It’s been 20 years since Maxine Waters coined (or at least popularized) the phrase “No Justice No Peace”. The time was after the LA Riots in 1992 when the freshman Congresswoman from Los Angeles was defending looters as simply “women who wanted shoes for their children and bread”. Of the violence that eventually claimed the lives of 53 people, Waters said: “The anger that you see expressed out there in Los Angeles, in my district this evening, is a righteous anger, and it’s difficult for me to say to the people, ‘Don’t be angry.’” She even went on use the threat of further violence around the country to try and extort action of some sort out of the White House. “Many other cities could go the way that Los Angeles went last night unless the president is willing to step in and take some strong action in terms of letting people know that he cares about this issue.” The White House listened and indeed a new trial was brought about, double jeopardy be damned. This time two of the officers were convicted. Finally some justice! For those Constitutional sticklers out there… The argument was that double jeopardy didn’t really apply as the four were charged with civil rights violations the second time rather than assault and excessive force, so, no problem at all.
So now here we are, two decades later and again race and crime intersect to put American cities on edge. “Justice for Trayvon” has been the ubiquitous call for much of the last year. This is easily one of the most high profile – and consequently political – trials in decades. The original prosecutor declined to press charges, believing there was not sufficient evidence for conviction. Enter race pimps Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson and judicial frivolity ensued.
While one’s heart has to go out to the parents of Trayvon as their grief and sadness is very real and they have comported themselves with dignity in the most trying circumstances a parent will likely ever face, the “Justice for Trayvon” signs across the country have little to do with what went on that fateful night last year or what went on in that Sanford courtroom over the last month.
But then that doesn’t really matter because in America of 2013 the only thing that does matter is satiating the demands of raucous mobs or favored demographic groups. Just on cue, now that the verdict is in the demands for federal civil rights charges have already started. Prior to the verdict, as the Miami and Sanford police departments prepared to deal with the consequences of a potential not guilty verdict, one couldn’t help but wonder how we had arrived here in the first place.
I remember watching the OJ trial and verdict as it was read aloud. To say I was dumbfounded is an understatement. More stupefying however was the scene from a college student union filled with black students who erupted into joyous pandemonium when the verdict was read. How was it even possible that anyone could cheer a ruthless murderer getting off, just because of his skin color?
One has to wonder how did race affinity ever come to replace common sense, or self preservation among so many people? The perfect example of the latter is the movement in New York City to ban “Stop and Frisk”. Stop and Frisk has been a tremendous success in helping to drive down and keep down crime rates in crime ridden neighborhoods of the city. Nonetheless, many blacks have objected to the policy because blacks are disproportionately stopped. Perhaps, but those neighborhoods have a disproportionate number of blacks and black lives are disproportionately saved as well. And the neighborhoods in which many of those black citizens live are safer than they might be without Stop and Frisk. Safer neighborhoods help with jobs, schools and quality of life. But let’s get rid of it, regardless of the lives saved or improved.
Just as knee jerk white racism a half a century ago was irrational and ignorant, so too is the knee jerk black racism of today. The difference is, the black racism of today is part of the liberal & media fiction that the state of black America is the result of white racism. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Blacks may indeed be victims, but they are largely the victims of other blacks, not whites. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics points out – via Walter Williams – that between 1976 and 2011 279,000 blacks were murdered in the United States, 94%, or 262,000 of them, by fellow blacks. That compares to a 3,446 blacks being lynched by whites in the 86 years between 1882 and 1968!
This irrational focus on the relatively insignificant (not to be confused with nonexistent) white racism at the expense of a focus on the far greater danger to members of the black community, the black predators preying on them, is an extraordinarily expensive mistake. By focusing on the mirage of widespread white racism, many blacks cease to address the dangers and issues within their own communities, with devastating consequences. It has led to over a quarter of a million dead young black men over the last four decades. Perhaps even more damaging more is the fact that tens of millions of black Americans live in poverty, 45% of black teens cannot find a job and over 75% of black children are born out of wedlock.
If the so called black leaders of today were really concerned with the state of black America, and young men like Trayvon while they are still alive, they would put down their “No Justice No Peace” posters and turn their focus on saving black America from itself. Stop supporting murders like OJ Simpson and Mumia Abu-Jamal and start honoring men like Herman Cain, Dr. Ben Carson, McDonalds CEO Donald Thompson, American Express CEO Ken Chenault and US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, all of whom chose to build successful lives for themselves rather than bleat about the oppressive nature of a majority white society.
Instead of clamoring for never ending government programs, special dispensation in jobs and college admissions or seeing every crime or political issue through race tinted glasses, they should instead focus on reducing unwed and teen pregnancies, demanding quality education for their children and seeking relief from government regulations in order to make black communities compelling places for businesses to invest.
Don’t hold your breath however, because leadership in solving real problems is much harder work than just picking up the racism flag and waving it about so that people pay attention to you and call you a “black leader”. The civil rights movement helped destroy the scourge of white racism that had constrained the lives of blacks in America for centuries. One wonders what it will take, or how many more dead young black men it will take to remove the shackles of black racism that keep so many black Americans from enjoying the fruits of liberty that that people like Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Rosa Parks and Medgar Evers fought so hard to give them access to?
See author page
@retire05
No you didn’t – I was responding to ilovebeeswarzone who said
There is no 100% certainty that Zimmerman would have died as a result of his altercation with Martin. Yes any punch can kill you but most punches don’t. I am not a statistician but I would suspect the risk of death from a lethal punch was somewhat under 10%. You may know more accurate statistics for these types of fights than I do.
I am not making excuses for Martin’s behaviour. I am questioning Zimmerman’s behaviour. (although under the stand your ground legislation Martin had as much right to be where he was as Zimmerman unless I am mistaken). I get the sense that as I criticized Zimmerman that you feel that you have to be negative about Martin? Two wrongs don’t make a right.
I am not specifically ignoring Zimmerman’s potential medical problems at all. It is just not relevant when refuting a 100% certainty of death claim!
solarman
we forget a very important fact,
that is: GEORGE ZIMMERMAN HAD THE CERTAINTY THAT HE WOULD BE KILL IF HE PASS OUT BECAUSE TRAYVON HAD SEEN HIS GUN AND WENT FOR IT,
SO WHAT EVER WE SAY HE SHOULD SHOOT OR SHOULD NOT IS OF NO IMPORTANCE ON TE CASE, IT’S GEORGE ZIMMERMAN WHO WAS SURE OF WHAT HE THOUGHT, AND NO MATTER IF THE FUTURE WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT IT HAS NO MORE WEIGHT IN HIS INNOCENCE,
THE SURE FACT IS WHAT HIM FELT SO STRONGLY ENOUGH TO SHOOT HIM, HIM WHO TOLD HIM HE WAS GOING TO BE KILL TONIGHT, AND THAT ALONE IS ONE GOOD COMFIRMATION BESIDE THE BASHING AND THE BROKEN NOSE, HE COULD NOT GET AWAY FROM THOSE WOUNDS WHICH YES
WOULD HAVE KILLED HIM,
WHAT DO YOU THINK OF BLEEDING ON THE SKULL IS MINOR?
NO NOT MINOR NO MATTER WHAT ANY ONE SAY,
THIS IS TO DESENSITIZE THE WOUNDS, THOSE IDIOTS OR SAY IT TO GIVE HIM THE GUILT,
GOOD HE HAD A GUN.
COMMING FROM YOU, PUNCH CANNOT KILL YOU,
WAS HE SUPPOSE TO THINK OF WHAT KIND OF PUNCH IS TRAYVON GIVE ME
ALL HE KNOW IS THEY HURT LIKE HELL AND MAKING HIM DIZZY, AND AFRAID TO PASS OUT WHILE THE OTHER KEPT BASHING,
COULD HE HAVE THINK? ONE PUNCH OKAY SECOND PUNCH HOWW, 3RD PUNCH GEEZZ I’M SWALLOWING MY BLOOD, AND ON THE 12 TH PUNCH,
I DON’T KNOW THAT I CAN TAKE MORE.
@solarman: I concur with your assessment. Well done.
@solarman:
You cannot question the behavior of one party without questioning the behavior of the other party. But let’s say that you and I got into a verbal pi$$ing contest. Does that give you the right to punch me in the face, knock me to the ground, jump on me straddle style and then start bashing my head on the floor, or as was in this case, a concrete sidewalk? No. You see, at that point, I’m not thinking about the statistics of severe head injuries, as you seem to think I should. I’m thinking you are trying to do great bodily harm to me and I am going to get you off me any way I can.
And if you think you would be any different, you are either a liar, or a fool.
@another vet:
Interesting that you bring up the Terminator films.
Meet DARPA’s Humanoid Robot That Could Someday Save You From A Crumbling Building
What Happens When Robots Eliminate All Our Jobs?
Krugman’s article: Sympathy for the Luddites
This whole prospect makes it even less desirous to allow a flood of low wage illegal immigrants whom technology will relatively soon make obsolete and unneeded.
Retiree has no sympathy for displaced workers. That kind of attitude is unacceptable, as it will result in riots, high crime and and anarchy with absolutely no regard for human life. This is a situation that must be addressed now, unemployment is bad enough as it is, once the full robotics age comes into being it will be too late.
@retire05
Actually I can. Unless you feel that you have been appointed by some superior authority to make all the rules. I think this is called freedom of speech.
No it does not. But you miss the point. I am not saying Martin had the right to punch Zimmerman. You however feel that Zimmerman had the right to shoot Martin when he felt threatened. That is where we differ. I have only heard from the person who shot Martin. Unfortunately I have had no opportunity to hear Martin’s side of the story. Maybe it would have been slightly different.
Under your “rules” young black men will be shot every time in this set of circumstances. Surprisingly I don’t want to live by these rules.
Again strangely enough I am neither. I marvel at your talents to judge my character and anticipate my behaviour. If only you could have guided Zimmerman’s behaviour in such an enlightened manner. Clearly he was unable to anticipate what happened and avoid someone else’s death.
@solarman:
Does that give you the right to punch me in the face,
And I’m telling you that once you become the aggressor, the person you are being aggressive toward has the right to defend themselves, in any way they can, from your aggression. The jury decided Martin had become an aggressor.
How do you surmise that? But yes, young black men will be shot, in all kinds of scenarios, mostly by other young black men. But that statistic doesn’t seem to bother the race mongers.
And your freedom of speech allows you to make a fool of yourself.
I can only judge you by the words you write.
And how many do you know that have the ability to predict the future? Or are you telling us that you have the ability to anticipate what could happen to you in any given circumstance? You should get your own TV show if that is the case.
@retire05 says
So anyone who throws a punch can be shot in self defence?
And what about if I think you are going to throw a punch?
@solarman:
If you throw a punch at me, using your fists which are considered weapons by the FBI, I have the right to defend myself against you any way I can be it by using my own fists, a baseball bat or a fire arm.
You have no right to become physically aggressive toward me unless you are responding to physical aggression. Just your thinking I am going to throw a punch doesn’t mean I am going to. Not unless you have mind-reading abilities which I doubt.
@retire05 says
So if you have a gun and I think you’re going to fire it at me then what can I do under your system?
@retire05, #159:
So what you’re saying is that if I can somehow provoke you to throw a punch at me—either by making you afraid of my intentions or angry—I’m justified in pulling out a pistol and killing you dead on the spot?
I thought the President’s comments on the issues that poorly thought out stand your ground laws raise were entirely appropriate:
Greg
yes, if specially you mention : I am going to kill you,
I DON’T WANT TO WAIT FOR THE REST.
I WILL SHOOT YOU ON THE SPOT,
why should I wait till you proceed to kill me,
my life is as precious as your’es , you should have not tell me your intention to kill me,
even if you said it for fun.
and your age has no excuse,
@ilovebeeswarzone, #162:
With laws like these, we’ll eventually wind up with armed citizens facing off and one getting shot dead, and then whoever survives claiming he was entitled to kill in self defense because the other guy had a gun and was probably going to use it.
When a law can clearly lead to such a ridiculous and random conclusion, it’s clearly a bad law.
solarman
you said . once you become the aggressor the other has a right to defend himself
yes TRAYVON WAS the aggressor and GEORGE ZIMMERMAN HAD THE RIGHT TO DEFEND HIMSELF AS SOON AS HE COULD,
remember he was locked on the ground, no way to move, until the aggressor saw the tip of the gun, it changed the lockdown and GEORGE COULD DEFEND HIMSELF
GREG
THE PEOPLE HAVE THE GUNS, AS WE SPEAK, OH SURPRISE?
AND SURELY WILL NOT WAIT FOR THAT KIND OF
LOCK DOWN,
AND SURELY WON’T WAIT FOR MARISSA’S BULLY TO BEAT THEM UP,
AND SHOOT ON THE WALL FOR GETTING 20 YEARS IN THE CLING, NO THEY WILL NOT TAKE THE BULLY OR THE YOUNG CRIMINAL WITH KINDNESS,
SHARPTON SAID WE ARE AT WAR, AND THAT’S WHAT
WILL BE FOR BULLIES WHO WANT TO HURT OTHER.
@Greg:
There is a thing called “self restraint”, Greggie; something progressives like you seem to know little about. If you are trying to provoke me, say by calling me foul names, I have the right to exercise self restraint, realize you are nothing more than a jerk, and walk away. But you sucker punch me and all bets are off.
@Greg: Back to the old west—hell Texans are still reveling in the old west—if they don’t shoot em they inject em.
Bees got no worries— easy for her to trumpet self defense and stand your ground–she’s in Canada where gun control laws are sanely in force.
@solarman:
Depends on the situation. But I can tell you what you can’t do; that is to become physically aggressive toward me, punching me in the face. Self defense is not based on what you think the other person will do; it is based on what the other person is doing to you physically.
@Richard Wheeler:
Odd how that works; if you kill one of us in cold blood, we kill you back.
And as if California wasn’t part of the old “west.” Too bad it doesn’t adhere to those “old” west standards anymore. Tell me, Richard, does Jerry Brown have armed security and if so, why? Does he think his life is more important than the lives of those that live in the barrios?
So if you have a gun and I think you’re going to fire it at me then what can I do under your system?
@retire05 says
What does it depend on? My life could be taken in a second here so hopefully it doesn’t take too long to figure out.
So if you are pointing a gun at me do I have to wait to be shot?
And if I try and disarm you physically can you then shoot me for doing it physically?
@Ditto: The best possible solution is probably that the young begin preparing themselves for what the labor market will require as far as skill sets that will be needed when they reach employment age keeping in mind that those will probably change in their life times as well. It will lessen the impact. People who already are in occupations that will be replaced by mechanization will obviously be hit the hardest because it’s not the easiest thing losing a job you’ve been doing all your life and then having to completely change your line of work. The labor market has been quite dynamic, at least since the first Industrial Revolution, so this isn’t new. Think about the steel mills. As for the chaos that may ensue because of a loss of jobs, sorry to say we may just get practice well before that when Obamacare kicks in. The economy is shedding full time work and gaining part time work right before a time when health insurance costs are going to skyrocket. People are going to be hit from both ends. It won’t be pretty.
solarman
why do I see both of you dead, how about an idea that just pop in my head,
GEORGE ZIMMERMAN COULD HAVE SPIT OUT THE BLOOD HE WAS SWALOWING,
ON THE FACE OF TRAYVON,
WOULD THAT HAVE CHANGE THE COURSE OF THE FIGHT OF TRAYVON?
another vet
they will use rusting agent to stop the job of the robots,
instead of antirust to keep them in shape
oops
The Zimmerman trial is over. He was tried by a jury of his peers and found to be innocent. Like it or not, that’s the way our system of justice works. I sat on two juries, one in a criminal case and the other a civil one in which I was the foreman. People who sit on juries, at least the ones I was on, take their duties seriously. They realize they are making decisions that will impact other people’s lives. Talk to someone who spends time in court, ie. police officers, lawyers, judges, prosecutors etc. and they will most likely tell you the same thing (on a rare instance you have the OJ circus but that’s the exception). This jury had more knowledge of the facts in this case than anyone here. They made their decision based on those facts. Had the decision gone the other way, the complaining and sharpshooting roles would have switched. This case received far more publicity than it deserved.
@retire05, #166:
You don’t seem to know very much about the real-world behavior of human beings who have difficulty controlling their tempers. Why would you think that people who can’t control their fists would be any better at controlling their pocket pistols?
@Greg:
You seem to think that I have never dealt with people who lack self-control in my life. You would be wrong. But those who do lack self control usually prove to be nothing more than petulant juveniles who think their way is the only way. Too bad liberals have never learned to control their emotions which are running this nation into the ground.
Since George Zimmerman was not ever known to use his fists in any situation, and Trayvon Martin was, I guess you are saying that Martin would have wound up being nothing more than a gun toting gang banger who had no control over his fists, or his gun? Ironic, isn’t it, that Martin’s text messages exposed his attempt to purchase a weapon. I’m sure he had already passed the back ground check, right? Oh, wait, he was not old enough so that must mean he was trying to buy a street gun.
@Greg:
Yeah, he sure would have. And it would have been a tragedy, just as what really happened was a tragedy. A tragedy because an idiot didn’t stay in his car and a kid didn’t just keep going where he was going.
Stand your ground is based on no duty to retreat, nothing more. The State’s that don’t have a stand your ground law say you must make every effort to retreat before meeting force with force, including deadly force.
Aqua
he did not have to stay in his car, he had a duty to assume and he he did it very well,
he was there to prevent a break-in after so many of them, NOT AN IDIOT BUT A GOOD WILL MAN,
he was in his right to walk where ever for what ever, it was his mission,
he didn’t know that man walking around looking in window and leaning on one house with the window open and the door open, he had to report it and he did,
I assume TRAYVON HAD BEEN AWARE OF THOSE BREAK-IN NON STOP,
AND THE POSTER WAS THERE TO TELL THEM OF A GUARDIAN TO PREVENT IT,
NOT INNOCENT AS SOME WOULD LIKE IT TO BE,
EVEN HIS BLOG WAS MAKING HIM A POTENCIAL DANGEROUS AND WILLING TO ATTACK AND ROB THE COMMUNITY.
@Aqua: #177
Where is it written that GZ was, or should have, remained in his car? I’ve heard several blabbering idiots state this, and I just wonder where they get that stupid-a** idea? GZ was a Neighborhood Watch person, saw a stranger in the dark, in the rain standing on a neighbors lawn looking in windows, called police, sought to keep him in sight until police arrived, suspect left area where he could be observed from street, GZ had a right to walk on a sidewalk in his neighborhood. What about the idiot that decided he didn’t want a ‘white ass cracka’ so approached him and slugged him? Would that also be an ‘idiot’. GZ had every right to get out of his automobile, just as every citizen has a right to exit their automobile whenever they so desire. Geez….
@Richard Wheeler: #167
Sorry RW, there is no country where gun control laws are sanely in force. I will say they are in existence, but rarely work. Do you think criminals are influenced by gun control laws? If a person wants to shoot someone, which is illegal, do you think they will hesitate to use a gun to do it? Not in the real world. Australia also claims to have gun control, what do you think those guys in the outback use to kill varmints and protect themselves? Slingshots? Sure they do.
Redteam
hi,
slingshot? yes another weapon to join the other like a concrete slab,
all with a training in martial art defense and offense,
bye
Ditto
they CANADA will continue to ship the oil by train because of the administration
cannot agree to building the KEYSTONE ROUTE,
THE DEMAND OF USA IS SO STRONG THAT THEY HAVE NO OTHER WAY,
TO SEND OIL BY TRAIN EVERY DAY,
IT WOULD BE SO MUCH BETTER TO HAVE IT GO BY UNDER-GROUND
SAFER ROUTE,
THAT IS ON MY NEWS TODAY
Ditto
IN PITTSBURGH, A landmark FEDERAL study on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking
SHOW NO EVIDENCE THAT CHEMICALS from the natural gas drilling process
move UP
TO CONTAMINATE DRINKING WATER AQUIFERS AT A WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA DRILLING SITE,
THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY TOLD THE PRESS,
after a year on monitoring, the researchers found that the chemicals-laced fluids
used the free gas trapped deep below the surface
stayed thousands of feet below the shallower areas that supply DRINKING WATER,
THAT MEAN THE DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES STAYED ABOUT A MILE AWAY FROM DRINKING WATER
@Redteam:
Looking in windows?
Yes, he should have stayed in his vehicle. If he thought Trayvon was up to no good, that life or property were in danger, he should have called 911, not the non-emergency number. Being a neighborhood watch person doesn’t make you a trained law enforcement officer. Sure, you have the right to get out of your car and follow a suspicious person, and you may face consequences as a result. This result ended in a tragedy. No matter what else you may think, the death of a 17 year old is a tragedy. I agreed with the verdict, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a tragedy.
Looking in windows? No where does it say that, nor does it say he was on a neighbors lawn doing so. You are embellishing as much as those that say Trayvon was a perfect angel.
yes it was a tragedy, all altercations are tragedy, and the community break-in where tragedy also,
if you attack someone it’s a tragedy, he had a phone he could have instead call your 911,
@Aqua: embellishing? hardly. Stating facts require no embellishment. You think that’s the sole record of the events as reported by Zimmerman? You think he didn’t make a video the very next day with a police officer. So your contention that just because he didn’t fill in every teeny little brush stroke on his initial call means it didn’t happen is your embellishment. What is your authority for ‘he should have remained in his vehicle’? If you are driving along and you see a suspicious person and report them to the police, you are then required to remain in your car? Your authority for that is?
You said:
Why? What is the ’emergency’ number for? He was only reporting suspicious activity, not an ’emergency’. You do understand that there is a difference, uh, don’t you?
You said:
Well, it certainly is to the people that knew him and cared for him, but it certainly was not a tragedy for George Zimmerman’s relatives, it prevented them from the tragedy, to them, of George Zimmerman. One a thug, the other a Neighborhood Watch person reporting suspicious activity in their neighborhood. Tragedies are in the eye of the beholder.
@Aqua:
@Redteam:
Haven’t seen or heard it; provide a link or a transcript.
Did I say required? As a matter of fact, I said:
I’ve been to exactly one neighborhood watch meeting. My job requires a lot of hours and some travel. I’ve just never been able to participate the way I would like. There was a Sheriff’s Deputy leading the meeting. One of the most important things brought up was what to do if we saw something suspicious. The deputy said to notify the police and not pursue. Not because it was illegal, but out of concern for our safety.
He was 17. I know a lot of very good people in their 30s, 40s, and 50s that were a lot different than they were at that age. Yes, it’s a tragedy.
All I can do is put myself in Zimmerman’s situation. I would not have pursued, even if I were a Neighborhood Watch person. But for the sake of argument, if I had been out walking and saw someone I didn’t know in my neighborhood, I would have yelled and asked what they were doing.
Aqua
you said exactly what GEORGE ZIMMERMAN SAID
WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE
@Aqua:
For goodness sake Aqua, it was part of the evidence in the trial. Didn’t you watch the trial?
yada yada, GZ was not ‘pursueing’ only observing. Pursueing means to attempt to catch, GZ was only observing and reporting. GZ never confronted TM.
.
The very thing you said the Deputy said not to do. Oh well……….
Back on topic, from an expert on the legal use of deadly force re: Zimmerman vs. Martin
http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2013/07/16/zimmerman-verdict-part-2-the-unarmed-teen/
This is part 2 of a multi-part analysis. The other parts address many of the lies, distortions and misstatements about the case that have appeared in so many places, including in this forum.
This is not an opinion piece, this is an analysis of the events by an expert in law enforcement and legal use of deadly force in self-defense.
Petercat
brilliant, he know what he is talking about
thank you,