable man standard)...  once you understand how to combine the two, everything should fall into place a bit better and your outrage revealed as unwarranted.

James_Cole's picture

You have to separate the subjective portion of the law (what zimmerman was thinking at the time) and the objective portion of the law (the reasonable man standard)...  

No you don't and that's why the defence argued that Zimmerman was too stupid to assess the situation properly. 

The whole point of the law is that it isn't about a consensus standard of what is a reasonable fear, it says VERY SPECIFICALLY otherwise. 

a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes 

NOTICE: it doesn't say "he or she reasonably faces imminent lethal danger" it says "he or she BELIEVES" which is a giant fucking difference. 

What someone believes to be grave danger is entirely subjective, so for the defence the burden wasn't to prove that Zimmerman was actually in grave danger (which they didn't try to argue) it was to prove that he THOUGHT he was in grave danger. 

Which is what they did prove and why they were successful.  

Raymond K Hessel's picture

So being laid out on your back while someone is sitting on top of you and punching the shit out of you.... it is not reasonable to believe your life is in danger?  

How does that work?  

MachoMan's picture

They posted the jury instructions in another thread for christ's sake...  somehow, the word "reasonable" gets ignored in your analysis...  again, the answer is that it is a two (2) part test...  zimmerman must be in fear of his life/serious harm/etc. (subjective) AND it must be reasonable for him to be in that mental state (objective).  Here is a relevant portion of the instructions:

The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real


There has literally never been a requirement that the threat of harm be real...  it isn't some magical concoction of the stand your ground law...  it has been a reasonable man standard for a few centuries now (probably millenia).  I'm not sure what you're getting at, but you are clearly mistaken.  You're trying to impose some legal standard that hasn't ever existed...  for incredibly obvious reasons.

nmewn's picture

Your example was complete bullshit and you know it.

You assume the gun owner is irrational and will shoot (in fact you just advocated for them to do so!!!) anyone who gets too close to him driving down the highway.

You're the one who's out of touch with reality.

James_Cole's picture

My example was in relation to the law - not gun owners - and has nothing to do with what I advocate.


Gun owners for the most part are obviously responsible, simple fact based on numbers - my issue isn't with them (they get enough grief as the punching bag between a smorgasbord of special interests & media nonsense).

nmewn's picture

"My example was in relation to the law - not gun owners..."

Ok, lets refresh.

The law sets the bounds by which people can properly take defensive action. It was held by a jury of his peers that everything Zimmerman did, from legally carrying a weapon, to calling the cops, to defending himself when assaulted & battered by Trayvon, was in compliance with the law.

It cannot be left up to a jury to make law or decide if an action taken meets THEIR definition of "reasonable belief of imminent death or great bodily harm to them or another or to prevent a forcible felony"...the bolded entails no personal injury at all...just a forcible felony, a carjacking for example.

It was not they who were laying on the ground being beaten. Any reasonable person in that position (laying on the ground being beaten) would BELIEVE they were having great bodily harm administered to them...would they not?

garypaul's picture

Who told you most people who legally carry are far more rational than others? Where is your data? Zimmerman had applied to join the police force numerous times and was rejected each time because he failed the psych tests.

I see you've already got your cover story ready for when you shoot some other driver: He was swerving at me multiple times!!

pods's picture

Most free thinking people would fail the cop psych test. I know I would. 


Raymond K Hessel's picture

You'd have to be fairly intelligent to fail the PD psych test.

Dangertime's picture

How about some guy pound your head on the concrete and break your news and we'll see how concerned you are?


Bottom line is that Trayvon was pummeling George, which is illegal.  He was in the process of causing serious injury and potentially grave injury.  George had a right to respond with greater force in order to protect his well-being.


Perhaps Trayvon should have assaulted someone who did not have the means to defend himself.



But overall the key part you miss is.....REASONABLY BELIEVED.

MachoMan's picture

Zimmerman did not respond with any greater force than Martin was using...  rather, Zimmerman simply used a different method of force.

garypaul's picture

Funny how the gun nuts, who are always preaching the right to bear arms, now consider a sidewalk to be equivalent to a gun. What hypocrites!

noless's picture

Have you ever seen American history x?

garypaul's picture

How about some guy approach you with a gun, and you can be armed with a sidewalk? Fair fight?

I am fully aware that you know you're bullshitting, but I just want to respond anyways.

MachoMan's picture

Really?  If you're wanting to make a fair comparison, shouldn't the guy "armed with a sidewalk" also get quite a few shots in + mounted position + continued pummelling?  I'm thinking that in many circumstances, the guy on top wins...

Richard Chesler's picture

If Obama had a son he'd be a thug rightfully killed while committing a felonious act. Fuck you free shit army!

economics9698's picture

I love that expression "free shit army" so appropriate.

max2205's picture

This is another 'gimmie a break' moment

knukles's picture

If I had a son like George I'd hang his innocent ass.

remain calm's picture

The government appears to have pacified even the loser non productive part of society in that they are content with their food stamps, unemployment checks, disability checks and free healthcare that they feel no need to burn down a city for one of their own. Governments narcotic seems to be working.'s picture

So even good behavior on the part of black citizens must be looked at as a failing?

remain calm's picture

No failing. The Governments heroin appears to be working. Societies vilolent element appers to be pacified with the cuurent prescription. When it seems to be not as effective then they will just need moar, and then the Bernanch will just print more dollars so Pelosi and Reed can dispense more heroin. It seems the government has the treatment plan for the stupid muchers of society. Now the plan to control the producers of society is not quite clear to me, yet.'s picture

I support Martin and I'm not violent. Rep. Dennis Baxley who wrote the Stand Your Ground Law supported Martin and he's not violent. Your premise would appear to be flawed.

eatthebanksters's picture

I'm a white guy who grew up in Oaktown and know a little about racism.  It exists, but it only exists as a byproduct of the politics of division, and, the permissiveness and grorifcation of the gansta lifestyle. People only profile others when they fear them: whether the fear is physical or to their security.   Intead of aggressively confronting Zimmerman, if Trayvon had his hoodie down and smiled and said excuse me, can I ask why you are following me, he would probably be alive today.  ZImmerman obviously profied Trayvon, who had the appearance of a thug (notice I did not say black thug) in a gated community where he was not from and which had experienced an increase in crime.  When taken together, this is volatile mixture of ingredients.  When a young man becomes an aggressor instead of remaining neutral (or just leaving) then we see the tragic outcome.  Make no mistake, Trayvon's death was a tragedy, it was a result of rascist undertones, but Trayvon had a choice as well.  His death was unecessary, but after the case was heard by a jury of Zimmerman's peers (including a black woman) and the law was applied, he was aquitted..

garypaul's picture

eatthebanksters, I disagree with your post but at least it was sane and rational so I want to point out some things you overlooked.

You can't blame Trayvon for "not smiling" because this incident happened in the dark. How polite would you be to a strange man following you in a car? Have you ever heard of cases of drive by shootings? Remember Trayvon was 15 years old and Zimmerman was not a uniformed police officer. Furthermore, how do you think Zimmerman was behaving towards Trayvon? Do you think he was being polite? Even if Trayvon had smiled, do you think Zimmerman would have returned the favor? You say Travyon had a choice, but again I ask you: if you BELIEVED that a strange man with a gun was pursuing you with the intent to harm you (which was indeed the case here), what would you do? You cannot just "leave" because he is following you. Would you try to defend yourself? If so, would that make you an aggressor? I just can't get over this 'stand your ground' law not applying to Trayvon but somehow applying to Zimmerman.

Not one of the trolls here admit to the fact that Trayvon was not committing any crimes but merely walking home.

Chuck Walla's picture



Plenty of hypotheticals that can't be answered. That's not an argument.  The area had had numerous break-ins, all by black males and along comes another little thug who likes to be tough and fight. Oh, and has a prior burglary suspicion since jewelry and a screw driver described by police as "a burglary tool" were found in his back pack by MDSO at school.. Tray said he was just "holding for a friend" and refused to divulge a name. 

If he hadn't decided to fight, but simply walked on, he would be alive today. Daddy should have taught him some basics, like don't fight unless you are sure of the odds.  Strangers are dangerous because you can't know what the opponents capabilities are.  Don't be a thug, its dangerous.

He made his decision and there were severe consequences. There are no winners here.  But self-defense isn't about winning, its about surviving. Zimmerman survived. The attacker did not.





MachoMan's picture

Did Mr. Baxley know all of the facts of the case before pontificating on the applicability of the stand your ground law?  [aside from the obvious fact that the legislature does not get to interpret its laws given the separation of powers].

MachoMan's picture

Quit trolling.

The simple fact is this, we can now separate the Treyvon Martin advocates between those guilty of jumping to conclusions too quickly and those who refuse to leave the sinking ship of ignorance.  It appears that you are the latter.

When Obama made his infamous "son" comment and the media frenzy began, people formed their conclusions about the matter.  The problem with this hasty approach is that all of the facts were not (and could) be known at the time.  The discovery process takes months, even in the most simple of case.  It is through this process (which is traditionally held close to the vest, especially in criminal cases) that we actually learn about the case.  The first time information, documentation, testimony, and arguments are made is often at trial...  while there is some degree of trial strategy that has to be made aware to the other side (so that the parties have a chance to argue over admissibility as well as to stipulate to introduction of evidence, among other things), how it actually plays out is always subject to the moment at trial.  (this is why we have trial...).  Ultimately, the jury had a really easy decision.  [I wouldn't even doubt it if Martin's estate loses a civil trial...  I'm not sure the prosecution even proved their case through a preponderance, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt].

The issue now is that people can either admit that they made an incorrect, hasty decision (telling us a lot about their thought processes and biases) or choose to live in denial, at all costs of credibility.  The choice is yours.'s picture


Quit trolling.

The herd appreciates your loyalty. Moooo!