Justice Dept. Will Not Bring Federal Charges Against Zimmerman

Eric Holder, correctly, found no evidence to charge Zimmerman with any civil rights violations.


No votes yet

Let's see how many line up to protest this Eric Holder Justice Dept. injustice when it's 0º outside and very hard to strike a match with gloves on to burn your neighbors business after you loot it. But hey, if I had a son he would look just like Trevyon. (And probably act like that too)

I'm wondering what the new T-shirts will look like.

Are those partisan motherfuckers in the DoJ going to give Mr Zimmerman his gun back? He committed no crime with it. In fact, Mr Zimmerman used his gun for its intended purpose: For self defense against a wild animal.

A wild animal armed with Skittels and a soft drink.

You can commit assault without a weapon. In fact, wild animals on our streets do this to people all the time. And assault triggers lawful self defense, even using a weapon to effect that end.

You Liberals gained no traction before with your "he's unarmed" narrative. Why are you still repeating it? Do you love losing or something?

You can also commit assault without touching someone. If touching occurs, assault then becomes assault AND battery.

Published in Politico 2/27/15 outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder:

Asked if the bar for federal involvement in the civil rights offenses is too high for federal prosecutors to make cases in shootings like those of Martin and Brown, Holder suggested it was.

“I think that if we adjust those standards, we can make the federal government a better backstop — make us more a part of the process in an appropriate way to reassure the American people that decisions are made by people who are really disinterested,” he said. “I think that if we make those adjustments, we will have that capacity.”

Read: If we can't get what we want just change the rules so we can. Adjust your thinking Mr. Holder. We remain a nation of codified laws established for and adhered to by ALL EQUALLY.

There was no civil rights offense. None whatsoever. The results from the Zimmerman-Martin case were conclusive and final: The shooting was justified, and there was no racial element to the shooting anyway. A justified shooting without a racial motive is legally impossible to base a civil-rights case on.

Holder's (corrupt) DOJ should have figured that out in 2 seconds, literally. But he's corrupt. He's a criminal, just like his boss, Obama.

It was Obama who told Zimmerman to harass Martin. Remember, it was Zimmerman who chose to confront Martin even when police told him not to. Consequently, he had to murder Martin in order to stop the ass-whooping he was receiving from Martin.

He got what he asked for, ass whoopings can kill as dead, as a bullet.

You just confirmed what the trend has been for centuries. If a Black Man is attacked and tries to defend himself, it gives the attacker the right to escalate the attack even to a point of murder. Sounds like a Jim Crow attitude.

The problem is you assume he was attacked. There is no proof to that.

Rely on facts and not unreasonable assumptions.


MikeyA, again your position defies logic. The facts indicate that Martin was on his way home bothering no one when Zimmerman confronted him, when told not to by the police. All Zimmerman had to do was to do nothing and leave. This case reminds me of an incident in Louisiana involving an organization called the Deacons of Defense. The Deacons of Defense went to their children's school to protect them from the KKK. When the KKK showed up the police also arrived and demanded that the Deacons of Defense to drop their weapons so the KKK could hurt the children. The Deacons of Defense refused and an armed confrontation appeared to be evident. Smartly, the Deacons of Defense proclaimed that if the KKK, who was preparing to attack them, left, there would be no confrontation. Fortunately, the KKK left and there was no violence.. Later the police tried to arrest the members of the Deacons of Defense for being on public property armed with shotguns. Not one armed KKK member was charged for trying to harm the school children. This mind set appears to prevail. Black Americans do not have the right to defend themselves if a White person tries to attack them. All Zimmerman had to do was leave and there would have been no confrontation and no dead Martin.


ZC there is no proof that Zimmerman confronted Martin. Nothing, no proof of it. The closest we have is Zimmerman's testimony but he doesn't say he confronted Martin, but testimony is not a fact. So we are left to guess who confronted who.

You are making a guess and not quoting facts. Everything else you wrote was not germane.


MikeyA, you are so far gone it's pathetic. Zimmerman admitted he stalked Martin. That in itself is an admission that Zimmerman intiated the confrontation.

Following someone is not confronting someone.

Zimmerman was already on the phone with police. Now that is an established fact. Now, if he planned on confronting Martin why then did he call the police?


He thought he was going to get permission to confront Martin. Instead, he ignored what the police told him and confronted Martin anyway. There is no way around this. Zimmerman was found not-guilty, but he is not innocent.

Look at the words you used. He thought. How do you know what he thought? You have provided no facts of which to discern his thought process.

Your opinion is all conjecture. There are no facts supporting what you claim. If there are, provide them.


Review Zimmerman's statements and you will find he admitted to everything I said he thought.

I have ZC. Apparently you fail to understand that I don't comment on these issues until facts come to light. Then I look at the facts and make my decision off of facts. You make decisions without facts time and time again.


Zimmerman was confirmed to have been not guilty of any crime. Whatever he's not innocent of, is not criminal, hence is no longer the concern of the legal system. But you're free to talk about it... for all the difference it'll make.

For example, when I watch the wild animals wandering up and down my street, I'm "not innocent" of things like suspicion and observation. But those aren't criminal actions. I can even get out of my car and approach one of them. Again, it's not criminal in nature.

Liberals are like children. They also don't have to defend their neighborhoods against roving wild animals since they move out to "Whitevilles" where the wild animals in question can't afford to live.

have been treated by law enforcement and the courts? Remember, all agree that, no matter who initiated the actual physical altercation, there would have been no confrontation if Zimmerman had followed Block Watch procedures, and the specific instructions from the professional police dispatcher, and stayed away from Martin.
But, what if Martin had been armed? What if Martin thought Zimmerman was a threat to him, and pulled out his own gun and shot Zimmerman dead? Would gun enthusiasts be lining up to help protect this innocent teenager who was just defending himself under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law? If not, why not?

The bottom line is that Martin is dead. And the only reason he is dead is because Zimmerman played vigilante. If Zimmerman had followed procedure, AND specific instructions from the police dispatcher, we wouldn't even know who he is, and Martin would be alive. There would be no story.
Was Martin a teenage time-bomb who would have been in trouble, even killed, by his future actions? Would he have had a productive life? We'll never know, because Martin is dead!

I'm really glad somebody explained this to MikeyA because he certainly doesn't get it. An unarmed Black Male is dead because Zimmerman made up his own rules and ignored the prescribed rules.

You live in a world of fantasy that is tailored by your imagination.


"An unarmed Black Male is dead because Zimmerman made up his own rules and ignored the prescribed rules."

No, Zimmerman didn't "make up" the common law of the nation, which is 100% permissive of self defense using lethal force.

You Liberals will never understand. That's why you're losing.

And number 1 rule is the one covering one particular item to bring to a gunfight!

The problem in the scenario you lay out is you cannot shot someone because you perceive them to be a threat. They have to be an actual threat. Now each state deals with this a different way. Most states agree that if you're on your property and someone has broken into your home armed or not then they do constitute a threat.

Walking in public, someone following you, does not fall into the legal definition of a threat that I've ever seen.

Martin is dead because he was in a fight and was a threat to Zimmerman's life. If Zimmerman wanted to kill him he could have done it from a distance that didn't involve his head getting slammed into the ground (this is an established fact). Additionally, the fact is Martin was on top and had the upper hand. That means he had the opportunity to flee.


Your statements are totally flawed. Black Men get shot all the time because they are perceived as a threat.

My logic is flawed? Why am I the only one using fact as a basis for my conclusion then?


What you call facts is a manifestation of your life on Fantasy Island.

The problem with your statements is they completely overlook the real problem in the black community. The black on black crime and shootings are an epidemic and needs to be confronted by everyone. If black lives really do matter then we would be discussing that.


Typical MikeyA BS. You try to change the subject to avoid addressing the subject.

I never changed the subject. You said black men continue to be perceived as a threat. Statistics show that the highest numbers of black men shot are shot by other black men. This is a fact.

So if you want black men to stop being viewed as a threat the biggest inroads you will need to make, are in the black community. Not a change of subject. Just facts you conveniently ignore.


I agree with what you said, 100%, CharlieZ. Now we need to discuss why the shooters, mostly other Black men, perceive their victims as threats.

If Martin was attacked by Zimmerman who had then pounded his head into the ground (based on the physical evidence that Liberals pretend doesn't exist), Martin would have been 100% in the legal and moral right to have pulled a gun and shot Zimmerman dead.

Also: Florida's "stand your ground" law was never part of the charges. I don't expect Liberals to ever understand the difference, but let's try this again:

When you're being attacked some wild animal, you're simply being assaulted and in EVERY STATE OF THE UNION you're permitted to defend yourself against the animal, using lethal force.

Self defense like that, doesn't involve "stand your ground". Liberal keep confusing the issue with that since they believe by default that you ALWAYS have some sort of duty to flee regardless of the attack and what you're attacker is doing. That stems from the pervasive Liberal belief that self defense is such a restricted definition that there's almost no possible circumstance in which it's legally warranted. This belief exists due to a more nefarious part of Liberal ideology, which seeks to provides maximum coverage and support for the diversity pets that Liberals hold in such high regard (although they don't live near them, don't work with them, and certainly don't send their little darling children to school with them).

I love calling out you Liberal turds on your anti-self-defense insanity. Peace out!

Martin is dead because he tried to kill an armed opponent who managed to defend himself. Martin had a lot of options here. He could have run away. He could have called 911 on his cell phone. He could have gone to a neighboring house and gotten help (you would have helped him, wouldn't you Pertcheck?) But Martin didn't do any of those things. Martin tackled Zimmerman and pounded Zimmerman's head against the concrete sidewalk. Zimmerman shot him. End of story.

The initial police investigation correctly concluded it was self-defense, and everyone went home. It wasn't until the moonbat hate mongers got hold of the story that the government started to make Zimmerman's life miserable for him.

And by the way, Pertcheck, what about the New Black Panthers putting a price on Zimmerman's head. Do you approve of this kind of behavior? I note you failed to mention it in your diatribe.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

from only the testimony of the surviving person in a 2 person confrontation in which the other person died. Is your last name Columbo or Monk?

What YOU fail to note is that Martin would be alive if Zimmerman would have followed proper procedure AND specific instructions from a trained professional police dispatcher. If Zimmerman had done the right thing, the professional police would have been able to speak with Martin, and we wouldn't even know Zimmerman's name, because Martin would still be alive!

You simply ignore the fact that, if you were being pursued by a stranger, you just might be concerned enough for your safety to use violence to protect yourself. If Martin had had a gun, and if he had shot and killed Zimmerman, would you be defending his rights to self defense against an armed stalker, MJ? If not, why not?

And targeting any citizen for death by any other citizen is wrong. I am not consumed with this case, so I had no idea Zimmerman was targeted in this way. Of course, if he had done the right thing, and there had never been an unnecessary death, Zimmerman would be unknown to anyone, wouldn't he?

Martin and Zimmerman both would be fine today IF BOTH had done things differently. That they didn't isn't an indicator of blame on either.

The only reason Martin is dead is because he began slamming Zimmerman's head into the ground. Period. All evidence suggests that was the first life threatening action by either.

Had that not occurred we cannot say what would have happened but we know that was the single point of failure that caused the situation to become life threatening to either.


of them, if only Zimmerman had not initiated contact AGAINST RULES and AGAINST SPECIFIC AND DIRECT INSTRUCTIONS! PERIOD!

Dale once again, I made a fact based determination. It's not an excuse.

If only Zimmerman had not gone out that night. If only he had not moved into that area.

What you forget is that it takes two people to fight. Martin had a say. Even with Zimmerman confronting him it was Martin's choice to engage. It is a fact that Zimmerman was on the ground, Martin could have fled. The events that led up to the fight are speculation by both you and I and devoid of facts. What we know is that when the fight started Zimmerman did not use his gun. When he was punched while standing... he did not use his gun. Only when Martin was on top of him slamming his head into the ground (a fact by the medical records and forensic analysis) did Martin get shot.

So if Zimmerman was the sole cause... why did he shoot when they were both standing and Martin punched him? Why did he wait until he was on the ground to shoot? Answer me these questions.


You do realize slamming someone's head repeatedly into the ground is attempted murder right?


Well, to be fair, in Florida it's "aggravated battery", which seems to be what we call "felonious assault" around here.


According to that information, aggravated assault is a "third degree felony, which can result in a sentence of imprisonment for up to five years". So that suggests Martin was just heading to what's becoming "the usual" for a significant fraction of Black men: A life spent in jail. Or put into the grave.

Show me the "rules" your'e talking about. Oh wait you can't, since there are no such rules.

your research for you. YES! There are published rules! Here is one source: the USAOnWatch program. "It should be emphasized to members that they do not possess police powers and they shall not carry weapons or pursue vehicles," the manual states. "Members should NEVER CONFRONT SUSPICIOUS PERSONS WHO COULD BE ARMED AND DANGEROUS." [emphasis added]

In the same article from the March 4, 2012 "Orlando Sentinel", they quote a retired police chief, Chris Tutko, who now directs a Neighborhood Watch program sponsored by the National Sheriff's Association: "There is no reason in the world to carry a gun for Neighborhood Watch. It gets people into more trouble than out of it."
As the "Sentinel" states, very early in this investigation, "It doesn't take much investigating, though, to see that if some basic common-sense rules of Neighborhood Watch had been followed, it's likely NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED." [emphasis added] That's my point!
Here's a link to the article: http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-14/news/os-trayvon-martin-be...

Even Martins' fat girl friend told him to run, he should have listened and lived.

"You are amazing! You cobble so-called facts together from only the testimony of the surviving person in a 2 person confrontation in which the other person died."

No, he cobbled the known facts together from the survivor, the witnesses, and finally the physical evidence.

That's what you're supposed to do... instead of reaching (in your Liberal case) an IDEOLOGICAL conclusion about what happened, you only base your conclusion from what you know, which is from witnesses and physical evidence.

"What YOU fail to note is that Martin would be alive if Zimmerman would have followed proper procedure AND specific instructions from a trained professional police dispatcher."

There is no such thing as proper procedure when Zimmerman was acting in accordance to his rights. He had every right to be out, that night. He had every right to be curious about what Martin was doing. And he had every right to follow, even approach Martin.

You Liberals are supposed to be about Human RIGHTS. But you're not. You're about welfare and weakness.

Also, you need to explain right the fuck now how much of the following has legal authority: "trained professional police dispatcher"

(Hint: Your answer should rhyme with "none". That's what the law says. Remember the law, dipshit?)

from the only survivor of a violent confrontation between two people. There is no, "He said, he said," because there is only one survivor. It's only , "He said." You can speculate all you like, but no one can hear Martin's story because he's dead.

I always know when I'm really getting under your skin, though, because you break out your dictionary of profane terms. Your use of such terms neither intimidates me nor makes your argument stronger. As a matter of fact, profanity is so often used now that its use no longer has shock value. From what I've read, swearing is a good way to release hostility. So, go ahead. Swear all you like. Does that make you feel better?

Once again: There's the survivor, the physical evidence, and the (distant) witnesses.

Liberals keep pretending that the latter two pieces of evidence just don't exist.

Luckily for Mr Zimmerman and for the concept of justice itself, all the evidence was considered.

The result was "NOT GUILTY"... as was painfully obvious to the police in the first place when they appeared at the scene of the event.

Since then, it's been an ocean of wept Liberal tears. But such an ocean can't wash away the truth. We no longer live in that age. Americans have seen the terrible effects of letting Liberals run things. Liberalism is dying. And good riddance to it.

Sandy Hook. Columbine. Virginia Tech. Etc.,etc, etc..


What about them?


If you are in the military, I hope there is only one of you, and, I hope you don't do anything important. Are you a mental patient playing with a tablet or an eight year old with nothing better to do?


LOL. Who is the one changing the subject again?

I asked a simple question. What do those have to do with the subject at hand? Is the answer: No?


So, MikeyA, Zimmerman had the right to harass and intimidate Martin? Again, I say, Zimmerman started the fight and according to your logic, Martin had no right to defend himself, I guess Martin was supposed to accept the ass whooping de jour.

There is no evidence whatsoever that there was harassment. And "intimidation" is poorly outlined in the law. I could walk down the street with my assault rifle, and you could get all intimidated by it, but it's still not illegal. I could follow you at night, and you could get all intimidated by it, but it's still not illegal.

"Zimmerman started the fight"

How the FUCK do you know that? How do ANY of you Liberals know that? There's nothing in the evidence collected that supports that conclusion, and there's nothing in the testimony or witness statements that supports that conclusion. Yet you Liberals continue to insist that it happened. Why?

Harass, intimidate, confront... these are the words you use but notice what word you're not using.... attack. You assume Zimmerman wanted to kill Martin yet none of the factual evidence supports that Zimmerman had violent intent.

Zimmerman has the right to confront people. In fact, if your area is experiencing crime confronting it is a way to defeat it. That is what police patroling and block watch is... it's an active aggressive tactic to confront and deter crime.

Now you and Dale both ASSUME it was Zimmerman who confronted Martin. There is no evidence to support this. According to Zimmerman's testimony it was Martin who confronted him. Now the testimony is evidence but I don't consider it fact because it comes from an interested party. I can see it as plausible that either could confront the other.

What we do know is that a fight occurred. What we do know is that Martin got the upperhand and began slamming Zimmerman's head into the ground. We do know that through that action lethal defense is reasonable.

That is how you make a fact based judgement. Your judgement is devoid of facts.


You ignore the most important fact: Zimmerman should not have left his car!
Zimmerman was instructed to NOT follow the "suspect" by the professional police dispatcher. Also, under "Block Watch" rules, if anything suspicious is observed, the police are to be called -- period. "Block Watch" volunteers are to observe and report only. Now, if Zimmerman saw Martin threatening someone, or actually breaking into a house or business, would he have a right as a citizen to get involved? I hope that he would. But, by Zimmerman's own admission, he observed nothing illegal being done by Martin. Martin just appeared to be suspicious to Zimmerman, so Zimmerman LEFT HIS CAR TO FOLLOW MARTIN.
That's a fact admitted to by Zimmerman. All your other "what ifs" Mikey are specious, and you know it. You can't get around one fact which Zimmerman admitted. Against "Block Watch" rules about reporting to police ONLY, and against the specific instructions from a police official, Zimmerman chose to leave his vehicle and pursue Martin. If Zimmerman had stayed in his car, no one would know his name, and Martin would be alive. It's really that simple!

No I don't pick and choose. A fact is a fact if it cannot be disputed. That Martin was on top of Zimmerman is a fact supported by the forensics of the crime scene and the medical examination. If you disagree with this provide something that discredits it. This is a widely accepted fact.

Yes it is a fact that they told Zimmerman that but 1) it's also a fact that he has a right to ignore it if he so chooses 2) their guidance holds no weight as there is no penalty for not following them see #1.

You actually state it, they are there to observe and report. So when GZ lost sight of him it would be only natural for someone in that situation to attempt to gain eyes on again.

Now that does not definitively show that GZ confronted TM. It's plausible. But also that TM confronted GZ is equally plausible so basing a decision upon it would be to make a decision off bias and without facts. Now if we assume GZ's statement is true (I haven't done that) then we could equally say that Martin would be alive had he not confronted GZ. Because we cannot establish from facts who confronted who we cannot use that to determine a cause effect scenario as you propose.

But since we can establish three things based upon the facts. 1) That TM and GZ both fought while standing 2) That GZ did not pull his gun while the fight was standing 3) that GZ only fired when he was in a situation where his in increased threat of serious injury or death. So using these facts, which are under no dispute, we can then legitimately decide that had TM not began slamming GZs head into the ground then TM would still be alive today.

That is how one makes a fact based decision. Undisputable = fact. No labels ignored or assigned.


I present a few questions below which Liberals will never answer. Luckily, these questions are rhetorical and make it obvious that Liberalism is a mental illness.

"Zimmerman should not have left his car!"

QUESTION: Was leaving the car illegal?

"Zimmerman was instructed to NOT follow the "suspect" by the professional police dispatcher."

QUESTION: Does a 911 operator have police authority?

"Also, under "Block Watch" rules, if anything suspicious is observed, the police are to be called -- period."

QUESTION: Are citizens legally bound by "Block Watch" rules?

From Pertcheck: You ignore the most important fact: Zimmerman should not have left his car!
Wrong, Pertcheck. Martin went off-road. How else was Zimmerman supposed to keep Martin in view?

From Pertcheck: Zimmerman was instructed to NOT follow the "suspect" by the professional police dispatcher.
Professional or amateur, the police dispatcher has no authority, and for good reason. Zimmerman correctly ignored the dispatcher in favor of following the suspicious black. I note that the community had a history of trouble with black teens perpetrating vandalism, theft and burglary.

From Pertcheck: Also, under "Block Watch" rules, if anything suspicious is observed, the police are to be called -- period.
You mean that the police weren't called? Who alerted them, then? Oh wait, Zimmerman called the police, just like he was supposed to.

From Pertcheck: "Block Watch" volunteers are to observe and report only.
Which was exactly what Zimmerman was doing.

From Pertcheck: Now, if Zimmerman saw Martin threatening someone, or actually breaking into a house or business, would he have a right as a citizen to get involved? I hope that he would. But, by Zimmerman's own admission, he observed nothing illegal being done by Martin. Martin just appeared to be suspicious to Zimmerman, so Zimmerman LEFT HIS CAR TO FOLLOW MARTIN.
It was established that Martin was acting suspicious. Martin had been walking aroud the complex for about an hour, talking to his girlfriend on his cell. The neighborhood was having enough trouble with black teens perpetrating vandalism that a block watch group was formed.

From Pertcheck: That's a fact admitted to by Zimmerman. All your other "what ifs" Mikey are specious, and you know it. You can't get around one fact which Zimmerman admitted. Against "Block Watch" rules about reporting to police ONLY, and against the specific instructions from a police official, Zimmerman chose to leave his vehicle and pursue Martin. If Zimmerman had stayed in his car, no one would know his name, and Martin would be alive. It's really that simple!
Again, wrong Pertcheck. Why didn't Martin simply run away? He could easily outdistance Zimmerman in a foot race. Or Martin could have ducked behind a house and used his cell to call 911 and report a suspicious 'white' man following him. Or Martin could have run home and locked the door. Or Martin could have stopped at a neighbor's house and asked for help.
You'd open your front door for him, right Pertcheck?
Martin did none of those things. Martin was screwed up on pot and other drugs, and he decided he'd fix Zimmerman good. He confronted Zimmerman, broke his nose, tackled him and started slamming Zimmerman's head against the concrete sidewalk. So Zimmerman shot and killed him, and that's how self-defense works.

Now you, Pertcheck, from the comfort and safety of your lily-white suburban home, feel that the world would be better off without Zimmerman and people like him. People who make their own life hard to take. Feel free to follow that philosophy for yourself and your family, but don't try to force it on the rest of us.

As for me, Trayvon Martin was a violent gangster and he got what he had coming to him. Good riddance.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

Thank you for making this clear to all who read here.

Of course he had the right to defend himself, but he lacked the sense to do it right.

you cannot negate these indisputable facts: if Zimmerman had not left his car, one, Martin would be alive today, and, two, no one would even know who Zimmerman is.

If Zimmerman did not want to live with the rules of his Neighborhood Watch, why did he volunteer to be part of the organization?
Zimmerman had ALREADY reported his suspicions to police. He did what he was charged to do as a member of a neighborhood watch. Any further actions he took were beyond his volunteer position. And, if Martin had been "armed and dangerous," as the retired police chief warns neighborhood watch volunteers can be the case, and if Martin had shot and killed someone who was following him for no good reason (at least no reason Zimmerman presented), and if we only had Martin's direct testimony because Zimmerman would have been the one shot and killed, would all of you who are defending Zimmerman's rights of self-defense be doing the same for Martin? I may be wrong here, but I seriously doubt that!
And, police dispatchers are trained. One thing they are trained to do is to field calls just like the one Zimmerman made, and to give instructions to the volunteer as to what to do next. The professional police dispatcher did the job correctly. If Zimmerman had followed that sage advice, we would not know who he is, and Martin would be alive.

One more thing. Zimmerman must live the rest of his life knowing that he killed another human being. That's something he could have avoided if he had followed rules and specific instructions given to him. I have never killed anyone. I have talked with people who have, including an uncle of mine who was involved in some of the toughest hand-to-hand fighting during WW II in the allied invasions of Sicily and Italy. He knew that he was fighting for his own life, for those with whom he was serving, and, of course, for America; but the killings still bothered him A LOT! Anyone who finds it to be no big deal to kill another human being needs serious mental help.
My wife and I were also involved in a serious vehicular accident a little over three years ago. Three of the four of us in the two vehicles went to intensive care, and the fourth person died. Even though the spouse of the deceased was cited, and my wife was driving, not myself, in the "other" vehicle, I still feel terrible that I was right there when the fatal accident occurred!
Zimmerman could have lived the rest of his life well, having never killed anyone, had he not left his vehicle. I do not envy him the thoughts and dreams he must be having. Please do NOT misunderstand me here. I do NOT hate George Zimmerman. I feel sorry for him, just as I deeply regret the fact that Trayvon Martin lost his life unnecessarily.
As in the case of most killings -- everyone loses. In this case both the person killed, and the killer lost. Most often, violence does not solve problems, it only changes the types of the problems one faces.
And nothing either of you, or anyone else states, can negate the fact that this was all avoidable, if Zimmerman had followed rules and direct, professional instructions.

If you Liberals won't give up on this, then neither will we, to wit:

QUESTION: Was leaving the car illegal?

QUESTION: Does a 911 operator have police authority?

QUESTION: Are citizens legally bound by "Block Watch" rules?

You Liberals will never answer these questions, since you know full well that Zimmerman did nothing illegal, nor even immoral. But what he DID do, is cross your Liberal ideology.

Sorry, I missed this particular insanity in your wall-of-text:

"Any further actions he took were beyond his volunteer position."

But those actions weren't beyond his citizen position. And that pisses off you Liberals the most, that any citizen can act to investigate and stop crime on his own.

I'll try to keep in mind your sentiments (and wipe my ass with them) the next time I see some thug at work in my neighborhood. If I just keep in my car, or stay in my residence, gee... the thug will still be alive. But I don't want that thug to remain alive, unharmed or at least unopposed. Cowards hide while the thugs do what they will. Liberals just want us to be cowards... ready victims just waiting for some thug to take the next one of us out. We should be looking out for our neighbors. We should be questioning what thugs are doing in our neighborhoods. And you know what? We're totally free to do all that. If some thug dies in the process, well, there's quote of Jefferson's that I'd like to alter for you:

"The tree of justice must be watered frequently with the blood of thugs."

To GZ aka Mr. Empty Glass, the right to leave a vehicle is MUCH more important than the two lives that were destroyed that night. How profoundly sad!

The right to leave a vehicle is in fact a RIGHT. So you actually agreed with me. Thank you.

Liberals love to invent rules that suppress our Human, American rights. That's why Liberalism is dying.

Everyone has the the right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and leave their car to harass innocent people and kill them if they don't find the harassment acceptable.

Evidence of that "harassment": Zero.

You Liberals will never understand.

Dale it is you who is assigning the label of fact on things that are not.

"you cannot negate these indisputable facts: if Zimmerman had not left his car, one, Martin would be alive today, and, two, no one would even know who Zimmerman is." How is that a fact? It is an assumption. It is a "what-if" scenario not a fact.

I showed in my post that in all of the evidence only that which was undisputed by both sides was a fact. You've done nothing to dispel this or refute them.


Zimmerman left his car. How is that NOT a fact. No matter what actually occurred, there would have been NO CONFRONTATION between Zimmerman and Martin if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle.
In addition, I presented the "Neighborhood Watch" rules. I presented the direct advice of a retired police chief who oversees a "Neighborhood Watch" program, who stated that "Neighborhood Watch" volunteers are not even supposed to be armed. Really, Mikey! If Zimmerman had had no gun on him, would he have still left his vehicle instead of awaiting professional police to arrive and investigate properly?

Answer me this, Mikey...if you volunteered for a duty, and you were directed to only report what you saw and await MP or SP officers to come to the scene, unless you observed illegal activity which required immediate action; but, instead, you took additional, unjustified action which led to a confrontation and a death, would you not be held responsible? Remember, Zimmerman never stated that Martin actually did anything illegal: no breaking in, no threatening of person or property. Zimmerman only stated in sworn testimony that Martin "looked suspicious." Surely, someone like you who is in the military and understands chain of command, rules, and instructions, can understand that Zimmerman did something wrong which resulted in an avoidable death, and ruined his own life, too! It's a lose-lose situation. There was no winner here.

"Neighborhood Watch" volunteers are not even supposed to be armed

So? NW rules don't have the force of law. And it's a stupid rule anyway, since you're out in the public, at night, when you're looking around for trouble and are therefore at higher risk.

I know nothing I say there makes sense to you, since as a stupid fucking Liberal you naturally don't want any citizen armed lest one more of your diversity pets gets harmed or you feel threatened or whatever insane sentiment it is that drives Liberal gungrabbing.

Dale, that GZ left is car is a fact. That is true.

What is not true is that GZ leaving his truck caused TM's death. How do I know this? Because GZ got out of his truck many times I would reasonably assume. AND I am assuming that with each time no one died. So we are not dealing with a cause/effect relationship.

Now to answer your question. Actually I have been in the situation you describe. And after calling for assistance from other authorities the situation DID change and I had to make a judgement call. Now to say it's "unjustified" that's untrue. Because the difference between my situation and GZ's is I have a chain of command, GZ does/did not. It is his right to walk on public property and observe anything he wishes to. A 911 operator has no authority and can only advise.

No, I do not conceed what GZ did by observing a suspicous individual was anything wrong. We in the military are taught to do it. We are taught to "establish a baseline" and keep "situational awareness". Then if there is "change to the baseline" we are taught to maintain situational awareness in an effort to protect people and government property.

Like I said before there is no evidence that definitively states who started the confrontation.


absolutely correct. And, as you state, you are trained. Zimmerman was not. You had a clear chain of command. Neighborhood watch rules call for the same thing. Zimmerman ignored those rules and ignored the professional advice he was given when he called in his suspicions.

And, nothing you or anyone else has stated negates the FACT that if Zimmerman had not left his vehicle, he would not have killed Martin. Martin is dead, and Zimmerman's life is ruined. Who won?

GZ was trained. You have to in order to concealed carry in florida. You have to know the law about using your firearm. He demonstrated that he knew the law by not using his firearm when the confrontation started.

Now you're starting to call it correctly. Advice. Advice is not binding and can be rightfully ignored when the situation rates. Advice holds no punitive punishment.

Yet, you still keep citing this cause/effect relationship as a fact. It is not. It is a far leap from that and the evidence does not support it.


that if Zimmerman had not left his vehicle, there still would have been a confrontation between Zimmerman and Martin. That is not in the testimony from Zimmerman's trial. Zimmerman never claimed that Martin approached Zimmerman in his vehicle. Zimmerman also admits that he never saw Martin doing anything illegal.

And you're kidding about the training to carry a gun in Florida, right? Are you really trying to equate the training Zimmerman had, to your military training? Give me a break! If you ask me which of the two of you I want making life and death decisions in the use of firearms, you win, Mikey -- hands down!

It's a clear line of events. Zimmerman first left his vehicle. That triggered all of the other events. Otherwise, we would not know who Zimmerman is, and Martin would almost certainly still be alive. Remember, Zimmerman's life in forever changed. I wonder if he would have a "do over" of the whole situation if he could?

How do you equate Military Police, or the Shore Patrol officers as having the same legal standing, as a goddamned 911 operator?

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, the World would never go hungry!

," and if we only had Martin's direct testimony'

Let's get down to brass tacks. Here's what horrifies Liberals like Dale:

You can arm yourself, get in your car, and drive around all night looking for trouble. And if you see a suspicious person, you can get out of your car and follow, even confront that person. You don't need to be a police officer. You don't need to be part of some effete Block Watch organization. You don't need licensing or authorization or certification or anything like that. You merely need to be a citizen of these United States.

The truth is that few Liberals actually believe in our Constitutional rights. There's always one thing or another that pisses them off that people are free to do, so they invent "rules" that somehow deny those rights. Well, Americans have become wise to these little Liberal games, and so these absurdities are dealt with in our wonderful public forums on the Internet. Then we sensible citizens utterly destroy the Liberal stances, point by point, like I'm doing now. This is why Liberals are so censorial when they create forums they can control (Democrat Underground and Daily Kos being the most famous examples). Liberals are actually cowards who can only act effectively as semi-agents provocateur. (Culturally, Liberals are like cockroaches.)

I'm glad someone brought up the proceedure known as the "Citizens Arrest", GZ!! Thank you, sir. I'll bet we see more of it, in the future.

If you really want to have chaos in our streets, let's all get out our guns and go out every night looking for trouble. I'm sure many will find a reason to shoot and kill more people. THAT will make us all feel safer -- right? That's called vigilantism.
I prefer to have trained police officers making life and death decisions out on the streets. But, hey. That's just me -- crazy liberal that I am.

Your "Wild West" Liberal rhetoric went out with the 1990s.

The only people who are truly in danger are the Trayvon Martins of the world. You know, the thugs who attack people.

Liberalism keeps losing since Liberals keep defending the thugs who attack people or who otherwise resist police. The Martins, the Browns, the Garners of our world. Liberals are totally lost in their unholy alliance with wild animals. This has wholly undermined the support that Liberals seem to expect from the working class.

"I prefer to have trained police officers making life and death decisions out on the streets. "

Let us know when we citizens lose the right to make the same decisions. Hint: We haven't and we won't. You crazy sort of Liberals seem to imagine that police authority automatically means that we citizens have LESS civic authority. That's just not true in practice. Police have authority that exceeds our own, yet our own is fairly comprehensive to begin with. After all, we have the right to travel freely, and we have the right to observe, and we have the right to speak, as well as that pesky ol' right of bearing arms. We even have the right to place people under arrest when we observe a felony in progress. And finally, when we're under attack, we have the right to fight back with lethal force.

Cry, Liberal. I want to hear you bawl like a baby about the truth.

here I go again.
You assume that Martin was a threat. Why? The only testimony we have about Martin on that night is from Zimmerman. Zimmerman stated that he did NOT see Martin breaking any law or threatening any person or doing any property damage. So, why do you believe that Martin was a threat? What made Martin "look suspicious?"

As citizens of the United States, we have the right to bear arms. We also have the right to act if we see felonious activity...duh! Another thing you do, Mr. Empty Glass, is to place everyone with whom you disagree into the same neat "liberal" box, as defined by you. If you can find any post I've made denying the right to bear arms in this country or denying an American citizen the right to act to protect another citizen or their property, quote me!
I have one son-in-law who is a card-carrying member of the NRA. Occasionally, I read his NRA magazine. All of the "Conservatives" who post here were apoplectic over Obama's two electoral victories because, among many other things, they were convinced that Obama would direct the federal government to confiscate firearms. As I have stated before, I am still awaiting the call from my son-in-law or his father, informing me that the feds have come to confiscate their guns. Still waiting...still waiting...

I guess what it all really comes down to is that I trust trained, professional police officers more than the average citizen with a gun, and you trust any citizen who can carry a gun more than you trust trained, professional police officers.

Dale your last paragraph utitlizing the word trust is at the very source of the division. There was no concern for federal confiscation of firearms since that just would not occur and with certainty would be a huge and messy conflagration. What has come to pass is an attempt at national behavior modification circumventing the national rule of law. Large scale purchase of ammunition by Homeland Security and the closing of all lead smelting plants in the country making it necessary to import certain munitions for those who legally wish to make that purchase. This has been a president who attempts to achieve his goals justifying the means by the end result. Phoney behavior does just not last long in the land. Ask Richard Milhouse.
Back to the word trust. Liberals dream of the goodness of mankind trying to tweak and correct, thinking improvements are just around the corner. The other side recognizes man as a fundamental animal not to be entirely trusted. On a frighteningly growing pace we are viewing that conduct world wide which cannot be dealt with by appeasement and conference tables. Two world wars have shown that false optimism carries a large price. The man engaged in trying to earn his undeserved peace prize is pursuing a dangerous course for all of us.

I'm not particularly concerned about Liberals trying to use "environmental regulations" to suppress the bullet supply.


Lead is certainly convenient for bullets, but it's hardly the only material. We could easily make use of solid copper, which has no environmental impact, and the government would never dare place copper into some faux environmental impact position, since it's a highly utile industrial metal.

And for what it's worth, we could use all sorts of metals for bullets that are meant to kill Humans. We who use weapons for defense (and with the added intention of using against government officials like soldiers, agents and politicians) can just use bullets made from zinc, soft iron, etc. We don't care about fragmentation issues; that's a problem for the survivors, and their surgeons. Bullets in that case are meant to kill, so who cares what they're made out of? I'd shoot you up with depleted uranium if I just wanted you dead. Nobody's going to be digging around in your shattered skull once I shatter it; you'll just be another corpse in a ditch.


I know more than enough gun owners who've taken to casting their own ammunition as well as general gunsmithing. They've done this just because of the inflated ammo prices.

Again this is one of those instances where government is causing the public to do it themselves and there will be no legitimate way to legislate it away. One because people are crafty and two because of those little words "shall not be infringed".


"You assume that Martin was a threat. Why?"

Because that's what all the evidence shows. Zimmerman said he was attacked. His wounds demonstrate he was attacked. Martin's body was single-shot at close range from the front. It was a cut-n-dried case of yet another out-of-control young Black male committing a violent crime, and then he got what he deserved from the defender, as is so amply indicated by FBI crime statistics.

Here's a more pertinent question: Why do you Liberals just throw out all the evidence and then construct a scenario of what happened that night that is based upon your racial biases?

Here's what I'm using: EVIDENCE

Here's what you're using: IDEOLOGY

It's sad that you literally can't see the difference.

As for your faux support of the Second Amendment... nobody's fooled anymore, Liberal. The 1990s showed well enough what your sick little gun-grabby plans are. Well, eternal vigilance WORKED, and we rationally no longer believe anything you say about guns. You Liberals hate guns and hate (White) gun owners and you'll never stop trying to take them away. And you're still under no threat since in reaction we gun owners are doing absolutely nothing to you. You'll wake up tomorrow with the seething anti-gun madness in your Liberal mind and nobody will be on your front lawn erecting a burning wooden structure made to look like a gun. No one will beat you up on the street for your anti-gun insanity. So you have no rational complaint about our contempt for Liberal's speaking about guns. You're anti-gun no matter what you say, and we're fine with that... since you have the First Amendment right to express anything you like about guns. But you can't take our gun rights away. That's not happening. And the recent resignation of that fucking idiot at the BATF should show what happens to a guy who tries to use the color of law to deny our gun rights. Hell, he's lucky that he wasn't assassinated for what he tried to do.

So keep talking, Dale. Talk is safe. Talk all you like. Doing anything MORE than talking about our guns, is dangerous. Word to the wise.

GZ in my estimation your over the line with your response. Recommend you put the clutch in and drop down a gear.

I was NOT speaking about Zimmerman's testimony AFTER he left his vehicle. I was NOT talking about evidence of an attack AFTER Zimmerman left his vehicle. I was referring directly to Zimmerman's testimony about what he felt when he was IN HIS VEHICLE BEFORE HE LEFT IT! Zimmerman stated that Martin had not been doing anything illegal. Zimmerman stated that he did not observe Martin threatening anyone or doing any property damage. My focus is strictly on why Zimmerman left his vehicle. Did Zimmerman have a right to leave his vehicle? Of course he did. Did Zimmerman's leaving his vehicle precipitate everything else which happened AFTER he left his vehicle? Absolutely!

I've stated this before, and I'll state it again. I do NOT hate George Zimmerman. As a matter of fact, I feel very sorry for George Zimmerman. No one knows who I am. No one needs to know who Zimmerman is, but they do because he did something which ultimately resulted in his taking another human being's life. He must live with this thought in his head for the rest of his life.
That's bad enough. But, he also must live with the judgments of those who realize who he is, for the rest of his life as well. George Zimmerman was found to be "not guilty" in a court of law. He still killed someone. He will always have to live with the consequences of those actions. And none of that would have happened; Zimmerman would be totally anonymous. if Zimmerman would have just waited for the police in his vehicle.

Over 25 years ago, one of my cousins in Southern California parked his car near a bank and got out. He heard an alarm go off, and observed a man running from the bank while people in the doorway of the bank were yelling. My cousin chose to take action. He was quite athletic, and tackled the man who was running. He held the man down until security and police arrived. Could my cousin have tackled the wrong man? Yes. Could he have been shot, and even killed, himself? Yes. His instantaneous reaction was to be a good citizen and get involved. The differences are two. First, my cousin actually saw a felony in action. Second, my cousin tackled the perpetrator and shot no one! I guess he was lucky...and a good fighter!

The difference between the two is there were witness that your cousin caused the confrontation. There is nothing proving who caused the confrontation between GZ and TM. So every judgement we make must be made off of the facts. The facts are GZ was beaten up. GZ didn't fire until he was under TM and was having his head slammed into the ground. GZ was armed throughout the confrontation but did not use his pistol until his life was in direct threat. The only one responsible for TM's death is TM.


It's timing, Mikey. DUH!
My cousin observed a felony being committed. BY HIS OWN TESTIMONY, Zimmerman observed no criminal activity by Martin AS HE SAT IN HIS VEHICLE. Zimmerman's leaving his vehicle triggered [pun intended] the series of events which led to Martin dying, and ruined Zimmerman's life FOREVER, too.

You are wrong. If GZ getting out of his vehicle was the primary factor in TMs death then why did every other time that GZ left his vehicle did someone not die? This is how logic works. If GZ getting out of his vehicle didn't kill TM then there needs to be another event that did. You won't acknowledge that because there is no fact you can point to that will prove your decision. Your decision is not based in facts.


Of course, Zimmerman did not start a chain of events leading to a death every time he left his vehicle. And he still does not. Duh! But, after direct instructions as to what do, he did what he was told NOT to do, and that act triggered everything which followed.

Look, Mikey. You're trying to win an argument, not trying to face the reality of the situation. Again I state, not only is Martin dead, but Zimmerman's life is forever ruined as well. Lose-lose. In this case, Martin would be alive and Zimmerman would be totally unknown to anyone like you and me if Zimmerman would have stayed in his vehicle, as he was specifically advised to do, and as his Neighborhood Watch rules directed.
One life lost; the other ruined. Was it worth it?

"Did Zimmerman's leaving his vehicle precipitate everything else which happened AFTER he left his vehicle? Absolutely!"

And yet he has no responsibility for it. Legally or morally. Once you act within your rights, you're in the clear.

You're essentially arguing that we precipitate everything that happens to us when we leave our homes in the morning.

Actually, you're trending more Liberally than that... you're essentially saying that no matter what happens outside of your home, you should huddle there in fear, and hope the police take care of what's going on. Don't you dare go out there! Don't interfere! Your'e not trained! And don't bring a gun! After all, you're not supposed to have a gun in the first place. Tch.

From DalePertcheck: I guess what it all really comes down to is that I trust trained, professional police officers more than the average citizen with a gun, and you trust any citizen who can carry a gun more than you trust trained, professional police officers.

Good choice, Dale. Especially cops like Jon Burge, a real professional police officer.

You really think Burge is the only cop like this?

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

I compared trained professional police officers to average citizens. I never claimed that police are infallible. They are people. People screw up. I'll take my chances with a trained professional in almost ANY profession over an amateur any day.

Who makes a better professional quarterback -- Tom Brady or my next door neighbor? Who fixes automotive vehicles better -- the repair person at my local repair shop, or my next door neighbor? Who is better at preparing a tax form -- a CPA or my next door neighbor?
People in all of these professions have committed crimes, but overall, I'll trust a trained professional over an amateur every time!

"Who makes a better professional quarterback -- Tom Brady or my next door neighbor?"

Professional football is played in stadiums hosting thousands of people and consisting of millions of dollars of involved investment.

And yet, a bunch of guys can show up in a field or lot and play football without any concern whatsoever about qualifications, certifications, training, etc. Of course that's called FREEDOM and you Liberals just hate that. Of course you'd never go on record as being against neighborhood football; you're not that insane yet. Yet.

So... law enforcement can happen anywhere there's a felony being committed. Any citizen is at liberty to investigate and stop a felony in progress. He doesn't need training. He doesn't need a permit to have a weapon. He doesn't need to be bonded or insured. He doesn't need to just step back and call 911 and hope for the best. He is at liberty and is free to act.

what "felony" was Martin committing while Zimmerman was still in his vehicle?

Zimmerman VOLUNTEERED for his Neighborhood Watch. If he didn't want to live by its rules, why did he volunteer for the program? Why did he not merely go out at night with his gun at the ready and do his thang? If Zimmerman did not want any advice from the police dispatcher, why did he call in his suspicions at all? Why didn't he just leave his vehicle and pursue the "suspicious" person. And what made this person so "suspicious?"

Keep in mind, while Martin is dead, Zimmerman's life is forever ruined. Vigilantism often results in lose-lose!

While it's certainly true that Zimmerman's life is ruined, I think that's only a temporary condition. It's possible to repair the damage given time and hard work.

Keep in mind that the government, chiefly inspired by the Ayatollah Obongo, along with the commercial news media, conspired to ruin Zimmerman's life. The original decision by the trained professional police at the scene of the slaying was that this incident was a clear cut case of self-defense. Keep in mind that these are the same trained professionals you herald as trustworthy. They heard the same story that we all did, and they determined it was self-defense. That should have been the end of the matter.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

The entire scenario would be unknown to all of us if Zimmerman had just remained in his vehicle. That is crystal clear.

I'm glad that you accept that police are, generally, professional and are to be trusted. That is also my view, MJ. Obviously, some here prefer vigilante justice. I mean, why even have a police force if we are all going to go around armed and looking for a reason to kill someone? Not having a police force would save a TON of money. Back to the "Old West!"

"The entire scenario would be unknown to all of us if Zimmerman had just remained in his vehicle."

Equally so, the entire scenario would have remained unknown if Martin hadn't attacked Zimmerman.

You Liberals continue to ignore that fact despite the clarity of its crystal. It's like you live in another universe. But that's not actually true... you live HERE, with us, and in this universe, when you're attacked, you can defend yourself, and it hardly matters how many times people post pictures of your attacker's angelic younger self (before he predictably thugged it up in his later teen years), and it doesn't matter how many times the media posts pictures of you that only get lighter and lighter in shade over time (no shit, the media keep lightening Zimmerman's various pictures over the months to make him seem more White), and ultimately it doesn't matter when an entire Democrat administration from the top down tries to GET YOU in court... what matters is the truth, the evidence, and the law, and once you rely on those, you will prevail, as Zimmerman did.

''what "felony" was Martin committing''

We don't know. That's why you LOOK. You just don't want people to look, since you want to cover for the predictably bad behavior of your diversity pets at night.

''If he didn't want to live by its rules, why did he volunteer for the program? Why did he not merely go out at night with his gun at the ready and do his thang?''

These are irrelevant questions. Who cares what motivates a person to stay inside or go out at night or look in one direction and not in another? Who cares what motivates a person to join an excessive group? (Since you hardly need to be a part of Block Watch to perform any of the actions Zimmerman took that night.) Who cares about how they understand the rules of that organization? None of that was illegal. Zimmerman could have stood up in the BW meeting and wiped his ass with the BW rulebook and then passed it around so he could share the stink with others to demonstrate his contempt. Who cares? Zimmerman still did nothing illegal, and in fact, he did nothing immoral. I'd have to say, any Block Watch that claims you can't be armed, is some stupid Liberal shit pile that should be FREELY disobeyed and there's nothing anyone can do about it anyway. Get it?

You and the rest of the Liberal cadre have been trying to pin racist intent on Zimmerman from hour one. That's fairly amusing since he once defended a Black man's reputation from the local police, which is well documented (although, few Liberals know it, since it destroys their anti-Zimmerman narrative).

Zimmerman's intent was NEVER actually on trial, since it was perfectly obvious from the facts of the case (meaning: his testimony, witness statements, and physical evidence) that Zimmerman ran into an out-of-control thug who paid the ultimate price for his crime. The prosecution just made itself look foolish when it tried. So we're back to the core issue: You can't just attack people and get away with it. They can use lethal force to resist, and that can end up killing you, and then you can't have your day in court. Looks like this Martin thug really made a bad choice in life, and there's no more life to affect by it. Sounds like Darwin was right.

P.S. Now that I think about it a bit more, really, if you joined a church group and they promptly told you that you could go out and try to convert people, but don't you DARE pray, oh boy, don't DARE do that, then you can morally, rightfully, just trip right out of there smirking since you're gonna pray hard anyway. The same contempt you'd show in that situation, fits exactly into this Block Watch shit. Who really has the balls to tell a free man that he can't be armed, but a stupid fucking Liberal? Or a bunch of top-ranked cops who control the BW program and don't want citizens armed in the first place? Now I'm really applauding Zimmerman; he has the right stuff.

This is conservative B.S. Why is a teenager killed because he was eating skittles and drinking a soda while walking home bothering no one and committing no crime? The mentality is still prevalent. If a Black Man is attacked and fights back he is not allowed to defend himself. When Malcolm X said that everyone has a right to defend themselves by any means necessary, conservatives took that to mean Blacks were going to launch attacks on them. All the conservatives have to do is not bother them in the first place. All Zimmerman had to do was stay in his car.

Amen to that, ZC!

"Why is a teenager killed because he was eating skittles and drinking a soda while walking home bothering no one and committing no crime?"

Because he was beating the snot out of Zimmerman. Why can't you Liberals admit that fact? The physical evidence supports it. The witness statements support it. And finally Zimmerman's testimony supports it.

"If a Black Man is attacked and fights back he is not allowed to defend himself."

{patiently} Nowhere in the physical evidence, or in the witness statements, or in the testimony of Zimmerman, supports your assertion that Martin was attacked.

Are you Liberals children? You can't follow the most basic logical construction in an argument, as long as the logic goes against your depressingly stupid ideology.

Zimmerman did nothing legally wrong.

"All the conservatives have to do is not bother them in the first place."

Uh, what does that mean in concrete terms? You can't approach them? You can't look at them? You can't follow them? You can't ask them questions? You can't arrest them?

I know what you Liberals are trying to do. You're trying to grant your diversity pets something very much like immunity from law enforcement. It's mind-boggling that you're aiming for that.

I have a Black friend who won"t allow his grandson to drive his luxury SUV. Why? Because my friend knows that his grandson will get pulled over by the police and possibly seriously hurt or killed. My friend also would not allow his grandson to associate with a group of kids in the neighborhood because he knew if the kids in the neighborhood did something wrong everybody would blame the Black kid. GZ, Blacks are not trying to get immunity from law enforcement. They are trying to stay out of their way.

Amen again, ZC!

Again just supporting anti-intellectual arguments that continue the cycle of hate.


"Blacks are not trying to get immunity from law enforcement. They are trying to stay out of their way."

I stay out of the way of law enforcement all the time, by using a technique called "don't commit crimes" and the associated technique called "don't skulk around suspiciously".

Those are things that Trayvon Martin should have learned. Too late now, but perhaps his death will serve as a lesson for the rest of 'em. See? Nobody is actually useless; they can always serve as a bad example.

I'm not talking about the people who commit crimes, I'm talking about the people who get profiled and haven't done anything wrong and get harassed. White America acts like profiling doesn't exist. If Martin was a White kid, he'd be alive today because Zimmerman would have never hunted him.

"If Martin was a White kid, he'd be alive today because Zimmerman would have never hunted him."

Unsupported statement. You lose. Liberalism loses.

Come back when you finally understand what "facts and logic" are.

It indeed is an unsupported statement for the Martin and Zimmerman altercation because I wasn't there, and, Zimmerman did not confess to hunting Martin. The fact is this. Black males are 10 times more likely to get profiled. Zimmerman's own words were that Martin looked suspicious. A Black kid walking home eating skittles and drinking a soft drink sounds suspicious to me too.

Keep speaking truth to power.

"Black males are 10 times more likely to get profiled."

Blacks are responsible for half of the violent crime in the nation, despite only being 13% of the population. So it only makes sense to profile them.

"Zimmerman's own words were that Martin looked suspicious."

He was free to conclude that.

"A Black kid walking home eating skittles and drinking a soft drink sounds suspicious to me too."

You just said you weren't there, now you're claiming you know what Martin was doing and how he appeared to onlookers. Liberals are cognitively dissonant.

If we use your logic, we could say that every White male is a racist and will try to lynch any Black male he may encounter.

You aren't using logic at all. Violent crimes are a huge problem in the United States. And Blacks account for half of those. Furthermore, hate crimes that are violent, are already accounted for in the violent-crime statistics.

It's definitive. Crime in the United States has a very distinct shade. That shade is dark. I'd say even Black. And it gets worse from that... if half of the violent crime is committed by Blacks, half of the murder victims are also Black. (FBI crime stats, 2011) Violent crime in the United States is pretty much the province of Blacks, giving or receiving.

So it's entirely rational that we profile Blacks... not in office buildings where they're sitting at their desks at work, or in their homes where they're sitting watching TV, but in the public space, at night, where you'd be profiling anyone that you'd see skulking around.

The problem is that White America views a Black Man wearing a suit the same way as a Black Man wearing a hoodie and his pants hanging below his butt. Many of the crimes committed by White America are undocumented. Those who are in power will do everything they can to make themselves look good and the powerless look bad. Afterall, White America has to support the new wave of slavery in America by locking up anyone who steals a Snickers candy bar. And, we have seen that when a Black Man is hunted like an animal and sucessfully whips the hunter's butt, it's okay for the hunter to kill his Skittles and soft drink carring prey.

"If we use your logic, we could say that every White male is a racist and will try to lynch any Black male he may encounter."

You say things like that ALL THE TIME.

I sure do because I have seen the truth. I'm not in denial.

Speak truth to power, and you can never be wrong.
The truth will set us all free.

In reply to Zeyad (due to columnization issues):

"The problem is that White America views a Black Man wearing a suit the same way as a Black Man wearing a hoodie and his pants hanging below his butt."

We can't help your victim mentality. Once you overcome it, you'll see that the only thing keeping you back, is YOU.

"Many of the crimes committed by White America are undocumented."

You mean imaginary. So you're pitting FBI crime statistics against statistics that you make up in your own mind.

"Afterall, White America has to support the new wave of slavery in America by locking up anyone who steals a Snickers candy bar."

So you condone theft. Now you're on record for it.

"And, we have seen that when a Black Man is hunted like an animal and sucessfully whips the hunter's butt, it's okay for the hunter to kill his Skittles and soft drink carring prey."

Once again: Nothing in the physical evidence, the witness statements, and the survivor's testimony, support your assertion.

Liberals are truly mentally ill. There's something medically wrong with your brain.

"Liberals are truly mentally ill. There's something medically wrong with your brain."

GZ, agreed. You've seen it in this thread. They refuse to acknowledge facts, they claim things are facts that are opinion, they do not present an argument rooted in logic, only those in emotion and fallacy.

Particularly notable is when dealing with this case they routinely ignore this instance to talk about the "wider issue" yet even with that they refuse to acknowledge facts. He claims slavery for stealing a snickers bar, well, that means if there is no stealing of a snickers bar then there is no stealing.

The problems within the black community are heartbreaking that is indeed. It is primarily black on black crime and it's not even a close statistic. No progress will be made until that is solved and that solution can only come from within the black community.


Where are your citations?

What I get from these stats is, while it is true that most crimes against blacks are committed by blacks, most crimes against whites are committed by whites! The statistics are quite one-sided for both black and white crime victims.
Of great interest to me, is that almost all of the offenders are male. Even in this "modern" era of more nearly equal rights for women, male and female roles becoming more nearly interchangeable, more women working outside the home, etc.; men still commit the overwhelming majority of crimes. Some things never change, I guess.

BTW -- Despite what so many demagogic politicians and others would want us to believe, the VIOLENT CRIME RATE PER 100,000 AMERICANS has been cut in half between the early 1990s and 2013. Even though we suffered through the Great Recession in recent years, violent crime only blipped up slightly just BEFORE the Great Recession, and never got close to what it was in the early 1990s. And for those who want to negate these statistics by pointing out that many crimes go unreported, these are based upon reported crimes IN EVERY ONE OF THESE YEARS. The data is collected using the same criteria each year.
Here's the link: http://www.statista.com/statistics/191219/reported-violent-crime-rate-in...

I agree on all accounts Dale. Only when we deal in facts will we ever find a solution.

As you point out the solution comes within each perspective community. I know I saw a lot of positives coming out of the Black Community in the early 2000's especially as it pertained to Black ownership. I support the programs that helped that get to the level that it was at. Additionally I support things such as school choice, and making concealed carry permits easier to attain, both of these would help the Black community. Someone like ZC would probably be shocked to learn that I think a solution to violence in the black community would be to put more guns in it, but I do.


I am shocked that you support more guns in the Black Community. But that won't happen. There are powers out there who will make sure that Blacks can't protect themselves from White America's reign of terror.

"I am shocked that you support more guns in the Black Community."

Why? He's just saying he supports more of their civil rights. There should be more speaking out in ethnic communities, for example... as the First Amendment recognizes. (Note: Rioting isn't speaking.)

You Liberals have been against our natural liberties, White or Black, for a long time. And it's costing you. Liberalism is dying for a large part since minorities are slowly waking up to the hidden Fascist element that lurks within each White Liberal. If there's any "White reign of terror" in the United States today, it's due to Liberalism. Liberals are against the natural rights of all people regardless of ethnicity. That's why eventually we'll need to fill mass graves with the bullet-shattered heads of Liberals, lime-dusted and then sealed up as the social trash they really are.

(Quote me on that.)

The Black Folks in Chi-town have more than enough guns to protect themselves since they found ways to out-smart the White Devils there. Maybe that plan will spread to more big cities?

I have no doubt you're shocked but you shouldn't be. More guns have lowered the crime rate in many areas this is a proven statistical fact. I agree there are powers out there who don't want Blacks to protect themselves but it's Liberals and Democrats, again a proven statistical fact.

Now you say "White America's reign of terror" of which you can't prove because it's nonexistent. As my discussion with Dale noted the most violent crime against black people occurs from other black people so there is no factual evidence to support your reign of terror assertion. It's made up in your head.


And these same liberal-socialists always lead the pack at election time with their redundant calls for strict gun control legislation, which certainly has adverse affects on Black Folks wanting to defend themselves.

Lynching Black citizens, shooting unarmed Black Citizens, outrageous sentences for petty crimes, housing discrimination, police brutality against Black people (Ferguson). These things must not count. MikeyA you must live in a cave.

When was the last lynching? Only case you provided of an unarmed shooting was justified and not a violation of civil rights. What petty crimes are you talking about? White people aren't causing housing discriminations... liberals are. Ferguson was not a case of brutality, it was a justified shooting according to the Dept of Justice.

So... still waiting for that "terror" because what you posted is either half wrong, made up, not current, or unverified.


it's tough to live with. For those of you who post here that ,"All you have to do is abide by the laws and you will not have a problem with law enforcement," here are real-life examples from one African-American, who happens to be a high-profile entertainer. That is NOT why he is being stopped frequently while driving. He has only been guilty of "DWB."

Here is a link to the article. And he does take pictures to record the harassments, so these are neither strictly hearsay, nor are they total fabrications from his fertile, imaginative mind: http://news.yahoo.com/chris-rock-keeps-getting-stopped-cops-taking-photo...

out of control. He lets his true motivation be known when he starts questioning the driver's length of time in America. As recorded, we have a "plain clothes," higher ranking, police officer who seems to have nothing better to do than to stop a driver who seems to be acting as respectfully as possible. Why was this driver stopped by this officer in the first place? Yes, a "plain clothes" officer may stop a driver who is violating driving laws, but, unless the violation is quite serious, it would seem that this officer should have more important responsibilities than to stop this driver, not to mention how nasty this officer is to the driver. What is his excuse for this?
Here's the link: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/nypd-investigating-disturbing-video-...
The commentary includes a retired police officer who articulates the problem from a much better perspective than I can do myself.

I support police officers. Their job is horrendous. The larger the city, generally, the harder and more dangerous the job. But, a few "bad apples" can taint the entire group to too many Americans. If this officer has a problem with diversity in America, let him move somewhere else, other than providing his public service in a major city where there are innumerable people from all over the world.
Now that there are cameras on almost every person in the form of cell phones, how many more of these types of obvious harassments will we, in the native-born, white, non-Hispanic community, now see. It's not just hear-say any more. We can see the discrimination and the disrespect with our own eyes, and hear it with our own ears.
What more could the driver have done to ameliorate this out-of-control officer? I guess this driver was guilty of something similar to DWB -- DWF [Driving While Foreign).

Chris Rock lives in Alpine NJ. That city has a very low crime rate. So Chris Rock wants the benefits of low crime without the policing that achives it? Am I correct?

Now we can discuss the benefits of profiling but that is a far way off from White America hosting some sort of "reign of terror" because I am quite certain Chris Rock survived the traffic stop, which counters ZC's claim that white cops are out to kill black men.


Question: When was the last lynching? Answer: About three weeks ago.

"About three weeks ago."

Where's this in the news? What's your source?

Or he can't.


It was on the news. It happened in Mississippi.

You mean this suicide, right?


Can't Liberals read?

This post is not a citation so one of the two things I said is true.


"Lynching Black citizens[.]"

Ancient history. Lynchings are now so far in the past that you may as well rail against the loss of metal-backed currency.

Liberals live in the past, lovingly fondling each injustice to keep the fires of their angst stoked, which ensures they aren't prepared for the future.

Someone has to remember the events of the past because if you don't the evil people will repeat their evil deeds. Remember, Germany was a democracy but became a Fascist regime that led to the deaths of over 50 million people.

Remember past events, yes. Throw them in our faces as if they're current events, NO.

Lynchings are long in the past. They're as dead a social practice as is drawing and quartering. So, how often do we have to warn judges not to D&Q us? Once a month? Once a year?

is the name of the game today. This was posted on April 1, 2015. This is far from ancient history.
Here's a link to the latest racist action at Duke:

"Intimidation is the name of the game today."

But not LYNCHING. Remember, you said LYNCHING was still a problem. No Blacks are being lynched. And that case you mentioned in Mississippi? It was a SUICIDE.

Liberals need problems to exist so that they can get the public to react to them. That's your game here.

Those who actually lynched this man did a great job covering their tracks making it look like a suicide.

Those who dropped you on your head when you were young, more than once, also did an excellent job covering up their tracks, but we must live with the consequences, alas.

every law-abiding American who wants a gun, has a gun. There are plenty of guns everywhere in America. The lack of guns is not the problem.

About 30 years ago, gun makers started making smaller, lighter guns. They found that every adult male who wanted a gun already had at least one gun, so they wanted to market more guns to women, who, overall, desired lighter, smaller models.

Black entrepreneurs have been around for decades, too. Statistics show that black entrepreneurs are on the rise, but the more black businesses there are, the more African-Americans will be vested in the stability of traditional businesses and traditional American values. When there is mutual respect and cooperation between safety forces and communities, everybody wins.

"every law-abiding American who wants a gun, has a gun."

I disagree. Maybe they have a gun but they cannot carry it. Luckily I live in a county that frequently allows concealled carry permits. Now if I lived in LA county, I would not be approved, despite being military, unless I was the personal security of a celebrity or an off duty law enforcement official. The same was true in DC, now that DC was forced to allow concealled carry they've approved 8 of 66 permit applications. That's not even a respectable batting average. There are many places of DC I would not want to go unless armed. I'm sure there are many black people who feel the same way. http://freebeacon.com/culture/dc-issues-first-gun-carry-permits/ and they're not really aiding those who want to carry their guns. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/22/gun-shy-dc-sets-up-hurdl...

Also, black business ownership is declining. http://prospect.org/article/destruction-black-wealth


"every law-abiding American who wants a gun, has a gun."

I disagree. Maybe they have a gun but they cannot carry it. Luckily I live in a county that frequently allows concealled carry permits. Now if I lived in LA county, I would not be approved, despite being military, unless I was the personal security of a celebrity or an off duty law enforcement official. The same was true in DC, now that DC was forced to allow concealled carry they've approved 8 of 66 permit applications. That's not even a respectable batting average. There are many places of DC I would not want to go unless armed. I'm sure there are many black people who feel the same way. http://freebeacon.com/culture/dc-issues-first-gun-carry-permits/ and they're not really aiding those who want to carry their guns. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/22/gun-shy-dc-sets-up-hurdl...

Also, black business ownership is declining. http://prospect.org/article/destruction-black-wealth


"[E]very law-abiding American who wants a gun, has a gun. There are plenty of guns everywhere in America. The lack of guns is not the problem."

All that is so wrong that it's beyond belief that you said it... except for that we know you're a militant Liberal, whose stupid utterances are standard issue.

Every time one of your disarmed zones (malls, schools, office buildings) is terrorized by some nut coming in there to kill as many people as possible, your claims are 100% disproven. There are plenty of guns in the nation except where they'll do the most good, namely in the ghetto, in our schools, and in other public areas where government-by-Liberals has unconstitutionally disarmed the citizenry. So logically there aren't enough guns. You don' even need college learnin' to clue into that much.

You Liberals are absolutely nuts about firearms, and when pressed, you express the same sentiments about (i.e. against) knives and clubs and, well, anything which can be used for self defense. Part of the perversity of Liberals is that you actually care about the people that defenders use force against. And so you've lost your moral position with most Americans, for whom self defense is intrinsically understood to be a natural right.

falling!" If all you say is true, why is the rate of violent crimes roughly HALF of the rate of 20 years ago?
My son-in-law, who is a member in good standing of the NRA, has guns. His father has guns and shot at, and warded off, a home invader a few years ago in that seamy underbelly of crime known as Monclova Township. (And he was praised by investigating law officers for doing so.) They both still have their guns. I have never been told by anyone that they wanted to get a gun legally, and could not get one, including my relatives in the LA area.

Why are you trying to scare people? For what purpose?
Our society is still too violent, but things are better than they have been in decades! Once again, I'll link to the statistics on the greatly lower violent crime rates in our nation:

"[W]hy is the rate of violent crimes roughly HALF of the rate of 20 years ago?"

Probably a combination of massive White Flight; the ongoing benefits of abortion; and finally the slow overturning of Liberal gun-grabbing. I'd need to see direct data, however.

"Why are you trying to scare people?"

I'm scaring people by pointing out patently obvious facts about our culture?

The better questions are:

1. Why are you scared of what I'm revealing?

2. Why is the truth about disarmament in the USA so scary to begin with?

(Both are rhetorical.)

The truth does not fit into your, "The sky is falling," scenario.
Here is the truth. The United States has more guns per capita than any other nation IN THE WORLD! Here's a link to some of those nasty facts you hate so much:

We do have most guns per capita in the world almost double the #2.

However the per capita murder rate is led by Honduras, a socialist country with strict gun control.

Per capita murder rate we are #111. We'd be doing much better if weren't for cities like Detroit that coincidentally if it were it's own country would be #2 on the list.


Why don't you explain why you needed to mention Detroit.

He doesn't need to explain it. The FBI crime statistics by race, explain it well enough:


To wit: Violent crime in the United States has a color, and that color is Black.

Remove Blacks from the equation of violent crime, and the United States looks like one of those disarmed safe European countries that you Liberals like to jaw about.

Everyone knows this, too. It's why Whites flee urban areas. And it's why Liberals tend to have White neighbors too, as well as having White co-workers and why they send their kids to private (i.e. White) schools.

We all know what's going on. It's time for you Liberals to just admit it.

Why did I include Detroit? Two reasons

The first is it has the highest violent crime rate in the nation. It's about 45 per 100,000. That means it's artificially raising the US rate on its own. National rate is 1.4 per 100,000.

The second reason is it also has had very restrictive gun laws until very recently. Luckily the state has been easing the laws and should continue that trend.

Want a citation on either stat and I am happy to oblige.


Here's an interesting article from a most interesting source. The author calls herself, "The optimistic conservative for domestic tranquility and world peace." I guess this proves that not every conservative is an "Empty Glass" or a "Chicken Little."
While I'm not sure what the criteria are for labeling U.S. states as to how they relate to nations in the world, some of the individual statistics are fascinating. For example, California's population is listed at 37 million, and the number of guns in California is listed at 33 million. The author tries to draw a distinction between California and Oklahoma, yet the ratio of guns is virtually the same according to the statistics she cites. Oklahoma, with a population of 3.7 million people, or 10% of that in California, is shown to have 3.3 million guns also about 10% of the number she cites in California!
Here's the link:

The Nazis used scare tactics to inflame the German population. Result, the murder of 6,000,000 Jews. Would you also like to blame the Great Flood of Noah fame on Blacks as well?

The Nazis were National Socialists. In other words, they followed your ideology.

Anyway, the scare today isn't a tactic, it's from crime and welfare statistics.

This post makes no sense.

We already know you cannot grasp basic logic.


Here is something that really need to be done. Many folks here constantly whine and piss and moan. First about the verdict in the State case. Next, the same crowd complains that the DOJ should have found evidence(or just made some up) to charge the cop with discrimination. I'm sure the Feds did their level best to find evidence, problem here was there wasn't any. So, all the unhappy campers here should direct their dismay toward the Feds, write letters and such, and not keep complaining to the REST of us about it. We would all love to help you, but we have no power over the DOJ. Sorry.

This couple is relatively young, so they're not aging "Baby Boomers." They were employed in the private sector. so they have no government-guaranteed pension. Of course, at least one of them, and I assume both, must have had college degrees to get good-paying jobs. They are still in their 30s, have retired from their original employment, making some money doing only what they want to do, planning a family, and doing all of this while living in various places in America and around the world. It does seem to be a true story.

If people are motivated enough, have proper credentials to get good-paying jobs, slash expenses, save like crazy, invest wisely, and do not have to live in accommodations which makes others' jaws drop, they can accumulate a lot of wealth in a relatively few years.
Here's the link to the article:

The "invest wisely" meme is totally deceitful and you need to stop pushing your particular form of cultural heroin.

The economy (even fueled by irreplaceable petroleum) grows about 3.5% annually. That breaks down into a 2.5% from economic expansion, and 1% from population expansion. This is basic math used on easily obtained data on the United States.

You can't "accumulate a lot of wealth in a relatively few years" on a 3.5% rate. You can't make good on pension promises that were designed to be funded at an 8% rate.

Your particular brand of cocaine is from the two generations who enjoyed the height of our petroleum-fueled civilization; the Silent Generation and their successors, the Baby Boom Generation. They hold almost all the economic and political power now. Hence, they fill our media with a constant barrage of one unique message: Put your hard-earned money into the Wall Street casino, which largely benefits the rich or rich-er 20% who own 80% of the stocks.

Although I mouth off about this little problem on occasion, I know that I've already lost. My fellow Americans are drunk on petroleum-fueled capital gains... even worse, on CGs that they haven't even received. The Silents and Boomers received those, for the most part. What the successor generations have largely received is the invoice for all this unsustainable largesse.

I guess you can keep pushing your prosperity crack on these mean Toledo streets, Dale. Sadly there are a lot of addicts out there, overjoyed to receive yet another piece of crystal from you, to be suitably popped into a media pipe and then puffed into the bloodstream. We sensible people are heavily outnumbered. We've all lost, really, but my personal aim is to avoid losing as much as my neighbors, which I must say, I've largely succeeded at. I'm certainly better off than many of my neighbors... at least, those who aren't on lifelong welfare.

falling! It really is!!" Same old, same old.
I pointed out a modern, young couple who "retired" in their 30s. You trot out the same old arguments you always do. I am pointing our THEIR ACCOMPLISHMENTS. Read the article. It's NOT about the baby-boomers you so resent. It is not about government workers you so resent. It is about people like you!!
There are a couple of differences, of course. Instead of grousing, they went to school. Instead of being jealous of others, they worked to better themselves, by their own hard work and with their own wits!

One more thing...you ALWAYS fail to place into your perception of economic growth a little factor called "productivity." Just think, with only about 2% of our population involved in agriculture, the United States not only raises enough food to feed themselves and the other 98% of us, we also export huge amounts of food to other countries around the world. We don't accomplish that with horses pulling plows. It's called PRODUCTIVITY!!
Go back to the 18th Century, Chicken Little! Your calculations might work back then.

"It is about people like you!!"

People like me don't gamble. I don't put my money into that casino known as Wall Street.

You will never 'get it'. You lived your life awash in petroleum-assisted wealth, topped with the cream of unionistic Socialism. All that crap is over now.

"One more thing...you ALWAYS fail to place into your perception of economic growth a little factor called 'productivity.'"

False. The 2.5% long-term inflation rate already took that into account.

The fact is, the 8% expected returns from investments is a Silent/Boomer-generation scam. When the oil supply hiccuped, there just weren't enough chairs when that music stopped. So the controllers of the economy had to perform more blatant actions of looting, so that the 3.5% generator could still output 8% yearly to themselves. That's why we had all that outsourcing and offshoring. And why all those union fucks like yourself fled into the ranks of government from the (collapsing) private sector.

Your oil-soaked head is too dumb to understand any of this. Sinclair is right. You just CAN'T get a man to understand something when it goes against his wage or wallet. And you're the man Sinclair was talking about.

want to blame others for your problems.
The solution is in your mirror.

Here's a link to an article that refers to the very real racial (really skin color) prejudice among Hindus living in India. From what I was taught, most Indians in India are dark-skinned Caucasians, but their prejudice is as bitter as any expressed by white racists here. Read for yourself:

Please note that the writer is relieved when she and her husband return to America. While we do have prejudice here, it is so much less in our large cities, and open racism is so frowned upon here, that the writer is much more comfortable when she and her husband return to LA.
This underscores the fact that America is unique in the world. There are many cosmopolitan cities in the world, where people of a wide variety of backgrounds live in relative peace and harmony. But, no other large nation, has such a mix of people as we do in nearly every one of our large and medium-sized cities. And, despite what some here may post, most of us get along quite well across racial and cultural lines. Remember, from a previous link posted on this site, the overwhelming number of blacks who are victims of violent crime, are victimized by other blacks. AND the overwhelming number of whites who are victims of violent crime, are victimized by other whites.

control. I will link to a site which shows random pics from those who chose to take them when Kentucky fans rioted and set fires in Lexington because Kentucky's very young basketball team had the nerve to not win against a relatively veteran Wisconsin team. Many were heard saying, "F--- Wisconsin." That's constructive! And it's a credit to the level of education and the upbringing of these fine young University of Kentucky students and supporters!
I looked hard. I did not see an African-American in the bunch. I may have missed one here or there, but the vast majority of the out-of-control rioters looked quite white to me! Here's the link: http://thesportsdaily.net/kentucky-fans-light-things-on-fire-after-loss-...

This underlines the hidden truth of modern sports in America today. Especially in basketball, both at the college and professional level, we have mostly black players performing for almost exclusively white spectators. I cannot forget hearing the words of former LA Clippers owner, Donald Sterling, informing his mixed-race lover that he did not even want African-Americans at "his" games! Poor guy, only got a couple of BILLION dollars to assuage his damaged ego!
And mostly white coaches at both levels, and overwhelmingly white owners at the pro level, make many millions or more using up these talented athletes. Oh, yes. Professional athletes can make a whole lot of money, too. Most college athletes never become pros, however. And most pros have a 3 or 4 year career, and cannot make enough money to live on for the rest of their lives. These "adults" too, of all racial and ethnic backgrounds, are often exploited further by unscrupulous "managers."
So, we have these scenes. Almost exclusively white supporters rioting because their overwhelmingly black performers did not bring "them" a championship. IMHO -- this is just another example of racism being still alive and well in America.

Thank God that Ohio State Fans weren't rioting. They behave like this if they win or lose.

were some exuberant demonstrations. High Street was quite crazy We didn't stick around, because it was so crazy.
Some illegal activities were reported later on the news. There may have been some minorities involved, but I didn't see them. Young, white, non-Hispanic students were out of control. That's the point. I don't care where it happens. I just stumbled upon this recent example involving UK. At least one poster here keeps hammering away at rioters who are mostly African-Americans. I'm merely pointing out that rioting is often done by non-minorities as well.
Rioting is always wrong.

How many businesses were lost? How many lives? How many serious injuries?

No one on here supports rioting but liberals. When the OSU fans took to the streets I supported the cops using tear gas. It was liberals who complained.

To equate sports riots with that of Ferguson is disingenuous. One was purely violent the other was a product of too much alcohol.

I support both being broken up by police with tear gas, body armor, and armored vehicles.


that I am NOT a liberal? Or does that mean that labels are not accurate.
As I stated above, rioting is always wrong.

Of course, conservatives were lining up to support the ranchers who were stealing resources from public lands and defending their criminal activities with guns, so, I guess conservatives support violence?

Logical reasoning: Dale I said no one here supports rioting but the liberals. I didn't say support riots makes you a liberal.

Your example is neither violent nor a riot. Thus I fail to see how it supports violence.

On the flip side however I recall the 2009 G20 protests in Pittsburgh people started pushing dumpsters down hills and throwing rocks. I was told on this site by another liberal that they were just students blowing off steam. Same type of lame excuses were given during the Ferguson riots as well. Look at the attack on Steven Crowder as referenced here several times. The liberals on here put the blame on Crowder and accused him of attacking people yet you can clearly see in the video the only aggressive actions are by the union protestors.


One either supports the law and law enforcement, or one does not. Neither liberals nor conservatives fit into some neat little box. Labeling is non-productive.
I consistently support police officers.
I consistently support the law.
I consistently support gun ownership.
I consistently support peaceful protest.
I consistently deride rioting.
Sorry that I don't fit neatly into some ideological box for all of you here.

We caught onto your Liberal propaganda a while ago.

We sensible folk no longer believe what you say. Nobody should believe what a Liberal says. We ended up with pervasive welfare, a huge federal government, and numerous laws (all of which are unconstitutional) against guns or ammo or the handling thereof.

We know what you Liberals tried to do. The National Socialists did it too. We know where that ends up.

So when you say you "support gun ownership" we know immediately it's just a stupid lie. Almost no Liberals actually believe in what the Second Amendment says and implies. When you talk to a "pro-gun" Liberal it only takes a few minutes of questioning to reveal that that Liberal believes that gun rights are somehow restricted by some nonexistent legal structure so that in practice, few people can 'legally' make use of those rights. I hardly have to prove this; it's all over the media, and all people need to do is put Liberals they know through that questioning to find out where they really stand, to wit:

1. Dear Liberal friend, can I just go into ADCO Firearms shop today, buy a .308 battle rifle, with 100 rounds of .308 ammunition, and then walk out with it in my hands?

2. Dear Liberal friend, can I own a machine gun, like an Uzi or M-16?

3. Dear Liberal friend, can I keep my loaded 9mm pistol on top of the fridge when kids are in the house?

4. Dear Liberal friend, can I fire freely on a man breaking through my side door?

The standard Liberal answers are like this:

LA#1: "Wait, isn't there a background check and waiting period that you need to submit to? And you can't just walk out with the ammo and gun, that's illegal, isn't it?"

LA#2: "Heavens no, a citizen can't own a machine gun at all!"

LA#3: "How dare you! It has to be kept in a safe! At all times! And the ammo in another safe!"


Liberals today tend to know they lost the "gun control" argument forever, so they have retrenched, and now commonly lie about it all in order to lull America to fuckin' sleep again. IT WON'T WORK, DALE. We're onto you now. There's never going to be another AWB. There's never going to be another city-by-city gun ban of any sort. You don't need to register your firearm with anyone. You don't need a "gun license". Even all this concealed-carry nonsense is just that: Nonsense. You have the right to keep and bear arms regardless of how you 'keep' and 'bear'.

America has awoken from the long nightmare of Liberal deception about guns. That Liberals are now going ON RECORD about being against police in several high-profile take-downs of Black criminals, is another healthy indication about how America has awoken to precisely how anti-gun that Liberals really are. Liberals have lost and they are lost inside their own ridiculous ideology. Thomas Sowell said it best:

"The most fundamental fact about the ideas of the political left is that they do not work. Therefore we should not be surprised to find the left concentrated in institutions where ideas do not have to work in order to survive."

Liberalism doesn't work! That's why nearly all Liberals have to lie today in a pathetic attempt to rejoin a said public narrative. (In truth we should call you LIE-berals, Dale.)

lie or not.
Your problem is that you want everyone to fit into some neat little ideological box. People are complex. Your approach is simplistic nonsense.
I did get a good laugh out of it, however. Thanks!

Yes, people are complex, and I just explained in some detail the complexity of the latest propaganda tack that Liberals as a class are taking. I also told people in some detail how to put Liberals they know to the test.

It's over, Dale. The Liberal attack on the nation's gun rights is over. You've all been totally exposed and we gun owners have well learned the terrible lesson of the 1980s and 1990s to not just stand idly by while you talk us into another (unconstitutional) AWB or local gun ban or worse. Eternal Vigilance also means Always Informing. We will always talk about the gun grabbers now, and we know who the gun grabbers are. The gun grabbers are largely Liberals.

Your boy in the White House just had his hired hand in the BATF have to suck on his own resignation for attempting yet another ban (on ammo, this time). We forced him out. Hell, he's lucky we didn't assassinate him. The prior BATF director should be very glad he goes to bed each night, alive. For what he did, the people of these united states should have just had him shot.

I have consistently stated my support for gun ownership under the 2nd Amendment.
I have derided conservatives for emphatically repeating the lie over and over again that the election of Obama -- both times -- would lead to the confiscation of all guns. And I can guarantee you that the right-wing media and many right-wing politicians, including some who will run for the Republican nomination for POTUS, will raise the specter of gun confiscation in 2016, even though the likely Democratic nominee will deny having any such thoughts. As I've pointed out, I'm still awaiting a phone call from my NRA-member son-in-law informing me that his guns have been confiscated by the federal government.
So, you may rant away, but facts are facts. I support gun ownership. Eventually, what will fail, are the scare tactics used by the right-wingers to frighten undecided voters.
Still waiting for the confiscation of guns in America.
Still waiting.
Still waiting.
Still waiting.
(I think this is going to be a lloonngg wait!!)

You Liberals have a long history now of trying to erode gun rights.

Key word: ERODE.

Erosion is a gradual, but permanent process. That's why Americans woke up when the AWB was passed and they knew you Liberals had to be stopped.

So your gun-confiscation aims are gradual. First you came for the machine guns. Then you came after the cheap urban pistols. Then you went after the battle rifles. That left very few guns that Americans could use to make use of their right to keep and bear arms.

We all know you're lying. I said blatantly that Liberals today know they lost all that anti-assault-rifle ground that they gained on us, so Liberals today just lie like crazy about gun restrictions. I commonly hear now the same refrain: "Oh, but I was never against your gun rights!" Bullshit. In the 1990s, especially after Columbine, the Liberals were screaming for the blood of our weapons. Prevailing Liberal publishing was 100% anti-gun. The ultra-Liberal ACLU then (and STILL) insisted that gun rights weren't individual. I even have a book on my library shelf by leading Liberal cun^H^H^Hlight Caroline Kennedy, titled ironically "In Our Defense", and I cordially invite you to read what it says about the Second Amendment in that book. (Hint: She arrogantly asserted that the right to keep and bear arms wasn't absolute, that the Constitution was a living document, blah blah blah. All that Liberal bullshit about taking away our rights purely from their mob strength. What a fucking bitch.)

The AWB was the turning point. Americans started fighting back.

We're here forever now, Dale. We gun owners are never going away. But hey, you're so pro-gun that that's perfectly fine with you, right? That should be the end of this conversation, right?

Caroline Kennedy. Nor have I ever belonged to the American Civil Liberties Union.
Sorry that I don't fit neatly into your ideological box!

And I don't lie about my political views. I've learned over the years that it's easier to tell the truth because the truth does not change, but lies can. Telling the truth is simply easier than lying.

Just keep bloviating, Chicken Little!

Does the aclu charge membership dues, Dale?

"I'm not lying."
-- some liar

short comings, now?

Reminds me, once again of the Harry Truman line when he was running for POTUS in 1948. Someone in one of the crowds yelled, "Give 'em hell, Harry!"
Truman replied, "I just tell the truth and they think it's hell."

How often do I cite evidence and facts?
How often do you, Chicken Little?
And, I don't call you a liar. You're just a typical whiny conservative.

"Are you into confessing your own short comings, now?"

No. I was just pointing out that liars lie. They even lie about their lying. Which is precisely all you militant Liberals do about guns.

None of this should be surprising.

"I don't call you a liar."

That's good, since why would I bother lying on a public forum where I'm anonymous? I have no reputation to establish or defend as an anonymous poster. I've already revealed that I'm a Libertarian. If I was trying to undermine the public, I'd take a far more popular social position first.

practical experience.
Nothing but vacuous opinion, as usual.

You just whine, whine, whine.
Typical whiny conservative.

At least we don't wine, wine, wine, wine and wine all the time, like you wino liberals do!

G-MAN hates unions, but, he hasn't missed a union membership payment since 1968.
Poor G-MAN...whine, whine, whine.

BTW -- What is your hangup with adult beverages?
Do you have a personal problem or something?
I do drink one glass of red wine per night, as prescribed by my doctors.
(BTW -- just got my LDL score: 52! I guess red wine works!
I get 5 glasses out of a standard 750 ml. bottle, SO...
I drink about 250 ml per day.
How much do you drink?
Do you ever binge drink?
Do you attend AA meetings?
Should you be attending AA meetings?

You are such a conservative whiner...whine, whine, whine!

All I said is you liberals do nothing but wine, wine, wine, and MORE WINE! Why did I get singled out? Did I ask ANYTHING about your wine consumption? I don't care how much of it you imbibe in.You also said red wine works, which is pretty much how I see it! When is the last time YOU paid union dues? Since I DO pay dues, that confers on me a right to bitch. Much the same as voting in every election gives me, again, the right to bitch, does it not?

You brought up wine, not I. Are you a problem drinker?

I am a lifetime, retiree member of the American Federation of Teachers, Ohio Federation of Teachers, and Toledo Federation of Teachers.

Dale you're wrong. It is not support the law and law enforcement or not. The law can be wrong as can law enforcement. In each case we must look at facts and make a logical determination. Nonviolent protest is acceptable but rioting is only violent.


If you feel a law is unjust, you peacefully protest, and/or you work to get the law changed. We have those rights under the constitution. But, if you pick and choose which laws you will follow and which ones you won't, it's called anarchy.
And, you either support law enforcement or you don't. That does not mean that those who are charged with enforcing the laws are above the law. All law enforcement officers must abide by the laws as well! Some are "bad apples." But that doesn't mean that we have the right to ignore the police because a small number are bad. Most do their extremely difficult jobs in a fully professional way. Just because they occasionally enforce laws with which you do not agree, does not give you, or anyone else, the right to ignore their orders, Mikey.
I support the rule of law. It does surprise me that someone who has a career in the military is honestly stating that one has the right to ignore laws. I guess that you prefer anarchy.
WOW!! Sure hope that those you supervise listen to you, Mikey!

I suspect that MikeyA stays in the military because he can't get a job anywhere else.

Actually I was quite successful before I enlisted. I had a good job where I had advanced, and I had been offered a new position at a bigger corporation. This was all before I had my bachelors which I received while on active duty. I've had several offers of jobs if I were to leave military service. When I do leave military service I will not work for the Federal gov't despite them recruiting heavily in the military. I've seen government service at the federal level and I find it lacking. I will most likely work in the private sector. The thing is I've had some level of success at every job I've ever held.

I do appreciate your concern for my career opportunities.


Police usually don't shoot the White kids. That's why no lives were lost.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.