Thoughts From a Libertarian Perspective About Saint Trayvon

“in my state they can’t find you guilty of anything you’re not charged with”
Can you cite the law that specifies this?

I just wanted to post a link to the latest Fred on Everything since it’s a subject I think Libertarians of either sex can identify with. http://www.fredoneverything.net/Reseg.shtml Probably some women wish they could have attended a boy’s school. I know I wanted to go to an all girl’s school. Oh, girls….

“Somewhere, there needs to be territory set aside for those who want to carry spears and clubs, and bash animals and each others heads whenever they feel like it”

There already is. Detroit.

I don’t recall ever suggesting anywhere that Martin was right. Please let me know when you find that. Yes Martin had a legitimate reason to feel fear and anger. Same as anyone else that being my point. Same as your own son or daughter in a similar situation being my point. To include your world into the consideration of the effects of whatever position you decide to take being my objective.

Martin had a legitimate reason to feel fear and anger and if that is the case Zimmerman must have done something wrong. That is the point. Hopefully if all this stands so far we can join in exploring exactly what Zimmerman did wrong.

By saying “Zimmerman did wrong” I did not in any way shape or form say “Martin was right” or “Martin is not a thug” or “Martin is an angel” or “Martin is a saint”.

Did I?

..

“A verbal insult justifies a verbal insult in return. But not a fist in the face.”

Bevin — Your logic is clearly correct. I also agree that a sucker punch cannot be justified. Now, in order to complicate matters, I will give a few examples of what can be called, “fighting words”. A insults B. B responds by telling A to back up or fight. A refuses to fight and continues to insult B. B then punches A in the nose. I conclude that A was given a fair warning and therefore B did not violate the NAP. A then pulls out a gun and shoots B. I conclude that B should have prepared for that possibility by arming himself.

Another hypothetical case: In 1930 Germany, a young man named Adolph publicly advocates the illegalization of the Jewish religion, blames Jews collectively for social ills, and declares them to be religious abusers who should be treated as criminals for their own good and the good of society. B, a defender of natural rights, is extremely offended and challenges A to a duel, put up or shut up. A ignores B and continues to advocate for the illegalization of Jews. Someone assassinates A. I would say, Bravo and argue that the assassin did not violate the NAP. Sometimes, the act cannot be completely separated from the actors, a concept that may be foreign to some libertarians. 🙂

An important question is how to honorably deal with extremely offensive insults and individuals who publicly advocate and support the use of violence against peaceful humans. After much thought, I advocate to bring back the old-fashioned duel. Democracy and voting is unjust because it allows any majority to stomp on any minority. I can foresee some problems but requiring the advocates of violence to fight will cause more than 99% of them to voluntarily change their tune.

Dear Rick,

Thanks.

Isn’t it amazing how convoluted issues become once the nomenklatura takes them them?

It’s only convoluted because they are engaging in sophistry and attempting to turn wrong into right.

The truth is seldom that complicated. The truth tends to be simple. The current example is the NAP.

Another good example is monetary policy, e.g., JM Keynes attempting to prove that one can get something for nothing, that wealth can be created simply by slapping green ink on white paper.

The truth, as Austrian School economists know full well, is that TANSTAAFL. This is the real “End of story.”

David appears to be the person I wrote about – the one who believes we must give the benefit of every doubt to the Trayvons of the world – and if we give offense, accept that we deserve a beat down.

“Did Zimmerman, as a private person, have the right to check out (observe and follow – and even approach/question) a person whom he had legitimate reason to suspect might be up to no good?

Yes, of course.”

**

No, of course not. Observe? Yes of course.
Approach and question? Yes of course.

Follow without giving a reason why to Martin?

No. Of course not. Why is this so difficult to grasp?

It matters not at all Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch patrol person. Not at all. It matters not at all what transpired after Zimmerman decided to follow Martin without explaining why. Not at all within the context of determining if such action is right or wrong. Stay focused on the subject which is not the trial or the findings of the jury or the endless diatribe of a corrupted media. You established the subject as being a “libertarian perspective” and with that you need to talk just as a libertarian would talk.

Not as the statist you obviously are. A statist defers responsibility to the state and if that means inflicting fourth amendment violations and possible physical assault at the hands of the police that’s not the concern of a statist. His job is to defer to the state what responsibilities he care not execute himself.

As I already spelled out for you a libertarian performing neighborhood watch duties has a responsibility to report crimes. As a libertarian he cannot subject people to unreasonable searches and inquisitions and harassment by the police for simply wearing these or that clothes or being this or that race etc. which is all Zimmerman knew of Martin at the time.

This is all Zimmerman knew of Martin at the time and anything else about Martin we have subsequently learned in not applicable to the question of the right way to conduct neighborhood watch patrols. You cannot justify Zimmerman’s actions after the fact simply because of how bad Martin turned out to be. Martin could have been and will be anybody and this question of how to conduct neighborhood watches needs to be clear and consistent with our bill of rights. Otherwise more needless tragedies will occur.

If Zimmerman believed Martin posed a serious risk to his neighborhood, as a libertarian he would have decided to follow Martin. In order to follow Martin the right way Zimmerman would have had to inform Martin of the purpose of this activity of following him. This is right. Not easy. Not easy at all to tell someone to their face you do not trust them based on their race and clothing but that was the only right way to continue to monitor Martin as he moved on his way.

Until Martin was observed committing a crime Zimmerman or anyone else has absolutely no right to call the police. Not according to the supreme law and the common law. Not according to what is right. The rampant corruption of the militarized police these days only amplifies this fact.

It was Jefferson who acknowledged the inconveniences of too much liberty. We would do well to admit them and live with them or..

we should refrain from calling ourselves libertarians.

..

Dear David,

Eric makes a crucial point which establishment intellectuals are usually oblivious to.

The government, specifically cops, prosecutors, judges are, according to establishment intellectuals’ own rhetoric, “public servants,” “servants of the people.” who duty it is to “protect and serve.”

According to their own theoretical rationale for government, “We the People” are the primary actors. They, our “servants,” are merely supposed to be at our beck and call, if and when we feel we need them.

Bevin, “we the people” no longer exists and I’m sure you’re aware of it. On that same note I just read an article in the WSJ that speaks to the militarization of cops. He rightly points out in almost every “crime” SWAT teams attempt to stop, they’re all victimless crimes, crimes merely for cops, judges and lawyers to get rich from. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323848804578608040780519904.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

If you browse online police discussion boards, or chat with younger cops today, you will often encounter some version of the phrase, “Whatever I need to do to get home safe.” It is a sentiment that suggests that every interaction with a citizen may be the officer’s last. Nor does it help when political leaders lend support to this militaristic self-image, as New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg did in 2011 by declaring, “I have my own army in the NYPD—the seventh largest army in the world.”

Yes, no matter how minor the crime, the first thought of the costumed thugs with badges is with Occifer Safety. And all my life I thought you were supposed to be willing to give your life as an “officer” if it came to that in the line of duty. Apparently the only safety issue they have is with themselves and from their own.

Dear Eight,

Yes. we are on the same page. No such thing as “We the People” any more, if ever.

We the Sheeple, maybe. But We the People? Long gone.

As I’m sure you know, I was merely pointing out an internal contradiction, not espousing my own belief.

I was merely pointing out that even if one buys into the mainstream intellectuals’ bullshit rhetoric about “democracy,” they are clearly contradicting themselves.

Re: “To protect and serve.”

I happened to catch a scene from the SF film “Transformers” the other day. The camera panned across the motto on the side of a cop car. It read:

“To punish and enslave.”

The hero of the film is a private citizen. The biggest obstacle in his way of saving the world is an asshole Clover FBI agent played to perfection by John Turturro.

When even mindless action films like “Transformers” include tidbits like this, you know the Bradley Mannings and Edward Snowdens are finally winning the moral argument.

Dear Eight,

“Whatever I need to do to get home safe.” It is a sentiment that suggests that every interaction with a citizen may be the officer’s last.

What goes around, comes around, and will all too soon be directed at “us.”

Bevin, I hadn’t thought about Blackhawk Down in a long time. You are correct about it. I don’t know why but it ends on such a down note I hadn’t thought about the cops that might be produced from those soldiers. There’s a different flavor about those guys than the automatons produced during the shrub’s administration seems like, and maybe it’s only in my mind, not theirs. I may be reading it altogether wrong too. I need to do some thinking about it to be honest. While I thought at first those guys might have a different perspective from such a complete failure, I can see how those who weren’t out and out demoralized could be seriously warped in later life. Still, it almost seems like a different mindset than the guys who came later. And maybe that’s just in my mind. You do make a very good point there. It just seems as though we didn’t have that same type of cop back then and we’ve morphed into this bitter coward cop who stays up at night and polishes his private weapons and thinks about cop shop stuff. I believe on the whole we have a much seamier side to cops now. I’m thinking out loud in print now and that’s dangerous in it’s own right ha ha.

Dear Eight,

There does appear to have been a qualitative change in the character of copdom.

Others on this forum have noted the change in long running TV shows such as “COPS,” which have been around for a couple of decades.

The brutality is increasingly flagrant. Many attribute it to the metamorphosis from “peace keeping” to “law enforcement.”

I think that is true. But I also think that is effect, rather than cause. I think that metamorphosis reflects a deeper collective psychological metamorphosis from Anakin Skywalker to Darth Vader. Our society as a whole has “gone over to the dark side.”

“All democracies turn into dictatorships — but not by coup. The people give their democracy to a dictator, whether it’s Julius Caesar or Napoleon or Adolf Hitler. Ultimately, the general population goes along with the idea… How did the Republic turn into the Empire? …How did Anakin turn into Darth Vader? How does a good person go bad, and how does a democracy become a dictatorship? It isn’t that the Empire conquered the Republic, it’s that the Empire is the Republic. One day Princess Leia and her friends woke up and said, ‘This isn’t the Republic anymore, it’s the Empire. We are the bad guys… This democracy is a sham…'”
— George Lucas, creator of “Star Wars”

Dear Eric,

Precisely!

It is the very concept of democracy that must be discredited, not
any so-called “betrayal of democracy.”

We the Sheeple need to realize that democracy is not being betrayed, democracy is the betrayal. Democracy is the most successful “long con” ever perpetrated on society. Democracy makes any elaborate scam cooked up by the expert con artists in the TV series “Leverage” look like child’s play.

Don’t you just love the bogus “choice” that “champions of democracy” offer the Sheeple: “democracy or dictatorship?”

Ironically Marxian Communists were more honest when they coined their semantically accurate term, “democratic dictatorship.”

“People’s democratic dictatorship” (simplified Chinese: 人民民主专政; traditional Chinese: 人民民主專政; pinyin: Rénmín Mínzhǔ Zhuānzhèng) is a phrase incorporated into the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China by Mao Zedong, leader the Communist Party of China (CPC).[1]

The premise of the “People’s democratic dictatorship” is that the CPC and state represent and act on behalf of the people, but possess and may use dictatorial powers against reactionary forces.[2] Implicit in the concept of the people’s democratic dictatorship is the notion that dictatorial means are a necessary counterforce to recidivist social elements, and that without such a dictatorship, the government may collapse into a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie or other degenerate social form, faulting on the socialist state charter which is its first principle.

Sort of like

Before Rebranding, The US Dept. of Defense Was Called The “Department of War.”
Some would say that the old title was more descriptive or honest. The US Department of Defense, which is commonly known as the DoD for short, actually used to be titled more bluntly, “Department of War.”

Hi Rick,

Zimmerman’s political views, his personality – all beside the point.

He may be a Clover. That doesn’t mean he was wrong in this instance – insofar as looking out for people who fit the profile of the thugs who’d been causing problems in his neighborhood.

I am suspicious of attempts to broaden the topic to a discussion of Zimmerman qua Zimmerman. It’s just not relevant.

If our resident Clover got rear-ended by a tailgater, I’d defend him too – in that particular case.

All that’s at issue here is:

Did Zimmerman do anything wrong/criminal by taking note of Martin’s presence, then following him?

No.

Did Zimmerman initiate physical force against Martin?

All the physical/circumstantial evidence strongly says, no.

Was the assault committed by Martin sufficiently violent that Zimmerman reasonably feared for his life?

Certainly.

End of story.

“illegalizers like GZ ”

The guy was patrolling his neighborhood, looking for people who fit the profile of the criminal thugs who’d committed previous robberies.

I’ve got no problem with that – because I don’t see how it violates any Libertarian precepts.

And, again: Martin was a violent thug. He fit the profile. He deserved what happened to him.

“The guy was patrolling his neighborhood, … – because I don’t see how it violates any Libertarian precepts.”

I agree and never said otherwise. I simply added some facts about his character. For example, suppose there was a crime-watch volunteer named Otto in Nazi Germany who patrolled his neighborhood looking for burglars. No problem. Now, suppose that Otto was also a “good” German who supported the criminalization of Jews and their mass arrests, would it be outrageous for a defender of freedom to state that fact? Suppose that Otto was also looking for Jews and private gun owners in order to turn them over to the authorities because that is what the law required. Would it be so terrible for a defender of freedom to state that fact when Otto was being presented as peaceful, righteous person, who was just protecting private property?

Well-said, Eight.

I live this, actually.

We are out in the country, far from “police protection.” I know our neighbors (they are our friends) and they know us. We look out for one another. I keep an eye on their place when they’re not around – and they do the same for us.

Much more effective than calling the cops, because someone is always here – either them or us – and we have a vested interest in protecting our own neighborhood.

For cops, it’s just a job. They have no particular interest – much less obligation – to protect our property or our persons.

eric, I feel the need to clarify what I so badly stated. Had the cops and not GZ has come across Tray and been taken down by him, the net effect would have been the same. Would the media have jumped on it as they did GZ? I seriously doubt that. This is all because of the clover mindset of those who wish to make political capital from the situation. Race baiters not only don’t choose to look at facts, they do so with guile, preferring to spin something into something it never was. While it’s not fair for me to force myself on anyone else, I’d still like to get JJ and AS in a room and make them answer the questions I put to them about this case. We all know any of us could have them backpedaling quickly if they were forced to confront the facts. Of course, this will never happen. They won’t go for an interview with someone who has no race-baiting agenda. They are the epitome of what’s happened to their race, the ones among them who choose to make political And monetary hay off their less fortunate brethren. They are cut from the same mold as those who supposedly represent us on the Hill but do everything they can to Not represent us. On my private forum I stated I would never again vote for anyone not of an independent party. I voted this last election for one Republican who said he’d do some things very differently from his predecessor. He has tried to to some extent but has still voted for the very things we all know he shouldn’t have. This is my fault. If I ever vote again, and that’s a big IF, I won’t make the same mistake. I’ll vote only for those who walk the walk and talk the talk in some other party rather than the two who dominate. If they do to me what the one I voted for has done, I most certainly will never vote again. I don’t really know if I will vote again anyway. I failed to vote on previous elections because the polls aren’t open long enough for guys who don’t work 8-5 to make it there after the most important thing I do in a day, work. I couldn’t tell my not voting affected the outcome of anything anyway.

When you are being followed and do not know why you will naturally consider all the possible reasons. A sexual predator. A robber. A guy who plans on doing you harm because he thinks you are someone else or just because you’re black and he’s a bigot or whatever. I’m not talking about little emotions like “being disrespected” I’m talking about the big ones. Fear. Anger. These are justified in anyone. Your teenage son or daughter or anyone else. This is why I call following someone and not providing the reason a violent act. Because it obviously is.

Any honest person will agree. Eventually, once the smoke of the media is cleared from their heads.

..

Dear Eric,

Sure thing! It’s always a joy to share at EPA.

I’ve had to swear off posting for a while. Much too addicting! Keeps me from doing other things I simply have to do, and want to do. But I have been lurking nevertheless, and will chime in when my dander is up.

The intellectual mainstream persists in spinning the Zimmerman trial as something it wasn’t, as “white vs. black.” It was no such thing. It was “right vs. wrong.” Skin color had nothing to do with it.

That is not to say that skin color is never the issue. Sometimes it is.
To wit: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/09/21/justice/texas-dragging-death-execution

But this was not one of them. So why force-fit the Zimmerman case into their racialist Procrustean Bed? My conclusion? Because it involved the right to private gun ownership, individual sovereignty, and the right to self-defense. These are all anathema to the statist collectivists.

What a shame. Truly pressing issues were at stake, such as a proper understanding of natural rights and individual liberty. But they were sidelined by the media circus, which trivialized the real issues.

A nationwide debate over the underlying roots of street crime would have benefited everyone, regardless of skin color. But establishment intellectuals squandered a golden opportunity to elevate society’s understanding of its problems.

Isn’t interesting which characters survived the 1960s and 1970s.

Those who talked peace. Those who talked about our common enemy. Those who sought to unite, those who sought to educate, to lift up, are dead. Those who acted to divide, to manipulate people, to make themselves rich, and so on so forth, they live to this day.

BrentP, nice to know somebody is paying attention. Those were really tough times,the worst our country has seen for divisiveness since the Great Liar’s war.

BrentP, We’re watching an ancient VHS of Pink Floyd, really old stuff, some from the 60’s. It’s so good I can’t think of adequate words to describe it. Us and them
And after all, we’re only ordinary men
Me and you
God only knows, it’s not what we would choose to do

“The Wall” is quite meaningful beyond its personal story. I get the feeling most people don’t get it.

In the same vein I like this song from Supertramp:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5k3JVfxluFU

RE: Supertramp. I noticed they don’t play those kinds of songs on the radio anymore. At least not here they don’t.
Not even on the oldies station.
None of the songs that are similar to that one get played.
You know, songs that get you to thinking.

More importantly, none of the just released songs I hear on the radio have even half a thought attached to them.

There are those who say there’s some kind of Travistock programming gong on, that the trends and pop culture have been manipulated and directed, especially since the 1960’s and the counter culture movement.

…They make sense now.

Might be a radio market thing. They are still played in the Chicago Market. But then again there are a ton of stations here and only so much music to play to cover 24hrs a day on all of them.

Dear Eight, Brent,

Quite right.

The establishment intellectuals fixated on this one. Ironically, as fate would have it, this case did not fit their script. Zimmerman turned out to be another “person of color.”

Instead of admitting they were wrong however, they reverse-engineered the facts to fit their script. They invented a term that I for one never encountered before. “White Hispanic.”

Nathaniel Branden once spoke about integrity. He cited a hypothetical case of a geologist standing atop a mountain ridge, who has just discovered a rock out of place which totally discredits his theory about geology.

He now faces a choice. If he gives the rock a kick, shifting it to the other side of the ridge, fame and fortune. If he remains true to science and accurately records its current position, continued obscurity and destitution. What does he do?

Contemporary American intellectuals made their choice long ago. They long ago gave their respective metaphorical rocks a kick, revealing their character, and sealing their fate.

Re: Is there racism among the Amerikan nomenklatura?

Ironically, there is. Racism is rampant among the Demopublican establishment, on both the liberal left and the conservative right.

As an ethnic Chinese interested in US-China strategic relations and mainstream entertainment media depictions of Chinese and other Asians, I see it all the time.

As a principled libertarian, any private sector racism I encounter is met with condemnation and rebuttals, but never calls for legal action.

All manner of “Yellow Peril” China Threat theories posit the Chinese mainland as today’s Boogeyman. A thinly-veiled example involving both public and private sector racism, was the recent SF blockbuster “Battleship,” which justified a US-Japan strategic alliance against a “menacing alien threat.”

In the film the “menacing alien threat” was from outer space. In reality, the military exercise depicted, RIMPAC, is directed against a much closer alleged “threat,” the Chinese mainland.

Need I point out, all this is happening under Racist in Chief Barry Obomber?

The reason needs to be explained to the person you are following otherwise it is a violent act.

I think David has a good point.

Calling the police has all of its own risks and problems. And then there is the abuses that can result. This insane tattle-tale like society they are trying to build for one. However, from a practical standpoint we are kind of stuck with calling cops at present. Provided we don’t want to spend our life savings on lawyers.

I think things have to swing a bit back our way conceptually and in society in general before it is more workable to not call the cops.

David, I don’t go for that. Having been a trucker for many years I have walked many places I would have driven in a car. I can think of a couple times when someone followed me and I was slightly paranoid but realized they might be too. I’m not exactly your 98 lb. weakling and if I had in mind nefarious dealings they’d have had a right to be paranoid of me. I had one guy follow me several hundred feet and only stop after we’d turned a corner and he saw I was approaching my rig. Once he stopped, I turned and waved and he did too. No words were spoken and they didn’t need to be at that point. He went back and I got in my truck and never the twain shall meet so to speak. I once got stopped by a highway patrol I knew. He got out, said Brent, I said Albert. I asked if I was speeding and he said No. He continued I got a call of a suspicious vehicle. I looked at the old truck I was driving, a C-60 Chevy with a 409 and not much for mufflers. He said It don’t look too suspicious to me. Naturally I agreed. He asked me what state it was registered in and I didn’t know. We both looked around and finally found a NM tag. I know he was at the house and had to drive 50 miles to check it out. We both just sorta shrugged and went our separate way. So what looked suspicious? Who knows? Someone called in because they were stupid and just wanted to create some excitement I suppose. The trouble was we were in the middle of nowhere at the time. I didn’t have to ask where the call came from, I knew it was some old biddy, probably working at the convenience store in the town I’d just passed through. Clovers, making life shitty for everyone.

Right on Eight. I had to park my bike up the hill from where I was living (on the river) when we had some minor flooding. I was going home with my wife after the water had receded and stopped to pick up my bike at my grandmother’s house. It was less than a mile to my place and I didn’t have a helmet. Before I could make it halfway there a friend of mine, who also happened to be a deputy, chased me down and stopped me. He told me he’d received a complaint that I wasn’t wearing a helmet. I explained the situation but he countered that it made it look that much worse, because we were friends, if he didn’t cite me. In the end he made me walk home and get my helmet rather than write me. One of the reasons he did this though, was because I demanded to know who dropped a dime on me. Freaking Clovers. You gotta love em.

David Pederson – I agree with you in principle. But as BrentP pointed out, in practice the situation is a little different. George Zimmerman lived in a troubled neighborhood. He was trying to take his neighborhood back because the cops couldn’t do it. Li’l Trayvon could have aturned around when he realized he being followed and said “Good evening. Can I help you with something?” At which point Mr. Zimmerman would have probably responded something like “Hi. I with the neighborhood watch team and I am curious in what you were doing out here tonight. ” At which Martin could have responded “I’m minding my own business and I suggest you do the same.” Instead he double back on the “crazy ass cracka” and went MMA on him. At which point Mr. Zimmerman did what any sane person would do; he defended himself. If some of Trayvon’s “peers” hadn’t set the stage for members of that community to be automatically suspicious of anyone fitting the profile of a criminal, then Tryavon might still be with us today.

Jean I agree 110% with your entire comment. Feminism is Marxism and is not about equality. An easy example, in addition to the points we’ve already made, is that they aren’t lobbying to be forced to sign up for the selective service. Why aren’t they…?
It is IN FACT about GRRL power, avoiding personal responsibility, and making men as miserable as they can.
Men are starting to learn the game though, and aren’t getting married anymore, cutting off the feminist lifeline. Soon a bachelor tax will be purposed. Luckily it’s already be marked discriminatory/unconstitutional in Montana.
I follow a couple of pages on FB that touch on these issues.

Jean, eric, Brandonjin, I remember all too well a world where “feminism” wasn’t a word, where nobody had heard the term. It was a good world too. On my old album with Jimmy Rodgers and the Carter Family, Pa Carter says to Jimmy, “Well Jimmy, I guess you must like Texas”. Jimmy replies, “Boy oh boy do I ever. In Texas the men are men and the women are proud of it.” I’m guessing that wouldn’t tickle the audience these days as it did back then.

I think certain states have laws that limit how close someone can get to you when they could be further away. Certainly we’d all find a point of approximation we’d be very uncomfortable with on anything other than the fleeting moment. I believe if you can’t move or can’t get the other person to stop keeping a too close distance you have the right to remove them to a distance you find acceptable. If someone is in front of me impeding my ability to walk or see where I’m going then they have crossed that line. Georgia has a law that pertains to someone talking trash to you and gives you the right to touch them up. I’m blanking on what it’s officially called though.

Ditto Liberranter good to hear we are on the same wavelength on most everything. And Eric I’ll say it again this was an excellent article, one of the very best of yours. In your own words it is “top drawer”.

HR

Black slavery – like drunk driving – has become an industry. A for-profit, for-power industry.

The sphincters making millions off their demagoguery – off the human misery they are perpetuating – ought to provide a clue to the cement heads who continue to buy into their pabulum.

But, no.

“I’d like to see crime statistics and ferret out every minor black male that’s killed every day. You know it’s a significant number and as other statistics will show, the percentage of blacks killing blacks is in the 90 percentile range.”

Sometimes, an infographic is worth a thousand words:

http://gunlaws.com/GunshotDemographics.htm

Henry, many thanks. A picture is worth a thousand words.

I believe the current evil cabal in the WH made this happen. Best I can tell, La Raza got something like $50M and NAACP got even more. Why? It helps divide races and keeps the public from focusing on all the really bad stuff the govt. is doing. My wife works with 8-10 other women every day. Everything the feds do goes unnoticed by them but they all know about this case…and only what the MSM feeds them. I’ve decided to go back to basics since NAACP calls themselves “colored” people. Why would I want to be out of step? Ok, colored people it is. If they have a problem with that, they can take it up with NAACP. Curiosity does make me ask one question though, what color? I used to know some Mandingo’s and they were purple. High yaller? I have an idea. Why not refer to other people as man or woman, boy or girl? Naw, that doesn’t work for them(govt). Let’s stick everyone in a box of some sort, you know, so we can perpetuate stereotypes, create devisiveness, just generally keep race and ethnicity in the fore where it can do the most damage.

“But he had no right to respond by attacking Zimmerman. That’s the bottom line, isn’t it?”

Nobody has the right to attack, I think “Not justifying first violence” should have made that clear.

Bottom line (to me) is, neither of us know what happened or what led to the violence and who initiated. We have statements, recordings and a judgement, not a time machine to go back and see what actually happened.

That is the bottom line to me.

I get the feeling that you think I am arguing against the likelihood of your statements being correct. I am not.

All I am saying is that whatever the evidence, we as outside observers who were not there at the scene, we do not absolutely know what happened.

What I would do is irrelevant. Please don’t try to strawman me.

“But I am vigorously defending Zimmerman based on the known facts – vs. the pure conjecture without any factual basis that Zimmerman was motivated by race hatred, had no reason to be suspicious of Martin, provoked the assault by following him – and so on. ”

I have claimed none of the “vs.” you list so I have no idea why you would respond to me with them.

Of course Jenteal, the idiot star witness, basically lets the homophobic cat out of the bag after the trial. Boy did that one get swept under the rug ever so quickly!

Let us not forget Innocent until proven guilty, not that it technically applies anymore, but in Libertarian principal it should. The evidence very clearly leans towards Zimmerman being the victim, he was beaten and Trayvon was not.

We may never know what really happened that night. Maybe Zimmerman threw the first punch and simply wasn’t successful, maybe he threatened to shoot Trayvon, and being unarmed, Trayvon felt the need to strike out preemptively (I would understand such an action, even though I would not agree with it). In any case, there is more than reasonable doubt about his guilt, which means he should not, cannot, be convicted.

I would rather see someone I know is guilty walk free than see someone I know is innocent punished; and in this case, we do not know that Zimmerman is guilty.

“There’s no excuse for responding with violence to non-violence. ”

You sure you want to stand by that? I sure wouldn’t.

The same sort of thing-“following”- happens all the time-to women.

If Trayvon had been a 17 year old girl, would she need to wait? Of course not. No one would be defending Zimmerman. He’d be in prison.

Standards shouldn’t change based on race or gender. A threat is a threat. Zimmerman, rather than having the balls to start a simple conversation, prowled around like a criminal-even after the guy ran…and never told Martin who the hell he was…there is no justification for that.

By the way: where, exactly, in the hell were the brave boys in blue in all of this? Quite some time went by from the first call where they knew there was a dicey situation going down…with one man running from another…two for one night at Dunken Donuts?

Dear Eric,

Pretty much bulletproof analysis of the Zimmerman trial, or should I say, Star Chamber. Thank god for trial by jury.

I stumbled across this article by William Anderson that you might find relevant.

An excerpt:

One black neighbor of George Zimmerman said the neighborhood’s recent history should be taken into account.

Understand that this information was easily available to any journalist who was interested in finding out some fact, but in retrospect, most mainstream journalists and pundits had no interest in going outside of their narrow narratives of race.

From:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/07/william-l-anderson/the-sorry-politics-of-race/

Ironic. There have indeed been cases of killers of one race or another getting off scot-free by virtue of the race card. Often they are white, for example, Klan members in the deep South. Sometimes they are black, for example, OJ Simpson.

Zimmerman however, was not one of them. Zimmerman, according to the “one drop rule,” was black on his mother’s side. He tutored black kids. He was not a “White Hispanic,” whatever the hell that is.

He was not an authoritarian law and order conservative. He was a liberal. He was a Democrat. He voted for Obama.

Lot of good that did him. Good ‘ole Barry, “leader of the free world,” returned the favor by openly demonizing Zimmerman, flagrantly prejudicing the legal process by taking sides against an ordinary civilian in an ongoing court case.

Bevin, just let me say this about that. Seriously though, I want to address the White Hispanic moniker the press so duplicitously, and I mean it in it’s very definition, dishonest, double-dealing spoke of GZ. I sorta hate to admit this but I worked the census one year and this is where it originates. There are questions about your ethnicity(Hispanic, Caucasian, etc.)and then questions of how you view your color(white, black). Every Hispanic I interviewed, and that was mostly the people who didn’t send their returns back, really didn’t know how to answer the question and simply settle on “white”. If they’d had black in their background I would have assumed they knew that and would have said so. I also worked for the USDA and had the same questions on those questionnaires with the same results. Caucasians also answered to being “white”. I had never really thought about this until I was presented with these options. I’m sure GZ lists himself as “Hispanic” on one question and “white” on the other. The liberal media with a nefarious agenda drug this up and made it sound like something it wasn’t. They could have pointed out that virtually every Hispanic was listed as “white” but they chose to dredge the bottom of the duplicity barrel in an attempt to confuse the issue. They were desperate to paint him as “white” even though he most likely lists himself as Hispanic. I hope this sheds a bit of light on that subject. White man murders Black boy. Now, doesn’t that sound more ominous? Let’s play word association. CNN, George Zimmerman. Corey, long pause…….murderer. See, nice, you have the answer they want. BTW, I hope she’s crucified for saying that since it was not only immoral, unprofessional and illegal.

They could have pointed out that virtually every Hispanic was listed as “white” but they chose to dredge the bottom of the duplicity barrel in an attempt to confuse the issue. They were desperate to paint him as “white” even though he most likely lists himself as Hispanic.

That was my inference too.

Other actions reinforce this suspicion.

For example, the MSM’s deliberate censoring of the 9/11 call, in which Zimmerman said “He looks black” only after being specifically asked the suspicious person’s race.

For example, the deliberate misreading of “fucking cold” as “fucking coon.”

They had their race-based Procrustean Bed, and were determined to fit Zimmerman into it no matter what.

Sorry! Forgot to address it.

That was addressed to Eightsouthman.

FYI my trip through the Mexico mountains a few years back:

http://www.jeepscanada.com/jeep-mailing-list-32/cj-mexico-trip-long-42250/

Michael, I believe people are inherently good and used to be surprised when they proved me wrong. Now….not so much but you get that way when you’re old and been screwed around so many times you can’t remember them all. I spent some time in Mexico in the jungle mountains back in ’04 and had a really good time. We stopped beside a lake there way up in the mountains and observed a large(60 acres)field of pot with another sized field beside it that had been harvested. I went there to negotiate a deal for producing malanga, a sweet tater of sorts. I had no idea I’d be meeting the equivalent of a regional DEA head. I wasn’t too hot on doing business with these guys. I say “these guys” since the guy never went anywhere without his entourage of hired killers. I got sorta antsy up on the side of a mountain one night sorting out the specifics. I just didn’t flinch and that seemed to be good enough. George Bush and Vicente Fox were on tv live and then they switched to this guy I did business with, with him on the side of a mountain with probably 50 black clad hooded “narcos” and they were burning green pot plants. They didn’t say how many acres they didn’t burn they harvested. It’s just business and everybody gets a cut. When I left Mexico I didn’t look back. I wanted nothing to do with guys like that. He leaned on my friends there and got pissed. I offered to meet them at the border and bring them to Tex. They said they could handle it so that was fine with me. I would never have met with him if I’d known his real business. I sure do miss their horchata there though. Mexico was really fine back then and I enjoyed everybody I met except that guy. And oh the girls, my goodness.

Only problem I had in Mexico was with various government officials or employees, but even then it wasn’t too bad. Most folks were either friendly or indifferent. The worst I ran into in non-government folks were ripoff artists, e.g. guys selling stickers to drive into Guatemala (even thought none is needed), etc… And of course always getting charged the American premium, even after haggling.

Never really had any encounters with any higher up like you. But then again, I never went there on business.

Have to agree on the girls. Got married last year so I don’t go there any more…

I dunno – but agree it would be interesting!

Maybe some insider will leak a trial transcript.

Hopefully they won’t end up like Edward Snowden, seeking refuge from political persecution in China or Russia.

As a boomer who grew up during the Cold War, the fact that Americans are now fleeing government persecution in former “Iron Curtain” and “Bamboo Curtain” countries still blows my mind.

How far the might have fallen.

I whole-heartedly agree with you – and this article, which was very well written. However, Cops DO NOT “enforce law”, they enforce “statute & code”. Sheriffs “enforce law”. There is a difference.

Zimmerman was acting under auspices of the Sanford police force, thats why he called them, they told him not do anything. No way is he some sort of libertarian peace officer as he would make it his job to know who was resident in a gated community.
Zimmerman was up on a murder charge and there being no other witnesses well, he would say that wouldn’t he?

yes however that 911 response was most rational thinking of anyone, stay put and wait for backup but George wanted to bust somebody for crimes done on his watch. Martin, already suffering from a frail ego bolstered only by other kids starting careers with frequent run ins with law and gangster rap, got horrible advice from the girlfriend (I’m guessing here )to beat the crazed sex fiend high on bath salts. (Did she ever take the stand at all?). That was the key moment nobody know what the engagement was as there is no independent witnesses and Zimmerman would put himself on the side of the angels.
Then it got worse from there because everything is political these days, a huge political flap between power blocks of the regime, Internal security wing of the State and a major voting block of the party that holds the imperial throne. That’s the impression i got, others may got something else out of it.

“got horrible advice from the girlfriend… Did she ever take the stand at all?”

Geez, did YOU miss the comedy act of the month, you “crazy-ass cracker”. 🙂

What has irritated me endlessly has been this notion by the bobble-headed public that “only a cop” has any right or authority, or the ludicrous notion that you have to be “trained and licensed” to patrol your own neighborhood! I’ve heard this from quite a number of idiots including spokemen from prominent Christian radio ministries who pander to this undying curse of police. The absurdity of it all is enough to make me wretch.

Overall I’m 98% there with Eric on Zimmerman. Its is true he was there to follow and discourage theives and thugs on private property. Maybe I’d be 100% there with Eric if I had to live in Florida which in my opinion is a chigger-roach hot humid criminal hell hole. Yeah I’ve visited the place and I’d like to know why anyone in their right mind would live there? A few palm trees for malaria and crime haven, no thanks. High crime rate would piss me off to patrol my neigborhood too.

My reservation, maybe people should be individuals and patrol their own property line and maybe their next door neighbors with their permission only upon knowing them very well and who belongs there and who doesn’t Keep it a gentleman agreement between close adjacent neigbors of good will looking after each other is neighborly love. When you are patrolling 10 houses down then it gets kind of hard to know who should be on someone elses property and who has permission to be there. If Zimmerman was given some elected status like a un cool homo-owners association pinkerton cop then I’m not so sure that it could be agreed that he had a right to be following anyone on other people’s property lot line. Personally I hate gated communities because it is so much like a political company town. Communist zero lot lines and HOA, know that the president of the HOA and his accomplice the neighborhood act in sheriff will extract your dues to use against you as a regular citizen. How many neighbors didn’t want Zimmerman on their lot harassing their visitors, but were forced by the local HOA to have a nosey busy body following them anyway?

Being an individualist that hates to join group think, I’d be the first to mind my own business. Then when hooded Travyon was on my own property I’d have no problem telling him to get the hell off or shooting a thug not considerate of my rights or property if he represented a real threat and danger.

Neighborhood watches and hired pinkerton agents are too much group think and group protection for me to get all excited in discriminating against say the bigger version. And from personal experience the neigborhood watch people are a bit punchy for a fight just like the real cops. I’m not lying when I bring to mind a neighborhood weirdo just glaring down a passerby for no reason. I say mind your own business until its your business and someone is clearly doing something he shouldn’t. What ever happened to common sense neigbors that looked for someone carrying a crow bar up to a neigbors house and then taking action? Why all the fake badges and HOA neigborhood patrol cars with red (instead of blue) lights? Who pays for this kind of nonesense?

Although I still agree that Travyon deserved what he got when physically attacking Zimmerman. Even if Zimmerman was being a twit when Travyon physically initiated violence (assuming the court is correct) then Zimmerman had a right to use physical force to defend himself. Most probably that Travyon was Saint Skittles (lol).

Hot Rod, your comment, “maybe people should be individuals and patrol their own property line and maybe their next door neighbors with their permission only upon knowing them very well ” reminded me of The Guardian Angels:

… “You see, Steel and his friends aren’t government police: They’re members of the Guardian Angels, an organization of unarmed citizens who act as a self-appointed police auxiliary.” …

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/theres-something-about-a-bully-in-uniform/

Downshift, Hot Rod, Bevin, I grew up having to RUNNOFT people trespassing on my and others land. I won’t compare the people here though with anything going in other places today. I was speaking on the phone one day with my dad about 20 years ago when I saw a black guy on a bicycle coming down my driveway, a big holster strapped on the bike. I told my dad what I’d seen and I’d call him back. The guy drove up to the house and I opened the door(again). He didn’t know it but I had my side by side in my right hand. I spoke with him and he was very nice. He said he was just going around warning people of the bear problem. Ok, I’ll bite. He explains that due to recent installations of prisons in our area(sad day) and their policy of turning out populations of bears, the bears were becoming a big problem for country folk such as myself. Hell, a bear couldn’t bear the other wild critters in this country, hogs would eat it. I spoke with the guy for a few minutes and he left. The holster had a panoply of items in it, no gun. I later related this story to a friend who lives in a town about 20 miles away with a significant, and problematic black population. He knew the guy, Sloan, and told me he’d been beaten literally silly by his black brethren there in town and was no threat. The friend had a shop in town and I was there one day when Sloan rode up and wanted an inspection sticker for his bike. The friend made him one out, real official looking, didn’t charge him, said they were free to bike owners, and the guy left happy as a pig in a waller. It was really sad….and telling. The guy had been ok before the beating and now he was on the govt. dole with the rest of them. This is a common thing in west Texas, small towns have a large population of almost exclusively black although growing Hispanic population that accounts for 98% of the crime, esp. in the last 20 years or so with the growing illegal alien problem. It’s easy to see why it exists since rarely do any of these people have jobs or cars so they’re supporting the local grocery store with food stamps, Lone Star card. What I find amazing is they have tv and every other convenience yet they continue to live as if they have no future, basically live like slaves of their own making. Rarely do you see one of these people who have actually paid any attention in school and learned to do anything. I have no idea what the solution is but keeping these enclaves in govt. housing is not helping, just hurting as far as I can see. They DO go to school till 16 anyway and are exposed to the rest of the world but fail to ever move from the part of town they grew up in. Something basic must change here but I have no idea what. As an aside, since we all know Sloan now, I asked my friend(deceased now)a few years after I was at his business and he made Sloan a sticker if he ever saw him. He said Sloan had become the final victim, probably of the same bunch who made him simple the first time. Well, scratch one nice(simple) fellow off and add another entire batch of ne’er do wells. I lament public schools but know these people wouldn’t have a lick of education or half a chance without them. A sure sign we’ve devolved to the lowest common denominator.

And that’s what’s scary, they live in a fantasy world, all alone, on a throne of self love.

The mistake a lot of people make when dealing with thugs is showing restraint. I spent a lot of time running in circles with less then quality people in my life and one thing I learned about most thugs (not all) is if you stand your ground and show no sign of doubt they will normally back down. Like a dog thugs can smell fear and if you hint to being unsettled just slightly they pounce.

The objective, when dealing with thugs, is to approach them like you are some crazy jackass who is one insult from going on a murder spree.

Keep in mind this is coming from a 32 year old white guy who lives in a nice area and works on computers (Programmer) all day.

eric, it’s not a matter of respect so much as a matter of “am I badder than the other guy?”. I’ve dealt with plenty of this sort. It’s a pissing contest to some extent but you have to be dead serious and convey it to them. I don’t care if anyone does drugs, sells them, gives them away, or anything else but if they’re going to be aggressing against someone, possibly me, then I take the pro-active stance. It can get dicey but there are no sure things in life. It’s best to be determined, be armed and a good shot. People understand that and if they don’t, they get killed. You can’t ID people like this and determine if they’re minors or miners so you treat them all the same. TM made the mistake of assaulting an armed guy who was protecting his turf. Sometimes two people can’t occupy the same turf and this is what you get. I have no illusions GZ was anything other than a wanna be cop. TM should have taken the precaution of being well-armed himself in the bidness he was in or being pliable to getting run off. He was stupid. The gene pool is a tiny bit better now. If they’d killed each other, it would have been twice as good. I have no sympathy for cops or those who want to be one. They know what they’re doing…..or should. The truth is, TM was on his path and nothing was going to deter him short of a very traumatic event. Unfortunately for him, it was THE traumatic event. Que sera, sera…

Dear Eric,

… if you go back and watch interviews with black people done prior to the “civil rights” movement… they spoke coherent, grammatically correct English. Today, this is looked upon… as “acting white,” not being “authentic.” What is “authentic” … is acting like an illiterate street criminal.

Right. As a boomer, I recall that very clearly, first hand.

Re: David Simon of “The Wire”

I stumbled across this reader rebuttal to Simon’s comments at Enterainment Weekly. I thought it was pretty good.

“Zimmerman was business partners with a black man.
Zimmerman stood up to the Sanford police department on their handling of a homeless black man.
Zimmerman tutored two orphaned black kids.
Zimmerman gave his black neighbors a key to his house when they experienced a home invasion.
Zimmerman took a black girl to his prom.
Drop the racist BS, it’s really starting to fall on deaf ears. ”

Bevin

eric, I certainly hope he also sues Corey. What she did outside the courtroom was unforgivable. I could never give her a bye on that. She surely knew the liability she opened up for herself but thought she’d be above it all. Stupid is as stupid does. But in this case, I fear stupidity had little to do with it. She was counting on people in high places(BO, Holder)to insulate her from the remarks she made. I don’t really see how they can keep her safe now since the (hopefully)suit would take place in a state court.

But, Clover –

When I drive that slow you know it’s hard to steer… and I can’t get my car out of second gear!

What used to take two hours now takes all day…. took me 15 hours to get to LA!

Clover, “Tell me if checks for DUI saves lives and property damage why would you not do it(?)”

If random unwarranted house searches for unsafe conditions or illegal things can save lives and property damage (fires etc) then why do you not want to also do those too?

Safety, the Clovers’ God.

skunkbear I did not say to search your house! Your house is not public property. I do not have to walk through your house to get to the grocery store. I do have to use public property and roads to get to the grocery store and to work. I am entitled to some kind of safety according to what was set up by our founding fathers. Am I not entitled to some kind of minimum safety in public areas? Are dangerous people supposed to have freedom of endangering others in public areas?

I recently read of a person that went to Germany and when he was riding down the road with his friends they called the police number to inform them of a dangerous driver on the Autobahn. Are we in the US not entitled to such safety?

Your search of a house example is not even close to our highways. I know, that is the libertarian excuse but it is a poor example!

Eric I could care less if it took you 15 hours to get to LA. 100 years ago it probably took weeks. You can always fly. Buy your own plane if speed is so important to you. If you are on our public roadways you follow public laws.

Clover, your house needs to be inspected for unsafe natural gas connections. What if there was a leak and your house exploded? What then? There are countless safety issues in your home that could endanger your neighbors or people passing by.

And damn you’re dense…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvV3nn_de2k

BrentP wrote, “Clover,… And damn you’re dense…”

Ha. So funny, and so true.
She’s one of those Social machines.
An android.
We’re surrounded by them.
I could drive an older car better than they could drive a newer car, but they would still freak out about the dangers from crossing the road. … Never mind the dangers from geoengineering. They think we’ve got to focus on the little people, that’s the real danger, as if tyranny was a lessor threat, and people lived forever.
Clovers and the Trayvon protesters make me want to puke, they both miss the big picture and make themselves out to be puppets just like el presidentea.
That, and Clover is a good troll, misdirecting the flow of the thread. Bonus for that troll? Slavery for the masses that don’t pick up on how things are.

Very good video Brent. It shows how you and Dom and Eric feel that you have the right to pass in a no passing zone and force other drivers off the road and possibly into a power pole or tree. A true libertarian video. Do whatever you feel like and make others accept the added risk.

Clover,

You are denser than a cubic cm of material from a neutron star.

Very good video Brent. It shows how you and Dom and Eric feel that you have the right to pass in a no passing zone and force other drivers off the road and possibly into a power pole or tree. A true libertarian video. Do whatever you feel like and make others accept the added risk.