Leslie Bates

Zimmerman Verdict

30 posts in this topic

In the state of Florida, a jury refused a demand for a human sacrifice.

The Left stands by and cheers as every new manifestation of barbarism rises and slaughters good people and innocent children. The chattering classes willingly support and serve the enemies of mankind and viciously slander and condemn those who dare to raise a hand in defense of the defenseless. They sit in their coffee houses cooking up conspiracy theories about how Conservatives are planning to exterminate their own particular fringe group.

But if the conspiracy theories of the Left were true they would all be dead. If Conservatives dealt with the adherents of Liberalism the way the Left has dealt with humans in general whenever the Left has obtained power, there wouldn't be any Liberals left standing. Of the universities and the urban centers of Liberalism there would be nothing left but smoking ruins, and there would be mass graves from coast to coast.

We need to face the fact that the present day Left, like the barbarians who plagued civilization before them, are essentially parasites. Control of the productive population is essential for their survival and well being. Compulsion is inherently necessary to the parasite manner of existence. Those who resisted had to be killed as an object lesson for others.

The Left Marxist barbarians, not only need material support they also need spiritual support as well. They need to feel that their victims are not only submitting to them today but will do so tomorrow as well.

Barbarian chieftains and tribal witch-doctors demanded degrading and often dangerous acts of worship from their subjects, up to and including human sacrifice, in order to assure themselves that they would still have a roof over their heads and food to eat the next day. Those refused to obey were assaulted or killed.

In the meeting places of the Left the demand is for unquestioned agreement without regard to the actual facts of reality. The Leftists are the first to demand censorship lest they be identified as frauds and subsequently bounced out of their comfortable fantasy worlds, no longer insulated from a real world that demands real thought and real labor.

The Left, being dependent upon others for their sustenance, must stand in opposition to the society of rational consent and openly support systems of compulsion, because to do otherwise is to condemn themselves to death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to have at least a slight tendency to be somewhat negative towards the left! But what are your specific views on the Zimmerman case, and most important, the way it was promoted into a national story to push a racist "narrative" we are being told to buy into?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to have at least a slight tendency to be somewhat negative towards the left! But what are your specific views on the Zimmerman case, and most important, the way it was promoted into a national story to push a racist "narrative" we are being told to buy into?

A slight tendency?

Trayvon Martin was a physically mature individual who chose to carry out a deadly force assault. He chose his own fate.

As to those who are pushing a racist narrative? To answer that would require the extensive use of barracks language.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to have at least a slight tendency to be somewhat negative towards the left! But what are your specific views on the Zimmerman case, and most important, the way it was promoted into a national story to push a racist "narrative" we are being told to buy into?

A slight tendency?

I wrote "at least a slight tendency", not wanting to overstate your position since you are so reticent about speaking your mind :-)

Trayvon Martin was a physically mature individual who chose to carry out a deadly force assault. He chose his own fate.

That happens every day, especially in Organizer utopias like Chicago. So why the national hysteria over this one? "Don't bother to examine a folly, ask yourself only what it accomplishes."

As to those who are pushing a racist narrative? To answer that would require the extensive use of barracks language.

You could always quote the language of Holder or the Washington Post as an excuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to have at least a slight tendency to be somewhat negative towards the left! But what are your specific views on the Zimmerman case, and most important, the way it was promoted into a national story to push a racist "narrative" we are being told to buy into?

A slight tendency?

I wrote "at least a slight tendency", not wanting to overstate your position since you are so reticent about speaking your mind :-)

Trayvon Martin was a physically mature individual who chose to carry out a deadly force assault. He chose his own fate.

That happens every day, especially in Organizer utopias like Chicago. So why the national hysteria over this one? "Don't bother to examine a folly, ask yourself only what it accomplishes."

As to those who are pushing a racist narrative? To answer that would require the extensive use of barracks language.

You could always quote the language of Holder or the Washington Post as an excuse.

What does it accomplish?

Never let a crisis go to waste. Or, as Holder put it this time,

"We Must Not Let This Opportunity Pass"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They want to suppress the right of self defense and impose dhimmitude. If a favored racial type threateningly approaches you, you are to obsequiously and submissively retreat. Zimmerman is only the Alinskyite frozen abstraction targeted in the "narrative".

It's the same mentality as their foreign policy in which America is not to defend itself, and the same mentality as their domestic policy in which bureaucrats deemed to know best override all objective law and don't you dare speak up against it or try to defend yourself. That includes legal tax avoidance in which you arrange your affairs to minimize taxes you don't have to pay by not doing things or doing them where they are not taxed (e.g. Apple). Your lack of subjugation to racist and ethnic statism remains a "loophole" to be eliminated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many states that do not have "stand your ground" laws concerning self defense. In Maryland, one has an obligation to retreat (except if you're inside your house) under all situations, if retreat is possible. I was discussing this with someone at work, and he gave me an example. There was a man who got out of his car (due to road rage) and was approaching my co-workers car and threatening to damage his car. My co-worker got out of his car and threatened the man, who retreated. My co-worker had a policeman friend and mentioned this story to him. The policeman said that if my co-worker had engaged the man in a fight, my co-worker would have been arrested for initiating the conflict: for not retreating when there was an opportunity.

Even in one's house where guns are allowed for self defense, one had better make sure that the intruder is not shot in the back, that the intruder is killed because if he tells a different story about what happened than your story, you're liable to be sued as well as subject to legal sanctions. One has to let the intruder know (presumably by yelling at him) that one is armed with a gun and will use it for defense if he doesn't stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't these 'stand your ground' laws come about by popular demand because of the examples of absurd injustices of victims being sued and punished for stopping aggressors to defend themselves?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't these 'stand your ground' laws come about by popular demand because of the examples of absurd injustices of victims being sued and punished for stopping aggressors to defend themselves?

I don't know. But the right to self defense is pretty meaningless if you can't defend yourself or your property outside of your house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As mentioned above, some states are "duty to retreat" with an exception called the castle doctrine whereby you are not forced to run away if you are in your own house. And.. Just to make it more confusing, some states are neither "duty to retreat" nor "stand your ground", they rely on case law. Virginia is one such state, "judicially" it is "stand your ground."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have misgivings on the "stand your ground" laws, as I understand them. The problem I see is that conceivably someone could initiate a fist fight (assault someone else), find themselves on the loosing side and at real risk of great bodily arm, and then pull a gun a shoot the person they attacked.

If I'm not mistaken, the only thing that matters is whether one is at risk of material injury or death.

If this is true, it is easy to manipulate and it makes it hard for unarmed people to defend themselves: they can only fight to a draw, they cannot risk having a significant advantage. This is not how a fight is terminated safely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that I think of it, this has more to do with self defense than stand your ground. Still, I'm puzzled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Zimmerman case did not involve "stand your ground" laws, only self defense.

Fights aren't supposed to be 'terminated safely'. They shouldn't be started, bit once they are, should if possible be ended with the least harm to the victim in accordance with what he believes is necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have misgivings on the "stand your ground" laws, as I understand them. The problem I see is that conceivably someone could initiate a fist fight (assault someone else), find themselves on the loosing side and at real risk of great bodily arm, and then pull a gun a shoot the person they attacked.

If I'm not mistaken, the only thing that matters is whether one is at risk of material injury or death.

If this is true, it is easy to manipulate and it makes it hard for unarmed people to defend themselves: they can only fight to a draw, they cannot risk having a significant advantage. This is not how a fight is terminated safely.

I believe the law, at least from what I heard about the Florida case, is that if you initiate the attack, you cannot then use the "stand your ground" part of the law for self defense. I've seen this false argument used by those who claim Zimmerman should have been convicted because he created the situation by following Martin. But following someone is not the use of force and is not illegal. Another type of argument went like this. Suppose Martin had a gun and "stood his ground." Could he have just shot Zimmerman? This ignores the fact that Martin threw the first punch. It also ignores the fact that there was no issue of "stand your ground" involve in this case because nobody was threatening the other until Martin struck Zimmerman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the more interesting issues involved in the "stand your ground" assertions is that if Zimmerman would have used that as part of his defense, then the implication would be that Martin was the one who was doing the threatening. I have heard no one bring this issue up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The defense chooses its arguments and legal principles to employ based on how it thinks it can best win in the court, not philosophically and not saying everything possible. He did not have to argue over claimed "implications" from rationalists attributing unproven motives to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The defense chooses its arguments and legal principles to employ based on how it thinks it can best win in the court, not philosophically and not saying everything possible. He did not have to argue over claimed "implications" from rationalists attributing unproven motives to him.

I agree, but it is the Zimmerman opponents, like 0bama, who assert that stand-your-ground was the cause or issue involved in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are arguing propaganda, not a legal argument. They use the power of the legal system and government policy making to enforce their ideology, getting around the law and limits on their power any way they can. Their referring to "stand your ground" as if it were part of the Zimmerman case is only part of their dishonesty. "Ask yourself what it accomplishes."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if you initiate the attack, you cannot then use the "stand your ground" part of the law for self defense.

That's beside my point. Whether or not one uses SYG, there's something that appears screwed up in the self-defense concept. Take the situation of a person with a conceiled gun initiating unarmed assault on a non armed person. There's only two likely outcome: either the assaulter stays "on top" and has his way with the defender, or the defender gains the upper hand which means that the assaulter is now in his right to shoot him. (Only combat experts can safely gain and keep the upper hand in an unarmed fight without inflicting grievous injury.)

This creates a kind of prisoner's dilemma where the only rational thing to do is for everyone to carry a gun.

This ignores the fact that Martin threw the first punch.

Is that so? My understanding is that we had no idea who started the physical assault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you initiate the attack, you cannot then use the "stand your ground" part of the law for self defense.

That's beside my point. Whether or not one uses SYG, there's something that appears screwed up in the self-defense concept. Take the situation of a person with a conceiled gun initiating unarmed assault on a non armed person. There's only two likely outcome: either the assaulter stays "on top" and has his way with the defender, or the defender gains the upper hand which means that the assaulter is now in his right to shoot him. (Only combat experts can safely gain and keep the upper hand in an unarmed fight without inflicting grievous injury.)

This creates a kind of prisoner's dilemma where the only rational thing to do is for everyone to carry a gun.

The only rational thing to do is to be prepared to properly defend yourself when threatened with force. How you do that is up to you to make the judgment as to what is an appropriate method.

This ignores the fact that Martin threw the first punch.

Is that so? My understanding is that we had no idea who started the physical assault.

I believe that the evidence was clear that Martin threw the first punch when he struck him in the nose and knocked him down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The detailed evidence of the little thug's racist and violent background was suppressed in court by the lawyer prosecuting the victim, Zimmerman. They can't suppress it in the court of public knowledge and opinion except for the willful evasion of the leftist media, as shown in the video posted by Paul. The leftists are dead set on pursuing a "narrative" agenda to prevent the public from finding out what happened in a local crime which properly failed and which they have strategically elevated in inverted form as a national cause in full Alinksy style of personal demonization.

To see the first hand accounts by Zimmerman himself, who seems to be a very decent man who only did what he had to to defend his own life against a brutal attack, watch the televised interview by Sean Hannity

, and Zimmerman's comprehensive on-site description to the police here.

Obama's attack on this man, exploiting the innocent victim of a thug in order to pursue the hysterical ethnic racism and outright dishonesty of leftist politics and it's "narratives", is disgusting. This is worse than Obama's ignorant and ideological rush to nationally attack the Cambridge police to defend his old Harvard crony and professional academic racist Henry Gates.

The hysteria that Obama, Holder and the rest of the leftist agitators have run up has created a national stampede by their followers to demonize the victim, whose life remains in danger because of it. Any attack on the right of self defense is an encouragement of violent aggression. This case goes farther in actually fanning it while pandering to and promoting a hysterical, racist lynch mob mentality in the manner of "community organizers" but operating out of the White House and major TV netwworks.

The complete and willful avoidance of objectivity by the leftist agitators only emphasizes, once again, "Don't bother to examine a folly, ask yourself only what it accomplishes". Zimmerman has been demonized as the Alinskyite "frozen target", but we are all under assault by this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is more, from the Washington Times, on Obama's perpetual race mongering as his natural reaction with his "it could have been my son" shot off the top of his head when he first heard of the violent event in Florida, and followed by it "could have been me 35 years ago":

“When Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said that this could have been my son,” Mr. Obama said. “Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago. And when you think about why, in the African- American community at least, there’s a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it’s important to recognize that the African- American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that — that doesn’t go away.”

Mr. Obama added, “There are very few African-American men in this country who haven’t had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. That includes me.”

“And there are very few African-American men who haven’t had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of car,” the president said. “That happens to me, at least before I was a senator. There are very few African-Americans who haven’t had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off. That happens often.”

And here is how Obama was deliberately presenting himself 35 years ago (1980):

SNN2714A---532_1516483a.jpg

Can anyone not figure out why "locks clicked" and women "held their breath" when this creep got near them, and that it had nothing to do with racism? Can anyone not figure out why this is still the case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is more, from the Washington Times, on Obama's perpetual race mongering as his natural reaction with his "it could have been my son" shot off the top of his head when he first heard of the violent event in Florida, and followed by it "could have been me 35 years ago":

And here is how Obama was deliberately presenting himself 35 years ago (1980):

SNN2714A---532_1516483a.jpg

Can anyone not figure out why "locks clicked" and women "held their breath" when this creep got near them, and that it had nothing to do with racism? Can anyone not figure out why this is still the case?

Why oh why can't people see that race has nothing to do with culture. I wrote this previously because it is the only way to defend oneself from the 'racist' charge when discussing culture.

http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?showtopic=13998&page=1#entry120973

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that the evidence was clear that Martin threw the first punch when he struck him in the nose and knocked him down.

I don't think there's any such evidence beside Zimmerman's testimony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites