The Zimmerman trial is reaching its final stages. The case is about to go to the jury.
Observations:
Zimmerman is obviously innocent of any crime. He killed Martin in self-defense. Period. Not a shred of credible evidence has been presented by the prosecution that Zimmerman committed any crime whatsoever, let alone second degree murder. Nor has there been any evidence that Zimmerman was motivated in any way by racism.
The evidence shows that only one crime was committed: Martin assaulted Zimmerman. The evidence shows only one instance of racism: Martin referred to Zimmerman as "a crazy-ass cracker".
What is amazing about the case is that the prosecution brought it at all. Now you can see why the prosecutors bypassed a grand jury. A grand jury would never have returned an indictment.
What is extraordinarily disturbing is that it is obvious why this case was brought: there was intense pressure from the federal government to gin up racial strife (the DOJ actually funded some of the racist anti-Zimmerman mobs) in order to motivate blacks in the 2012 election. It worked.
The prosecutors in this case are corrupt, and the judge seems to be corrupt as well. This is a show trial, fabricated for political purposes.
But things like this have happened before in America. Many times. For more than a century bigots railroaded innocent blacks into court. It was done not merely out of racism but out of a desire to advance political agendas, to keep the whites outraged and the blacks frightened.
Show trials have been an instrument of Democrat Party politics since Reconstruction. Harper Lee fictionalized one such show trial in her masterpiece, which is the greatest American novel. She told the truth about race baiting and corruption in our justice system and in our politics and in our hearts.
Tom Robinson is on trial again in Seminole County Florida. Let's hope the outcome is more just, this time.
"Nor has there been any evidence that Zimmerman was motivated in any way by racism."
ReplyDeleteAnd even if he had been, and even were there evidence that we were, so what? This asserted (but never demonstrated) racism does not convert self-defence into murder.
There is no doubting this trial was politically motivated, nor that the trail of influence leads back to DC.The presidents stupid remarks comparing his privileged kids to working class Martin. The DOJ throwing cash on the racial fire. It all leads back to some very cynical minds in DC.
ReplyDeleteI would also agree that the special prosecutors have not made the case AT ALL for second degree murder and the defence has made an excellent case for self defence.
What truly amazes me about the evidence presented is that none of the violent past of Mr Martin or his abuse of DMX/Lean was ever introduced, despite the prosecutions attempt to use Mr Zimmerman's past to paint him as a vigilante. The scales seem a little tilted in favour of the prosecution.
All that said: It should be a cut and dry verdict, presuming the jurors have not been coerced or threatened (or are unaware of the rampant threats against their persons and the peace in general).
No matter how this turns out, there is still a life lost and another shattered. Two families forever changed and a whole community manipulated for political gain.
In order to cover this incident with the proper racial narrative, the NYT and CNN had to invent the concept of a "white Hispanic" and NBC had to manufacture a tape to create a racial comment.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, the attorney who filed the charges, Angela Corey, has been indicted by a FL grand jury for falsifying Zimmerman's arrest warrant.
But, really, all one need know is that, just prior to closing arguments, the prosecutors were begging the judge to include some lesser charge in her instructions to the jury, knowing full well that even the kangaroos had left the gallery after Rachel Jeantel's testimony.
The one Egnor is talking about involves a fat "creepy-ass cracker" Hispanic who shot a thug attempting a beat-down.
ReplyDeleteA "thug" who Zimmerman described as skipping. A "thug" that Zimmerman chased down through the night for no good reason. A "thug" that was completely unarmed while Zimmerman ran up to him carrying a gun.
Yeah. A 17 year old, 6'2", drug-sucking thug who was socially incapable of maintaining even a marginal school career.
ReplyDeleteYep. That guy.
First and foremost, this killing is a tragedy. My prayers go out to Trayvon Martin and his family. The fact is that when this all began, he was merely walking home, unarmed, minding his own business. His personal issues do not make his death less horrible.
ReplyDeleteWe on the pro-life conservative side of things have to avoid attacking Martin personally, and we must-- must-- avoid inflaming racial hate. Martin's death is a horrible tragedy. Period.
The question here is straightforward: did Zimmerman commit a crime for which he can be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt? The answer is straightforward: no he did not. He obviously was acting in self-defense when he shot Martin. He committed no crime leading up to the shooting.
He is not guilty. Period.
Whether he bears a moral responsiblity, in part, because of his actions is another matter. Following "suspicious people" around in your neighborhood while you are armed is generally imprudent. People do get hurt that way. But Zimmerman's prudence is not what is at issue in this trial.
He must be judged legally according to the law. He broke no laws. And the incitement to racial hate by the left is beyond reprehensible.
For insight into Trayon Martin's psyche, see these articles by Jack Cashill: "Trayvon Martin’s Final Hour," "New Evidence Shows Trayvon Martin’s Life Unraveling," and "Judge Tosses Martin’s MMA Texts."
ReplyDelete“He is not guilty. Period.”
ReplyDeleteHow can you possibly say that? You’re presuming that Martin attacked Zimmerman for no good reason. Don’t black kids have a right to defend themselves when stalked and confronted by “creepy ass crackers”? Does the right to defend yourself when you feel you are in imminent danger only apply to white people? Are you prepared to say that if someone stalks and accosts you while you’re walking alone at night, they are justified in shooting you if you try to defend yourself?
Your certainty makes your racism obvious.
-KW
Popeye: "Don’t black kids have a right to defend themselves when stalked and confronted by 'creepy ass crackers”'?"
ReplyDeleteThey have a right to defend if attacked or threatened with attack, but not a right to attack if "stalked and confronted" by "creepy ass crackers" or anybody else.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Zimmerman attacked or threatened to attack Martin. He most certainly was not brandishing a weapon, since Martin attempted to seize the weapon from its holster.
If someone accosts me verbally while I'm walking alone, and I attack them, wrestle them down, get on top, and repeatedly bash their head against the pavement, they most certainly would have every right to shoot me in self-defense.
Doctor, it is not a "personal attack" to state the truth about Martin's behavior. Calling Martin a thug is merely adapting to his own preferred description:
ReplyDeleteNaw, [I'm not a hood] I’m a gangsta.
--- T Martin
If the media narrative had not attempted to paint this young, drug-using, violence-loving "gangsta" truant as some sort of angelic child skipping his way home from a late night visit to the convenience store, telling the truth would not be necessary.
It is way past time for individuals to vigorously expose the airbrushing of Progressive icons.
@KW:
ReplyDelete[How can you possibly say that? You’re presuming that Martin attacked Zimmerman for no good reason.]
This is a criminal trial. "Good reasons" don't count. Legal reasons count. The evidence is clear that at the moment Z shot M, Z had reason to believe that he was in immediate serious danger. Therefore the killing was self-defense. QED.
There has been no evidence that Z initiated the physical contact. The only evidence presented-- Z's testimony-- is that he was jumped by M. In a criminal trial, it is evidence presented at trial, not your anger or bias, that counts. Z is not guilty of breaking any law, according the the evidence, which is all that counts in the courtroom. There is no rational debate.
[Don’t black kids have a right to defend themselves when stalked and confronted by “creepy ass crackers”?]
Race is irrelevant. No one has the right to assault another person. M's anger at Z may well be understandable. It does not justify assault.
[Does the right to defend yourself when you feel you are in imminent danger only apply to white people?]
Race is irrelevant. No one has the right to assault another person. The evidence is that M assaulted Z.
[Are you prepared to say that if someone stalks and accosts you while you’re walking alone at night, they are justified in shooting you if you try to defend yourself?]
The law is clear. If you reasonably believe that you are in immediate danger of serious injury or death, you may take measures to stop your assailant, lethal if necessary.
The evidence is that Z reasonably believed that.
The outcome was tragic. It obviously could have been avoided if Z hadn't followed M, or if M hadn't assaulted Z.
But Z committed no crime.
If you disagree, then tell me what crime he committed.
If you disagree, then tell me what crime he committed.
DeleteVoluntary manslaughter at the very least. If you start a situation that leads to mutual combat, and the person you started it with is killed in the process, that's an almost textbook case of voluntary manslaughter. Zimmerman started the situation by chasing down a kid in the middle of the night while armed and starting a fight with him.
"If you start a situation that leads to mutual combat, and the person you started it with is killed in the process, that's an almost textbook case of voluntary manslaughter."
DeleteWhat textbook are you looking at? The usual law textbook example of voluntary manslaughter cites a hypothetical like this: Joe comes home from work early and finds his wife spread out on the kitchen table having hot sex with the cable guy. Joe, in a fit of rage, picks up a chair and brains the cable guy, who dies on the dining room floor.
How exactly is that consistent with Joe on the ground being having his head repeatedly slammed into the pavement by a bigger guy?
I'm just curious, Counselor.
@KW:
DeleteVoluntary manslaughter is killing motivated by a moment of intense passion. That would be if Zimmerman argued or fought with Martin, and became so enraged that he killed Martin out of malice.
The evidence is clear that that was not the case. There is abundant evidence that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, pummeling him in a way that reasonably risked serious injury, and it appears that Martin saw Zimmerman's holstered gun and threatened to kill him.
Zimmerman shot Martin in self-defense. That is the evidence.
To convict Zimmerman of voluntary manslaughter, the evidence would have to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman killed out of malice without reasonable fear of his life or of serious personal injury. There is no such evidence. Not even close.
The case is open and shut. Not guilty.
You can mourn Martin's death without turning the criminal justice system into a lynch mob.
What you're doing to Zimmerman is just what white bigots did to black men for a century by railroading them into prison without legal justificiation.
Adm:
ReplyDeleteNo question that Martin had personal issues. He did, and so do tens of millions of other teenagers. He was raised in a cultural cesspool, and some of it he bought in to.
That said, he was a 17 year old. He was not a serious criminal in any way I am aware of. The night he was killed he was minding his own business, until he was stalked by Zimmerman.
Martin's life should not be remembered only by his tweets or teenage bravado. Like all of us he was a mixture of good and evil.
It is a tragedy that he was killed. There is no reason to soil his memory. This is a nightmare for his family.
Zimmerman was imprudent, but committed no crime. Martin was initially minding his own business, but he did commit a crime that night--he assaulted Zimmerman.
It's a tragedy someone died for this foolishness.
M.Egnor: "Zimmerman was imprudent, ..."
ReplyDeleteThis isn't true; you're "reasoning" like a "liberal" does -- "*Because* Martin ended up dead, *therefore* Zimmerman was imprudent."
Zimmerman was acting as a responsible citizen. Martin was a suspicious-looking and acting character in the neighborhood.
Martin attacked Zimmerman due to his own racism and his own "homophobia"-- that's what the whole "creepy-ass cracker" thing was about: "There's the 'white' faggot trying to hit on me, and I know he's a faggot trying to hit on me because he's 'white' and following me."
Ilion:
DeleteIf my son had a pistol permit, and he saw a strange guy walking in our neighborhood, and he called the cops, and he wanted to take his pistol with him and track the guy, I'd tell him he was being foolish. He is not a cop, and really tragic and foolish things can happen when people go out with guns to follow people.
Zimmerman broke no law. But taking your gun and following people is imprudent.
The prudent thing was the call the cops, and stay home.
Ilion:
DeleteAnd my view is not liberal thinking.
It is very conservative pro-life thinking, in the truest sense of the words. The situation did not warrant a private citizen, however well-intentioned, following another private citizen around with a gun.
It is a recipe for catastrophe, which is exactly what happened.
Why is it so hard to affirm that Zimmerman is innocent of any crime, but acted imprudently, and that Trayvon Martin's death is a tragedy?
What we conservatives should be focusing on is the Left's excreable race-baiting and abuse of the criminal justice system.
DeleteBy dissing Martin and overlooking Zimmerman's quite questionable judgement, we're playing into the false scenario the Left has created.
Trayvon Martin's death was tragic.
Zimmerman's behavior at the outset was imprudent.
Zimmerman committed no crime.
The Left are race-baiting opportunists who are beneath contempt.
Seems like the plain truth to me.
Zimmerman told 911 “These assholes always get away” as he disregarded police instructions and went after Martin.
DeleteZimmerman was more than imprudent, he was angry at the people who burglarized his neighborhood, assumed Martin was one of them, and went after him carrying a gun. Why can’t you accept that Zimmerman may have gone after Martian with malicious intent after judging him based on appearances?
-KW
Popeye: " Why can’t you accept that Zimmerman may have gone after Martian with malicious intent after judging him based on appearances?"
DeleteThis is not about belief, or "acceptance". You can't just imagine what someone might have been thinking and prosecute them. Z is being tried in a court of law in the United States of America. It is about *proof beyond reasonable doubt*. Are you really that gobsmackingly illiterate about basic American principles?
@KW:
Delete[Zimmerman was more than imprudent, he was angry at the people who burglarized his neighborhood, assumed Martin was one of them, and went after him carrying a gun. Why can’t you accept that Zimmerman may have gone after Martian with malicious intent after judging him based on appearances?]
He may have. No evidence that he did, but heck, he may have.
"He may have" requires this verdict: not guilty.
The standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt", which "he may have" doesn't meet. Not even close.
This is fundamentally different than the black-on-black crime that you like to point out over and over again. When a black man kills someone, regardless of the victims race, he doesn’t get to go home from the police station afterwards, doesn’t avoid arrest until there’s public outcry, and doesn’t get hundreds or thousands of people anxious to donate to his legal defense fund because they “just know” he must be innocent.
Delete“He may have. No evidence that he did, but heck, he may have.”
His saying “These assholes always get away”, is evidence that he did act with malice. Clearly he went after Martin because he didn’t want the “asshole” to “get away”
-KW
Acting with malice is the difference between second degree murder and manslaughter.
Delete-KW
Now that you’ve admitted he may have acted with malice, you have admitted may have murdered Martin. I guess you’re not so sure of yourself after all.
Delete-KW
@KW:
Delete[Acting with malice is the difference between second degree murder and manslaughter.]
Malice is an element of both murder and manslaughter. Malice aforethought is murder. Malice in passion without forethought is manslaughter.
If a man reasonably fears for his life and kills, it is self-defense, regardless of malice.
@KW:
Delete[Now that you’ve admitted he may have acted with malice, you have admitted may have murdered Martin. I guess you’re not so sure of yourself after all.]
The legal issues are clear, based on the evidence.
I do not defend Zimmerman, except to say that there is not sufficient evidence to convict him of any crime.
And I find your persistent race-baiting disgusting.
“I do not defend Zimmerman, except to say that there is not sufficient evidence to convict him of any crime.”
DeleteThat’s quite a retreat from “Zimmerman is obviously innocent of any crime”, and if calling these proceedings a politically motivated show trial isn’t defending Zimmerman, I don’t know what is.
-KW
If that obese moron Zimmerman hadn't carried a gun, nobody would have died. The insane US gun 'culture' obviously facilitates such deadly encounters.
ReplyDeleteAnother point: even if Martin attacked Zimmerman, that doesn't justify lethal self-defense unless Zimmerman had reason to believe his own life was in danger. I haven't followed the trial, so I don't know whether any evidence to that effect has been offered (other than the killer's testimony).
Anyway, I blame the Pope.
@troy:
Delete[If that obese moron Zimmerman hadn't carried a gun, nobody would have died. The insane US gun 'culture' obviously facilitates such deadly encounters.]
Yea. We need more gun control. Maybe then we'll be as safe as Chicago and Mexico, both gun control meccas.
Doc: "No question that Martin had personal issues."
ReplyDeleteDoc, we're way outside the limits of "issues". People with "issues" have trouble speaking in public, or with washing their hands too often. Trayvon Martin, like many young men, black and non-black but, sadly, statistically more likely black, are violent, tragic accidents waiting to happen. According to the reports I read, even his mother kicked him out of the house for truancy.
Yes, it is a tragedy he was killed. But, in my opinion, his memory is not "soiled" by truth. The truth cannot "soil". His memory can and should serve as a lesson to other young men of any color and a violent disposition that attacking strangers, even white, fat strangers, can be dangerous. If people regularly attacked strangers for rude and aggressive verbal encounters, the streets of downtown San Francisco would run with the blood of the homeless.
Zimmerman is, if you'll excuse the candor, a stupid fuck. Had he listened to the 911 operator, he'd still be enjoying his life with his family. His life, as he knew it, is over, regardless of verdict.
But as you rightly note, stupidity is not against the law. Nor is it a personal attack to tell the truth about the aspects of Martin's behavior that got him killed. If Martin had died of a disease caused by reckless behavior, instead of death by reckless aggression, nobody would be arguing that the cause should be airbrushed away. Parents would be saying to their children, "Put that damn cigarette OUT!! Look at what can happen!"
And yes, yes, yes... the whole sorry-ass situation is a tragedy of unimaginable proportions for everyone involved..
M.Egnor: “If my son had a pistol permit, and he saw a strange guy walking in our neighborhood, and he called the cops, and he wanted to take his pistol with him and track the guy, I'd tell him he was being foolish. He is not a cop, and really tragic and foolish things can happen when people go out with guns to follow people.”
ReplyDeleteSo, your advice to your son would be, “Don’t be a *citizen* – don’t be a *man* who takes manly responsibility for his community – because the predators might not react favorably to that”?
M.Egnor: “And my view is not liberal thinking.”
Really?
Just a few weeks ago, weren’t you wondering what was wrong with British men that any number of them collectively watched a man be butchered in the streets in broad daylight (in front of a military installation) yet did nothing but call the cops? Well, that and film the butchery with their phones?
You want to have something both ways – which is the heart of “liberalism” – in this instance, you want men to be sheepdogs guarding the sheep from the wolves … unless one of the wolves gets hurt or killed, in which case you want the sheepdogs to have been sheep all along.
What’s next? Are you going to start condemning Israel for “disproportionate response” when they defend themselves from (further) rocket attacks from Gaza by taking out the rocket launch sites (that were used in *this* attack)? It’s the very same “reasoning” you’re applying to Zimmerman.
M.Egnor: “The prudent thing was the call the cops, and stay home.”
The end result in this “liberal” progression – and already the “law” in Britain – is to condemn, and prosecute with all the resources of The State, those persons (especially when they are ‘white’) who defend their own lives or property against active and direct threats.
M.Egnor: “Zimmerman was imprudent, ...”
ReplyDeleteIlíon: “This isn't true; you're "reasoning" like a "liberal" does -- "*Because* Martin ended up dead, *therefore* Zimmerman was imprudent."”
M.Egnor: “He is not a cop, and really tragic and foolish things can happen when people go out with guns to follow people.”
As I said, you're "reasoning" like a "liberal" does: you’re judging the act of one person not by its inherent nature but by the separate act of another person altogether.
Nevertheless, in fact, Zimmerman wasn’t *simply* at home and happened to see “a strange guy walking in [the] neighborhood”; rather, he was on neighborhood patrol, as part of an organized neighborhood watch.
M.Egnor: “It is very conservative pro-life thinking, ...”
ReplyDeleteI *despise* that label: “pro-life” … it’s so Madison Avenue … so womanly (in the derogative sense of the word).
M.Egnor: “… The situation did not warrant a private citizen, however well-intentioned, following another private citizen around with a gun.
It is a recipe for catastrophe, which is exactly what happened.”
You’re “reasoning” like a “liberal” does: you’re freaking out because the non-thug had a gun; you’re using the hindsight that Martin is the one who ended up dead – while ignoring that *he* attacked Zimmerman, who was simply defending his own life when he killed Martin – as the (false) basis for claiming that Zimmerman was in the moral wrong.
The fact that Martin attacked Zimmerman is all the evidence one needs to know that the situation *did* warrant a private citizen following him to keep an eye on him.
M.Egnor: “Why is it so hard to affirm that Zimmerman is innocent of any crime, but acted imprudently, and that Trayvon Martin's death is a tragedy?”
Because only the first part is true, and I will not affirm what I know to be false, even for the sake of friendship.
Trayvon Martin’s life was tragic … starting with the name his parents freely gave him. And his life was tragic because he had been taught, his whole life, by “liberals” and his “community”, and he believed it, that he had the right to violently attack ‘whites’ at will (even if they are only “white Hispanics”) because … well, because. His death was simply the result of his own ultimately free choices.
M.Egnor: “… The situation did not warrant a private citizen, however well-intentioned, following another private citizen around with a gun.
ReplyDeleteIt is a recipe for catastrophe, which is exactly what happened.”
I’ve lived most of my life around barbarians like Martin – I may yet be murdered by one of them because I confront them, rather than cowering and calling it “prudence”.
My present neighborhood is in the process of being thuggified; some examples:
1) a neighbor (who, like me, is part Indian, and looks it more than I do) whose property fronts on the street (my property is “landlocked”, it doesn’t directly front on the street) recently told me about a situation for which he’d called the cops --
* A gang of black kids (whom we’ll meet again) was harassing a lone, and scrawny, white kid who simply trying to use the public streets to get from Point A to Point B; they were lobbing rocks at him, taunting him as a “honkey”, and chanting, “This is Nigger Street, ‘honkeys’ can’t come here.”
* When the cops (finally) arrived, the black kids claimed that the white kid had called them “niggers” … therefore, they had the right to viciously attack him;
* The response of the cops was essentially “In that case, oh well … now you just run along, whiteboy”
* THEN, after the white kid was out of the picture, the cops high-fived the black kids who had been attacking him.
* Of course, in their defense, he *was* a red-head.
2) A couple of summers ago, I confronted a group of (thuggish) black teenagers, boys and girls, in the treehouse (which I’ve since demolished) I’d built for the kids of my family. Now, when I went out to chase the kids off my property, I was expecting smaller kids, and wasn’t even thinking about race – nevertheless, by Mr Egnor’s “liberal” pseudo-reasoning, I was in the moral wrong, especially considering how the situation developed.
So, I ordered the kids off my property and *watched* them to see that they did move on. Then, after they were down the embankment (though, actually still on my property), one (or both) of the girls started the trash-talking that black women love to do – among other things, I mean aside from threatening to come back and burn my house down, that I was a “faggot” who wanted to [expletive] the boys – her goal, and it came very close to working, was to get one or more of the boys worked up into a violent state to attack me. One of the boys – mind you, these are muscular “youths” as big as me – started taking off his shirt, in preparation for coming back up and attacking me. But then he calmed down and they left. Obviously, God was involved in calming him … but, nonetheless, had I shown any fear, that would have been all it had taken to flip him to full, uncontrolled rage.
I also expect that as I was then ten feet higher than him, I may have looked more imposing.
Well, that and the fact that blacks with racial chips on their shoulders have those chips *because* they really do believe themselves inherently inferior to whites. By showing no fear in response to his active threat, I ratified to him that I was “in charge” – in his mind, not because I was the adult, and on my own property, and he was in the wrong, but simply because I was white (or, at least, look white) and he isn’t. This attitude is one more of the pernicious effects of “liberalism” on black Americans.
llion I’m a little confused, was it miraculous intervention from God that saved you, or the inherent command that comes with the freeless display of white skin? How is it an “obvious” miracle, when you claim it’s a result of your real or imagined racial superiority?
Delete-KW
"... or the inherent command that comes with the freeless display of white skin?"
DeleteBut then, you *are* a damned-of-God liar.
Obviously, when I was on a jury some years ago -- trying a young black man -- it was also "the inherent command that comes with the freeless display of white skin" that allowed me to convince most of the other jurors (all except a hick-accented "good ol' boy"), two of whom were black and were also going to automatically vote "guilty", to not *automatically* vote "guilty", but rather to consider the testimony we had heard, including a direct contradiction between an answer by the prosecution's witness and prosecutor's summation just a few minutes later of what she'd just said.
DeleteI'm such an eeeeeeeeeeeeevil raaaaacis! what with my "white privilege", and all.
3) Several months ago, I was pulling into a McDonald’s lot. Just ahead of me was a car (with an older couple) pulling out of a parking spot. I did the only thing one can do: I stopped so as to allow them to proceed. The driver behind me angrily honked his horn. Then, after I parked, and he drove into the drive-thru lane, I honked at him. He turned out to be a (large) black man … who proceeded to get out of his car and head my way, while tossing racist trash-talk at me, while I tried to explain the full situation. Obviously, by the “liberal” pseudo-reasoning Mr Egnor is using, I was in the wrong for “imprudently” trying to point out to this (black) driver that his impatience at me daring to be in his way was all misplaced.
ReplyDelete4) A few summers ago, I verbally chased a flock of black and mixed-race kids out of my woods (I live in the middle of a city, but my property is large enough that some of it is “wild”). These are the same ones who, when they were older, were attacking the red-head boy simply for walking-while-white. Later in the day, the came back onto my property, yelled to let me know they were there, while doing that ass-wiggle dance. So, started walking toward them … keep in mind, they were 200 or 300 feet away initially. They, of course, ran. I decided to keep walking and see if I could figure out where they lived. After I got down onto the side street, they surrounded my and started lobbing rocks at me. Obviously, by the “liberal” pseudo-reasoning Mr Egnor is using, I was in the wrong for “imprudently” trying to see if I could figure out where their parents might be, so that I could tell them that I want them to keep their kids off my property.
G.Boggs: "Zimmerman is, if you'll excuse the candor, a stupid fuck. Had he listened to the 911 operator, he'd still be enjoying his life with his family."
ReplyDeleteAnd had Martin been in the neighborhood intending to do violence to someone, say to rape a randomly chosen woman, and had he done so and (actually) been caught, and had the information leaked that Zimmerman was the man who'd called the police and that he'd been following Martin -- and that, moreover, he was armed -- everyone, including Adm. G. Boggs, would be excoriating him as the vilest of the vile for having “allowed” the rape to happen.
Dude, you can’t have it both ways. Either men behave as citizens, who take responsibility for their families and communities, or as sheep, merely waiting around to be sheared, if not slaughtered.
Ex post facto reasoning doesn’t really make Zimmerman in the wrong.
If you *call* yourself ‘conservative’, then you really do need to free you mind of *all* the leftist ant-rational mind-control in which we all have been marinated from birth.
You got that Egnor, Boggs? Until you’re ready to display the level of prejudice displayed above, you’re brainwashed, and might as well be liberals! Unbelievable.
ReplyDelete-KW
To all who think themselves conservate, especially those who claim the name of Christ --
DeleteThe above is an example of how the leftist control you: if you dare to see, much less speak, the truth about reality, they'll call you a 'raaaaacis!' or 'bigot' ... and you are so afraid of these now-meaningless epithets, that you always buckle.
If you are a Christian, you already know that you cannot serve two masters. So, do you serve our God, whose name is 'Truth', or do you not?
And I would point out that any resemblance between my views and that of leftists is not because my views are leftist, but because the Left imitates genuine Christian ideas, and perverts them to it's own ends.
DeleteRespect for persons without consideration of race is a Christian teaching.
M.Egnor: "But I abjure racial polemics, even if they entail some valid points. ... Black youths who do bad things aren't doing bad things because of their race. None of this, in the final analysis, is about race. It is about human evil and foolishness and sin. Let's address that, as Christians."
ReplyDeleteM.Egnor: "Respect for persons without consideration of race is a Christian teaching."
M.Egnor: "The truth, Ilion, is that race is irrelevant. ... We Christians should have no part in racial polemics."
Do you even *see* what you're doing?
One of your leftist-and-atheist trolls say, "Hmmm, I smell raaaaacis!" and like Pavlov's dog, you hurry to all-but-directly accuse me of being a racist.
M.Egnor: "The truth, Ilion, is that race is irrelevant. Race is used to stir hatred and pride. ... "
I have *shown* you, via logic, that there is a flaw in your reasoning on this case, and that that flaw is built upon the unthinking racism that the leftists have inculcated in all of us – both to fawn over blacks and to hold them, as a group and as individuals, to a lower standard than white, and hate whites.
The truth is, race *isn’t* irrelevant. It *should* be, but it isn’t, and it won’t be until people free their minds of leftist-inculcated presuppositions.
As I said, I have *shown* you, via logic, that there is a flaw in your reasoning on this case. Now, if you’ll dear with me, I’ll show you by example. If you would, please read this recent essay by Ann Coulter, with concentration on the last third, beginning with “There is, however, at least one case of a black homeowner fatally shooting a white troublemaker. He was not charged with murder.”
What was you *initial* mental reaction. Look, I already know what it was, for I had the same, since, after all, I too have been marinated from birth in the same that you and your readers were.