Southern Brooklyn

Storobin Accuses Democrats Of Stoking Fears In Zimmerman Case To Score Votes

David Storobin. Photo By Erica Sherman
David Storobin. Photo By Erica Sherman

City Council Candidate David Storobin issued a strongly worded op-ed piece in NYC Elects concerning the reaction to the not guilty verdict in the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case, admonishing those who, in his opinion, are stoking fears to score political points. Here is Storobin’s editorial in full:

In 1937, my great-grandfather Baruch was having dinner with his wife and 8 children in a small Belarus shtetl when he heard a door knock. The sight of him leaving the kitchen to go open the door was the last time his wife and kids saw him, as he was arrested by the NKVD for espionage. For twenty years, his wife was writing to find out his fate, the last of which begged, “Five of our sons died fighting for this country in World War II. The others aren’t asking for Baruch to be let out. We just want to know if he is alive.”

My grandfather, a WWII hero, died never knowing what happened to his dad. We only found out in 2009 that Baruch was accused of espionage and when he refused to confess, was tortured to death. Then the dead man was somehow still convicted because that is what the Soviet politicians wanted.

This is why I’m a lawyer. And this is why I abhor the conduct of the Democratic Party politicians who are fanning the flames of race-baiting in the George Zimmerman case.

The man has been found Not Guilty. That’s the difference between the US and the Soviet Union – a jury independent of the politicians, a defendant who has real rights. No, dear liberals, nobody cares what you think. You did not hear the full extent of the evidence, only a few clips from whatever side you chose to hear it from. Your conduct in condemning the jury and assigning to these people the worst qualities, including racism, is shameful.

The facts stand: 1) On July 13, 2013, the jury found the defendant not guilty; 2) On March 12, 2012, Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee said there was not enough evidence to arrest Zimmerman. 3) On June 12, 2012 the Sanford Police Department’s lead investigator Chris Serino said that his investigation had turned up no reliable evidence that cast doubt on Zimmerman’s account, that he had acted in self-defense. “The best evidence we have is the testimony of George Zimmerman, and he says the decedent was the primary aggressor in the whole event, everything I have is adding up to what he says.”

For a strange reason, a special prosecutor was appointed to this case, an extremely rare occurrence, particularly where the defendant is not a politician. Then the prosecutor refused to allow the Grand Jury to hear whether the defendant should be indicted or not. And even the President decided to chime in on this to try to sway justice!

Let me make it very clear: Democratic Party is trying to score political points by getting their base excited using language that can only divide our communities. There is no other reason for the shameful, abhorrent conduct of all the liberals in the media and in politics. The verdict is not guilty. Liberals, stop dividing us to win elections!

It should be noted that although candidates running for mayor and for other city positions have issued statements regarding the Zimmerman case, no Democratic candidate in the 48th City Council district race, for which Storobin is running, has issued any message regarding the matter.

Comment policy


  1. What if the person killed was white?
    Can the weeks of testimony be made public?
    The media pushed this story to racism.
    Thompson for Mayor claimed the person was shot because he was black. Thompson is racist himself.
    Blacks have more rights today than any other race.
    Muslims have more rights today than any religion.

  2. I agree with some of what Storbin said and the verdict in this case. However two additional points:
    1) Storbin has his own campaign to run, surely op-ed piece is meant to further his own goals.
    2) Juries are not always correct, i.e O.J Simpson.

  3. I have no problem with accepting the outcome, which was the result of the judicial process. I do, however, have a problem with those who believe that righteous outrage is not an acceptable response.

    It has to be kept in mind that a finding of not guilty is not a pronouncement of innocence. It only means that doubts still existed in the minds of jurors. It has to be considered that they deliberated for a considerable time.

  4. Is Storobin dying his hair? He looks like he smeared feces into his head. I mean it’s ok to expect bullshit to come out of his mouth but I’m still surprised when it’s literally smeared into his hair.

  5. He is disagreeing with the right to express an opinion, not just the opinion itself. He could have simply expressed his disagreement without questioning the motivation, which can be turned on its head by questioning his own.

  6. Where is this? I don’t see him calling for the repeal of the first amendment anywhere. All he is doing is pointing out the intent (as he sees it) of his political opponents:

    “Democratic Party is trying to score political points by getting their base excited using language that can only divide our communities.”


  7. He’s disagreeing with their opinions and speculating when it comes to their intent/motivation. I don’t see him disagreeing with their *right* of expression. Cut and paste the relevant quotes, please?

  8. I repeat, context. He is disclaiming their right to expression on the grounds that such expression is political in motivation, and therefore not acceptable in its execution.

    I do not question his right to make such a statement but have to point out the implications of it.

  9. One hundred percent correct. Since Storobin is the first candidate in the 48th district to comment, HE is clearly the one who is attempting to rally his base based on this tragic event.
    Second, not all Democrats have said the same thing. I seem to recall reading that the President, who last I checked was a Democrat, asking that the process be respected.
    Third, one can respect the verdict and the process and still believe that I do that an injustice has been done. A “not guilty” verdict means only that guilt has not been established by a reasonable doubt. (As a lawyer, I assume Mr. Storobin knows this.) It does not mean, however, that some or all of the jurors may have felt it was LIKELY that Mr. Zimmerman was the aggressor, just that the prosecution could not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. I can actually see the reasonable doubt argument here having watched some of the trial, but since none of us were actually in the courtroom looking into the witnesses eyes, none of us can be sure.
    However, I am sure that justice was NOT done: Mr. Zimmerman initiated the events by following a teen boy who was on his way home from buying Skittles. Mr. Zimmerman ended the encounter by shooting that boy dead. Mr. Zimmerman followed him for no other reason than the fact that the boy was Black. I assume that the child was frightened at being followed by a middle aged white man for no reason. Whatever happened in the interim, we will never know for sure. But we do know that Mr. Zimmerman started it for the wrong reason, and ended it the wrong way.
    Now, if Mr. Storobin would stop pandering to HIS base, show some compassion for a tragedy and talk about City relevant issues, that would be refreshing.
    Lew from Brooklyn

  10. Where is the proof that GZ followed him? Are you saying that if someone is bashing your head in the ground you should just take it and not protect yourself? Lets not pretend like the media did about who TM actually was. He was not an innocent little boy. He was a gun toting, drug using football player. From day one the media blew this up only because of race. There are murders everyday of all kinds and you never hear the President, AG or DOJ commenting about it. This is a circus with photo ops for all.

  11. Obviously he wouldn’t address the legal aspect directly, but it is the legal aspect that give them the right to offer forth their opinion as he has offered his own.

    Anyone who holds office has a moral right to express an opinion. Once expressed, that individual can be challenged on the content of their remarks. Storobin has done so. I agree with some of his point, the process has to be respected. That does not mean I, or anyone has to believe that justice was served properly. The right to express that sentiment must be respected, regardless of who makes such adverse statements. Subsequent discussion should focus on content, rather than perceived motivation, which is, in effect an attempt to silence dissent.

  12. Ok, so you agree that he’s not calling for restricting anyone’s right to free speech? Let’s not read into what’s not there. Otherwise every other disagreement can be deemed as somebody else’s call to restrict free speech.

    Ironically, this would be a great advice for Martin’s supporters: “Subsequent discussion should focus on content, rather than perceived motivation, which is, in effect an attempt to silence dissent.” But I digress… 🙂

  13. He’s an attorney, he knows the implications of what he write.

    As for suppositions made beyond the immediate scope of the verdicts, this is done by those who agree, as well as those who don’t. But questioning the basic reason, as well as claiming that this is done merely to inflame, is not a viable argument.

  14. Regardless of whether you find his argument to be viable or not – he’s not calling to restrict the rights of expression. That claim has stretchmarks all over it.

  15. “Justice” is humanly constructed– every society decides what that concept means. For the Soviets of that time, torturing a Jew to death was justice. And if the Soviets had so desired, they could have adopted the American system, and found Baruch guilty by a jury of his peers (because that’s how they roll). Would he and his family be so eager to accept the “facts” of justice then? “Your conduct in condemning the jury and assigning to these people the worst qualities, including racism, is shameful.” What is really shameful is an inability to make connections between your own suffering and the suffering of others, even when they are so blatantly present.

  16. No. “He is disclaiming their right to expression on the grounds that such expression is political in motivation,” – ofcourse he said no such thing. This is your interpretation of what he actually stated, though you are not realy providing any quotes which you’ve used as a basis for what you’ve concluded. He’s not disclaiming their right to expression, he’s merely pointing out what he thinks their motivation is. One could even make a case, using your own reasoning, that you are disclaiming his right to self expression.

    But not overtly, of course. See how that works?

  17. Oh, and btw, the person who took the unusual step as Storobin charges of appointing a Special Prosecutor was Republican Governor Rick Scott. I guess some Republicans-perhaps many- do have compassion and common sense. Others just choose to race bait.
    Lew from Brooklyn

  18. It is time that the dieheart Democrates wake up and start smelling the roses.. You are not always right, woops I mean left.

  19. Thanks, but I guess we’ll have to let others make their own assessment as to whether what you are claiming is jiving with what he actually said.

  20. Nothing to “start” for me – I’m already awake, I agree roses smell great, and I’m pretty much always left. Now what?

  21. Mr. Storbin is doing the same thing he is accusing others of doing. He is politicizing the trial! People are entitled to their opinions and entitled to express them! Any attempt to stop them is just a “wrong-wing” republican/teabagger way of shutting down democracy!

  22. LISANNE, you are the typical brainless, senseless and deranged liberal. I hope one democrats get their way, so finally, ignorant and dissonant people like you realize what a failure your system of ideals is.

  23. Thank you, but no need to feel sorry for me, I am a very happy, honest, content, intelligent and reasonable person who sees life in an objective, practical and realistic manner. I feel sorry for passionate people like you, who allow emotions & feelings to blur reality, which is an absolute sign of intellectual inferiority. Have a wonderful day, if you can! Blessings 🙂

  24. I do not react emotionally, my views and expression are based upon logical considerations, not ideological ones. OTOH, you choose to believe things merely because it is what you wish these things to be. I find that pathetic, it shows a lack of desire to discuss anything with the possibility involved that you might evolve in your world-view as a result.

  25. What is your definition of logical? omg, you are far more deficient than I originally thought! What ideology? Obsviously, the jurors agreed with me, and the judicial system as well, so you tell me what exactly do I choose to see as I want? That statement certainly describes you! I show a lack of desire to discuss anything? then why exactly am I still responding to your emotional and unreasonable assumptions and responses? Do you actually think before you speak? Since, you like to open your mouth so much, use it for something more productive 😉

  26. Indeed, why are still responding? Keep in mind that you are the one who started this topic.
    Тётя, попейте валерианочки!

  27. Apparently you choose to see things that aren’t there. I’ve made no statement regarding the case save that I understood why this was the verdict. And that such a verdict is not one of innocence. My concern here is Storobin’s allegations regarding the motivations of politicians who have made more specific statements regarding the outcome.

    Learn to read everything, and carefully before you start making statements that have no relevance to fact.

  28. Mr. Storobin simply stated the truth, which is refreshing and admirable in such politically correct society. He gained. not only my respect but my commitment to his campaign. I think his statement was quite specific. What exactly do you want him to say? perhaps you should apply to be his political advisor since you assume what is proper and not proper for others to say, Mrs/Ms/Mr Lisannel!!

  29. I am still responding simply because I wish to do as the free citizen that I am. You don’t like it then don’t read it and don’t comment. At the end, your comment is so absurd, it practically says nothing as it has no meaningful input on this discussion. Indeed, drink some more as you used to in Soviet Russia and keep drowning that brain of yours!

  30. Well, yes, I should drink, mostly of shame that I was born and used to live in the same country with you (and Mr. Storobin).

  31. There might be a silver lining still: other readers will be able to see this person for what they are – devoid of credibility, foaming-at-the-mouth crazy.

  32. I am all for insults, as long as they are creative and in proper context, surely there is enough we can say about our wrong-minded liberal friends without resorting to personal insults name calling, etc.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here