Ted Rall by Ted Rall

Ted Rall

Comments (42) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. TJDestry

    TJDestry GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    Equating this trial with OJs is pretty racist. I don’t know anyone but Ted who thinks the two are at all parallel.

  2. Darsan54

    Darsan54 said, over 1 year ago

    Most reasonable strip ever Ted. The jury really had very little choice except acquittal the way Florida law is written. And we only had one story, Zimmerman’s, and no contradicting evidence. That said how a guy provokes a confrontation with someone who’s only “crime” is being there and then kills that person as he loses the fight gets turned into “self-defense” is beyond me. Zimmerman had a better defense team than the prosecutor had an offense.

    the part that gets me is the legality of it all. No body broke the law per say, but an innocent person still ends up dead.

  3. packratjohn

    packratjohn said, over 1 year ago

    @Genome Project

    Or Baptists and Methodists….

  4. echoraven

    echoraven said, over 1 year ago


    Post of the day.

  5. jmattadams

    jmattadams GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    This is exactly the race-baiter mindset. A person does not know what’s in his own heart and mind, so he needs a bunch of people who act on pure emotion and not a speck of logic or critical thinking to tell him that yes, he is racist, and yes, he does hate black people. Well, how’s this for white dude’s burden?: I’m not racist. I don’t hate people because of how they’re different from me and no amount of libs saying it about me just because they can’t otherwise win an argument is going to change that or make me care what they think.

  6. Michael wme

    Michael wme said, over 1 year ago

    Fred’s right-wing intellectual case for acquittal.

    About the same as the character in the cartoon: The prosecution never proved Zimmerman guilty of murder.

  7. ODon

    ODon said, over 1 year ago


    “Just because a person of a different race, culture, ethnicity, creed, religion, or whatever kills a person of a different group does not make it a racist act.”
    True enough but were Martin a white female do you think the trial verdict would be different? Let’s leave racism out of this and just talk about the fact that Zimmerman, comforted by his gun, stupidly tracked Martin down scaring the crap out of Martin. What the hell would the average person do? Surely not yield to a scary figure coming after him with unknown intentions.

  8. Jase99

    Jase99 GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    I truly believe Zimmerman is guilty, but not of murder. In no way did the event meet the legal requirements of a murder charge.

  9. jrmerm

    jrmerm said, over 1 year ago


    A lot of people in the media like to compare the two cases because of the racial aspect, which of course the media exploits as much as possible. You are absolutely right that other than the racial aspect there is no similarity between the cases.

  10. jrmerm

    jrmerm said, over 1 year ago

    Zimmerman should have been charged with some form of involuntary manslaughter right from the start. The charges could and would have been dropped as the evidence came out quickly that backed up Z’s statements and proved he was not racist. This is another example (like immigration) that the system is not broken, we have broken people. Reminds me of the Steve Martin movie where he is working in a gas station and someone is shooting at him but hitting oil cans; Steve’s boss (Marty Allen?) tells him the problem is not defective cans, it’s defective people. Oh, so true. The state blew it by overcharging him with murder. And Z had competent defense counsel, which always helps.

  11. TheTruthHurts

    TheTruthHurts said, over 1 year ago


    Well now Dave, you made an ASSertion about the veracity of prior posts. Suppose you illustrate/document YOUR comments.
    But be fore-warned, I WON’T be holding my breath !

  12. d_legendary1 Demands Dr.C's Release

    d_legendary1 Demands Dr.C's Release said, over 1 year ago


    The parallels between OJ and Zimmerman is that two guys who were guilty got away with murder. The difference is that in the OJ trial a guy named Mark Furhman tainted the evidence, whereas the Zimmerman case they excluded evidence that would have put this guy away. As far as race goes I would have asked Zimmerman what he meant by punk a-holes getting away.

  13. jrmerm

    jrmerm said, over 1 year ago

    @d_legendary1 Demands Dr.C's Release

    What Z meant has been more than adequately explained. Do a little research. By the way, what evidence was excluded? The only instance of excluded evidence that has been made public is Angela Corey’s omission of the beating Z was taking when she submitted her affidavit recommending murder charges.

  14. emptc12

    emptc12 said, over 1 year ago


    That was an excellent post, and is much better than what I have written. But I believe my post will complement yours, from my personal vantage point:
    This cartoon is almost not a cartoon, but an essay with illustrations. The captions are nearly my own thoughts.
    I recall that what we now call “racists,” we used to call “bigots.” Bigotry and Hatred went together in a phrase. Even with the problems in the U.S. during the ‘50s and ‘60s, I don’t remember that the “racist” epithet was thrown around so much as it is today. That word previously was used in the context of Hitler’s “racial theories,” and a bad word with very evil connotations. Racists were groups of people on the scale of countries; bigots were small groups or individuals.
    And so it jars me, even today, to hear ordinary people called that. I became aware of the change working its way through various media in the middle ‘70s, and I thought it was a serious devaluation of the term. Meanings change and by now, it is what is. (Take the word “gay,” for instance. It seems to have only one meaning, anymore.)
    To me now, to call somebody “a racist” is on two levels. On one, it’s practically as common as playground taunts; on another, it’s an intellectual judgment. Years ago, wasn’t Archie Bunker called “The Lovable Bigot”? Today, would he be called “The Lovable Racist”?
    My point is the word now means different things according to one’s age and background. To some it’s a reasonable accusation; while to others it’s a huge insult. It’s the difference between calling somebody intolerant and called him evil. To some it’s a rock picked off the ground to be tossed; to others it’s a shot fired from a verbal arsenal.
    This might be why it’s difficult to have calm discussions when the word is used. It isn’t a mere word — it represents an acquired cultural attitude.

  15. Baleine

    Baleine said, over 1 year ago

    @Adrian Snare

    Healing starts with forgiveness.
    Admission is just words and words can easily be hollow.
    Forgiveness is an act and very hard to fake.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (27).