Thoughts From a Libertarian Perspective About Saint Trayvon

Print Friendly

The one-sided racialism and non-thought I hear endlessly about Saint Trayvon is literally boggling.Trayvon

We’re supposed to accept that Zimmerman was a hater of blacks despite all the evidence to the contrary *  – meanwhile, Saint Trayvon (and his acolytes) can openly refer to non-blacks as “crackers” – on live TV! – and receive polite attention from the likes of Piers Morgan, et al.

We’re supposed to be “concerned” that Zimmerman would “profile” a young black guy dressed in a hoodie wandering through his neighborhood… even though the odds of any given young black guy dressed in a hoodie (and so on) actually being a criminal are very high given that this demographic is disproportionately involved in criminal activity relative to its numbers. In other words, it is not “racist” (mindless, irrational prejudice) to be more suspicious of a young black male who looks and acts a certain way. Trayvon 7

It is rational – and reasonable.

Just as it is rational and reasonable (i.e., to make inferences based on evidence) when one “profiles” two well-scrubbed young white guys in white dress shirts and black slacks riding their bicycles up your driveway. It’s a good bet they’re Mormon missionaries.

There is no malignant intent involved in such (or similar) evaluations. Certainly no harm done (hurt feelings don’t count). No aggression has been committed – and so, no one’s rights have been violated.

Yes, it is unfortunate that decent young black men are caught up in this, but that fact in no way impugns the legitimate fear based on actual facts that people have of young black men – especially when they fit the profile. And Saint Trayvon – not the cute kid in the dated photo endlessly recycled by a viciously dishonest news media, but Saint Trayvon as he actually appeared that night – fit the profile. Thug clothes. Thug gold teeth and tats. But most of all, thug attitude and responses. He physically assaulted Zimmerman – probably because he felt “disrespected” (odious ghetto malaprop). This is what led to the tragedy. Not Zimmerman’s entirely reasonable “profiling” of Saint Trayvon.Trayvon 2 That entailed no violence – a critical point. Zimmerman was simply checking out a person he had reason to believe might be up to no good.

Saint Trayvon may have found this insulting. I sympathize with that. He certainly had every right to ask Zimmerman why he was following him. Even to curse him. Ideally, he should have just walked away. But until Zimmerman laid hands on him – and there is no evidence that happened – Saint Trayvon had no right to do anything more. Because no one has the right to initiate physical violence against another person.

Yet his defenders (for example, the creator of The Wire; see here) believe, apparently, that it is an acceptable thing for a “disrespected” young black to physically lash out – to beat a man who has not attacked him to a bloody pulp – and that it is not acceptable for the object of this abuse to physically defend himself.

This is quite something. All benefit of the doubt is given the attacker – Saint Trayvon. All doubt is cast on his victim, Zimmerman.Trayvon 3

Zimmerman is supposed to have accepted his earned (as Saint Trayvon’s defenders see it) beat-down for even thinking that a young black man wandering through the neighborhood might be up to something and looking into it . . . and meanwhile, Zimmerman is not entitled to assume the worst about the unknown man assaulting him (as if, in mid-scuffle, Zimmerman could possibly discern the difference between 17-year-old but athletic and 6ft 3 Saint Trayvon on his chest, pounding his face in, and an 18-year-old doing the pounding in). That his life could not possibly be in danger from the unknown, but gold-toothed, thug-dressed and (obviously) thug-acting 6ft 3 young man bashing his head into the concrete… that his unknown assailant would never kill him… never find his gun and use it to shoot him… oh no.Trayvon 4 To even think such thoughts is – cue cards up – racist.

Lying there on the ground, with a physically superior man on top of him and wailing away, Zimmerman – as Saint Trayon’s defenders view things – had no cause (much less right) to resort to using that gun to defend himself. He was the aggressor. For daring to think that a young black man wandering through the neighborhood might possibly be up to no good – because it is thought-crime to allow the datum that young black men are disproportionately involved in criminal acts to enter into any judgment, even something as harmless as heightened suspicion. That was – and is – Zimmerman’s crime most of all – in the view of post-racial racists. Unfortunate – and yes, ugly – facts (but facts nonetheless) must be suppressed. We are all supposed to pretend that  – kumbaya – young black men who dress and act a certain way are no more worthy of suspicion or fear than old white ladies pruning petunias.

It is a farce – and one that’s rapidly growing stale. Trayvon 8

Saint Trayvon is dead not because George Zimmerman was an itchy-triggered racist but because Saint Trayvon was a belligerent thug with a hair-trigger temper and flying fists. Kids on a Skittles run don’t cold-cock adults who’ve done them no physical harm – much less bash their heads into the concrete.

That’s what thugs do.

People aren’t out to get blacks. They’re just getting sick of black thugs and their enablers and apologists. Tired of the idiot demagoguery of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, who feed off human misery – and human ignorance – like maggots off a corpse.

Enough already.

Throw it in the Woods?

* Zimmerman mentored young blacks; he also publicly protested what he considered to be the maltreatment of a black man at the hands of the police. There is not only no evidence that Zimmerman bore race-hatred toward blacks, there is much evidence to the contrary. The vile Al Sharpton – a person who should have been excommunicated from civil society 20 years ago – knew all this before he began his vicious campaign of race-baiting against Zimmerman.

* Zimmerman was a mentor to young black kids; he led a protest against the police after a homeless black man was the object of excessive use of force by police.

Share Button

  304 comments for “Thoughts From a Libertarian Perspective About Saint Trayvon

  1. Eightsouthman
    July 17, 2013 at 11:30 am

    eric, that covers it pretty well. I just want to point out once more than getting beaten doesn’t always mean you’ll survive. “A bloody pulp” can be a bloody mess of your entire life afterwards. I don’t say I’ve been beaten to a blood pulp but I have been beaten blind and I don’t recommend it. I luckily regained my vision but it didn’t have to be that way. BTW, I’m one of those people who have an iron jaw so to speak. I didn’t ask for it or prepare myself that way, just mother nature doing her thing. I was conscious for the rest of the beating. It won’t happen again if I have my way and that includes any weapon I can lay my hands on at the time including gouging your eyes out. So many ways to die……Guns Up Raiders!

    • Ernie Hopkins
      July 18, 2013 at 4:37 pm

      GREAT PIECE Eric!!! Normally there is a lot to be gleaned from the commentary in a positive manner from your posts as well. In this case I am astounded at the volume of response trying to paint Zimmerman on par with Trayvon regarding violence and somehow at fault. The cries of “we don’t know what really happened” with all the evidence presented is bullshit at its least. I have been profiled more than a few times and like you have understood the process and done my best to put concerned parties at ease. “Why agitate a potential situation?” has always been my feeling. I am not 6’3″ and had my share of fights. I know where it can lead, so why provoke it? Neighborhood watch is a non violent method to help protect ones private property. Most thugs try to avoid witnesses to incidents of robbery. Nosy neighbors walking around are a detriment to them. If I enter a neighborhood where I do not know the people I should expect them to be suspicious. That is good measure on their part, not something for me to be offended about. If I am dressed like a gangsta wanna be and talking about beating creepy cracker asses, the neighbors have very real genuine concern at my being there. NAP is about initiation of physical force, not “offending” one by following or being concerned at a presence. There are a lot of people I do not like and are offended by their behavior. That is not an attack on me and does not warrant my physically assaulting them. If I am that stupid, then they have every right to use whatever force, to include deadly to stop me. Keep up the good work!

      • July 18, 2013 at 5:10 pm

        Thanks, Ernie –

        Personal story:

        Circa early 90s, when I was a young (mid 20s) journalist and just starting to get new cars to review, Mercedes gave me a new SL roadster to test-drive. Bright red, with the AMG “drug lord” body kit. Straight out of Miami Vice – and $100k on the window sticker.

        Well, I drove down to Richmond to visit friends/party for the weekend. Sunday morning, I got in the car and headed back home in I-95. I was running 90 when I passed a Trooper in a cut-out. He of course came after me. Now, here I am: 24 years old, scraggy hair, two days of stubble – driving 90 MPH in a red six figure Benz.

        I am no fan of cops, as anyone who reads my stuff knows. But I understood why the cop approached me with his gun unholstered – why he commanded me to “freeze.” I kept calm, had both hands on the top of the wheel – and explained that the car belonged to Mercedes, that I was a journalist, that I had paperwork authorizing me to drive the car… which released the tension and within minutes we were bullshitting about the car. He didn’t even give me a ticket.

        Point being, he rationally perceived me as potentially dangerous – possible grand theft auto, etc. – since it’s not normal to see a young scraggly guy driving a $100k convertible Mercedes. Had I chimped out on him, it would have been my fault for confirming his rational “profiling” of me.

    • clover
      July 19, 2013 at 2:48 am

      I do have to laugh at the commentary. Eric said “People aren’t out to get blacks. They’re just getting sick of black thugs and their enablers and apologists.”Clover

      Maybe it should read “Police are not out to get drivers. They’re just getting sick of drunks, road rage drivers and drivers that endanger others and their enablers who say it is fine to kill people and beat up on others including the police”.

      Sounds like the same thing to me.

      • joeallen
        July 19, 2013 at 8:47 am

        Yes clover, every time a white man defends himself against a black man, the naacp get hot under the collar. When a black attacks a whiteman, that is ok by the naacp. Did you know in 2011, for every crime committed by a white man against black, there were 20 crimes committed by blacks against white men. I saw this fact in an Australian newspaper by a writer who was writing on crime in America. He got his info from the FBI who keep very good crime stats by way of Freedom of Information Act. There is definitely a black crime problem, but until everyone, including blacks, acknowledge this, no action can be taken to correct the problem. Meanwhile other groups are leaving blacks behind, specifically the Asians. But until clovers admit there is a problem, no steps can be taken to alleviate the problem.

        The greater problem on American roads is the illegal immigrants, who in 2011 accounted for 25% of the traffic fatalities, far more than the 10% of fatalities caused by drunk drivers.

        The dictators are safetying us to death. Even the russian military couldn’t compete with safety bureaucrats and their ilk.

        • clover
          July 19, 2013 at 11:41 am

          Cloverjoeallen wrong. The problem on our roads is not only illegal immigrants. Have you seen Brent driving? Have you seen Eric driving? Have you seen Dom driving? Their type of driving is right up there with any illegal immigrant causing others harm. Your illegal immigrant stats which I do not know if you are even close on but the fact is many of their fatalities are due to older less safe vehicles and DUI which would have a higher probability of killing themselves which adds to your statistics against them! Clover

          Tell me if checks for DUI saves lives and property damage why would you not do it because you say that other drivers cause deaths also? Tell me the logic in that? Would you allow check points for checking DUI and illegal immigrants?

          • July 19, 2013 at 12:28 pm

            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!

          • skunkbear
            July 19, 2013 at 12:36 pm

            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.

          • clover
            July 19, 2013 at 9:28 pm

            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? Clover

            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? Clover

            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!CloverCloverClover

          • clover
            July 19, 2013 at 9:32 pm

            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

          • BrentP
            July 20, 2013 at 2:51 am

            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

          • DownshiftFast5to1
            July 20, 2013 at 5:38 am

            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.

          • clover
            July 20, 2013 at 1:16 pm

            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.

          • Mithrandir
            July 20, 2013 at 2:49 pm

            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.

      • July 19, 2013 at 9:47 am

        Clover, squeeze real hard now…

        Trayvon – himself – acted suspiciously and fit a profile. He was not singled out at random – for no specific reason at all, as in your beloved Fourth Amendment-free zones.

  2. harry p.
    July 17, 2013 at 12:17 pm

    stefan molyneux with 2 very clear videos on the subject
    http://thestrangestbrew.com/?p=5861

    along with ‘wire’ creator, stevie wonder has chimed in
    http://thestrangestbrew.com/?p=5917

    • July 17, 2013 at 12:43 pm

      The Wire asshole baldly argues it’s “defensive” to beat a guy (Zimmerman) up merely for following him.

      • willb
        July 18, 2013 at 1:25 pm

        This is what frightens so many people about thugs, they have no sense of moral principle that can be reasoned with; being wholly irrational and unpredictable the only code that matters is the code of the jungle and the only sure method of communication is that might makes right.

        • July 18, 2013 at 1:48 pm

          That’s a big part of it, Will.

          Among thugs, “respect” is a very big deal. To slight (perceived or real) a thug … to “disrespect” him – is to invite a violent response.

          Normal people exchange words. It takes a lot of provocation to come to blows. And even then, you stop at blows. No kicks to the head. No pulling out a Glock and blowing the other guy away.

          But thugs operate with hair triggers and when they attack, it is often with murderous violence.

          • willb
            July 18, 2013 at 3:22 pm

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

          • Matt
            July 18, 2013 at 11:01 pm

            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.

          • Eightsouthman
            July 18, 2013 at 11:21 pm

            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…

      • July 20, 2013 at 1:45 am

        Dear Eric,

        The creator of “The Wire” confirms my gut level distaste for the show.

        I’m not the least bit surprised that a kneejerk mainstream intellectual, with his intellectual facile “social realist” worldview, is part of the race-baiting MSM bandwagon.

        • July 20, 2013 at 11:21 am

          Morning, Bevin –

          Ditto.

          Anyone who makes excuses for thugs is himself a thug.

          The tragedy of black thuggery is that it was engineered. It was – it is – deliberate policy.

          Before the “civil rights” movement, the black family was intact and most blacks sought – like most people – to better themselves through education and hard work. One striking thing, if you go back and watch interviews with black people done prior to the “civil rights” movement – and shortly thereafter, before the poison began to take effect – is that they spoke coherent, grammatically correct English. Today, this is looked upon by many blacks (having been manipulated in ways they don’t understand) as “acting white,” not being “authentic.” What is “authentic” … is acting like an illiterate street criminal.

          Cui bono?

          The answer, of course, is obvious…

          • July 21, 2013 at 12:31 am

            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

          • July 21, 2013 at 10:09 am

            If we can rely on anything, it is the incompetence of these people. Too lazy to wait – to fact check – before launching their shabby “Zimmerman was a racist!” media jihad.

            Perhaps 20 years ago, they could have kept the script as they intended it to be.

            But today? It’s too easy to find – and disseminate – the facts. Which often put the lie to these people’s schemes.

            I am glad Zimmerman was acquitted, of course.

            But now, I hope he is successful suing MSNBC for millions.

          • Eightsouthman
            July 21, 2013 at 10:28 am

            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.

          • July 21, 2013 at 10:51 am

            Amen.

            These Justice for Trayvon people?

            What about justice for Zimmerman – who was the object of a well-orchestrated smear campaign, one that has placed his life in danger and probably rendered him unemployable for life?

            Imagine if a major media outlet had deliberately altered a piece of audio or video to make a black man appear criminal? There would riots, marches at the least. No question in mind there would be a “civil rights” or “hate crime” prosecution by the feds.

            The people responsible deserve to lose everything they have.

            Just as they tried to do to Zimmerman.

  3. PC
    July 17, 2013 at 1:35 pm

    The “race card” is great. I always get great Face book fodder from you

    • Hot Rod
      July 17, 2013 at 9:00 pm

      LMAO…Love the “Saint Skittles” picture. Article was spot on Eric. Really enjoyed this one.

      The only thing I’d say is to strike a little balance as others have pointed out that the “see something. say something” crowd are in fact neighborhood watch lil goonies. I’ve seen them in my life in towns of low crime rates, you stop to eat your sandwich at a supermarket parking lot adjacent to the home patroller and they park winshield face on glaring at you. They like to make up all sort of fictitious BS about ordinary people doing their ordinary business.

      I speculate that Zimmerman was in fact a nosey, creepy, policeman wanna be. I also speculate that Travyon was an immature hooded little thug. Someone had to die and I’m guessing the world outcome was probably the best for all. Zimmerman will never be a cop. And the thug scum is dead. Overall I’m quite happy with the outcome and verdict.

      Regards All

      • MoT
        July 18, 2013 at 2:59 am

        As some editorialists and commentators have said before, “If Zimmerman had been a cop then this would hardly be front page news”.

        • July 18, 2013 at 9:55 am

          That’s true, but I refrained from making any cop-Zimmerman comparisons because Zimmerman was not a cop. Cops enforce laws. They hassle people who haven’t done anything, just because they can.

          Zimmerman was merely patrolling his own neighborhood, watching for the scumbags who had been burglarizing and robbing homes in the area. If anything he was acting like a peace officer.

          In any case, there’s no evidence he attempted to detain or restrain Martin. But there is abundant evidence that Martin – outraged by the “cracker” watching/following him – circled back to confront him with his fists.

          And that’s the point at which Zimmerman was justified in physically defending himself.

          • Whitehawk
            July 18, 2013 at 4:19 pm

            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.

          • heath
            July 18, 2013 at 5:37 pm

            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?

          • July 18, 2013 at 5:40 pm

            Heath,

            First, as a matter of law, Zimmerman was under no obligation to follow the suggestions made by a 911 dispatcher.

            Second, as a matter of ethics, he had every right to monitor the movements of a person wandering around his neighborhood whom he had good reason to view with suspicion. This is no way violated Saint Trayvon’s rights.

            But when Saint Trayvon lashed out physically, he violated Zimmerman’s rights.

            And Zimmerman had every right to defend himself.

            This is why he was not initially charged with any crime. The ex-police chief has stated publicly that he felt pressured for political reasons to pursue the matter criminally.

            Luckily, this all backfired on the ignorant – and mendacious – people who intended to use Zimmerman as a prop, the personification of “evil white racist” – and Saint Trayvon as an innocent kid who was “murdered” for being black.

          • heath
            July 18, 2013 at 7:26 pm

            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.

          • July 18, 2013 at 8:21 pm

            He wanted to “bust” someone?

            No, Heath – he saw a person who fit the profile of people who’d been burglarizing the neighborhood. He watched – and followed. He did not “bust” anyone.

            But Trayvon – whom you seem to believe was a sweet little boy, out for some Skittles – busted his fists on Zimmerman’s face.

            Do you understand that all bets are off when you physically assault someone?

            Even if Zimmerman had no reasonable basis for following Martin, Martin had no right to assault him. You seem to be implying otherwise. That if someone annoys you, that means you can hit them – and not expect repercussions. No, wait. Not just hit them. Beat the shit out of them. Possibly maim or even kill them (a distinct possibility when you bash a man’s head against concrete).

            If there was any evidence whatsoever that Zimmerman used force first, then I’d be on Martin’s side. But all the evidence – including damning physical evidence – points to Trayvon assaulting Zimmerman.

            And that makes him a violent thug who got what he deserved.

          • Henry
            July 19, 2013 at 12:51 am

            “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”. :-)

          • MoT
            July 19, 2013 at 3:40 am

            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.

          • July 19, 2013 at 9:32 am

            I agree – and as I mentioned to Rick – it’s what helped set this train wreck in motion. Zimmerman had no real option but to involve the police – else be accused of vigilantism. Yet these same police were unable to do anything about the thugs running amok in the neighborhood. Too busy running radar traps to go after criminals.

          • Hot Rod
            July 19, 2013 at 5:18 am

            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).

          • DownshiftFast5to1
            July 19, 2013 at 5:53 am

            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/

          • Eightsouthman
            July 19, 2013 at 7:30 am

            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.

  4. Mamba
    July 17, 2013 at 1:56 pm

    One important point, Zimmerman persued the black man. The guy attacked him becasue this zimmerman guy was following him with obvious intent to harm as Zimmerman believed the teen to be a thug. Race irrelevant.

    So, if you are walking around minding your own business as a teen and somebody starts following you around and they have a gun and they are clearly agressive towards you, doesn’t that sound like the teen would have good cause to defend himself with HIS gun, if he had one?

    He did not, so the teen got shot, and the courts liked Zimemrman better so he got off with stalking a guy and murdering him. If the teen did have a gun, this site would be praising him for his heroics in self-defence.

    All the rest are just details really…unless you believe that profiling is perfectly acceptable. If you believe that, then you have to acept that it’s OK for cops to stop people and start harassing them based SOLELY on appearance, and we already know that’s BS when the cops do it. So what makes this any different?

    People want to believe that since a gun killed a guy it’s a good thing and shows that defence works and the people can take responsibility back for their own defence. But this is why that arguement fails, it only sounds good until you realize that Zimmerman only had belief, nothing more.

    In order words, he STARTED the encounter that ended up killing the kid based on paranoia which had no basis in fact. IDENTICAL to whena cop kills someone after excillating an encounter based solely on their belief that the other person is a “bad person” It’s impossible to support one and not the other. If cops can’t do it, neither can “responsible gun owners”. Simple as that.

    • July 17, 2013 at 2:12 pm

      What the hell?

      How do you get “obvious intent to harm” from Zimmerman following Martin?

      Not even Saint Trayvon’s defenders have tried to suggest that Zimmerman attacked or threatened to attack Saint Trayvon. He caused him no harm whatsoever – until Trayvon attacked him physically.

      That is the key point, Mamba.

      Or are you actually saying it is justified to attack someone – to beat them into the ground – merely because they’re following you? And that the person being attacked hasn’t got the right to defend himself?

      The rest of your arguments are equally specious.

      First, Zimmerman was not a cop but a homeowner serving as a volunteer neighborhood watchman. No physical threat is entailed by this – unlike a cop pursuing/arresting people using violence.

      Christ!

      Profiling is acceptable. We all do it. It’s the height of politically correct cant to argue otherwise.

      If I see a large, unkempt man walking up my driveway, I am going to profile him (and my reaction to him) differently than I would if it were a middle-aged lady with a kid walking up the driveway.

      If I see a black youth dressed in stereotypical thug clothes, I am going to profile him differently than I would Bill Cosby. Not because I’m “racist” – but because it is a fact that a hoodlum looking black youth is more likely to be a hoodlum. I didn’t create the crime statistics. But I do take cognizance of them.

      This does not mean I am going to abuse anyone (the idiot “race” card). It means I am going to make some reasonable mental assumptions and prepare for some outcomes that might reasonably be inferred.

      Is there something wrong with this? Of course not. Spare me the meretricious lectures.

      I was out hiking once, deep in the woods. I had a few days’ worth of stubble and looked rough. I am also a 6ft 3, 200 pound male. Well, I rounded a bend and came upon two young women by themselves. They were clearly unsettled by me. And I understood why. They didn’t know me. But they knew that they were more likely to be attacked by a large single male than by a nice couple (or a troop of Boy Scouts).

      I smiled and said hello, did all I could to ease their fears – but understood why they were fearful. That their profiling of me was reasonable.

      Just as it was reasonable for Zimmerman to have profiled Martin.

      • Me2
        July 17, 2013 at 2:54 pm

        Eric – “Just as it was reasonable for Zimmerman to have profiled Martin. ”

        I have no idea what happened that night but if the above is acceptable and the personalities and backgrounds of each individual were not know to the other at the time, would not;

        “Just as it was reasonable Martin for to have profiled Zimmerman.” also have to be accepted? What injustice had Martin put up with from the ‘man’ in the past that may have made him view Zimmerman as a threat just as most long timers here find the sight of a cop a potential threat?

        Not justifying first violence but, in general, a pig is a pig, even if he is a rent-a-cop or neighborhood watch wannabe.

        In the end, none of us know exactly what happened that night, other than someone was killed.

        • July 17, 2013 at 3:02 pm

          Key points:

          Zimmerman was not a cop enforcing laws. He was a homeowner in his own neighborhood serving as a volunteer neighborhood watchman.

          There is no evidence – or even allegation – that Zimmerman physically interfered with (much less attacked) Martin. He followed him – based on a reasonable suspicion that he was up to something.

          Martin – assuming he was just walking home – had every right to be put-off by being followed (although he surely understood why; and that it wasn’t personal).

          But he had no right to respond by attacking Zimmerman.

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

          That’s the bottom line, isn’t it?

          • Me2
            July 17, 2013 at 3:13 pm

            “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.

          • July 17, 2013 at 3:29 pm

            We do know that there was no physical evidence of Zimmerman assaulting Martin – and lots of evidence that Martin assaulted Zimmerman.

            Therefore, it is reasonable to assume Martin was the aggressor – the initiator of violence.

            Zimmerman committed no wrong by watching who was out and about in his neighborhood, nor by following Martin, nor by asking what he was doing. I see no violation of the NAP. Do you?

            But Martin very clearly did violate the NAP by striking Zimmerman. Not just once, but repeatedly. Jumping on top of him and bashing his head into the ground. That is a potentially murderous assault. Zimmerman reasonably feared for his life.

            Wouldn’t you, in that situation?

            Violent lashing out over a perceived (or real) affront is the issue here. You don’t have the right to beat someone up because they say something to you. Or because they’ve followed you. You can tell them to MYOB. You can walk away.

            But that’s not what Martin did.

          • Me2
            July 17, 2013 at 3:38 pm

            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.

          • July 17, 2013 at 4:59 pm

            I’m not trying to straw man you, Me2 –

            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 hate thuggery – whether black or white or green.

            Zimmerman may have been foolish. But Martin was a thug.

          • Me2
            July 17, 2013 at 5:24 pm

            “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.

          • MoT
            July 18, 2013 at 3:01 am

            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!

          • July 18, 2013 at 9:48 am

            Yup, that too!

          • Volos
            July 18, 2013 at 4:42 am

            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.

          • July 18, 2013 at 9:47 am

            Well-said, Volos.

            I ‘ll also “amen” your point on public vs. private property.

            It’s interesting, isn’t it, how the concept of private property (properly applied) clarifies so many issues… .

            If it’s my land, then no one else has a right to be on it for any reason without my permission. And if they are on my land, I’ve got the absolute right to insist they leave.

            But public land?

            Now these question are muddled; everyone claims an equal right to access/use. But that inevitably leads to conflicts – which are necessarily resolved in an arbitrary/subjective way.

            I’ll take private!

            Remember the saying: Good fences make good neighbors….

          • Mike
            July 18, 2013 at 1:01 pm

            “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?

          • July 18, 2013 at 1:11 pm

            Mike, you’re being sophistic and dishonest.

            A woman being followed has a right to defend herself physically if she is attacked.

            She does not have the right to attack a man who hasn’t done more than merely follow her. Certainly, she can say: Hey, get the hell away from me. I have a gun. Or I am calling the cops.

            But she has no right to just start throwing punches.

            Martin did more than just hit Zimmerman once (and then flee) too.

            He beat the crap out of him. He bashed his head – repeatedly – into the concrete. That is potentially murderous or crippling assault.

            Against a man who – according to all available evidence – never laid a hand on Martin or even threatened to.

            And: You don’t know what Zimmerman said to Martin (if anything).

            But, we do know who attacked.

            That was Martin.

            He behaved exactly like the thug he was.

      • Mike
        July 18, 2013 at 12:15 pm

        Eric,

        That’s a crock. What’s more, I think that you know it’s a crock.

        If a stranger were to follow me, in the rain and dark, from both a vehicle and on foot…continuing even after I ran, I would damn sure confront them: so would you.

        I would do so with my hand on a deadly weapon.

        Let’s turn this around: was Bernie Goetz justified? No one laid a hand on him, remember. At least have the courage to apply the same standard.

        • July 18, 2013 at 12:32 pm

          Mike,

          What do you mean by “confront”? Let’s be very careful – very precise.

          I certainly agree it’s understandable – and right – to verbally confront someone who is following you. Hey, why are you following me?

          But Martin physically attacked Zimmerman. And by doing so, invited a response. A justified response.

          It’s not an aggressive act to follow someone – unless you attempt to restrain them, or strike them. Martin was always free to walk away, to tell Zimmerman to piss off. Or simply say: Hey, I’m just walking home.

          But that’s not what he did.

          On Goetz: He was about to be attacked by a pack of feral thugs. No equivalence. And I’m pretty sure you know that!

          At least, I hope you do…

      • Scottscobig
        July 18, 2013 at 1:26 pm

        Eric,
        I still think it was a bad idea to follow him so obviously, if that’s what happened. He wasn’t doing anything wrong that I know of. Nothing it appears Zim did excuses the physical violence in any way. I’m just saying, it’s a powerful argument against being nosy, following someone- being a Mrs. Kravitz.

        On the other hand, Zim was probably under pressure to be more vigilant due to recent robberies.

        It just really reminds me of our foreign policy, almost since the 1700s. Yeah. Our presence, our nosiness into the business of other countries, whether in the form of embassies or military bases or whatever; none of that excuses the murder of 3000 of our people on 9/11. But I think it is a powerful argument for getting out of those countries and staying out of their business. None is attacking us.

        Same with this thug. He wasn’t on Zim’s property; wasn’t attacking him or anything. Should’ve left him alone; or followed much more stealthily.

        Sure, hindsight’s 20/20. But I live in a neighborhood like the one in question. And it’s weird, even suspicious to see a black man or kid walk by my house. But it would never occur to me to aggressively follow him, if that’s what Zim did; unless he approached someone’s house or something.

        Believe me, I’m loath to defend this scummy punk. I’ve no use for someone like that, whether 17 years old or 10. I’m just saying, let sleeping dogs lie, until they get up and do something.

        But, as I said, none of this negates the element of pressure on Zim to be the ‘neighborhood watchman.’ I know that would’ve played a role in my actions had I been in Zim’s shoes. But I don’t see how to completely ignore the cloveristic, cop-like actions he took. I think there’s a point there, too, however small.

        • July 18, 2013 at 1:43 pm

          Hi Scott,

          I’m not sure there’s a parallel.

          Zimmerman was patrolling his own neighborhood – as opposed to the US government actively interfering in the internal affairs of sovereign foreign countries.

          Zimmerman neither used nor threatened to use physical violence (unlike the US government). All he did was take note of a suspicious person in the neighborhood – his neighborhood, it bears repeating – and track the person’s movements. Martin had nothing to fear in terms of any harm coming to him as a result of this (assuming he wasn’t up to something). He wasn’t forcibly detained; he could have just continued on his way. Zimmerman had no authority over him – nor did he attempt to exert any (as far as the facts I’m aware of).

          Subtext: We know Martin was a thug. We also know he lashed out – characteristic of thugs. My surmise – based on what we know about Martin and the way thugs behave – is that he was incensed that Zimmerman was following him. Not scared of him. He saw a “cracker” – and decided to teach him a lesson.

          But learned one instead.

          • July 18, 2013 at 4:20 pm

            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.

            “Let’s talk about the elephant in the room. I’m black, OK?” the woman said, declining to be identified because she anticipated backlash due to her race. She leaned in to look a reporter directly in the eyes. “There were black boys robbing houses in this neighborhood,” she said. “That’s why George was suspicious of Trayvon Martin.”

            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.

          • Eightsouthman
            July 18, 2013 at 5:10 pm

            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.

          • July 18, 2013 at 11:43 pm

            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.

          • July 18, 2013 at 11:45 pm

            Sorry! Forgot to address it.

            That was addressed to Eightsouthman.

      • JB
        July 19, 2013 at 9:16 pm

        Apparently Mamba has no more to say after his comments have assured that everyone, who reads these posts, knows that he is completely devoid of any ability to think and thus reason. The sad truth is that there are millions out there just like Mamba who choose to ignore facts and can only react to any event with emotional responses as directed by the race baiters like Sharpton, Jackson, Holder, and our own “white” black pres.

    • michael.white
      July 17, 2013 at 2:28 pm

      I have a couple issues with your statements. First, if Zimmerman was following with intent to harm and was armed, then Travyon would have simply been shot from a distance. Why suffer a beating before shooting someone? That makes no sense.

      Second, if there had been a simple exchange of words (as it should be if a cop starts following you), then that would’ve been that. The neighborhood watches are there for a reason, as peace officers once were: to keep watch over the neighborhood. If I saw Travyon or anyone else I don’t know loitering in front of my house or my neighbor’s house, I’d have a word or two with him. Just as he has a right to stand in a public street in front of my house, I have a right to stand right there with him and address him.

      • Eightsouthman
        July 17, 2013 at 3:14 pm

        michael, would you go have a chat with that person loitering in front of your house armed or unarmed? I’m sort of a Boy Scout in that regards. I don’t mind walking back into my house with the same amount of ammo I left with but it’s sure nice to have it when confronting a stranger. Be prepared.

        • michael.white
          July 17, 2013 at 5:08 pm

          I’d probably “profile”. Little old lady looking lost, walk out friendly. Big guy with tattoos and a pair of binoculars obviously -not- eying the wildlife, bring the 12 gauge. Most anything in between just pocket a pistol – most people are good. I think most anarchists believe that.

          I’ve been lost or gone through inappropriate areas more than once in my life, from posh neighborhoods in my beat up Jeep to drug fields in the mountains of Mexico. I act civil and I’ve yet to beat to a pulp or shot just for traveling through an area.

          • michael.white
            July 17, 2013 at 5:42 pm

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

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

          • Eightsouthman
            July 17, 2013 at 6:41 pm

            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.

          • michael.white
            July 17, 2013 at 7:34 pm

            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…

    • Eightsouthman
      July 17, 2013 at 2:38 pm

      Mamba, your words “he STARTED the encounter that ended up killing the kid based on paranoia which had no basis in fact. ” The FACTS are, there had been a huge amount of break-ins and theft in that neighborhood and the residents there had good reason to believe the black youths roaming there had done it. Even one black woman who refused to be identified(wonder why?) said she “knew” some black youths were committing a great many crimes there. The cops also had been called at least once to the school where Trayvon sometimes went and took a burglary tool as well as a significant amount of stolen jewelry from him he’d told everyone he’d found…along with the tool. Yeh, I find that a lot too. At 17 I knew better than to roam around a neighborhood in the dark and he did too but that’s the risk you take when you’re looking to burglarize someone or potentially rob them. The cops were aware there were black youths burglarizing homes there also. What the hell is “neighborhood watch” for anyway except for a person to keep an eye on the entire neighborhood so everybody doesn’t have to go outside and wait to see who is committing crimes there? I know a friend who is part of a neighborhood watch since they are at least half an hour away from “police”. He’s armed and for good reason. He’d take his combat rifle if he didn’t want to alarm people. When you know for a fact there have been a lot of black youths present, roaming around and countless burglaries have been committed, how can you not profile? Is there some reason he would follow a black person and not one of another race? So why is anyone sneaking around the neighborhood not using sidewalks? He made no excuse such as looking for a lost pet, just wanted the crazy ass cracka to leave him to whatever devices he had in mind. Maybe I missed something about Neighborhood Watch and am just blowing smoke. When I hear a loud buzzing and the cats are all fuzzed up should I not go prepared to find a snake? I live where a gun is just a way of life. I sometimes need a big gun and sometimes a shotgun depending on the threat. I would not be on “neighborhood watch” unarmed for the very reason GZ is still alive. Trayvon may very well have been about to do his second round, or third round of Lean. I don’t understand what you don’t understand except you seem to leave out some very important information. You speak of Trayvon being followed around. He was for all intents and purposes, trespassing. He should be followed. If he were just returning home he’d simply walk to his home would he not? If you’re interested in something other than your property, it would serve you well to investigate in the day and not at night when nobody else would be out. Trayvon was obviously casing out where he might get his next freebie. You have a problem with stopping his sort of violence because he wasn’t 18. Amazing. I realize in your country people are jammed together and disarmed but thankfully we have retained a right or two although we have duplicitous people like Eric Holder who have engineered many people’s death not only in this country but in Mexico also. Let’s just get that out in the open right now. If he weren’t attorney general someone would have offed him already. No one has the right to do what he and BO have done many times before and continue to do. Learn some facts about this case. Mamba, by the way, there’s a good reason people rarely get ripped of where I live. They’d have an excellent chance of getting their butts shot off. It’s a deterrent for those with a few brains.

    • Eightsouthman
      July 17, 2013 at 3:31 pm

      Mamba, I reread your post. You said “the courts liked Zimemrman better so he got off with stalking a guy and murdering him.” I certainly hope I never have a court “like” me that much. The judge committed crimes against Zimmerman and may very well be disbarred, hopefully before she can do it to another person who won’t get international attention. That “court” was Zimmerman’s worst nightmare. The only good part about it was the judge’s behavior being so egregious as to almost make an appeal in case of conviction automatic.

    • BrentP
      July 17, 2013 at 5:05 pm

      One evening some years ago I am walking home with a beef sammich for dinner. There is a police cruiser following me… I turn on to my property from the sidewalk and the cop suddenly stops and leaps from his cruiser screaming “I WANT TO TALK TO YOU”….. now given what you stated above, did I have the right at this point to beat the poker senseless? If I had attacked the cop, who was older and far out of shape compared to myself, would the cop have been able to defend himself? The cop was of the same so-called race as myself according to typical american interpretation.

      So who goes to prison?
      Why would it be different if it wasn’t a porker but one my neighbors and why?

    • July 17, 2013 at 7:52 pm

      I love how mamba is quick to point out that Zimmerman profiled lil Tray Tray and then goes on with his rant on how profiling is wrong, but what about the fact that lil Tray Tray profiled Zimmerman? Surely you can’t overlook that fact. Lil Tray Tray profiled Zimmerman as someone smaller and weaker than him which is one reason he chose to attack the man. Had Zimmerman been 6’8″ and 275 lbs, lil Tray Tray would have kept on running with his tail tucked between his legs. Then there’s the fact that his little girlfriend he was on the phone with put the idea in his head that Zimmerman may have been a rapist, so lil Tray Tray also profiled Zimmerman as a potential gay stalker. So now we have evidence that lil Tray Tray decided he was going to beat up some weak defenseless gay person “just for gettin up in his bidness”, which is how a young punk thug wannabe thinks.

      The real lesson that can be learned here though is that parents should teach their kids to never ever initiate an unprovoked attack on someone just because they perceive that person to be smaller and weaker than them and are confident that they can take that person…because that person just might be carrying a gun.

      • Eightsouthman
        July 17, 2013 at 8:28 pm

        Turd, it’s all relative, sorta like the relative humidity in Ark., the stuff that sticks between you and your girl cousin. 25 years or so ago, 4 of us were traveling on I-20 and stopped at the intersection of it and Tx. 70 to get more beer and leave what we’d drunk. We were speeding via Escort radar detector and doing just fine thanks to no instant on radar. We started up on the interstate headed east and this big Olds, blasts past us going 90 mph or more just as this Tx. trooper is coming the other way, blasting radar all over. This Olds had six of the biggest black guys I’ve seen in it. We surmised it might be Dallas Cowboys due to sheer size, heads against the headliner, shoulders stuffed against each other. Their car is1/2 mile in front of us and the trooper just drives on as if nothing happened, he didn’t even see them ha ha ha. I rolled down the drivers side windows since I was driving and we hung out the windows pointing to that car and generally giving the trooper a hard time. He miraculously didn’t see us either. We were pointing at the Olds, laughing like hell. Sometimes, a guy just has to look the other way I guess. We continued on laughing hysterically. Open another one boys, we have a license to fly as long as we’re behind those guys ha ha ha ha. We laughed for 20 miles over that. Hey, pass that up here.

      • liberranter
        July 17, 2013 at 10:54 pm

        … but what about the fact that lil Tray Tray profiled Zimmerman? Surely you can’t overlook that fact.

        Yes you can, if you’re a racialist of the right racial makeup yourself. You get a free pass to do just that. Whitey, OTOH, is prohibited from ever even thinking of doing such a thing.

    • Jean
      July 17, 2013 at 7:58 pm

      Mamba,
      1. The gun was not in evidence, it was concealed.
      2. Profiling IS acceptable. The stupidity against profiling allows MORE crimes, and guess who benefits? The criminals. The terrorist Muslims, who refuse to allow “unclean” bomb-sniffing dogs in their home. [we'll pretend I think the dogs actually work; the point is, it's an impediment to law enforcement where it might do some good - making the low-hanging "enforcement" resource collection for statute violation even MORE lucrative.] We don’t “profile” those who fly – we fuck with everyone equally. And then Uncle Shithead demands we ALL pay to support the airlines via taxation. We allow blacks to escape punishment routinely, because to even pull them over would be “(racist) profiling” – the (racist) is silent, BTW. Etc.

      And BTW: If Zimmerman had a gun, AND Trayvon attacked him, Zimmerman did the world a favor by cleansing the gene pool of the dumb nigger. It is THAT simple. Darwin WILL win, eventually, one way or another. The Rabbit Warren expands until one day, there’s no food. The smart rabbits leave and take their chances; the dumb ones stay and starve. Note that ones that stay or go aren’t necessarily Black, White, or Hispanic – just smart. Same for the dumb ones – they can be Black, White or Hispanic, they’re all DEAD. THAT’s what’s essential to satisfying Darwin.

      • Jean
        July 17, 2013 at 8:06 pm

        Correction:
        And BTW: If Zimmerman had SHOWN a gun…

    • Mike
      July 18, 2013 at 12:06 pm

      I fully agree: tracking someone in the dark and rain is an aggressive act. End of story.

      Was the response disproportionate? Maybe…probably, even. But we don’t know all of the details of the physical altercation.

      Zimmerman behaved like a moron.

      • Eightsouthman
        July 18, 2013 at 12:33 pm

        I fail to see what difference weather plays in the question. [End of story.]?? Really?

      • July 18, 2013 at 12:36 pm

        I agree Zimmerman ought not to have followed a physically superior younger man he suspected was up to no good, might react violently (and who might be armed).

        However, it was not unreasonable to be suspicious of Martin. There were burglaries and robberies in the neighborhood – committed by young black guys. Martin fit the profile. That’s too bad for him, but to deny the reasonableness of making certain assumptions based on probabilities is just politically correct nonsense.

        PS: We also know Martin was a thug. He texted about beating people up; he was found in possession of stolen goods and burglary tools. So he didn’t just fit the profile in general terms. He was the profile.

        • edward
          July 18, 2013 at 8:37 pm

          “Let’s talk about the elephant in the room. I’m black, OK?” the woman said, declining to be identified because she anticipated backlash due to her race. She leaned in to look a reporter directly in the eyes. “There were black boys robbing houses in this neighborhood,” she said. “That’s why George was suspicious of Trayvon Martin.”

          I find it curious that a search of NCB.com or CNN.com reveals no mention at all of this quote.

      • July 18, 2013 at 12:52 pm

        Mike,

        Your reasoning makes no sense to me.

        Zimmerman was watching his property and the property of his immediate neighbors – apparently, with their approval.

        If I notice someone suspicious/unknown to me walking on my land – or my neighbor’s land – I am going to check it out, perhaps follow them/try to find out what they’re up to. How have I violated anyone’s rights?

        And: Does the person walking on my land have the right to physically attack me for daring to take note of his presence? Merely because I watched/followed their progress?

        You ask me to “at least have the courage to apply the same standard.”

        Which I always have done.

        Initiating physical violence is wrong.

        Martin (according to all the available physical and circumstantial evidence) initiated physical violence. There is no evidence that Zimmerman in any physical way accosted or planned to accost Martin; no evidence he produced his gun until after he was being beaten up by Martin.

        Right?

        • Eightsouthman
          July 18, 2013 at 1:29 pm

          eric, on a bit of a different subject here but, Do you think we’ll ever see a transcript of this trial? Isn’t a transcript supposed to be public property available to all citizens? I don’t know this to be a fact in all trials and have no idea of what the exception is. It would seem that it applies no matter what trial we’re speaking of….except when a corrupt federal govt. is involved of course.

          • July 18, 2013 at 1:31 pm

            I dunno – but agree it would be interesting!

          • July 19, 2013 at 5:01 am

            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.

      • July 19, 2013 at 5:09 am

        “End of story.”

        Really?

        Zimmerman was a Neighborhood Watch member.

        A neighborhood watch… also called a crime watch or neighborhood crime watch, is an organized group of citizens devoted to crime and vandalism prevention within a neighborhood. In the United States it builds on the concept of a town watch from Colonial America.

        The current American system of neighborhood watches began developing in the late 1960s as a response to the rape and murder of Kitty Genovese in Queens, New York. People became outraged after reports that a dozen witnesses did nothing to save Genovese or to apprehend her killer. Some locals formed groups to watch over their neighborhoods and to look out for any suspicious activity in their areas.

        Zimmerman was watching over his neighborhood and looking out for any suspicious activity in his area.

        He was not “tracking” or “stalking” someone.

    • criticalmass
      July 18, 2013 at 4:05 pm

      You’re wrong about GZ intent to harm. If that was the case why did he call 911? He was on the phone with the dispatcher as he followed Martin. I’m not calling the law and have them on the phone as I prepare to commit a crime.
      Bottom line, blacks perpetuate their own sterotype.
      After the verdict, it was reported blacks attacking whites randomly.And you cry about being profiled. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, its a thug .

      • Neo
        July 18, 2013 at 6:18 pm

        The way I understand it, GZ, after being told not to do anything from the dispatcher, went out to check the street names to make sure he had the right location and was returning to his car when he was attacked. In this account, GZ was not following TM when TM attacked him – GZ was returning to his car. If this was true (I don’t remember what lewrockwell.com article it was that talked about it), then TM was even more aggressive than what is being portrayed in Eric’s article and had less reason for physical violence. GZ was no longer following but basically retreating.

    • Nick S
      July 19, 2013 at 12:19 am

      “unless you believe that profiling is perfectly acceptable. If you believe that, then you have to acept that it’s OK for cops to stop people and start harassing them based SOLELY on appearance, and we already know that’s BS when the cops do it. So what makes this any different? ”

      Complete non-sequiter. One can believe that profiling is useful and inevitable to some degree without supporting an unlimited right of authorities to violate the rights of people based on often poor or inadequate profiling. Any tool can be both highly useful and potentially misused.

      Moreover, a lack of profiling is just as likely to lead to abuses of personal rights and freedoms. That is why everyone boarding a plane now needs to be molested, because we apparently cannot use profiling to target the real suspects.

    • Henry
      July 19, 2013 at 12:58 am

      “So, if you are walking around minding your own business as a teen and somebody starts following you around and they have a gun and they are clearly agressive towards you”

      I think that events unfolding as they did make it perfectly clear that ZImmerman’s possession of a gun turned out to be a TOTAL F*G SURPRISE to Martin at the last possible moment.

    • John
      July 19, 2013 at 3:37 am

      Zimmerman had stopped following and was heading back to his car when Saint Trayvon jumped him. Fact

  5. Forman
    July 17, 2013 at 4:50 pm

    When one guy is bleeding from his head and the other guy has bleeding knuckles…Hmmmmmm.
    But when one guy is a “White Hispanic” then…Hmmmmmm.
    I guess Aaron Hernandez doesn’t sound “white” enough for the MSM Terrorists.

    • Hot Rod
      July 17, 2013 at 9:37 pm

      Its all part of the inverse British Caste System of India. Back then you were hated based on how dark your skin was, now your affection pused by the eiltes is to be hated will be based on how white you appear or act.

      I saw this coming in the 90′s. Some hispanic working on board layout that I had to work with as the design engineer, taunting me with all kind of lude racist remarks on whites and our contribution to society. They actually believe their own crap that whites are the devil and have stolen everything from them. Trying to denigrate my races acheivements and expecting no return because of all the “equal opportunity” laws making employment with them gritting and unfun. I really don’t think whites invented mathematics (Arabs) or science and philosophy (Greeks) nor even necessarily gun (maybe Chinese) but I’ll be damned to allow them to lie that we weren’t the inventors of most other great and dangerous things in the last 4 centuries.

      It so turns out that not all whites got rich by slave holding, but rather by using their talents as God intended and all races have the toilet, electricity, electronics, physics and such because of it. Some black that wants all whites dead better think long and hard about that fact. And he better think long and hard if he thinks the peaceful white is going to keep taking it in the face while the alternate is a government “protected”. Whites are very crafty when it comes to war that is for sure and it would sure be nice if the majority of blacks realized that continuous warfare based on melanin content would be stupid for both of us. Why I can’t appreciate fine black productivity like Carver or fantastic music, arts and sports and still love my own races achievements is bizarre to me. Its like saying that I can only love one person because that all the love I can give. Blacks should come round to the same conclusion, they can love themselves and still love their white brothers.

      I won’t fall for the eiltes trying to divide us up. I hate Obama but I have to say that up until Travyon the blacks have lost alot of the chip they carried on their shoulders. Obama is a puppet of course but if it makes blacks feel equal in abilities and less chips than that is a good thing. The only problem is that Obama is the worst of all to enshrine as all politicians are evil. Now with his attempt to sow division back into the “healing ego’s of blacks” to again make them vitriol, I must say that is what I expected really. The eiltes masterminded this whole melanin tinted drama to divide the producers of each race and keep them begging for more and more from the eiltes in terms of “priviledges” based on their special colors.

      I’ll end this by saying that although there is certainly good and bad in every race, bankrupt cultures is another affair altogether. Once a group of people identifies their race as “special” then expect nothing but violence results. Cainnites are all about being evious of someone else and that kind of thought leaves little room for one’s own growth.

      Finally, whites will never tolerate the thug blacks trying to enslave us with physical intimidation, it would rather end bloodily if that is what they really want. I’m sure to say that a majority of whites find black slavery of the past disgusting but would never allow a reversal either. Smart blacks and whites know its now or never to mend the fences and the government doesn’t want that either.

      • Eightsouthman
        July 17, 2013 at 10:06 pm

        Hot Rod, what you say is very accurate to my way of thinking. On a private forum yesterday I pointed out that BO is just an extension of the Shrub, that racism is alive and well and that’s the reason they all think BO is so much worse than Bush. Of course he is much worse but he took the ball Bush handed him and has run with it according to what he’s been instructed to do. The reason all my friends(not all but most)think he’s the worst(and he is, but it’s only by degree)is because he’s black. None can admit it but I see it and hear it constantly. The things he said when he ran the first time would have put ME into the WH, would have put anyone there. Everybody wanted all the things he said he’d do. Whether he lied or just didn’t realize how he was going to be threatened is a moot point. What he’s done is inexcusable, just like Bush. Now we can expect Hil to extend it to a degree we’ll all either be dead, in prison or goose-stepping for our lives. Heil!!!

        • liberranter
          July 17, 2013 at 11:03 pm

          As I’ve said countless times before, BO, like Shrubtard before him, is nothing but figurehead, a marionette with a pulse. A stuffed three-toed sloth could be occupying the Oval Office right now, put there in November 2008 and its commission renewed last November, and nothing different would have happened than what’s already happened so far. For this same reason it could be Hitlery Clinton, Michael Jackson’s corpse, a pile of compost, or a stuffed doll that occupies the Oval Office chair in January, 2017 and it there won’t be any noticeable change in what happens to the country.

          • Hot Rod
            July 19, 2013 at 4:33 am

            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

          • July 19, 2013 at 9:27 am

            Thanks, HR!

        • Hot Rod
          July 19, 2013 at 4:11 am

          Absolutely right Eight.

      • July 18, 2013 at 6:30 am

        Er… the caste system in India wasn’t a British thing, it was part of the local customs (brought in by invaders thousands of years earlier, but they settled and eventually became the majority).

        • Hot Rod
          July 19, 2013 at 4:09 am

          You are probably right on that statement. I don’t go that far back in Indian history but I think none of this is new under the sun as they say. Now what invaders on India are you referring?

          I wonder how blacks feel about the fact that indeed blacks were slave holders in Egyptian times and kept the Jews as their property? Way long ago in fact that Blacks might have been the first slave owners as a civilization? The Black Pharaoh had quite a grip over them is what I heard? At least I’ve been told that story of history, but I don’t know maybe that is as made up too.

          To me history is all an interesting topic because the basics always repeat themselves, I’m not sure anyone can know for sure what history is truth beyond their own lifetime. Even that seems to be highly suggestible and purely academic. For the most part history holds general themes, and generally the themes are about evil men wanting absolute tyrannical power over others for their kicks and jolly and ego and material well being. Who, what, when, where is mostly irrelevant because usually the winner of conflict distorts history to be whatever he says it was. Again, please do educate me nevertheless on those who were the first to implement caste system in India as I’m not really feeling like googling it tonight.

          • July 19, 2013 at 9:41 am

            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.

        • Hot Rod
          July 19, 2013 at 4:50 am

          Invaders of India….nothing new under the sun….Tare always grows tall in the sun and crowds everything else out like always in history.

    • July 17, 2013 at 9:39 pm

      I’m surprised the prosecutor didn’t go with the claim that Zimmerman’s face assaulted lil Tray Tray’s hands and caused him grievous bodily harm as evidenced by the bruising of his knuckles.

      • liberranter
        July 17, 2013 at 11:04 pm

        If he’d wound up with the knuckle-dragging jury he really wanted, he probably would’ve presented exactly that argument – and won his case with it.

      • July 18, 2013 at 6:33 am

        When I was ten or eleven I needed stitches in my hand because another boy cut it with his glasses.

        • Eightsouthman
          July 18, 2013 at 8:04 am

          I made another boy really mad one day by breaking his new wrist watch band with my face….double indemnity as it were.

        • Donnamomma
          July 19, 2013 at 1:06 am

          My son had the same problem in grade school. Another boys nose ran into his hand.. ( his words not mine!)

    • Brandonjin
      July 17, 2013 at 10:26 pm

      Something I saw online, its funny that BO, who had a black father and white mother, is known as the first black president. Zimmerman, who had a hispanic mother and a white father, is known as a “white hispanic”.

      When I first learned of this case, I was initially against Zimmerman because I know how my local neighborhood watch clover behaves.

      Now I feel more unsure of the case; a thought brought to my attention: If Zimmerman was just black, do you think anyone outside of the local area would even know about the case?

      • July 17, 2013 at 10:43 pm

        “If Zimmerman was just black, do you think anyone outside of the local area would even know about the case?”

        Absolutely not.

        This case was intended to be a Kabuki-esque show trial depicting Evil Whitey against Oppressed Minority. It was pimped for its value as as racial exploitation, nothing more.

        • Eightsouthman
          July 17, 2013 at 10:52 pm

          eric, right on the money so to speak. 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. I wish this was a new thing. It’s not, unfortunately. 44 days to charge a guy for a “crime” he wasn’t charged with right away. It stinks. I think the prosecutor shows how heinous her motives were. Let’s play word association on national tv…..bullshit.

          • Henry
            July 19, 2013 at 1:03 am

            “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

          • Eightsouthman
            July 19, 2013 at 1:41 am

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

        • Branodnjin
          July 17, 2013 at 10:53 pm

          My sentiments exactly. The courts and the media made this racial for “good” TV.

          • Eightsouthman
            July 18, 2013 at 8:37 am

            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.

      • liberranter
        July 17, 2013 at 11:07 pm

        Something I saw online, its funny that BO, who had a black father and white mother, is known as the first black president.

        What’s even more ROTFLMFAOingly funny is when he’s referred to as the first “African-American” president. That’s true in a way that the brainstemmers who parrot the title seldom ever realize. There was nothing “American” about his African (Kenyan) father, the side from which his black blood comes.

  6. harry p.
    July 17, 2013 at 5:48 pm

    disregard profiling all together.
    mamba, me2 and others, here is a scenario,

    a paparazzi is following and photographing a movie star on a public sidewalk. the movie star doesn’t like this, confronts the paparazzi and asks if he has a problem. paparazzi says no and snaps another picture and the movie star says, “well you have one now.” punches the paparazzi in the face, knocks him to the ground and starts slamming his head on the concrete, but the paparazzi carries a firearm. while being beat he is able to draw the weapon and shoots the movie star. the movie star dies from said injuries.

    did the paparazzi commit murder or was he defending himself. does a person have a right to not be nervous or not have their picture taken in a public place? does a person have a right to not be “followed” on public property?

    if you think zimmerman is the bad guy and martin is the good guy you must think the paparazzi should have not fought back because he had it coming and deserved it for following/photographing/disrespecting the movie star.

    • Jean
      July 17, 2013 at 7:30 pm

      I’m not sure there’s a 100% parallel, but there’s also a point where it corsses from “reasonable” use fo force to unreasonable (no quotes intentional).
      In your example, the initial exchange (for my view, badly framed) was civil. It should’ve included a request to stop photographing, too. Then, should the papparazzi continue to snap away, there IS a point where punching the person is justified. Anything beyond that (which for argument includes either punching the person, or breaking the camera) is now beyond reasonable.

      If it goes down exactly as stated, the movie star is at fault for the initial assault, though it would be justifiable in court, perhaps; the continued assault is NOT justifiable; and the use of a weapon (gun ion your example) by the papparazzi IS justified, at that point.

      Here is where I disconnect from the Libertarian types: At a certain point, it’s no longer reasonable to just keep talking. Asking a person to not take your picture 50 times won’t stop that 51st photo. OTOH, belting the SOB for snapping photo 51 sends a clear message.

      Sometimes you need to send a clear message.
      Following it up with another several punches “for good measure” is now excessive. The case could be made that the continued photographing is harassment, and the reaction justifiable. Continued aggression is NOT justifiable. Point made, move on, if you will. Should the reporter then get up and re-enagage, either with a new camera or an intent to harm – you’re also clear to deal with them again.

      Otherwise, you’re a doormat and they’ll piss on you with impunity. “I’m not touching you!”

      Just like a fly will eventually get shooed away or swatted – sometimes you need to do the same with human pests. If they won’t respond to polite requests, the requests can get less polite – but envetually, it gets physical – enforcement by force.

      Most Liberatarians forget [as most atheists do when spouting off on morality] that they are a product of where & when they grew up. We grew up in a somewhat civilized society, and some of us a very civilized society. I don’t mean high class – just law-abiding, God-fearing, etc. Libertarians seem to see the world as a a place where just doing (X) isn’t an issue. They neglect the concepts inherent in uncivilized animal’s minds: that what _I_ want is ALL that matters. Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
      Eventually, that results in aggression, if not outright initiation of force. The aggression is something I see Libertarians arguing against: as if the continued harassment isn’t an aggressive act. After all, you haven’t been HARMED, per se; but you’re being harassed just the same. If you WANT the fame and seek it out, I don’t have much sympathy, but I still DO believe people have SOME right to privacy. (Logically, for example: A star at home, and the Papparazzi photographing over the wall from the street. It’s done in a public space, but it’s still an aggressive action – Harassment. Even though there’s no “crime” to the Libertarian types. At some point, you should have the right to say GTFO. )

      As for the Atheist comparison: Most Atheists forget, when arguing morality, that they are speaking from a society that embraced Judaeo-Christian ideals, and enshrined those concepts in law. So the Atheist’s “morality” comes from God’s law, whether the Atheist believes in God or not (and irregardless of whether there is or is not a god.) Let’s hear them argue morality WRT, say, a Maori warrior who intends to eat them after he kills them. It’s not IMMORAL to the Maori to eat his fallen foes; how would the Atheist claim ethics preclude cannibalism? Is he not then projecting HIS world view – including MORALS – onto the Maori? Or perhaps he should seek adoption into the tribe, and sample their delicacies, like deep-fried fallen foe?
      Do these atheists mean to suggest there is an ethical question WRT cannibalism? I can’t see one. MORAL question, sure, but ethics? Ethics are not eternal, not immutable, and not absolute. If we’d grown up in Muslim countries, we’d take as normal (EHTICAL) Female Genital Mutilation. We DO, in fact, take as normal, MALE genital mutilation in the form of circumcision, and as COMEDIC in the form of the ubiquitous shots to men’s crotches in skits, TV shows, home video, etc. Yet, under the law, it’s also assault, even assault with intent – it can kill.
      So, based on that sort fo foundation: Lawyers and law in general: You can argue both sides of a legal question, and BOTH can be right. So what matter are ethics? Why is it suddenly IMMORAL to hide exculpatory evidence? To commit perjury? To plant evidence?
      How about child abuse: You’re telling me it’s OK to slice off part of a newborn – IF it’s a boy. Should we slice off part of girls, too? Which part?

      Ethics don’t tell you these answers: only morality can. And morality is subject to either an eternal law, or it’s meaningless. NAP is moral; above, I argue around the “grey areas” where someone is aggressing against you, but the law and NAP would say you must suffer in silence. After all, you haven’t been attacked, you haven’t suffered harm, per se. (Finances make it even more muddled.)

      And ultimately, we end up with this sort of case or worse – because, even though the Klansman / hillbilly / nigga / thug / highwayman / etc came out with a shotgun, pointed it at you, told you to get off his property – you haven’t been harmed, YET. But the signs of aggression are obvious to any OTHER animal, only humans can be so stupid as to claim YOU would be at fault for responding in an aggressive manner. [ And I would further state that, in a situation like the above, where the threat is evident - you CANNOT respond with "excessive force." You do what you have to to survive, it's ALL legit. ]

      • Brandonjin
        July 17, 2013 at 10:49 pm

        In response to your comments on circumcision, I consider the genital mutilation of boys child abuse. Society won’t have it though. It’s okay when its men under the knife, without their consent. Feminism is hypocrisy. Take anything negative, commonplace for men, and reverse the gender. Imagine, female genital mutilation shortly after birth, AND without her own right to choose for her body?!? There would be riots.

        Another example, women are often making more money nowadays than their husband. When a divorce occurs in this case, the woman has to pay alimony to the man, and they’re fuming about it.

        Here’s another. I read that a 15 year old boy was raped by a 34 year old woman, and she got pregnant. Now, at 19, he is paying child support for the kid, a product of rape. Reverse the genders, 34 year old man getting paid for raping a 15 year old girl. Can you fathom it?

        Eric mentions something along the lines of the way Trayvon dressed, and where he was at that hour. How do you guys think a girl dressing like a slut and walking downtown by herself at 2 in the morning, compares?

        My main message being: In any culture, any society, just because something is normal/the norm, does NOT make it right. That’s my opinion anyway.

        I also agree with your other comment, that Darwin and his theory will eventually win.

        • Jean
          July 18, 2013 at 1:47 pm

          I’m a luker on lots of MAndrosphere sites. Roosh, Ferdinand Bardamu, Roissy, et al.
          I was raised to be a good Catholic boy….
          then the scales fell from my eyes. Part of what made me the nice, balanced, sane person I am today…

          (Couldn’t even keep a straight face TYPING that last line… :-D )

          BTW, I heard about that 15-Y.O. boy and the 34-Y.O. TEACHER. She was awarded child support, by a judge, yes. I believe it was a male judge.
          That judge is still wasting good oxygen (though how much might be debatable.)

          Feminism is cultural marxism. It’s the same thing, and the war yields the same result: We cannot MAKE everyone be 100%, but we CAN make everyone miserable and at the same level, call it 0% instead of 100%. So these days – I’m not a chivalrous nice guy. She can take care of herself. She doesn’t want my help – she just wants to use me. And I’m not alone – story after story after story of how after she divorces him, even with child support and alimony, he has MORE MONEY and more time at the end of the month than when he was married.

          It’s a side effect of the gelding of young boys over the last 50 years or so. GRRL Power is a zero-sum game.
          Yet these days – women earn as much (or more) for the equivalent work (Engineering and nursing are two excellent examples). They demand men pay for dates.
          If they aren’t treated with kid golves all the time – it’s discrimination. Even if they caused the problem… Better not reprimand the little dear, she’s better than a man all the time. Etc.
          Child care, a man can’t even go near a child without fearing allegations of child abuse. Infants have died because of that. But even after divorce, there’s only enforcement of the money transfer – no enforcement of visitation. She can move to the other side of the country, and the “sperm donor” has no say.
          Woman can: Use birth control; insist on a condom; abstain; use an abortifcant (Morning after pill); get an abortion; decide to have the child and adopt out; keep the child; abandon the child after birth at a hospital or fire or police station with no repercussions – ALL without the father’s knowledge.
          A man can…. Abstain, or risk paying child support for 18+ years. Condoms aren’t foolproof, especially when the woman might insert a used condom in the hopes of getting her meal ticket punched via pregnancy. Or, she might damage the condom to ensure it leaks. Best one actually was a woman claiming her boyfriend was fther of her “foetus” (since that’s the term to use, it’s not a child until she decides it’s a child). Only problem, he’d had a vasectomy already – and it was some time prior, with verification that he was sterile. So her attempt at legal extortion didn’t work. (But she didn’t face any judgements against her, either.)

          Anyway, OT and then some – I am firmly on the Men’s Rights side. A million reasons, but I’ve been through my own meat grinder. Ultimately, every “misogynistic” story, every “sexist” comment – they’ve ALL been borne out in my experience. She’s brilliant until it takes thought; she’s solid as a rock until her hormones change; she can do it all herself, and have it all – until there’s something on the top shelf and she needs a man to get it for her; or until it involves getting your hands dirty, or lifting something heavy, or killing an insect, or anything well, ICKY….
          Let them rot, they’ve earned it. That IS equality: Equality of squallor. (Communism, socialism, coporatism all go there eventually: All become kleptocracies until the people revolt.)

          • Brandonjin
            July 18, 2013 at 5:32 pm

            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.

          • July 18, 2013 at 5:45 pm

            I’m with you on this, Brandon –

            As a guy in his 40s, I can remember the pre-feminist world. Oh, feminism existed – but it hadn’t yet achieved the mainstream cultural dominance it enjoys today. Women didn’t seem to hate-resent-want-to-punish men. They didn’t seem to mind men being men, either.

            The tragedy is women seem to me – in general – to be less happy, despite their putative (and actual) material gains.

          • Eightsouthman
            July 18, 2013 at 5:59 pm

            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.

      • Volos
        July 18, 2013 at 5:07 am

        You have several great points, Jean. But I disagree that you have the right to assault someone who is taking your picture without your permission (even when it might be harassment) while you are on public property. You have no right to, or expectation of, privacy when on public property.

        Rather, I would take the issue a step deeper: there should be no public property, and the owner of the property should then have the right to decide if taking photographs without permission is acceptable behavior. If you are on my lawn and taking photographs without my permission, you are getting a boot in the ass. If you are on the sidewalk and doing the same, you aren’t on my property and your actions are none of my business as long as you are not infringing upon anyone’s rights.

        • Eightsouthman
          July 18, 2013 at 6:08 am

          I can’t help but grin thinking of four of my old college buddies who eventually worked for Equifax doing inspections. You had to take pics of the buildings that were insured so the client knew their approximate condition. These guys were always running for their lives in certain parts of town and I’m sure everyone can guess which parts they were. One of them always carried a .45, got blind-sided by a tenant one day with a gun and blew his ass away. He went through a lot of hell but survived with mainly his bank account damaged and lots of loss of sleep. I was glad he was in Tx. at the time. It was purely self-defense but there was no right to carry without a permit in those days. I was driving a truck at the time and nearly always had to unload in some place everybody assumed everybody else was armed and I was. I slept with my head on my hand holding a Hi Power and still sleep that way to this day. Of course the fed had to get in on it via USDOT a couple decades ago and ban all firearms in commercial vehicles resulting in the immediate deaths and injuries of countless drivers the public knew were unarmed. Good old govt., could mess up a wet dream.

        • Jean
          July 18, 2013 at 2:17 pm

          At a certain point – call it “Extreme Close Up” – you’re being menaced, effectively assaulted. While it’s still legally “harassment”, it parallels a person showing a gun as a means of intimidation. (think: ALL Cops.)
          OTOH, taking a picture from across a room or on the sidewalk – no worries, to me. Maybe it gets old, but so what? Leave them alone, they’ll get tired of it. Only so much novelty of a star.

          The problem today is, we have an inversion of what was intended: So, while we could’ve in the past counted on some courtesy – you ask the papparazzi to give you some room, they would back off a bit – now, they push closer, impede your personal space, impede your ability to walk, and follow you everywhere, to the point they even would take photos of you in the shower. Etc. IE, nothign is sacred, nothing is private. I have a problem with that – leave people the F*ck alone. Being a public figure doesn’t make you available 24/7 for photographs. (We might want to consider relaxing that for the President – hiding things liek our current HNIC has done should be outright treason, as it undermines the entire concept of a Democratic Republic, but it’s so far gone anyway… :-P And it STILL doesn’t mean we should have photos of Barry in his boxers. Give the man/puppet some privacy. Just release his records, and expect him to execute the office, and let him have his private time. But I digress.)

          • Eightsouthman
            July 18, 2013 at 2:41 pm

            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.

    • July 17, 2013 at 9:42 pm

      That story sounds like something that is going to happen to Alex Baldwin someday.

    • Eightsouthman
      July 18, 2013 at 6:36 am

      I don’t know if that example is very accurate. W/0 the paparazzi, that famous movie star would still be Buck Jones who works for Mobil at the Port Authur plant cleaning heater treaters every day.☻

  7. zach
    July 17, 2013 at 7:34 pm

    The preponderance of the evidence suggests that a thug is dead; I say GOOD RIDDANCE, one less thug. One less thug breeding. You go George!

    Here is a fantastic article on the specious white guilt I see on the MSM:

    http://www.fredoneverything.net/Zim.shtml

    From the article:

    “I have known people in the media for the forty years in which I pulled my oar in the triremes of print. I can attest that the talking heads do not want to provoke war. They want to display their virtue by engaging in exhibitionism disguised as confession.”

    • Jean
      July 17, 2013 at 8:08 pm

      Fred is always awesome. ;-)

      I think he has the correct idea, too, as did Roosh V and a few others. GTFO, the ship is sinking.
      BTW, the reason rats flee a sinking ship and swim off into the endless sea? Chance of survival is zero on the ship – swimming to death at least gives a chance of life…

    • Eightsouthman
      July 17, 2013 at 8:33 pm

      yep, Fred nailed it. He usually does.

      • liberranter
        July 17, 2013 at 11:10 pm

        Indeed. Fred’s words of wit and wisdom are a national treasure.

    • Tor Minotaur
      July 17, 2013 at 9:29 pm

      Ah the sweet bleat of the eugenicist’s sheep. Whatever America has become, it sure tastes like Stalin’s chicken to me. I mean that only in a kind way, since everyone of us is fighting a hard battle.

      4 legs and wild behavior baaaad. 2 legs and controlled breeding of the right livestock gooood? No!

      Strong minds can discuss ideas, average minds can discuss events, weak minds can only discuss people. Don’t get bogged down in individual people, and be one of the weak minded, learn to see the underlying ideas, learn to act as one of the strong minded.

      What is needed, if not a new DNA-ocracy? Metanoia.

      Metanoia is a Greek word meaning to perceive, to think, the result of perceiving or observing. To become a Libertarian through metanoia means to undergo “a change of mind.”

      Libertarianism is not unlike a voluntary cult. A cult that may eventually blossom into a culture. Something that one day may rise to a societal force of constraint. A conviction that all must provide value, and that none may merely confiscate value through force. A call for culling is a call for state force.

      In theology, metanoia refers to the change of mind which is brought about in repentance. You must repent of your ongoing uses of force and fraud, and strive to be better and more value producing. Meta means outside and beyond. Meta means vision and action beyond and outside national values, and also state-serving faux Judeo-Christian values. Action and vision even outside the materialism and materialist physics of our state-serving sciences.

      Metanoia, denotes a change of mind, a reorientation, a fundamental transformation of outlook. A self-owned individual’s vision of the world and of himself, and a new way of loving others and the Universe.

      In the words of the second-century Gnostic text: The Shepherd of Hermas, it implies “great understanding,” discernment.

      In Carl Jung’s psychology, metanoia indicates a spontaneous attempt of the psyche to heal itself of unbearable conflict by melting down and then being reborn in a more adaptive form.

      I too love Fred Reed, Zach, but am wary of his flaws. Including his toddler-like insistence that factories of war are just as legitimate and necessary as are factories of consumer goods. Self-ownership means disagreement.

      You are wrong comrade, when you say the first thing we do, we kill all but the docile poodles. That the way we’ll enjoy unparalleled prosperity is by being a lapdog proletariat. Yip yip. Faceless nameless wannabe pups and cogs in the capitalist machines. Neutered dogs with no dignity. With no self-ownership. With no naturally endowed humanity.

      A dystopian zoo world belonging to the temples of the bankrollers. And the temples of the holyrollers. Is it legal, to pluck this blade of grass, wondereth the Fido the poodle, what is the statute? What would Bernanke do. What would Pope Francis do. Who cares, what will you do?

      Are you so well housebroken to see only the evils of Barack. Or the evils of Bush. Are you blind to the evils of the masters who pull our strings and put bobble-heads figurines on the McMansion pedestals for us to bark and growl at, and then eat from their bowls of dogfood and fluoridated water?

      Yea, even though we walk through the valley of the shadow of uncaged people, we will fear no evil, for TPTB are with us? Their batons and tasers, they comfort us?

      Should we hail the assassination of Comrade Snowball, and his bad genes, and bad behaviors, being he was not a righteous beast of England?

      Human Resources: Social Engineering in the 20th Century

      The Shepherd of Hermas. From Christian Apocrypha and Early Christian Literature, long before Napoleon’s purge and militarization of Christianity
      http://www.gnosis.org/library/hermas.htm

      • BrentP
        July 17, 2013 at 11:30 pm

        I am going to steal this:
        “Strong minds can discuss ideas, average minds can discuss events, weak minds can only discuss people. ”

        :)

        • Eightsouthman
          July 18, 2013 at 7:57 am

          Socrates

      • July 18, 2013 at 6:42 am

        If I recall correctly, Snowball had been gelded, so his genes were never going to be perpetuated directly anyway.

        • Jean
          July 18, 2013 at 3:21 pm

          True in any eugenics program. We don’t directly contribute our genes.
          Nazis were big on eugenics, BTW. Ever wonder what we took from the Nazis besides rocket technology? (And jets; and stealth fighters, for that matter – WW2 Germany had the first-ever, near-invisible to radar fighter. Went back to wood and cut out the radar signature.)
          Several things came of the eugenics movement, BTW, “Planned parenthood” being the biggest. It was meant to cull the lesser races, you know. Margaret Sanger was very blunt in that. She thought the undesirable races would be glad to kill their unborn children in a quest for genetic perfection. (Translation: No more niggers, ‘spics, etc. A notion even I find odious.) We also had programs of forced sterilization, BTW.

          Snowball was gelded, but was father to “dozens” of Animal Farm descendents. Ya know? So, while his “imperfect” genes were removed – there were a LOT of chickens and ducks and goats and sheep who looked up to him as a Hero of the Revolution…
          Note, the feeble were the ones doing the idoloizing.

          Same here. And we’re likely going to be “perfected” without our permission, soon enough. Nanotech, genetic modifications, and lots of (retro-viral) immunizations, plus using retro-viral strains in GMO crops… Think of the where it can go. Where things CAN go is bad enough that we should think twice. (And I’m in the computer industry, so not a luddite.) A prallel is, we could trash the Constitution tomorrow, and Barry would likely not run for the third term anyway. But the third or fourth selection (Not a typo) afterwards? Martial law, use of soldiers against civilians, complete confiscation of weapons, dictator for life Hitlery might well decide we don’t even need selections any more… (And could be Palin, or Joe the Plumber, the name is irrelevant.) It’s not what’s going to be done TOMORROW, following destruction of the Constitution (or insert law X here). It’s what will happen in the future, which is unkown unknowns. We don’t even know what we don’t know. Maybe the US Neo-nazi party will come to power? Maybe whites will have a genetic defect and be subject to a horrendous disease? I mean, these things are consistent tropes of sci-fi. Terminator, Dune, Outbreak, The Day After Tomorrow, et al. The only things that change, are who does what. Humans, aliens, machines. The God-King of Dune set out to domesticate humans, and was successful. He took centuries. But Herbert wrote before there was nanotech or genetic manipulation at the chromosomal and chemical levels. Imagine you could (as the materialists claim) program a human brain, like a computer. Not even a question of TV for enforcing memes – no propaganada needed. Just vaccinate the child, tweak the human need for social interaction WAY up, and increase the serotonin and dopamine dumps from certain events…. And induce a shortage when there’s not enough social interaction (People, events, background noise, etc.) Now you have created, through whatever means, a social slave: this person cannot think straight without a herd. They are utterly alone if they can hear themselves think, and not just because their head’s an echo chamber. They’ll only feel “safe” when they are shoulder-to-shoulder with others at the feeding trough, or being milked communally.
          Add in the “next steps”: Intelligence is a problem – mute intelligence, only the elites should have brains to think anything original. (They won’t – for the same reason the proles are being dumbed down, it’s dangerous, risky.)
          Disease resistance, make the herds resistant to diseases. (Or maybe maake them susceptible? Who knows.)
          Engineer killer diseases, too. Especially zootropic polyphagic (I think that’s the term) protean (changes transmission vectors) bio-nanotech-based diseases. You can turn it “off”, spread it in the air, water, food, and then when conveient, turn it “on” when the populace is infected. EVERYONE already HAS it in their system – you tun on District 9, say. The Elites are “immunized” while the proles rot. The proles run in terror, the elites get wealthier.

          Eyesight, hearing, same things: better when needed, worse when desirable. And more and more immunizations. Nanotech to reprogram those nano-viruses, say: So, the Saint Mary’s & Three Waters outbreak has symptoms of diarhea and vomiting, while the District 9 outbreak causes blindness and paralysis… Etc.

          Just because Wilson’s League of Nations was a good idea, doesn’t mean that the UN is worth snot. Even IF the UN was noble in intent at first – today it is the WORST offender of human rights violations, EVER. It CAUSES the very problems it’s supposed to solve. (Much like any other government…)

          So why is my “lunatic ranting” above that far out? The sheep would deny they’re going to be slaughtered while they watch the one in front get butchered: “Surely it could never happen HERE! (… to me!)”

          Going to the moon was once the touch of madness, too. Or thinking there might be animals that live on chemosynthesis (Look in the deep ocean depths – sunlight cannot reach, but the geothermal vents allow the needed heat to start chemical reactions…)

          FFS, we’re on a site about cars: Look how fast the cars have changed, and WHY, and you’ll see what an unopposed agent of change can accomplish. (Unopposed because the cars cannot fight back.)
          Think of a drug-addled, dopamine-tranced via TV, unknowledgeable populace – and spin it all as “for safety,” “for the children,” “for your own good,” “No Real Scotsman…” psyop, 24/7/365 from birth ’til death.

          Still think it’s impossible?
          Ask the melanin-enhanced community, they DID oppose – and look where they are now. Malcolm X and MLK are turning over in their graves…
          As are John Adams, George Washington, even frickin’ Abe Lincoln, I’d wager.

          We make our stand – NOW, DAILY, against these encroachments – or we’ll die on our knees, weighed down by our own sins. :-P

  8. Tor Minotaur
    July 17, 2013 at 8:31 pm

    There is no right and wrong here. Just wrong and wronger.
    If Tray was a proper thug, like his Dad, he would have put the fear of ghetto justice into the pig-wannabe Zimm with a few choicely worded threats and went on his way.

    Street people calculate how fast you are, how soft your head is, and how much force they’ll need if the SHTF and they need to bash your skull enough to knock you out and make their get-away.

    Zimm’s sleep number was way too low, to be anywhere else but safely inside a locked car or home and not out on a self-appointed patrol like he’s Charles Bronson instead of Charlie Brown.

    Tray had a plausible excuse to be where he was, and may well have been looking for something to steal. Once he got spotted by Zimm, however, he should have put on his innocent Uncle Tom face back on again and started looking for a new target, one of the many without a creepy ass cracker reporting your every move to a 911 dispatcher.

    Sadly, faceless boosters in hoodies have a large niche in our troubled slave market society. Let’s not forget the Yankee complicity in this. Crackers holocausted millions who sought merely to live off the land through hunting and gathering of the commons. Crackers enslaved the nations farmers and told what them what they could grow, and when, and how much of it they needed to surrender to their Northern Mafia Don’s if they didn’t want to get Reconstructed or Cowboy & Indianed again.

    The maggot Zimmerman was well on his way to becoming another costumed pig. He was not merely protecting property. He was an overstepping buffoon trying to make his bones and win acceptance into the predator class of the boys in blue.

    Zimm had no business confronting anyone, when he himself was such a pathetic soft target, with no hope of defending himself except with deadly force. He was totally ill-prepared for any confrontation, the gun was more like a wheelchair for him, than the tool it should be.

    Men like Zimm should be barred from law enforcement, their only place is behind a desk, a cash register, or a factory work station; behind the locked doors of a secure building, or from inside a vehicle with the doors locked.

    Zimm is an abject savage, who hides behind his infantile idolatry of Hay-Sseus, rather than deals with the consequences of the real world with real threats that was created by Hay-Sseus. His idolatry and ill-preparedness has needlessly destroyed one of Hay-Sseus’s creations, and that is the gravest sin of all.

    - – - -
    Turns out the boss is a pathetic tool of TPTB NWO.

    41 Shots – Bruce Springsteen

    Bruce Springsteen: One of the “Friends of Harry Reid”
    http://www.nndb.com/people/343/000024271/

    - Progressive rockers are only troubled when a Guinea African immigrant is killed by pigs. If they’re taking our guns away or pulling us over to see if we’ve been drinking, he’s all for it.

  9. Tor Minotaur
    July 17, 2013 at 10:11 pm

    Irish slaves worth 5 shillings in the New World. African slaves worth 50 shillings in the new world.
    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread959615/pg1

    Cromwell hated the Irish Catholics for their rebellion against the crown, and he decimated the Irish Catholic population and made hundreds of thousands of them slaves which sold for 5 shillings. To understand just what “trash” these subhumans were to their Masters, they valued black slaves much more highly and sold them for 50 shillings.

    Irish slaves were the lowest of slaves, and if the black slaves felt they were being treated too harshly they would complain and say, “You are treating us like Irish!”

    These whites were sold at auction just as Blacks. They were called “Christians” in papers. (Originally the word Christian was used to identify lower class proles, especially the much hated Catholics)

    If a black were being sold they would say, “Negro”. They would rip apart white Christian families just as they did the black slaves. They would strip them naked and chain them up on a platform for all the men to bid on them. These men would poke and prod them, examine their teeth, and buy all they wanted. At one time there were more white slaves in the American colony than there were colonists. One Governor of Virginia listed in his property holdings 2000 Negroes and 6000 Whites.

    Investigating White Slavery
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBfwlMYu068


    From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves.
    Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade. Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution was to auction them off as well.

    Forgotten history of Britain’s white slaves in America
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-irish-slave-trade-the-forgotten-white-slaves/31076

  10. July 17, 2013 at 10:56 pm

    Stefan Molyneux has some interesting thoughts:

    The Truth About George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin:

    • July 17, 2013 at 11:10 pm

      He does an excellent follow-up, as well:

      After The Verdict: George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin:

  11. Swamprat
    July 18, 2013 at 12:03 am

    Having lived in the apartments right next to that neighborhood, I would say that instances of thuggery were pretty low there, although with the real estate collapse of 2008-2011, there were a lot of empty units in the neighborhood. In addition, the lower prices following the crash encouraged lower income people to move in. I was getting ready to buy into the Retreat at Twin Lakes until better sense got a hold of me. I am glad I didn’t. Something told me not to do it. I could feel a certain amount of tension in the air when I would bike through. I couldn’t put my finger on it at the time.

    All that said, I listened to the 911 tapes when they first came out and I was under the impression that Zimmerman was following Martin. Zimmerman told the police department not to give pursuit and Zimmerman disregarded that sage advice. He ended up following the little thug and getting his head used as a basketball. If it would have been me, I would have followed the 911 advice not to follow him. Perhaps they know more about thug activity than the neighborhood watch guy, who only sees a little at a time.

    Treyvon Martin was likely a thug and a societal pain in the ass, but I don’t think that he deserved his fate. Zimmerman didn’t deserve to be convicted of murder, either. What is really stunning about this whole thing is that the state failed to get a conviction for anything. Perhaps it was intentional that they pulled out Rachel fat chick out as their star witness. She had the IQ of a week old happy meal. Geez. That way, the state gave ammo to the feds to go after the “stand your ground law.” I don’t know how that will turn out. A 10 year old can see that the legislative intent of “stand your ground” doesn’t extend to people who actively follow others. I don’t know. With the current justice system, “stand your ground” laws could get struck down by some court somewhere. There goes the right to self defense. Yeah, putting up the “Creepy Ass Cracker” chick was intentional.

    • Eightsouthman
      July 18, 2013 at 12:18 am

      Swamprat, I guess I’m too country. I wouldn’t have followed him on foot, just turned my million CP spotlight on him, poked a big old rifle out the window and said “Boy, you better get your ass on home”. Of course I would have denied doing it if he’d have called me out on it but that wasn’t going to happen. There’s a great deal to be said about intimidation. I think a couple guys in my life have used it and saved me from myself. Better to scare someone outright and go the “”he said, he said” if it came down to it(although this was clearly something that wasn’t going to play out that way). He may have been a thug but he was still just a kid who could be intimidated. GZ was trying to big dog it, make an impression except he didn’t know what he was doing.

      • Swamprat
        July 18, 2013 at 12:28 am

        Eightsouthman – there’s a right way and a wrong way to do it. You might be onto something. The fact that Z was calling 911 I guess tells me that he couldn’t handle the situation. Better to step away. But if you can intimidate, all the better.

        • Eightsouthman
          July 18, 2013 at 1:15 am

          Swamprat, I grew up in a time and place where not only was there no one to call but no way to call. You had to fall back on what your daddy had told you. I can remember when a couple 14 year olds and myself the same age had to step up and intimidate some guys three times our age. We were in the right, on our land and felt we had to take care of it. It was one of those things where later when you tell the grownups, they just got red in the face, grabbed a gun and said, Get in the pickup and you did. You knew it was going to work out then and you were ready for it since you’d already been there and done it. You don’t have much choice when you find cattle rustlers or other thieves and no one else is there. It wasn’t happenstance we were always armed. The sissyfication of the men in this country was a planned thing, part of the women’s lib that was foisted on unsuspecting young women and laws to mentally castrate men. I’m not sure how it worked out in rural areas. Not too good I suspect but they’re still going after the young men. I feel sorry for young people of both sexes these days. I have renters who are early 30′s and find myself apologizing to them for the shitty world they grew up in. The shitty world that is rural Tx. now is 100 times better than the shitty world Trayvon and George grew up in. I feel sorry for them. I used to come in from work at midnight or later, get the wife up and go haul hay so it didn’t get rained on. How do you think that would play out these days with city girls? I married one but she stepped up and is tougher than I am. When I would come in and say Get your hay hauling gear on, she’d say Is it fixin to rain? Yep, we gotta haul ass. That’s just the way it is. I didn’t make the rules, just live by ‘em.

  12. lee
    July 18, 2013 at 11:50 am

    Those calling for “Justice for Trayvon,” including many privileged and educated white progressives, are less concerned about what may or may not have happened than they are about the principle that white America owes black America reparations for the sufferings that African Americans have endured: slavery, Jim Crow, Separate But Equal, the civil rights era, the disproportionate incarceration of young black men (and women). These reparations are to be paid by granting to the main spokespeople for the African American community the mea culpas and political advantages that they’re seeking. If they want Zimmerman convicted, convict him.

    These spokespeople (sometimes called race hustlers) don’t ask privileged and educated white progressives, by way of reparations, to give them their jobs, their money or their career promotions. They might begin to encounter resistance if they do. That is, they don’t ask any personal sacrifice from their white allies in order to right the wrongs of history. Rather, they join their white allies in a mutual effort to seek advantage at the expense of less affluent, less educated, less savvy, poor and working class whites who are less able to defend themselves, politically and economically, from having to pay these reparations. It’s an unholy but effective alliance. It soothes the consciences of those who suffer from white guilt and who are happy to see racial reparations being paid by other whites, not themselves.

    Also, many of these privileged and educated white progressives despise the South and their notions of Southern culture. What do you expect from Florida, Texas and Mississippi if not a culture dominated by racist, gun-toting yahoos who shoot and kill blacks with impunity?

    All of which is to say that in the Trayvon/Zimmerman trial, the self-serving self-righteousness of the privileged class was and is on blatant display for anyone to see who cares to look.

  13. Steve Rogers
    July 18, 2013 at 1:17 pm

    Anyone think Martin’s parents deserve some of the blame, considering their son’s activities/interest in pot, drugs, guns and ladies’ jewelry?

  14. July 18, 2013 at 1:18 pm

    If I, being a black, white, Latino, Chinese, Mexican, Indian, or of any other race – was on a public sidewalk, and ended up getting jumped on by an aggressor OF ANY RACE – and if by that aggressor’s actions and speech I was not only being beaten but also feared for my life – and if I were carrying concealed – I would most certainly pull out my gun and shoot the aggressor.

    The media should be ashamed for turning this event into race-baiting and gun ownership demonization, when it is nothing more than a self-defense story. If you believe otherwise be sure to watch the Stefan Molyneux news report video as listed by Harry P. in the second comment from the top.

  15. tom
    July 18, 2013 at 1:36 pm

    If George Zimmerman was named, “Carlos Ortega”, or “Luis Vincentes” or some such, none of this would have happened….

  16. willb
    July 18, 2013 at 1:55 pm

    What really pisses off the NAACP and Eric Holder is the right to carry laws, not the stand your ground laws.
    As it was once pointed out: God created man, Colt made him equal.
    Being a badass buffed up gangsta don’t mean shit in the face of superior firepower.
    Score one more for the right to carry in Florida.
    As it still stands, only a Cop can beat you to death for no reason.

    • willb
      July 18, 2013 at 2:13 pm

      It was the right to carry that saved GZ, not stand your ground or self defense laws.
      If he had not been carrying he would not have been able to invoke stand your ground (which he didn’t) or any effectual self defense( which he did.)
      Likely, he’d be an unemployed handicap drawing SS disability, or worse.

      • Steve Rogers
        July 18, 2013 at 4:04 pm

        Good point!

    • Eightsouthman
      July 18, 2013 at 2:19 pm

      Yea, Colt. I like lots of brands of guns but I never had anything else that pointed more naturally in my hand than a Colt. A Python feels like an extension of your arm. If something made noise and I was blindfolded I think I could hit it with a Python. Other Colts point better than other brands too. Browning got it on the money too.

    • hp
      July 18, 2013 at 3:18 pm

      God has updated the old equalizer.

      Now it’s RPG.

      Coming soon to a town near us all.

  17. El_Gordo
    July 18, 2013 at 2:29 pm

    I for one am tired of the thuggery.
    And I am even more tired of the endless intellectual contortions, the endless racist double-standards, the ongoing and continual corruption caused by defining a crime by the nature of the individual performing an action, rather than by the action itself. All of these illegitimate actions are used explicitly to produce inequality under the law on a variety of basis. And they are universally used to excuse bad behavior for the purpose of making some ‘more equal’ than others.

    When will John Q Public realize that our ‘betters’ foster this thuggery and legal inequality PRECISELY BECAUSE THEY ARE THUGS WHO WISH TO BE LEGALLY UNEQUAL (READ SUPERIOR)????

    This will not end well.

    • July 18, 2013 at 5:22 pm

      I, too, sense we’re very near a critical mass. Lots of people have simply had it with thugs – and thug culture.

      Enough already.

      • heath
        July 18, 2013 at 6:33 pm

        Are you going to toss out all your dvds of the godfather (s), scarface, bonnie and clyde then? (presuming
        you have them of course) and maybe your westerns too.

        • July 18, 2013 at 7:04 pm

          And why would I do that?

          They’re movies… as in, not real. As in, no one actually got hurt.

  18. 4x12x50
    July 18, 2013 at 2:59 pm

    Didn’t have time to read all the comments, but at the risk of redundancy a few things come to mind. As usual, I agree with you, Eric, wholeheartedly, but didn’t the guy who did the autopsy say he measured the length of the body on the table (later referred to by O’Mara) as being 71″? That’s five feet eleven for any of you recent Refugees from the Public Fool System. And it’s easy for us today, in the good light and comfort of hindsight, to think of Saint Trayvon as an unarmed teenager skipping merrily and whistling a tune on his way home, and up until the point of punching Z, all we have are Jeantel’s and Z’s ear and eye witness accounts to go on. But let’s not forget that Z says ST was not in a direct route but instead was looking just like someone casing one of the rear entrances of a townhouse. Just because ST is dead let’s not give him more than his fair share of the benefit of the doubt. We now know that ST was suspended from school when a bent screwdriver and jewelry (by his own admission did not belong to him) were found in his possession. But, sticking to what Z says he saw, let’s remember that ST even circled Z’s vehicle and glared at Z. IMHO this act is exponentially more provocative and inflammatory than merely “keeping someone in sight” until the cops arrive. No one disputes that ST ran “away” or somewhere. We know that four minutes passed between the end of Jeantel’s phone converstion with ST and physical contact with Z, enough time for someone of ST’s age and fitness level to be nearly a mile away! Why would he still be where we now know he was, instead of at his father’s home just a few yards away?

    Let’s consider some things that Z’s mind was forced to try to process in the blink of an eye. Who the fuck is this crazy son-of-bitch that just splattered my nose? What was he up to? Did he already B and E or possibly rape and/or murder someone and I’m interfering with his escape. Does this guy on top of me have a knife or a gun that he just hasn’t thought he needed—yet? If I succeed against him MMA style will he then “up the ante”? Is he by himself or does he have an accomplice (Getaway driver) that might arrive any second? Maybe Z was aware that more people are killed by fists than by rifles of any type. One would expect Z to know that if you have a firearm on your person, the last thing in the world you want to do is allow your attacker to get control of it. Z has referenced it as, “All of a sudden, the gun in my holster was not MY gun or HIS gun, it was THE gun.”

    I know that this case is a trap that diverts our attention from more pertinent events, but I believe it is a trap that we must continue to speak out about.

  19. hp
    July 18, 2013 at 3:16 pm

    NBC doctoring that audio tape is a day which will live in infamy.
    Maliciously and criminally doctoring the audio tape to frame Zimmerman.

    NBC should be put out of its misery.

    • July 18, 2013 at 5:19 pm

      Indeed.

      I hope Zimmerman sues them successfully for millions. What they did to him was both deliberate and contemptible.

  20. charlie
    July 18, 2013 at 3:30 pm

    It is not PC to say this, but more people need to shoot these young assaulting criminal thug thieves, be they black or white. They will not learn until they really suffer.

    • willb
      July 18, 2013 at 3:48 pm

      I live in Texas. Texas would not pass concealed carry until Florida did. Cudos to Florida. Crime rate is decreasing in both states. This is what really pisses off Eric Holder: deadly force defense works, and guess which criminals are suffering the most? Check the stats to see which criminal profile is the most prevalent and you will have your answer.

    • July 18, 2013 at 5:17 pm

      Agree, Charlie –

      Zero tolerance for violent thugs, whatever their skin color.

  21. D. Rotelli
    July 18, 2013 at 3:53 pm

    Early this month in Mableton, Georgia, a 36-year-old white man exiting a convenience store was assaulted by four *unarmed* black teenagers, savagely beaten, then thrown into the street in the path of an oncoming car, which ran him over, killing him.

    This is the proper outcome, according to Obama, Holder, Sharpton, et al. Only a racist white person wouldn’t want to be killed by black teenagers.

    http://www.11alive.com/news/article/297683/3/Smyrna-man-beaten-and-shoved-to-his-death-in-traffic

  22. Barton Turner
    July 18, 2013 at 4:08 pm

    I grew up in the south so I’m familiar with all the arguments excusing racism as necessary to protect white people and keep black people in their places. What is amazing to me is how many people from all over the country embrace that exact fear-based, self-righteous backwardness. Decent people don’t lionize George Zimmerman. Decent, intelligent people recognize that whatever occurred between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman was avoidable and tragic. I can’t imagine what fear and neediness drives people to write such drivel.

    • hp
      July 18, 2013 at 5:09 pm

      Oh Barton, your awesomeness runneth over.
      What an incredible philosophy is such hindsight of woulda, coulda, shoulda, mighta, maybe, perhaps!

      You’re so awesome in fact, I bet you can easily imagine this “fear and neediness” and even offer a heart felt insult or two.

      “Decent, intelligent people” like you. C’mon man!
      You’re much too modest.

    • July 18, 2013 at 5:15 pm

      Yes, indeed Barton.

      It was avoidable.

      Had Saint Trayvon not attacked Zimmerman, his death would have been avoided.

      Just as the guy who decides to break into my house in the middle of the night can avoid being ventilated by 12 gauge slugs.

  23. Derek
    July 18, 2013 at 4:41 pm

    Yeah, he was a “Saint”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0b9xDhWocg

  24. john
    July 18, 2013 at 6:09 pm

    Being identified as a “cracker” in Florida can get you killed. But the American media was largely silent about that double murder of two “crackers” by a black gangbanger. They also didn’t whip up the slightest bit of moral hysteria about a recent home invasion caught on a nanny cam where a burly black man savagely beat a white woman in front of her three-year-old daughter.

    John White [a black man] said his son, Aaron, woke him around 11 p.m. to say teens he had argued with at a party were headed to the Whites’ house in Miller Place, a predominantly white community on eastern Long Island.

    Aaron had complied earlier with a request to leave the beer bash after he was suspected of posting online threats against a teenage girl at the party. The story of the threats turned out to be bogus, but when Cicciaro [a white youth] and others heard about what happened, they headed for Miller Place, making cell phone calls to Aaron White.

    John White went out to his driveway and shot Daniel Cicciaro, 17, at point blank range — his head was three inches from the gun.

    White was sentenced to more time in prison for owning an illegal weapon than for the killing. He got two years for possession of the gun, and 1 1/3 to four years for manslaughter, to be served at the same time.
    After serving five months, governor David Patterson gave White a full pardon stating, “…everybody connected with the case has suffered enough.”

    You see, such cases don’t fit the script. And if you don’t stick to the script, you lose your job and are forever cast out of polite society.

    So instead of manning up and admitting that the only evidence so far of racial animus in George Zimmerman’s murder trial allegedly came straight from Trayvon Martin’s lips, panicked prog pundits scrambled last week to explain that “cracker” is not a racist term. After all, that’s what Rachel Jeantel [the prosecutors' main witness] claims, and even though the thick-necked, heavy-lidded she-beast appears to be barely sentient, white people are too stupid to understand her. We are lectured by the same people who incessantly lampoon white Southern accents that crackers are simply too “ignorant” to comprehend the rich vibrant nuances of Miz Jeantel’s prehistoric verbal grunts and clicks. White people should quit whining, or at least that’s what the laughably white staffers at Gawker—who never cease whining about the innate sinfulness of whiteness—recommend.

    When O. J. Simpson was acquitted of murdering two white people, white Americans did not riot. When four LAPD officers—three who were white and one who was Mexican, although the press habitually referred to them all as white—were acquitted on charges of using excessive force against serial fuckup Rodney King, LA’s ghettos erupted in solar flares of violence that left 53 dead.

  25. Bill Jones
    July 18, 2013 at 6:17 pm

    “Lying there on the ground, with a physically superior man on top of him and wailing away, ”

    I think you mean whaling.
    “whale
    verb
    1
    to deliver a blow to (someone or something) usually in a strong vigorous manner ”

    Zimmerman was wailing.

  26. john bear
    July 18, 2013 at 6:21 pm

    PapaBear
    Being identified as a “cracker” in Florida can get you killed. But the American media was largely silent about that double murder of two “crackers” by a black gangbanger. They also didn’t whip up the slightest bit of moral hysteria about a recent home invasion caught on a nanny cam where a burly black man savagely beat a white woman in front of her three-year-old daughter.

    John White [a black man] said his son, Aaron, woke him around 11 p.m. to say teens he had argued with at a party were headed to the Whites’ house in Miller Place, a predominantly white community on eastern Long Island.

    Aaron had complied earlier with a request to leave the beer bash after he was suspected of posting online threats against a teenage girl at the party. The story of the threats turned out to be bogus, but when Cicciaro [a white youth] and others heard about what happened, they headed for Miller Place, making cell phone calls to Aaron White.

    John White went out to his driveway and shot Daniel Cicciaro, 17, at point blank range — his head was three inches from the gun.

    White was sentenced to more time in prison for owning an illegal weapon than for the killing. He got two years for possession of the gun, and 1 1/3 to four years for manslaughter, to be served at the same time.
    After serving five months, governor David Patterson gave White a full pardon stating, “…everybody connected with the case has suffered enough.”

    You see, such cases don’t fit the script. And if you don’t stick to the script, you lose your job and are forever cast out of polite society.

    So instead of manning up and admitting that the only evidence so far of racial animus in George Zimmerman’s murder trial allegedly came straight from Trayvon Martin’s lips, panicked prog pundits scrambled last week to explain that “cracker” is not a racist term. After all, that’s what Rachel Jeantel [the prosecutors' main witness] claims, and even though the thick-necked, heavy-lidded she-beast appears to be barely sentient, white people are too stupid to understand her. We are lectured by the same people who incessantly lampoon white Southern accents that crackers are simply too “ignorant” to comprehend the rich vibrant nuances of Miz Jeantel’s prehistoric verbal grunts and clicks. White people should quit whining, or at least that’s what the laughably white staffers at Gawker—who never cease whining about the innate sinfulness of whiteness—recommend.

    When O. J. Simpson was acquitted of murdering two white people, white Americans did not riot. When four LAPD officers—three who were white and one who was Mexican, although the press habitually referred to them all as white—were acquitted on charges of using excessive force against serial fuckup Rodney King, LA’s ghettos erupted in solar flares of violence that left 53 dead.

    • Eightsouthman
      July 18, 2013 at 8:13 pm

      John, great post.

  27. MetaCynic
    July 18, 2013 at 7:03 pm

    Profiling is a survival mechanism. Just ask that master race baiter, Jesse Jackson. He once related the story that while walking in his neighborhood (probably the south side of Chicago) he was struck with fear upon hearing rapidly approaching footsteps. Turning around, he was relieved that the footsteps belonged to a white man.

    • Eightsouthman
      July 18, 2013 at 7:50 pm

      MetaCynic, I believe that was Al (Sharpton) who admitted that.

      • DownshiftFast5to1
        July 18, 2013 at 8:19 pm

        From a Walter Williams article, “The Rev. Jesse Jackson once said, “There is nothing more painful for me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery — then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”…”

        http://www.lewrockwell.com/2010/08/walter-e-williams/is-profiling-racist/

    • Boothe
      July 18, 2013 at 10:50 pm

      I have a cousin that was all torn up with guilt over her “racism” and related this to story to me. She was parked near the Science Museum in Richmond, Virginia one evening and as she was returning to her car heard several “youths” from a popular Southern demographic group approaching from behind. When she turned around and saw who they were and how they were dressed, she hurried to her car, jumped in and sped off. This was back in the day before “profiling” was a buzz word. She said she felt so bad about being a “racist.” I explained that she wasn’t being a racist; that was crap they’d taught her in sociology. I asked her if it had been a group of big, hairy white guys, wearing chain wallets, engineers boots and denim jackets with the sleeves ripped off following her if she would have behaved any differently. She said no. I said of course not, you’d know they were potentially hardcore bikers and a potential threat to you even though they were “your” race. I went on to tell her that out in New Mexico, they teach their kids how tell the difference between a gopher snake and a rattlesnake too. It’s a question of survival, not one of “profiling” a snake. Survival in the city is no different: you either learn your environment and recognize the predators or you may very well die.

      If you are a truly responsible American, you arm yourself, train with your weapon and give the predators a good incentive to take up another line of work. If they play the odds anyway, you may do your fellow countrymen a service like George Zimmerman did; one less predator in the pack. This is good for the community, and by extension the country, because it sends a clear message to the violence prone element in our society. But, If you are a simpering limp-wristed member of Homo Ovinae who is too timid, weak or afraid to take up your own defense, then you encourage, feed and help propagate the predator class. It really is that simple.

  28. David Pedersen
    July 18, 2013 at 9:55 pm

    I guess in reaction to the outrageous media assault on the truth in this case the libertarian view has fundamentally changed and so has the role of a libertarian principled neighborhood watch.

    Now a neighborhood watch can call the police on someone on the grounds of suspicion alone. Now we are innocent until proven guilty. This abandonment of our fourth to rally around the second has even changed the definition of what constitutes a “libertarian perspective”.

    Job well done media.

    Obama’s citizen army (whether Zimmerman is a member or not) has been granted wholesale and clear route directly past our fourth for the duration of this struggle. To suggest Martin’s rights, our rights, were not violated by Zimmerman is astonishing. To justify suspicion as the only requirement to call the police is truly frightening given the source of this article.

    Once upon a time not long ago a crime had to be committed before someone should call the police. Now you just have to forget your place. Now you just have to provoke any measure of suspicion in the mind of any person anywhere.

    According to this new “libertarian perspective”.

    ..

    • willb
      July 18, 2013 at 10:41 pm

      @Pederson

      “not long ago a crime had to be committed before someone should call the police.”

      What a load of crap. Get back under your blankets.

      • David Pedersen
        July 18, 2013 at 10:56 pm

        Yes according to our constitution that is correct. There is no other institution which more regularly or religiously violates people’s constitutional rights than the police. Especially against young black males. There was no reason whatsoever for Zimmerman to expect Martin’s rights would not be violated by the police or even his physical safety. By calling the police on Martin Zimmerman imposed on Martin unnecessary and unjustified risk of harm.

        If you want to live without the fourth just keep deferring to police whenever you are suspicious of someone and justify their calling the police on you on the same basis. This litmus of suspicion is so loose and petty it cannot be distinguished from Napolitano’s see something say something enlistment of every person in the United States to tattle first and mind our own business never.

        See a crime? Report it. Suspect someone? Take a mental note and honor their rights to be left alone just as you deserve from everyone else. Neighborhood watch or casual citizen there is no difference in the right conduct with regards to suspicion.

        If you want to live in the real America as a real American this “unsafe” standard is the only one which upholds our liberties.

        ..

        • July 18, 2013 at 11:01 pm

          David,

          Again: Zimmerman is faulted for watching/following Martin, which he had every right (legally and otherwise) to do, given the circumstances. The Fourth Amendment does not enter into it. Zimmerman had no authority – no legal sanction to use force. He did not attempt to detain Martin or search him or interrupt his travel. He watched him. And followed him.

          Martin was free to leave. But he chose a physical confrontation – one that ended badly for him.

          He behaved like the thug Zimmerman assumed he was – thereby proving that assumption correct.

    • July 18, 2013 at 10:53 pm

      David,

      Watching a person who is out in public isn’t a violation of the 4th Amendment – or the principle behind it. Zimmerman used no force against Martin – who was free to ignore Zimmerman, or just walk away.

      It astonishes me that it’s necessary to explain this.

      • David Pedersen
        July 18, 2013 at 11:16 pm

        There are two different issues here.

        Following someone without stating the reason.

        Calling the police on the grounds of suspicion.

        Tell me again how either one of these does not violate your rights?

        You’re walking back to your dad’s place in an unfamiliar neighborhood. Someone is shadowing you. What do you feel Eric?

        You realize someone has called the cops on you and you have done nothing wrong. What do you feel Eric?

        Fear? Why? Anger? Why?

        Don’t tell me that is the ideal of liberty and justice for all. That is statist conduct wholly out of the boundaries of common sense and common law. You feel fear and anger because you are endangered and you are innocent. To suggest you are not endangered is dishonest.

        We cannot afford to “take sides” justifying all of one side and besmirching all of the other. This is the result of outrageous media polarization and we the libertarians who supposedly know better are being tricked into playing a football game with our rights.

        Just like everybody else.

        ..

        • July 19, 2013 at 12:08 am

          David,

          He did state the reason: a suspicious person (young black male) was seen in the area – this in context of a series of recent robberies committed by young black males.

          His reason was reasonable. To deny this is fatuous. Especially given what we now know about Martin – i.e., that he was a thug and it is entirely likely he was up to no good.

          No harm is done by checking him out – by asking him a question or two.

          In fact, the way Zimmerman did it is the way it ought to be done. No force was used. Not until it became necessary – in self defense.

          • David Pedersen
            July 19, 2013 at 12:21 am

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

          • July 19, 2013 at 10:22 am

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

            Absurd.

            Just, preposterous.

            Is that the best you’ve got?

            Really?

          • BrentP
            July 19, 2013 at 12:26 am

            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.

          • Eightsouthman
            July 19, 2013 at 12:49 am

            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.

          • Boothe
            July 19, 2013 at 4:40 am

            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.

  29. willb
    July 18, 2013 at 10:24 pm

    Yup, I hit it dead nuts.
    Just Jesse jack on TV an he is complaining that “homicides” against blacks have tripled since concealed carry. He does use the correct word “homicide” which indicates a killing but does not indicate culpability.
    If this increase was in blacks being “murdered” he would have said so gleefully but the fact is that this increase in homicides is not paralleled by an increase in murder convictions.
    What does that tell us?
    Concealed carry works by allowing people to defend their persons and families with deadly force.

  30. Rick237
    July 18, 2013 at 10:39 pm

    I would argue that Zimmerman is a violent thug who supports the wars on unlicensed drug owners and gun owners, and numerous other unjust wars that are currently being waged against millions of peaceful humans. In fact, he advocates all this violence. He, like every other ilegalizer, is much more violent than Martin or any private street thug and a much bigger thief than any burglar. He is also much more dangerous than any petty thief because private thieves are easy to deal with. It would not bother me much if M and Z were both armed and shot eachother.

    Z was an aggressor because he wanted to put M in prison for being “on drugs”. He also wanted to put M in prison for possesing a gun. (“he put his hand in his waist band”). Z is definitly not a peaceful person who minds his own business. I do not understand the deification of Z by libertarians. I have seen several libertarians attempt to demonize M by calling him a “drug dealer”. Here is a quote from an LRC article, “Martin was heavily involved with illegal guns, drugs and fighting”. What’s next? Will some libertarians accuse Mr. Martin of “money laundering”?

    When Z demanded to know, “Who are you and what what are you doing here in MY neighborhood?” Z should have told him to MYOB or go Funk yourself. I have a friend who would respond to Z’s question with, “What’s it to ya?” What if M told Z to “Stop bugging me or I will kick the crap out of you.”?

    Now, If I were on the jury and the evidence showed that Martin struck the first blow without any warning, I would hold my nose and vote to acquit Z because I support the NAP.

    • July 18, 2013 at 11:06 pm

      Rick,

      The fact is – as testified to by abundant physical and circumstantial evidence, witness testimony, etc. – that Martin initiated the physical confrontation. He attacked Zimmerman with his hands. There is no justifiable excuse for that – except that he was attacked first. There is no evidence to that effect. None. Not even Saint Trayvon’s defenders have suggested it. Martin threw the first punch – at which point, he committed crime (properly speaking, not merely in terms of “the law”). At that point, Zimmerman had the right to defend himself.

      The case boils down to that – and it’s as simple as that.

      • Eightsouthman
        July 18, 2013 at 11:31 pm

        There’s something to be said for old school. GZ could have carried a Navy Colt and just swatted him. But you can’t go back so you have to do what the jury did, find him not guilty of murder. We’re not debating some great philosophical question, just if GZ killed him in self-defense or not. I hope to hell I never have to live in a neighborhood.

      • David Pedersen
        July 19, 2013 at 12:04 am

        Violence does not start with physical violence. It starts with violence against our rights in whatever form.

        If you are followed or shadowed by someone without that person explaining his reason that is a form of violence. I did not say merely to be watched. I said followed or shadowed. That is the demarcation.

        I do not defend Martin’s violent assault of Zimmerman in the least. I do defend Martin’s emotions as they likely were based on the violence done him first by Zimmerman.

        Zimmerman did violence to all of us. Any who attempt to justify Zimmerman’s pre-Martin assault conduct also do violence to all of us.

        Zimmerman should have either explained to Martin why he was following Martin (this goes back to simple communications solving so many of our differences) or Zimmerman should have taken a mental note of Martin’s appearance and continued on his patrol without calling the police.

        This would have been the conduct of a responsible adult. A libertarian.

        To justify what Zimmerman did before he was attacked simply because it was not physically violent is totally dishonest. Calling the police on anyone for any reason is a violent act. It is sometimes justified and sometimes not. It is always a violent act.

        Following someone and failing to explain why is a violent act. It may or not be justified to follow someone and even justified to decline to explain why in some cases but it is always a violent act when the reason is not provided.

        So much violence here on the part of Zimmerman. Non-physical violence which should be very easily recognized for what it is but for the media’s barrage of incredible untruth. It has blinded us nearly all.

        ..

        • July 19, 2013 at 12:12 am

          David,

          That’s nonsense.

          If you cannot force me to submit to your will – or use the threat of force to do so – then you have done me no violence.

          Hurt feelings, offense taken – these do not constitute violence.

          Martin, on the other hand, lashed out like the feral thug he was. He didn’t merely raise his fists and say, “fuck off – or I’ll hit you.” He attacked the guy – and continued too beat him mercilessly until Zimmerman finally managed to end the attack by shooting the vicious SOB dead.

          That’s on Saint Trayvon – not Zimmerman.

          • David Pedersen
            July 19, 2013 at 12:29 am

            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.

            ..

          • July 19, 2013 at 10:12 am

            David,

            You’re being completely disingenuous.

            Are you really telling me that if you saw a person who fit the profile of people who had been robbing your neighbors’ homes, you’d not be suspicious? That it would be wrong of you to monitor their movements? Even to follow them?

            Please.

            Your posts are chock full of cant – starting with your implied premise that Trayvon was utterly innocent and there was no legitimate reason for suspicion. That Zimmerman was “violent” by observing/following Martin – and so, responsible for Trayvon’s fists bashing in his face.

            It’s preposterous – and I suspect you know it.

            This was not the local KKK Grand Dragon gunning down a sweater-wearing Bill Cosby.

            It was an ordinary citizen trying to protect his home and the homes of his neighbors against predatory thugs – one of whom got his just desserts for living up to his profile.

      • July 19, 2013 at 12:29 am

        Dear Eric,

        Correct.

        Anyone can play the “coulda, woulda, shoulda” game til the cows come home.

        But anyone who understands natural rights theory, who understands the NAP, knows that any poor judgment on the part of either party beforehand is at best secondary or tertiary in importance.

        For example, whether anyone “profiled” anyone else, by race or any other criterion, is largely beside the point.

        The primary issue, the only real issue, is “Who hit whom?” Or as political philosophers would say, “Who initiated physical force against the person or property of another?” As the Mises Wiki puts it:

        The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom, or the anti-coercion or zero aggression principle or non-initiation of force) is an ethical stance which asserts that “aggression” is inherently illegitimate. “Aggression” is defined as the “initiation” of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property. In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense. The principle is a deontological (or rule-based) ethical stance.

        Who hit whom? Who insisted on following up his initial assault with potentially deadly force that compelled the defender to use his firearm?

        The Zimmerman trial was not about “seeking racial justice.”

        It was part of an ongoing Big Government campaign to delegitimize private gun ownership and even self-defense. It was part of an overarching campaign against natural rights and individual liberty.

        • July 19, 2013 at 10:18 am

          Thanks, Bevin!

          PS: Good to hear from you!

          • July 21, 2013 at 1:05 am

            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.

          • July 21, 2013 at 10:00 am

            Thanks, Bevin!

            Yes, indeed – and it’s backfired on them.

            Rather than create the pretext for further citizen disarmament (with the “side benefit,” as they had hoped) of further flagellation/guilt-tripping of White Men (evil) vs. Black Everyone (always saintly) it revealed – very publicly – the growing weariness of broad swaths of the public; people – millions of them – know the score and aren’t going to roll over any more.

            They know in their hearts and minds that it’s not “racist” to acknowledge crime statistics/realities.

            They know that people like Sharpton and Jackson are not well-intended; that in fact, they are black Julius Streichers who will never be placated, whose existence and livelihood depends on their ability to generate race hate and division.

            They know that they need guns – that it’s up to themselves to provide for their own physical security – and will resist any efforts to take away their guns.

          • BrentP
            July 21, 2013 at 9:27 pm

            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.

          • Eightsouthman
            July 21, 2013 at 10:24 pm

            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.

          • Eightsouthman
            July 21, 2013 at 10:42 pm

            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

          • BrentP
            July 22, 2013 at 2:56 am

            “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

          • July 22, 2013 at 10:09 am

            It’s been a long time since I’ve heard that one… you know,it sounds like Beethoven compared with the odious, nihilistic, manufactured dreck that is “popular music” today…

          • DownshiftFast5to1
            July 22, 2013 at 4:14 am

            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.

          • July 22, 2013 at 10:04 am

            It’s true.

            I never hear Red Barchetta anymore. Or Tom Sawyer.

            Just… bix nood.. mufuggah mufuggah…

          • BrentP
            July 23, 2013 at 2:30 am

            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.

        • Eightsouthman
          July 21, 2013 at 10:18 am

          Bevin, what I find to be so disingenuos(screw you spell-check)is the lack of one single other case like this during the entire time since this event occurred. If this were a real problem, there would be countless other cases to allude to instead of this one case that actually isn’t what they’re trying to make it out to be. It simply shows how desperate and duplicitous they are. Dirty low down double dealing statists.

          • July 22, 2013 at 12:16 am

            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?

  31. David Pedersen
    July 18, 2013 at 11:38 pm

    Good evening young sir my name is Mr. Zimmerman. I’ve been assigned by our neighborhood watch to patrol this area and protect it from crime. That is why I will be keeping an eye on you. You look suspicious to me. As a matter of fact I have already called the police to come check you out. Just to be sure you understand.

    Don’t worry too much about it. Chances are if you tell them who you are and where you are going and that you are not doing anything illegal they will just let you go. Yes of course we all know you have a right to not identify yourself but I strongly advise against that. Better just do everything they say with absolutely no indication you are displeased. Yes there is a chance they might abuse you, beat you up a little and slam you around. They might even haul you off to jail, just to be sure. I really do hope they don’t plant any drugs on you.. so many black males are already in prison for just that very thing. Hopefully, with a little luck, you can be on your way.

    Have a very good evening. Sincerely. Did you know I helped black people before? Yup. Oh but that is beside the point. Just wanted you to know that. Goodnight.

    ..

    • July 19, 2013 at 12:00 am

      David,

      You’re dodging the salient fact – that Martin physically assaulted Zimmerman. Probably over being “disrespected.” But in any case, not in self-defense.

      That’s the bottom line here.

      Or do you take the position that being “disrespected” entitles the “disrespected” party to commit a physical assault?

      • David Pedersen
        July 19, 2013 at 12:15 am

        I think I’ve made all my points. If you read all of what I have stated you will either agree or not but I have nothing else to add.

        If you think people can do anything to anyone as long as it is not physical violence then have at it. Please however do not call it a libertarian principle. That does violence to the truth.

        ..

        • July 19, 2013 at 1:01 am

          Dear David,

          Actually, by attempting to define non-physical action as “violence” you did gross violence to the truth.

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

          Would it have been better had Zimmerman worn a “Neighborhood Watch” jacket? Probably.

          But that changes nothing vis a vis the physical confrontation. Martin still did not have any right to violate the NAP by hitting Zimmerman.

          Whoever violates the NAP, automatically loses the libertarian moral high ground.

          Skin color has nothing to do with it.

          • David Pedersen
            July 19, 2013 at 1:27 am

            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?

            ..

          • Rick237
            July 20, 2013 at 6:54 am

            “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.

          • July 20, 2013 at 11:00 am

            Rick,

            Saint Trayvon did a great deal more than throw a punch. He threw a rain of them. And then bashed a man’s head against a concrete sidewalk. That is murderous assault. It invites lethal self-defense.

            This case really is open and shut.

            Martin was not a Jew being persecuted by Nazis (or an innocent black kid being hassled for no reason by a violent racist). He was a belligerent thug who viciously attacked a man who had understandable reasons for following him around. It’s too bad that apologists for black thugs refuse to acknowledge this – that people are leery of young blacks not because they’re “racist” but because young blacks are far more likely to be a threat to them than anyone else. But most rational people do acknowledge it, even if they can’t say so openly.

            This – the fact of disproportionate black criminality – doesn’t justify abuse of any given black person’s rights. But heightened suspicion isn’t an abuse of one’s rights. You may take offense, you may be unhappy. But no harm has been done to you.

            And: If you don’t want to be the object of heightened suspicion, then don’t do things that heighten suspicion.

            If I dress like Aqualung and make myself up to look like him – shaggy beard, “greasy fingers smearing shabby clothes” – etc. – and then hang out at the playground where little girls are running about, is it unreasonable for parents to cast a gimlet eye my way? To be suspicious? To perhaps ask me what my business is?

            Of course not.

            The same applies to young black males who look/act a certain way. The race hustlers – including Obama – want to deny this. Attempt to conflate the legitimate suspicion/wariness of young black men who look and act like thugs with all black males, as a class. That is, Trayvon was no different than a sweater-wearing associate professor of physics out for a stroll. Both are hated because they’re black.

            Sigh.

            It’s is god-damn tiresome.

          • July 22, 2013 at 12:33 am

            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.”

        • boldaslove
          July 19, 2013 at 4:02 am

          Treyvon could have verbally confronted Zimmerman, he could have ran away, he could have called the police instead of his girlfriend, but instead he committed a felony by physically assaulting Zimmerman. Zimmerman, who never broke any law had the choice of allowing Treyvon to pound his head into the ground until perhaps he died, or shooting Treyvon. What would you have done?

          • July 19, 2013 at 9:29 am

            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.

      • Libertymike
        July 19, 2013 at 12:30 am

        Eric-

        Boy, did you ever bring your A game – with both the column and in your responses!

        • July 19, 2013 at 10:08 am

          Too much coffee!

      • David Pedersen
        July 19, 2013 at 1:13 am

        We as a nation are being ensnared into a debate about the conviction of Zimmerman at the expense of the larger constitutional principles. Zimmerman went to trial and the jury has decided a verdict.

        Our discussion as libertarians should not be about that. Nor should we spend one moment talking about what the media is doing to the truth or what their motives may be. It should be about the law and constitutional vs. unconstitutional conduct. To benefit at all from this case we need to examine it from the perspective which will hopefully serve us better in the future. To spend one moment talking about Martin as an individual, his history or character, is disservice to the questions still so wrongly focused concerning our course ahead. I see this case as an opportunity to better frame the debate around right conduct of a citizen with respect to suspicion and crime and the involvement of the police.

        Others will simply continue to try to not so gently help people understand Martin was a thug and we have the right to defend ourselves from thugs. I guess it depends how right you want to feel what kind of discussion you wish to conduct.

        When I saw the headline of this article claiming the “libertarian” view it piqued my interest. I had expected a much better coverage of the real issues so thoroughly neglected nearly everywhere.

        I really do hope in the future we can see the law through the prism of our own world in generalized terms and not submit to the polarizing effect of taking sides in a game of who can ignore the most general truth to feel the most specific right.

        Lament the division of this society by the media and the politicians for personal gain? Start with not taking sides and simply serve the people as an advocate for the truth. The generalized truth undistracted by particulars of a particular case. After all, when violence is done to the truth and our constitution violence is done to all of us.

        Each and every one.

        My conclusions are:

        Neighborhood watch groups can not presume any legal authority which a private citizen does not otherwise have.

        Persons who choose to follow a person are obligated to explain the reason for following them to the person they are following.

        Persons who call the police should only do so on the ground of witnessing a crime and not on suspicion alone.

        These are the issues to be debated and right conclusions affirmed. The character of Trayvon Martin comes no where into that field of consideration. IF you want to benefit from this case at all. The wrongness of Martin’s reaction is simply an utter distraction from these subjects.

        ..

        • July 19, 2013 at 9:56 am

          David,

          “The law” (as such) is irrelevant. Libertarians do not mindlessly venerate statutes. The only relevant consideration in any given case is: Right – or wrong? The non-aggression principle applied.

          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.

          Martin took umbrage. Which – as such – is fine. But rather than either continue on his way – or verbally confront Zimmerman – he physically attacked him. Absolutely wrong, in Libertarian as well as legal terms. You don’t get to strike people with impunity. And when you bash a man’s head into concrete, that man has every right to defend himself with lethal force.

          The cops are a non-issue. It is neither here nor there as regards Zimmerman’s right to be suspicious of Martin, to observe and follow him – and to ask him questions. None of these acts affronts Libertarian ideals, including the NAP, because no force was initiated. Zimmerman made no attempt to detain or restrain Martin. His being annoyed or insulted (“disrespected”) is insufficient justification for a physical assault. A vicious, murderous assault.

          An assault that confirmed Zimmerman’s suspicions, incidentally. Trayvon Martin was a thug.

          And got what thugs deserve.

          • David Pedersen
            July 19, 2013 at 10:20 am

            “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.

            ..

          • July 19, 2013 at 10:33 am

            David,

            The act must be put in context – which you studiously avoid doing, which I find greatly interesting.

            Zimmerman didn’t just pick out a random person and follow him for no reason. He followed an individual who fit the profile of people who’d been causing problems in his neighborhood. Thus his following Martin was reasonable.

            And regardless, one doesn’t have the right to attack a person merely because they’ve followed you.

            One certainly has the right to turn ’round and ask the follower, “hey, what’s up?” And so on. One has every right to defend oneself if the person following attempts to restrain or assault you.

            But you’re defending a thug who committed an egregiously violent assault upon a man who had reason to be suspicious – for nothing more than “disrespecting” a thug.

          • July 19, 2013 at 10:39 am

            You write:

            “As a libertarian he cannot subject people to unreasonable searches and inquisitions and harassment …”

            And Zimmerman did no such thing.

            He did not search Martin or even attempt to do so.

            He followed him – nothing more – and for this, the thug wheeled ’round and assaulted him. None of us were there, but given Trayvon’s known history (thief, braggart thug) it seems very likely he gave Zimmerman no time to do anything but react to a sudden, violent assault. Martin “went ballistic” because he felt he’d been “disrespected” by a “cracka” (his own words).

            It bears repeating: He had Zimmerman on the ground, prone and at his mercy – and continued to beat on him, bashing his head into the concrete. That is a murderous assault which cannot be excused or whitewashed.

            Which is why you – and those who share your views on this case – are losing the intellectual (and ethical) argument.

            It doesn’t help your cause to make ridiculous assertions (e.g., it is “violent” to merely monitor/follow a suspicious person) nor to tender outright fabrications (e.g., your utterly false assertion that Zimmerman “searched” – or intended to search – Martin).

            You seem willing to go to the nth degree to defend a street thug while impugning the legitimate actions of a well-intended citizen. A man who may not be a hero, but who did nothing wrong.

          • July 22, 2013 at 12:49 am

            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.

          • Eightsouthman
            July 22, 2013 at 1:22 am

            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.

          • July 22, 2013 at 3:34 am

            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.

          • July 22, 2013 at 3:47 am

            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.

            Was this not the mindset of the besieged troops in “Blackhawk Down?”

            What happens when they come home and morph into Officer 82nd Airborne? Whom do they perceive as standing in the way of their getting home safe? Against whom will they do whatever they need to do?

            Jingoist chickenhawks who cheer military brutality abroad, when it is directed at “them,” just don’t get it.

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

          • Eightsouthman
            July 22, 2013 at 5:17 am

            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.

          • July 22, 2013 at 7:44 am

            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”

          • July 22, 2013 at 9:39 am

            Yes, exactly.

            And it is the idea of democracy and all it implies that must be anathematized.

            The world over, democracy is lionized by the elites – because it gives them absolute power over the demos – the mob. All they need do is represent themselves as the avatars, the expressors of the demos – and, viola. They may do anything to anyone.

            Democracy is perhaps the most diabolically effective vehicle for imposing tyranny without overt conquest – and maintaining it without an overt dictatorship – ever conceived by the mind of man.

            The idiot masses can understand it’s abusive when they are ruled (tyrannized) by a single man. But when they are tyrannized in the name of their fellow man – and of themselves – they will revere it. Sing songs. Pledge allegiance. Tell you it’s the greatest, most magnificent thing ever.

          • July 22, 2013 at 11:27 pm

            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.”

      • libertyx
        July 19, 2013 at 3:12 am

        Eric – here’s a twist for you-

        Prosecutors and, government in general, vehemently oppose jury nullification. There were statements made by the jury to the effect that they “followed the law” in their
        verdict. If jury nullification had be explained to the jury, the prosecution may have
        succeeded. http://www.fija.org

        • July 19, 2013 at 9:45 am

          True!

          Of course, “the law” should never be the sole basis for determining guilt or innocence. What matters is right – or wrong?

          Martin was in the wrong, irrespective of “the law.” Assaulting a guy who hasn’t touched you, then bashing the guy’s head into the concrete – a potentially murderous act – is wrong. Zimmerman defended himself.

          And that was right.

    • Rick237
      July 19, 2013 at 7:31 am

      And, if you are exercising your natural right to carry a gun, you had better get rid of it because the good policemen that I sent to examine you can legally murder you if you are armed and they feel threatened as they often do. Also, be very deferential like a good slave, lick boots, and you should be fine. And make sure that you are not carrying any of the thousands of banned substances because you will be thoroughly searched, including a possible cavity search, and thrown into prison for even a trace amount. Of course, I don’t have to get rid of my gun because I am a member of the establishment, worship the police, and support all of the wars that are currently being waged against freedom, especially the wars being waged against members of the underclass like yourself. Remember, it is your class that commits many burglaries and you are much easier to prosecute than the banksters and wall street crooks who steal billions and trillions of dollars. And, don’t be concerned about the fact that 99% or all armed home invasions are being committed by the police because the relatively few armed home invasions committed by your class are more important to me.

      • Eightsouthman
        July 19, 2013 at 7:49 am

        Rick, And, don’t be concerned about the fact that 99% or all armed home invasions are being committed by the police because the relatively few armed home invasions committed by your class are more important to me.

        Early this morning little 5 year old Mary Travers(sorry Mary, but you could do justice(sic)to this in a song, RIP)was killed in a SWAT raid on her home, the wrong home since they had the address wrong. She was the victim of multiple gunshot wounds, none life threatening since bozo can’t hit shit, but suffered severe brain trauma and later death from the battering ram used to breach the home’s front door. Her mother has no comment as she’s in intensive care in critical condition due to a “flash bang grenade” thrown into her bed as she slept by same gang members. Police chief Bozo the Clown told newsmedia Channel 6 he would be blah blah blah blah……Still no word on the other members of the household neighbors reported being removed by EMT’s. War on some drugs….and we all pay the price, directly for some, indirectly for everyone else.

        • Rick237
          July 20, 2013 at 7:32 am

          Eightsouthman — Thanks

          Those SWAT attacks on peaceful humans are pure evil and they are now taking place in every city and town across this country. Those thug-scum goons make TM look like a boy scout.

      • July 19, 2013 at 9:23 am

        Rick,

        You keep conflating two things – deliberately, because the wrong juxtaposition has been pointed out to you (i.e., that a man watching his neighborhood is not a cop) yet you continue to try to package deal them together.

        The way “the law” is, Zimmerman had to call the cops. If he’d not done so, then he’d be accused of vigilantism.

        In any event, the issues here – which you continue to evade and deny – are:

        * Zimmerman had legitimate reason to be suspicious of Martin.
        * He had every right to monitor – and follow – Martin.
        * Martin attacked Zimmerman physically – which he had no right to do.
        * Zimmerman defended himself – as he had every right to do.

        • Rick237
          July 20, 2013 at 6:58 am

          Eric — I stated clearly in my first post that I would have voted to aquit GZ because TM violated the NAP. Maybe you didn’t see that part. I also explained that I view GZ as vicious, violent thug because he is a 100% clover who supports all the current wars that are being waged against the American people and their freedoms such as the wars against unlicensed drug owners and gun owners.

          I have very little experience with private thugs. Twenty years ago, my elderly mother got her purse snatched by a young, white female. Ten years ago, two young, white punks tried to steel my friend’s car and damaged the ignition. There is very little crime in my neighborhood. I do have much experience with government thieves. The local mafia forces me to pay them protection money at the rate of $4,500 per year just to live in my own home. They are the biggest abusers of private property, not the TM’s of the world. I live in a city of 80,000 with a large minority population, a very active police force of over 200 who make many arrests. SWAT gangs, anti-prostitution gang, anti-gun unit, anti-drug gangs, gambling arrests, anti-domestic violence unit, and an entrapment squad that use sexy looking females to entrap peaceful consmers, etc. The local police make many arrests and even kill a few suspects per year. The last one was a few weeks ago. The police claim that he was on his way to commit an armed home invasion. The dead suspect had no history of being a violent vicious thug and neither did any of the other dead suspects.

          I read the arrest columns every day and I can tell you that 90% of those being arrested are 100% innocent of any real crime. Serious crimes like armed home invasions are rare, maybe two per year compared to several hundred committed by the police. The notion that this country is being overrun by hordes of young, vicious thugs who attack strangers at random is nonsense, a fascist fantasy. You are probably twenty times more likely to be assaulted by a vicious cop or cop gang than a private vicious thug.

          We do have some private vicious thugs in my area and they are always displayed in the local paper, about one per week in a population of two to three hundred thousand. Usually a young, rough-looking male who strangled his girlfriend to death or raped his girl friend’s daughter, or killed a drug dealer for money and drugs. They are not vicious attacks on random strangers which are extremely rare.

          I also went to two crime-watch meetings. There was no concern about protecting private property. On the contrary, the only concern was to “rid our streets of drugs, guns, gangs, and prostitution”. Naturally, when it was my turn to speak, I explained how gangs, crime, and violence are direct consequences of the current illegalization wars. I explained that much of the crime and violence that they see is a reflection of the crime and violence that is being committed in the name of the law. I was met with dead silence. After my last meeting a few years ago, there have been no advertised open meetings to discuss crime. I was proud of myself for getting off the couch and leaving my comfort zone. :)

          • July 20, 2013 at 10:46 am

            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.

        • Rick237
          July 20, 2013 at 7:41 am

          eric — I never denied those issues. If I evaded any of them,
          it is because they were not important to me. I say that you are evading the fact that illegalizers like GZ are violent thugs. So there. :)

          • July 20, 2013 at 10:34 am

            “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.

          • Rick237
            July 20, 2013 at 8:40 pm

            “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?

          • July 21, 2013 at 12:09 am

            Rick,

            I don’t understand why you’re adding layers to this event. Your “Otto” is not analogous to Zimmerman – in terms of what he was doing that night. Extrapolating what Zimmerman might do in other circumstances, for other reasons is… the essence of non sequitur.

            Look. If a child rapist is struck by a nice old lady who ran a red light, it doesn’t change the fact that the old lady ran the red light – and was in the wrong – no matter whom she hit.

            It changes nothing that Obama (or other political terrorists) are worse than Trayvon.

            It matters not at all – insofar as the particulars of this case – that Jews were persecuted by Nazis, or blacks by white racists.

            Zimmerman’s potential actions in other situations, his political views, his support (or lack thereof) of the drug war – and so on – have nothing to do with whether he was in the right to be suspicious of Martin, to follow him – and to defend himself when he was physically assaulted.

            Right?

            If I am missing anything – as far as the particulars of this case – please, tell me.

        • Eightsouthman
          July 20, 2013 at 10:47 am

          eric, maybe this whole charade would be better put into perspective if everybody would honestly answer one question: Would you rather be protected by your neighbors or the police? Your neighbors have a vested interest while the police have virtually no interest in protecting you. Mistakes will be made by either and both because there are no guarantees. Police would be much less likely to give little Tray the same chance as GZ. If the cops had done this would we see the same clusterfuck? I seriously doubt that. Had the cops show up miraculously during the altercation, both men may have been killed…..officer safety first you know.

          • July 20, 2013 at 11:42 am

            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.

          • Eightsouthman
            July 20, 2013 at 3:28 pm

            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.

      • Tor Minotaur
        July 20, 2013 at 11:17 am

        Rick237, I really like your ideas and themes about the illegalizers. Lets look at this meme in the context of normal urban life, and not when someone is under grave duress and imminent mortal danger.

        American Indians, Mexicans, and Blacks among many others are victims of a forced orthodoxy, and forced orthopraxy. They are victims of tyrannical spiritual enslavement, by those who believe there is a right way and a wrong way to live.

        Don’t forget that families and out of shape Dads are also victims of illegalization. It is illegal for them to use their weapon of choice, in any manner they so choose, and to defend themselves on their own property or in their own neighborhood. Not paying tax to fund pavements and right of ways around their own property is illegalized, much as many of us would like to see those abolished.

        If Trayvon and other youths want to wander about for half hour, while enjoying mind alteration, that must be permitted and accomodated somewhere. If 17 year olds want to get into fist fights and rough house with other 17 years olds, that must be permitted. Curfews should not cover all areas. Somewhere there should be 24 hour activity, and loud noise, and minor careless destruction and reasonable wilding and occasional howlings at moons.

        The Cloverization and expectations of order and Homogenization of Americans is unbelievable really, even among libertarians themselves.

        If the kids want to put on hoodies and play at gangsters and victims, I think there is a subset of men and women that want that to occur.

        There is a fatal conceit at work here. That those who are passive are in someway superior to those who are aggressive among those who also choose to be voluntarily aggressive. There is a place for wolves, feral dogs, house dogs, and professional working dogs, and it is not a hierarchy or pyramid where one is better than the other.

        If you’re going to live in Trayvonia, you will be poor and live in a run down area, and your life span might only be 40 or 50 years, but living there is your right, as long as you respect the Zimmerman’s rights, and the upper classes rights to live in their more affluent and peaceful neighborhoods.

        Let them live however they want out in the woods and undeveloped areas, in thatched huts if that’s what they want.

        American Indian Movement on spiritual enslavement by TPTB
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nK-MixTcCyI

        • Rick237
          July 20, 2013 at 9:51 pm

          Tor — Thanks. I also like your ideas and in my local newspaper advocated the creation of a free enterprise zone where the only law was natural law enforced by private security. I mentioned and old fashion saloon and
          snuck in a funny line that was missed by the censor, “liquor in the front and poker in the rear”.

  32. Publius40
    July 19, 2013 at 2:07 am

    Churchill was right – “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.”

    These left wing extremists are grasping at anything to stir discontent. They are following their ideologue’s playbook – “This struggle must be organised, according to “all the rules of the art”, by people who are professionally engaged in revolutionary activity. The fact that the masses are spontaneously being drawn into the movement does not make the organisation of this struggle less necessary. On the contrary, it makes it more necessary.”
    Vladimir Lenin, The Primitiveness of the Economists and the Organization of the Revolutionaries (1901)

    Before the press completes beatification and he becomes known as Saint Trayvon, these facts should be known.

    Trayvon Martin was caught at school with a burglary tool and stolen jewelry from a home robbery that took place not far from his school. (See Proof:
    http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2013/05/01/m-dspd-cover-up-the-curious-case-of-trayvon-martins-backpack-with-stolen-jewelry-and-burglary-tool/ ) He was either a thief or involved in stealing.

    He was an unruly student who had been kicked out of school, kicked out of his home by his own mother, and had a perchance for violence and fighting. In other words, he was a thug.

    He was a drug user, and based on his own cell phone pictures showing a fistful of money and texts discussing selling drugs, he was also a drug dealer.

    The drugs he took included “Lean”, a concoction causing aggressive and violent behavior problems. He was versed in making this up and was carrying 2 of the ingredients on him the day he was shot. The autopsy showed liver damage consistent with long term usage.

    The only incident of racism was by Trayvon Martin when he called George Zimmerman a “cracker” (derogatory term for a white person). Zimmerman never made any racist remark.

    Links for proof:http://www.scribd.com/doc/145961084/Trayvon-Martin-MDSPD-Reports-Tagle-Attachment-pgs-1-102
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/145958525/Trayvon-Martin-MDSPD-Reports-Hadley-Attachment-pgs-1-123
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/145956726/Trayvon-Martin-MDSPD-Reports-Fox-Williams-Attachment-pgs-1-116
    The whole story: http://www.scribd.com/thelastrefuge/documents
    Trayvon’s drugs —- http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/05/24/update-26-part-2-trayvon-martin-shooting-a-year-of-drug-use-culminates-in-predictable-violence/

    This was a drug using thug/thief who attacked the wrong person and got shot.

    Doesn’t happen frequently enough.

    • Rick237
      July 20, 2013 at 7:18 am

      “He was a drug user, and based on his own cell phone pictures showing a fistful of money and texts discussing selling drugs, he was also a drug dealer.”

      Publius40 — You got it backwards. It is the drug fighters and illegalizers who are the violent criminals, not the “users” and “dealers”

      For example, suppose that you were walking down the street peacefully minding your own business when a heavily armed gang attacked you, threw you to the ground, pushed your face into the pavement, pointed guns at your head, and blew your head off if you resisted, just because some they or others did not approve of what you ate for breakfast or what you choose to drink or smoke — would you conclude that they were the violent criminals or would you conclude that you were the violent criminal?

      For another example, suppose that another gang dressed in full combat gear, kicked down your door, invaded and ransacked your home, pointed guns at your family members while screaming at obscenities, and murdered anyone who resisted, just because they suspected that you possessed some medicinal plant — would you say that those thugs were violent criminals or would you conclude that your family were the violent criminals?

      • July 20, 2013 at 10:38 am

        I agree with you, Rick, as far as the drug stuff.

        Using/making/selling – all (as such) are non-violent acts of free choice/free exchange; exercises of self-ownership. Martin had as much right to smoke pot, if he wished, as I do to eat a can of tuna. No one should be harassed or accosted on this basis.

        But, Martin also boasted about beating people up – and did beat up Zimmerman.

        This “kid” is no Libertarian poster child. He was a thug.

  33. dan
    July 19, 2013 at 2:12 am

    Here in Fl. prior to 2005..we had in law what numbnuts holder is demanding…if we were attacked outside of our home’castle’ we HAD to retreat…if we could not and we had to use any force against the attacker ..if we prevailed in that encounter..we were ARRESTED and then had to go through the legal process of PROVING it was self defense at great cost in time money and worry..and that was if we were the one being ATTACKED…. this was under a democratic governor and legislator for many years..then jeb bush and a republican legislator.put into law ‘stand your ground’ and now the same mind set with progressives is to (1) disarm this country..(2) eliminate SELF-DEFENSE..so that your are a victim and under their control for everything, make no mistake if you believe in FREEDOM and LIBERTY and SELF-DEFENSE…you and I will soon have to PROVE IT……..imho

    • July 19, 2013 at 9:49 am

      Hi Dan,

      Yes, indeed – and my sense of things is that a majority is rapidly becoming very sick and tired of being told they must not defend themselves against predators. That predators must be given every benefit of every doubt – but they must accept presumed malice and criminal culpability at every turn.

      This case may prove to be a watershed – but not in the way those promoting the race-lie had hoped.

  34. July 19, 2013 at 3:39 am

    You have might have added this:
    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jesse_Jackson

    There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved…. After all we have been through. Just to think we can’t walk down our own streets, how humiliating.

    Remarks at a meeting of Operation PUSH in Chicago (27 November 1993). Quoted in “Crime: New Frontier – Jesse Jackson Calls It Top Civil-Rights Issue” by Mary A. Johnson, 29 November 1993, Chicago Sun-Times (ellipsis in original). Partially quoted in US News & World Report (10 March 1996)

    • July 19, 2013 at 9:35 am

      One of the few honest statements that aged race-hustler ever made!

      I was talking with someone on the phone last night – about race/crime. We both agreed that no one we know has ever indicated any desire to harm or even offend a black person “just because they’re black.”

      But at the same time, we’re sick of black thugs – of which there are entirely too many. And even more so, we’re sick of the excuse-making/suppression of facts and the insistence that we pretend there is no reason at all to be more wary of a young black male than a middle-aged white woman. That it’s “racist” to be more on alert when one sees a young black guy – especially one dressed in The Uniform – walking toward you vs. the middle aged white lady.

      It’s become really tiresome.

      • BrentP
        July 19, 2013 at 2:09 pm

        What we are looking at today is the result of probably over a 100 years of effort to create an under class. The last 50 of which has been done in a very serious manner at great cost to the american public.

        Had the USA stayed on the same track it was in the late 1950s with declining poverty government might have become obsolete by now.

        An underclass had to be created not only to retard progess but be used as a weapon against the middle class such that the middle class demanded more security. Of course doing it along racial lines just makes it all that much more effective. Plus it fits with the ruling classes’ own nonsense beliefs about people.

        Today’s results are quite deliberate IMO.

        As of more recent years the government is expanding its society destroying operations to other segments of the population with equally effective results.

        So I don’t see a race issue at all. I see a government issue. I see a manipulation by those who wish to rule.

        • Tor Minotaur
          July 19, 2013 at 2:37 pm

          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. Why aren’t humans who so choose afforded the same opportunity that every animal has, to live off the land with no rules whatsoever.

          The only government function here is to maintain the perimeter and keep them from leaving their area.
          [hunter/gatherer] ——–

          The next thing that needs to exist is land where everything is commons, and people can plant and harvest wherever they want, with no rules. It would also be beneficial to encourage people to live where there is mining both above ground and below ground. And in forests where there is logging. And on the water and below the water where there is fishing.
          [farmer/miner] ——-

          There should also be a place where humans are bred and human trafficking is permitted, but this time no whips and violence, and whoever wants out of the arrangement, is allowed to leave.
          [plantation/sweatshot/PTB human farms]

          A healthy world economy is one that has all a full menu of all types of production and cooperation that have ever existed, nothing should be abandoned completely. The world don’t move to the beat of just one drum, what might be right for you, might not be right for some…

          Probably the best hope for a freer world is a rapid and publicly available high speed transportation system. A privately owned system of vacuum tubes should be built, with routes crossing the Bering strait and the Panama canal, so that the whole world is accessible to all. Tube vehicles would be privately owned. People and property would go be free to go wherever they choose, as long as they could afford it.

          http://www.et3.com/
          http://dollarvigilante.com/blog/2013/7/17/if-one-more-person-asks-me-who-will-build-the-roads.html
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vactrain

          The cheapest method for space travel will be to build a space platform with attached vacuum tubes that yield access beyond the atmosphere.

          Ordinary hybrid vehicles could fly through the air to get to the vacuum tube several miles up, and from there on, propulsion would be much cheaper, when you are in a vacuum.

          The platform should be privately held, and individuals would own their own vehicles.

          • Forman
            July 19, 2013 at 5:41 pm

            “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.

  35. boldaslove
    July 19, 2013 at 3:53 am

    If Zimmerman had not resisted and just let Treyvon beat him until he died, Sharpton, Spike Lee and their followers would all be satisfied. The truth is Treyvon dressed like a thug, talked like a thug, acted like a thug and his life ended as a thug.

    • Eightsouthman
      July 19, 2013 at 10:27 pm

      boldaslove, if Trayvon had killed Zimmerman, nobody would know. It would have been a non-event and no race baiters would have ever been alerted. Just more black on unsuspecting people crime, thousands a day of same all over this country.

  36. July 19, 2013 at 2:21 pm

    Thanks, Eric, well said. I just posted your page to my Facebook wall. Brum

  37. Tor Minotaur
    July 19, 2013 at 5:49 pm

    Skittles & Iced Tea(Lean) for Anarcho-Detroit from Lily Allen the UK Dixie Chick

    Li’l Brother Alfie looks a lot like Trayvon
    http://vimeo.com/21088547

    London – Seen from Blue Pill & Red Pill Perspective
    http://vimeo.com/30226566

    F U Very Much
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp3F8U4dcB4

  38. Forman
    July 19, 2013 at 7:08 pm

    I like this one from some thinking man….

    “If Martin could legally terrorize everyone, he would look like Obama”

  39. Bill in NC
    July 20, 2013 at 12:28 am

    One bad thing from this case.

    TM’s mom managed to extort a hefty (some say $1 million) settlement from the homeowner’s association based on the fact GZ was armed during while on Neighborhood Watch.

    We’ve got the same setup here, so although we don’t do regular watches I’m going to have to recommend, unfortunately, that our HOA formally withdraw from Neighborhood Watch.

    We don’t want to face that amount of potential liability.

  40. Tor Minotaur
    July 20, 2013 at 9:49 am

    There’s two white horses in a line, Carryin’ me to my buryin’ ground
    There’s three black coaches in the rain, Empty now from their heavy load
    Have you ever heard a coffin sound? Bein’ lowered in the ground?
    There’s one kind favor I’ll ask of you, See that my grave is kept clean

    Peter Yarrow, Paul Stookey, & Mary Travers – One Kind Favor
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21sYYBKyarU

    - some time in between all them police state updates, advertisements, public service announcings, braggings, celebrity scandal trackings, and endless guardings of the high moral watchtowers of our deified prit’ near perfection, keep remembering the way that coffin sounds, when it’s being lowered into the ground, and the things you’ll wish you’d done before it got too late.

  41. Tor Minotaur
    July 20, 2013 at 10:37 am

    Late Sunday night, February 26, 2012, George Zimmerman sat down in front of Sanford Police Department (SPD) detectives and wrote out in longhand his own account of the incident that had just left him rattled and bloody. Zimmerman, who writes well, began with some useful background information:

    in August 2011, his neighbor’s house had been broken into while she was home with her infant son. The neighbor barricaded herself and her child in a bedroom and called 911.

    The SPD quickly responded, and the intruders fled. Zimmerman’s wife Shellie saw them fleeing and “became scared of the rising crime.” Zimmerman promised that he would do what he could to keep her safe. One result was that he and some of his neighbors at the Retreat at Twin Lakes formed a Neighborhood Watch Program…

    …Zimmerman picked up the written narrative: “The dispatcher told me not to follow the suspect & that an officer was on the way. As I headed back to my vehicle the suspect emerged from the darkness and said, ‘You got a problem?’” When Zimmerman answered “No,” the suspect said, “You do now.”

    As I looked and tried to find my phone to dial 911 the suspect punched me in the face. I fell backwards onto my back. The suspect got on top of me. I yelled “Help” several times. The suspect told me, “Shut the fuck up.” As I tried to sit upright, the suspect grabbed my head and slammed it into the concrete sidewalk several times. I continued to yell “Help.” Each time I attempted to sit up, the suspect slammed my head into the sidewalk. My head felt like it was going to explode. I tried to slide out from under the suspect and continue to yell “Help.”

    [Heard in the background of the 911 call from Witness #11 was a man desperately yelling "help" over and over again for about forty-two seconds. The call started at 7:16:11, about two and a half minutes after Zimmerman ended his call with SPD.]
    As I slid the suspect covered my mouth and nose and stopped my breathing. At this point I felt the suspect reach for my now exposed firearm and say, “You’re gonna die tonight Mother Fucker.” I unholstered my firearm in fear for my life as he had assured me he was going to kill me and I fired one shot into his torso. The suspect sat back allowing me to sit up and said “You got me.”

    The screams ended abruptly with a single gunshot at 7:16:59. Zimmerman’s narrative continues.

    At this point I slid out from underneath him and got on top of the suspect holding his hands away from his body. An onlooker appeared and asked me if I was OK. I said “No.” He said “I am calling 911.” I said “I don’t need you to call 911. I already called them. I need you to help me restrain this guy.” At this point a SPD officer arrived and asked “Who shot him.” I said I did and placed my hands on top of my head and told the officer where on my persons (sic) my firearm was holstered. The officer handcuffed me and disarmed me. The officer then placed me in the pack of his vehicle….

  42. Ernie Hopkins
    July 20, 2013 at 6:38 pm

    Damn this has turned into one hellacious debate y’all! Eric, great A game! Sadly it appears that many of the “people” (maybe twit bots, who knows lol) have spent their entire lives in a ivory tower somewhere. They also seem to be extremely narcissistic, somehow thinking they have a right to not be offended and if are it is “violence” to their person. I have been insulted, profiled, & had my ass whipped. Huge difference in those items. Maybe these morons need a good ass whipping so they can understand what physical violence truly is. I have never bled a drop or lost any sleep over an insult. I like the comment regarding dueling. I personally feel it is not only not a harm, but a benefit. The only reason it was banned was to solidify all authority under the kings. Its banning has prevented idiots such as TM from settling their issues with each other in a safe setting from the rest of us. Let’s see, two black gangstas settle their turf fight mano et mano and only maybe one walks away or they do “drive bys” and kill innocent 3 year old black girls not even related to either family? Dueling wins hands down. It has also allowed the politically connected to get by with drumming for murder of their fellow citizens with impunity. I have no issue with calling out power mad sociopaths for the cowards they are and putting my life on the line to insure my son has a better world to live in. While I am sure some of the crowd reading here is wetting themselves, those who feel as I do are welcome to be my neighbors any time!

    • Eightsouthman
      July 20, 2013 at 7:13 pm

      Ernie, I’d be your neighbor in a heartbeat. Back in the day when people didn’t feel so isolated or estranged from each other, didn’t have the pure hate of one another we have now, a good ass whipping was character building. Sure, you may have been in the right but there are lessons to be learned as you get further from the event in a linear timeline. Well, I didn’t know how else to put it. Ok, the older you get the more you understand where you went wrong, even if the ass beating party was way wrong too(almost assuredly, but not necessarily). If we have a difference of opinion, I’m content to speak to you about it instead of simmering in my own juices till I can’t think right and only want to whip your ass. I have always believed in the NAP and continue to do so. But, if you have to have a physical contest know this, I am old and I have no intention of going toe to toe with a young guy and I’ll likely kill you or maim you badly if you continue in that refrain. Does that make a difference? I certainly hope so for I don’t talk trash with my hair up. I suspect the number of people on this forum who can’t deal with that are few. There have been some debates when people got really hot, and that’s just fine, the printed word isn’t something most of us fear…even when we disagree. I have said this before but my renters are all 33 years old right now and I find myself apologizing to them for the shitty country we have right now. I’d do anything I could to see your son not have to grow up in this fascist regime. I work on it day by day. I paid a dear price being a war protestor during Vietnam, with the govt. goons still doing everything they can to make my life hell. I can think of nothing better than Boehner and Reid shooting each other dead. Then we can match up everybody else on the Hill. I have time. Guns Up.

    • July 20, 2013 at 7:56 pm

      Thanks, Ernie!

      It’s what keeps my fires lit….

  43. Rick237
    July 20, 2013 at 10:10 pm

    If this post is off-topic, please forgive me.

    In my city of population 80,000, the vicious thug monster of the week is a young man who murdered a three-month-old baby. He has been in the local news paper every day for the past several days along with an unflattering mug shot. He lives about one mile from my home and I recall meeting his father who is a local plumber many moons ago. The medical examiner said that the baby was shaken to death. The “monster” denies shaking but says that he accidentally dropped the baby three or four times. He is an Iraq veteran who joined the military because he believed all the government lies about the war on terror. His family and most of his friends also believed the lies. His job was to locate hidden bombs, IED’s. Two of his friends were blown to bits. Every day he was afraid of dying. He made it home in one piece but had some mental problems, had trouble adjusting, troubled sleeping, and could not hold onto a job. His best friend said that he was still a good person but the war had damaged him. About one month ago, he discovered that he was not the father of his two-month-old twins. He and his wife are white and the babies are mixed ethnicities. The other twin is perfectly healthy. He was lied to by his government and his wife. I don’t see him as vicious thug monster but agree that he deserves to go to prison.

    I say that the most vicious thug monsters are people like Obomba, Bush, and Cheney even though none of them personally murdered anyone or violated the NAP, or sucker-punched anyone or bashed anyone’s head into the pavement. I think the same of Saint Zimmer and many others who also support all the foreign wars of aggression and all the domestic wars that are currently being waged against the American people and their freedoms. I say that everyone of them is a worse criminal than TM, who I agree is thug who is guilty of attempted murder.

    • Eightsouthman
      July 20, 2013 at 11:13 pm

      Rick, it isn’t off topic for me. I don’t think the guy or society benefits one single bit from him going to prison. He needs help for certain. The biggest scourge of these war(s) are the people duped into believing the lie. When your parents and everybody else are gung ho for you to join the “freedom fighters”, what more do you need? He’s seen hundreds if not thousands of ads, mainly videos of the great things the military is doing for EVERYONE, THE WORLD OVER. It’s not something young people are good at knocking off when that’s all they know. His parents, his teachers, his representatives in Congress and the state house are wayyyyy more to blame than he is. He’s simply a product of his environment. I’ve watched it all play out since Vietnam. I know who I’d put in prison, every MF who ever stood up for sending people to dominate those of another country. It’s not difficult to do. Just look at every rep’s voting record, the very thing I do and hold their feet to the fire over….and that includes the ‘war on some drugs’.

      • Rick237
        July 21, 2013 at 6:06 am

        Eightsouthman — Thanks. Good points about who are the real criminals. And I agree that prison will not help the vet or anyone else. By all accounts, he is not a violent person and never was. He was on a lot of medication for his nerves, sleeping problems, and PTSD. His friend swears that he would never intentionally hurt the baby or anyone else. He probably did accidentally drop the baby because he is always drowsy from all the medication. He admitted it right away. His wife goes out to party and leaves him to care for the babies. More victims of unnecessary wars. Hard to believe that the war mongers keep succeeding in creating more wars for power and profit.

        • Eightsouthman
          July 21, 2013 at 4:05 pm

          Rick, I tried to find links to give you but can’t right now, don’t know if I saved them or where. I have read some new studies done on psychedics that show great promise. Some studies with double-blind groups show a virtual cure for PTSD as well as some physical problems, blood sugar levels, etc. Mushrooms and MDMA were two substances that showed the most benefit. It was mushrooms that greatly reduced and even in some cases, stopped PTSD. People are MUCH happier having used “shrooms” . Every time I’ve tried to speak of this in the past I’ve come up against a wall. If you judge food by its looks you’ll never know if it tastes good or not, same thing with hallucinogens. T. Leary (ok, T. never said that as far as I know, just my words)

    • July 21, 2013 at 12:04 am

      Rick,

      I don’t disagree with any of that; I agree that Bush/Obama, et al are cretins.

      But it doesn’t make Martin less of a thug.

      What happened would have been truly tragic had Zimmerman shot a black kid ( a nice kid) who just happened to be walking home.

      But that’s not what happened.

      Martin was a thug – a thug out looking for trouble – who found it.

  44. July 21, 2013 at 12:52 pm

    The case against Zimmerman was nonexistent. Even gun hating liberal Alan Dershowitz is saying Florida prosecutor Angela Corey committed perjury & should be disbarred http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/353562/dershowitz-disbar-zimmerman-prosecutor-andrew-johnson

    On top of that the prosecution knew they hadn’t made their case & openly admitted so. Regardless, they asked the jury to convict http://www.theinternationallibertarian.blogspot.com/2013/07/did-prosecution-in-zimmerman-trial-try.html

    Then there is the issue of double jeopardy if the feds charge Zimmerman http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/07/18/double-jeopardy/

    People that claim to be protecting minority youth by going after an anomaly like Zimmerman have it all backwards. The war on drugs & an out of control “justice” system are the biggest threats to them, & everyone else for that matter.

    • Eightsouthman
      July 21, 2013 at 1:42 pm

      Darren, Juror B37 said they all wanted to find Z guilty and had that in mind but when they went by the rule of current law as they were instructed to do, they could only find him not guilty, much to their chagrin. I would ask that juror why they all wanted to find him guilty and guilty of what? No one else has commented since as far as I know.

      • July 21, 2013 at 3:42 pm

        Quite so Alfred :-) Just as the jury wasn’t told about jury nullification they’re also not told they can find someone guilty of anything. They could have found GZ guilty of jaywalking if they wanted to. Good thing they didn’t know that.

        • Eightsouthman
          July 21, 2013 at 4:11 pm

          Darren, I don’t know Florida law but in my state they can’t find you guilty of anything you’re not charged with. Of course charges are piled on so that’s not normally a problem. B37 said 3 jurors were crying when she arrived or came back in the room at some point. She went on to say then they all cried. Well, whatever serves justice I suppose. They Really wanted to find him guilty of something but couldn’t. I just don’t understand that. Excuse me, have to find my hanky.

          • July 21, 2013 at 7:06 pm

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

          • Eightsouthman
            July 21, 2013 at 8:41 pm

            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….

  45. Eightsouthman
    July 21, 2013 at 8:14 pm

    Darren, I only remember this because there was a controversial case in Tx. not long ago and the prosecutor hadn’t piled on charges so the thing they finally decided mid-stream the guy was guilty of he hadn’t been charged with. They didn’t try him again. I have no idea what the statute is. Had it been the feds they’d have simply found him guilty anyway. If you doubt it, ask Martha Stewart. Go to court on one charge and get found guilty of something else entirely, a sad day. What people don’t understand is to never cop to any charge. Deny, deny, deny. It’s hard to prove you’re lying. I think Martha took that route so they just said she was lying. I never did understand how they “proved beyond a reasonable doubt” that she did. GZ had this going for him. Whether he lied or not is not here nor there since there’s no one to contradict him. I learned young that dead men tell no tales. I also learned it’s difficult to shoot 30 armed men from the bedroom.

  46. Tor Minotaur
    July 22, 2013 at 8:10 am

    While the Trayvon distraction psyop grinds forward, it’s been revealed that the IRS persecution of conservatives and tea party groups was coordinated by William Wilkins, IRS Chief Counsel and one of only two Obama political appointees in the IRS.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324448104578614220949743916.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

  47. Tor Minotaur
    July 22, 2013 at 4:57 pm

    Thoughts about St. Trayvon from a Harlem pastor’s perspective:

    Why blacks blame Zimmerman – Pastor Manning
    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a70_1374030948

    Ghetto bastards – Dr. Manning
    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b12_1333052826

    Congress: Arrest Mr. Obama – Hon. James Manning
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5qxPKQJh-g

  48. Steve Victor
    July 25, 2013 at 2:00 pm

    How about this for a “what if” — what if TM had been carrying a gun?

    If GZ surprised him, then TM might have felt safer. He puts his hand on his gun-grip and demands to know why GZ was following him.

    GZ then says, “I’m on patrol, looking for burglars in the neighborhood.”

    Assuming TM is a fine, upstanding citizen (or thereabouts) says, “I ain’t no burglar. Leave me alone.” (Or words to that effect.)

    GZ sees TM is armed, and sensibly backs away. TM takes off.

    NO ONE GETS SHOT! A GUN SAVES THE DAY YET AGAIN!

    • Rick237
      July 26, 2013 at 5:44 am

      That is a commonsense solution that would work in a free society but would not work here because GZ would call the police to report that the suspected thug-burglar was armed and flashed a gun. The police would send a SWAT team, and TM would have his face pushed into the pavement with a dozen guns pointed at his head in the name of “officer safety”. And, if the police killed him or murdered him, it would be no big deal. Most people would think nothing of it. They would praise the police for getting another gun off the streets.

  49. dom
    July 26, 2013 at 4:33 am

    Storm Clouds Gathering summed it up pretty well.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *