RANGER AGAINST WAR: Zimmerman Lynch Mob <

Monday, July 15, 2013

Zimmerman Lynch Mob

--this cartoon shows the 
 typical facile liberal perception

Ahm seventeen. Almost a man.
He strode, feeling his long loose-jointed limbs 
--Almos' A Man, Richard Wright

I am looking for a human 
--Diogenes of Sinope

How could they see anything but the shadows
if they were never allowed to move their heads? 
--Allegory of the Cave, Plato

I opened my news on a muggy North Florida Sunday to read the verdict of the Zimmerman trial: "Not guilty". I have faith in the jury system, and believe jurors -- my peers -- largely get it right, when provided the relevant data.

The form in which the news came to me was via a liberal news service which ran the Yahoo news article by Liz Goodwin. The lede begins,

"Zimmerman, 29, was charged with second-degree murder in the death of Martin, a 17 year old black boy ..."

"Black boy" -- evocative, no? My passing acquaintance with UPI and AP press manuals would suggest, "young man / adolescent / juvenile / or teenager" as fair descriptors, but "boy"?  BOY? Not for a 17-year-old young man, and especially not a young black man. It seems so uncouth as to be risible. It is derogatory, emasculating and humiliating.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit decided in a judgement last year that the use of the term "boy" towards a black man showed evidence of racial discrimination (Ash vs. Tyson Foods).  A retired judge commenting on the case was quoted in the New York Times as saying “It’s the same as calling him a nigger.”

Were Ms. Goodwin to describe a young black man thusly in our neck o' the woods, she would be liable to be jumped. Especially you, Liz-miss-white-person. No sir. Snoop Lion may say "boy" or "niggaz" ("fo shizzle my nizzle"), but certainly not you. Using a non-evocative, non-pejorative adjective is Journo 101, and it is sad when a national news service cannot get that right.

Our press is riddled through with bias at every slice. This should be the story of a trial and its findings, not an effort whip up some after-the-fact angst.

In addition to the offensive coverage, the comments from my fellow liberals following the story were atrocious, hideous, beginning with the suggestion that a black person now kill Z. The following is the comment I left:

"Why does the writer use the phrase, "17 year old black boy"? "Black boy" is the phraseology of the Jim Crow South; at 17, Martin was a teen. 

Oh, I get it, the liberals are just as disingenuous as the conservatives, and use anything in their arsenal, without regard to bias; in fact, intentionally with the intent of biasing. Disgusting, really. 

Some of the readers here call for the murder of Zimmerman by a black man ... most of you people here are nuts. Any hopes I had that this might be a truly liberal community are gone -- if this is liberalism in 2013 America, you can have it."

Ah, but a "boy" was killed, and we are gulled into believing that it was precisely because he was a "boy" (=young black man.) Don't give me that hokum. As Ranger says, when a 17-year-old young man earns the Medal of Honor dying in battle for his country, we do not call him a "boy". Trayvon falls short of that mark, but his age is commensurate; "young man", not "boy".

What passes for "news" and reportage today bores me. That people accept it is scary and disgusting.

Labels: , , , , , ,


Anonymous Blakenator said...

Blakenator said...

A couple of points:
1. The news as entertainment meme is alive an well here in the good ol' USofA. I lowered my expectations years ago.
2. If you expect anything intelligent from comments threads (there are web sites with exceptions, i.e. RAW) on most web sites, you are naive.
3. "Post racial america" is anything but.
4. Zimmerman may be "not guilty" in the eyes of the legal system but he is not innocent.
4. Regardless of the technical aspects of the verdict, the message is "vigilante-ism is endorsed." The NRA rejoices.

Monday, July 15, 2013 at 5:31:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...


I have addressed your point #3 before, and shall do so again shortly, in another guise.

I do not know what you mean by "technical aspects of the verdict." A verdict is not a technicality, but an actuality, and a finality (unless there is an appeal.) To say anything less is to veer into anarchy.

Obviously, I do not see this action as vigilantism based on the data revealed in the press. Why would you care or presume to think what the NRA or any other group thinks? The only question is, is there guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Matters of innocence are left for spiritual realms.

Monday, July 15, 2013 at 5:32:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

At the risk of having my head chopped off... The law, any law, is not right or fair. It is simply as it is written and common sense does not apply.

I saw quite a bit of the trial and it seemed to me that if the jury applied the "law" Zimmerman would be found not guilty as the law was to be applied only to the very few seconds of the so called fight.

However, it is my opinion that fault and blame for Martin's death lies squarely on Zimmerman. He followed Martin and spooked him up and never made an attempt to identify himself as Neighborhood Watch. Personally, I am not convinced that Zimmerman drew his pistol while Martin was astraddle him. I think it more likely he had the pistol in his hand when he approached Martin. Or... according to Zimmerman, Martin approached him.

I am also of the opinion that Zimmerman would never have left his vehicle had he been unarmed.

If I had to choose between neighborhood hero Zimmerman and Martin as a team member, I would choose Martin as he would at least try to take care of himself.

Even if Zimmerman had been bold enough to leave his car without a firearm, this incident would have been a MINOR fistfight rather than a killing.

I hope the weak as water SOB never has another peaceful night's sleep in his life.

Jay in N.C.

Monday, July 15, 2013 at 5:48:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Blakenator said...

By using "technical aspects," I meant "not guilty." I guess I ventured into Scottish jurisprudence where there are three possible verdicts: "guilty," "not guilty" and "not proven."
My reference to "innocent" was in the way the media often uses it as a synomym for "not guilty." Not technically correct, good bust.
Jay in NC outlined the "vigilante" aspect in that Zimmerman followed the kid. It's easy enough to see the "follow 'em," "provoke 'em" then "shoot 'em" theory in the story. I suppose if the Martin kid knew Zimmerman was armed, he would have ran.
My shot at the NRA comes from the irrational "more guns = less violence" meme. My experience from 40 years ago in the Navy taught me that not everyone should be armed, no matter how many times they pass the "safety" course. I was a section leader for a group that spent duty nights in the jungle at NavMag Subic. We were "trained" and armed but I quickly decided to keep all the weapons locked up during my watch after observing the people in my section.
You know as well as I do, there are plenty of organizations that seize upon each and every opportunity to turn any event into something political. I guess you are correct, I usually don't care. I just couldn't resist the cheap shot.

Monday, July 15, 2013 at 6:20:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...


The facts do not bear out your conception of the events, and your ill-will at the end is not warranted (and out of character.) It is this vicious and uninformed response which provoked my writing on this topic at all.


Thanks for sharing your experience.

Monday, July 15, 2013 at 6:35:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Jay in N.C.

Monday, July 15, 2013 at 6:53:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger BadTux said...

Let me state one thing clearly:

If Zimmerman had not been armed with a gun, Trayvon Martin would be alive today -- *AND* Zimmerman's life would not be ruined. Because Zimmerman would have never gotten out of that car without the false courage of that gun in his pocket, and thus would have never been in a situation where he felt he had to use the gun to protect himself.

Something to think about, for those who believe a gun is a magic penis substitute that will somehow turn you into a hero. No. Not generally. It turns you into a killer, at best, a murderer at worst. In both cases your life is irretrievably changed.

Monday, July 15, 2013 at 7:20:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...


Since we're speculating ...

Without a weapon, Zimmerman might be dead or brain-damaged today if Trayvon had continued to bash his head into the concrete.

Neither very pretty outcomes, no?

"Free your mind / it will astound you ..."

Monday, July 15, 2013 at 7:49:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger BadTux said...

No, because if he hadn't had a gun, he wouldn't have gotten out of the car. He had already stated that he wanted a gun because he was afraid to confront possible evil-doers without one. He did not fear Martin because he had a gun, so he got out of the car. If he had feared Martin, he would have stayed in the car where he was safe. As far as I know there is no concrete in a car :).

Zimmerman used a gun as a substitute for manhood and ended up ruining both his own life and that of Trayvon Martin. That is, unfortunately, a too-common fate when people think a gun gives them the ability to do things they would not do without a gun. I blame it on too much television, personally, where guns make men real men and use of a gun never, ever changes a person's life. So it goes.

Monday, July 15, 2013 at 7:55:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...


Impugning the character of the defendant.

Speculation ... sustained.

Monday, July 15, 2013 at 8:10:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Or, BT, TM could have been one of the guys that was breaking and entering homes in the neighborhood, like that of the young mother that testified (re; clutching her child locked in her bedroom, terrified, while two black males - yes balck males - robbed robbed her house). We could speculate that maybe he *was* one of those guys or a member of another group of bandits.

So Z stays in the car because liberals want him to be a powerless meek weakling. T hides from the po po and then later breaks into a home and rapes a woman.

Hows that for speculation?

Certain people seem pathologically unable to accept that TM assaulted Z with potentially deadly violence. I truly don't get how TM's behavior gets excused or downplayed.

These same people do not seem to understand that in a civil society TM's response to Z would be to simply go home (he had four minutes to do that) or to call 911 if he felt afraid. You don't just start slugging people in the nose and bashing their head.

no one

Monday, July 15, 2013 at 9:52:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger BadTux said...

Lisa, I was merely pointing out Zimmerman's own words -- that he got a gun because he was afraid. Speculating that he would have been afraid to get out of his car if not for the gun is speculation, but it is at least speculation based upon Zimmerman's own statement, rather than pulled out of my a$$.

"No One", great job of pulling sh*t out of your a$$. Now wash your hands.

- Badtux the Speculative Penguin

Monday, July 15, 2013 at 10:35:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous CholoAzul said...

Very much a lynch mob. The new face of Racism 2.0 Calling a black man old enough and big enough to join the Marines 'boy' in the pursuit of getting a brown skinned man killed in prison, is a win-win for Don Black and the crew over at StormFront. And everyone from Pink Slip Rick's goons to Rihanna join in the howling... 'Those f'ing Hispanics always get away'.
Sick, sick sick.

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 at 6:30:00 AM GMT-5  
Anonymous jim at ranger said...

i'm always glad to hear from you.
I will not attack you, but it's so easy to kill a man with a single blow to the head.The gun did not ensure a fatal ending, but beating Z's head on the pavement didn't lower the violence level either.
I do not favor nor do i believe that local neighborhood watch personnel should be armed. That right should be reserved to the private citizen on his own property.

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 at 7:31:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...

Bad tux,
The only way to survive a gunfight is not to get into one.

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 at 7:34:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger no one said...

That is a sane statement, Jim. Mall cops and neighborhood watch volunteers should not be armed while performing their watch duties.

To some extent this is me conceding that BT has a point; albeit a point that evaporates once T starts stalking Z and then head bashing.

In Maricopa, Co, AZ the Sherriff sometimes deputizes retired LE and military, who then carry guns, to do this kind of work in high crime areas.

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 at 8:20:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

I will invoke the defensive nature of the castle law but i would only use a firearm to insure the preservation of life. My fear level is different than was Z's and i wonder why he didn't fight back with his fists.
I also ask the same question of the men on the planes used in the 9-11-01 event.
Have we become so effete that we are no longer men?
Maybe it is time for women to fight our battles.
Why didn't Z have a less lethal option available? Mace or a baton?
But going back to square one- why was he on the beat?
Here's my key point. I will defend my property and life, but i will not impose my self into defending anothers property.
I am an isolationist in my private as well as philosophical /political viewpoint. The police are there to protect society.
Now for folks like us who live beyond a safe response distance from police patrols.
If i come up on my house being burglared i will back off and block their escape route as my first reply. If it would escalate it would not be of my doing.
Obviously i have channelized my property.
Old dog, old tricks.

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 at 8:59:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...


It's very sick. This hatred and divisiveness is what provoked me to write.

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 at 9:42:00 AM GMT-5  
Anonymous CholoAzul said...

Thing is... Zimmerman wasn't on the beat. He had nothing to do with NW that night. Notice that in the tapes of his previous calls, he always told the police that he was NW... and he always let them take it from there, per the book. I don't recall any testimony that he displayed a firearm on any of his NW excursions in the past, either. That night, he was a legally armed CCW resident, on his way to the store, and he never said a word about NW. And as the talkative juror pointed out, it was the dispatcher who created the idea of following Martin.

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 at 9:44:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...

no one,

Since everyone loves their speculation, this is the scenario that comes to my mind:

Trayvon had visited the neighborhood twice; surely his father's girlfriend knew of their neighborhood watch program and Mr. Z. As a juvenile out alone, what was the advice he received from his father?

Perhaps something like, "If that dumb cracker ass harasses you, give him a taste of his own medicine ...."

Trayvon certainly had not been advised to be polite and courteous, and to say, "I am staying at #xxx over there -- my father is visiting his friend xxx. You're welcome to come over if you doubt me."

"Thank you, have a nice night."

And that lack of bog simple decency is what WTF is wrong with our society.

Mr. Z. had been voluntarily watching out for his neighborhood for two years without incident. I like looking at facts, and possible scenarios then spring from that. Still it is my conjecture. But it's something other than the incessant propaganda one MUST believe if one is to be a liberal today.

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 at 9:49:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger no one said...

Lisa, agreed 100%.

Jim, that screaming like a little girl while being beaten should be highly embarrassing. It also points to the problem you note (more concession to BT and others). Z was a complete girly man and he should have recognized that should he get into a serious physical confrontation he would HAVE to resort to using his pistol. I further agree that he probably only got out of the vehicle because he knew he could be Billy Badass with his 9mm equalizer.

I am only sympathetic to Z for the reasons that Lisa outlines. The law is on his side once T made the decision to attack. Otherwise, I would say that he had/has no business putting himself in a situation that involves increasing the potential for physical confrontation.

I used to look for the opportunity to fight. Then, for many years I too was an isolationist in my personal life. Now I live in a community where everyone knows everyone else and where we help each other out. I no longer seek fights. However, I would feel guilty as sin if something was going down at a neighbor's farm and I didn't intercede. I wouldn't be able to look them in the eye again, not in the mirror. That said, my first reaction would be to dial 911. If only property was at risk, I would sit back and wait. If a neighbor was in danger of physical harm, I would have to jump in. I do not patrol, but I do keep an eye out as I go about my business as do my neighbors. We see it as a natural part of living in a close nit community. I do not carry a gun any more so there is no risk of me shooting someone off my own property, even in defense of my or someone else's life. That said, I am not Z and I can do a lot of damage empty handed or with improvised weapons. I hope I never have to.

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 at 10:35:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger no one said...

Lisa, the lefties keep overlooking the testimony of the young mother who had to lock herself in her room with a pair of scissors in hand, with her baby, while two black youths pillaged her house. That is not the minor crime that the lefties keep mentioning as Z's raison d'etre as a NW. That is f'ing serious. And it speaks to bold disregard that the criminal element in that area was displaying.

One of the perp.s in that event was caught, but then released as a juvie offender.

Z was aware of that recent event and it must have been on his mind, influencing his decision making. Lose sight of T and maybe he breaks into some woman's home and does something serious. No, he wasn't a cop, but where were the cops?

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 at 10:52:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...

To no one, and to all,

You say, "I used to look for the opportunity to fight." This presumes that Z. was cruisin' for a bruisin' ... why?

Do we presume officers of the law are all out to crack heads? And no, Z. was not an officer, but the fact that he was studying criminal law in hopes of becoming an officer one day was admitted as evidence. Evidence of WHAT? Evidence of the sad divide we have in our society, presuming that a man who wishes to go into police work is our adversary.

That is TRAGIC. While I have encountered some disinterested police, I have also met some outstanding officers. Is this public aggression not a strange response to Z's desire to be a policeman?

Once the populace disobeys the law, good luck to you.

This was a person who tried to help those in his neighborhood: He tutored unfathered young black children, for instance. His intent in his volunteer watchman duties seemed to be sincere.

Where were the cops? Cops don't care too much about wanna-be "gated communities that are on the way down. Z. cared, and called the police dispatcher, who seemed disinterested. Z. backed off, and Martin jumped him.

The $100,000 question is, "Why dat be?", said in our local patois.

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 at 11:59:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger no one said...

Lisa, I wasn't clear. *I* used to look for fights - because something was wrong with my thinking/self image - something I mention only to shed light on the possibility that I know something about how things go down. I didn't mean to imply anything about Z, more about T really.

In re-trying this case we have all missed the importance of your post. The people that want justice for T are the same one who a really responsible for what happened. Black boy is derogatory. It is also derogatory to suggest that Rachel Jeantelle has an excuse for not being able to read. Or that T response, as a black boy, of lashing out in violence is reasonable. All of the excuses are internalized by the supposed beneficiaries of the excuses and it keeps them as boys instead of men.

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 at 12:28:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger no one said...

RE; police. I am of mixed minds. I suppose it depends on what jurisdiction you live in. Out West and in VA I never had problems with police. To the contrary, good relationships. In NY, not so much. The problem in NY, and I suspect some other places, is that there are so many laws that you can be in violation of that the police can arrest pretty much anyone any day of the week. Additionally, the arrests are used to generate revenue; which is an incentive for them to see what they can get you for. On top of that, there is a general notion that power belongs only in the realm of the government and that the people are to be herded like sheep. Bad mix that leads to bad citizen/LE relationships if the citizen is independently minded.

I only asked "where were the cops?" to imply that T had plenty of time to commit a crime and because I wonder why the police themselves weren't casing a crime ridden neighborhood that still contained some decent tax paying citizens.

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 at 12:41:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...

no one says,

All of the excuses are internalized by the supposed beneficiaries of the excuses and it keeps them as boys instead of men.

Thank you, no one, for that is the crux of the biscuit.

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 at 1:20:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Blakenatjor said...

Not a bad thread but Lisa, I will say that there is plenty of room for speculation in this case, in all directions. Of course, we are all trapped by our individual life experiences and private biases in making these speculations. That also applies to the "facts" as we each see them because we all tend to cast as more "important" the facts that support our opinions and "less important" or "insignificant" those that don't. As a note of comparison, your "facts" tend to exonerate Zimmerman while Jay from NC uses different "facts" to paint an entirely different picture. I won't dispute any of the "facts" but will point out the selective use of them. I'm sure everyone has picked apart my posts with the same logic from a different view point, as well.

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 at 1:35:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger no one said...

Maybe this - http://patdollard.com/2013/06/trayvon-martins-involvement-in-local-burglaries-covered-up-by-media-school-police/ - will help B-nator.

It's not only excuse making, but it is directly salient to T. Those guys helped kill T with excuses/kindness.

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 at 1:41:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger BadTux said...

"No One", the reason Trayvon's past was not brought up at trial is because it is irrelevant. Zimmerman was on trial, not Trayvon. The prosecution had a duty to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not kill Trayvon in self defense. They could not prove that (since the only other witness to the entire encounter is, well, *dead*), so Zimmerman is a free man. Sort of. He still has to live with the knowledge that his own bad decision making in leaving his car was a proximate cause of him having to take a life, and his own life has been forever upended by that fact.

The trial itself was a waste of time and charges should have never been brought to begin with because the standard for convicting someone of murder is (justifiably) high and there was no way to do so, as was obvious from the beginning. I have little sympathy for the lynch mob types whining about the decision, because a court of law is based on evidence, not feeling, and there simply was not evidence to support a murder charge. My comment here is more along the lines of some people should not carry guns because it interferes with their decision making.

It was a bad choice for Zimmerman to leave his car. It placed him into a vulnerable position and has forever altered his life and that of the Martin family. The problem that I see is the Hollywood bullsh*t where a young man straps on a six-gun and is immediately transformed into a real man. It sells TV shows and movies because it lets weenie Zimmermans out there feel like they, too, can be a real man if they strap on a six-gun. It lets them feel powerful for the amount of time that the TV show or movie lasts. Thing is, that’s *fiction*. It’s *not real*. In real life, a gun doesn’t make a weenie into a man. It just makes you a weenie with a gun.

Finally, I have not been singled out for my race every day of my life. I have not been followed around inside grocery stores because of my race. I have not had cops arbitrarily stop my car because of my race. I have had people of color discuss these situations with me, but I made no suggestions to them because it is not my place. It is not my place to suggest how someone of color should handle a situation where they feel they are being singled out because of their race because it has never happened to me, and I have no conceptual reference to the actual subject. It's like asking a man blind from birth to describe the color "red".

Those who are not people of color who suggest how people of color "should" behave when racially profiled are in the position of the blind man trying to describe red because you are talking from a position of ignorance of what it means to be a person of color in America. Just throwing this out here because some of the speculation here displays such breathtaking ignorance of what it means to be a person of color in America as to be almost Teabagger "keep your government hands off my Medicare!" worthy. Just sayin'.


Tuesday, July 16, 2013 at 3:29:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger no one said...

*/"No One", the reason Trayvon's past was not brought up at trial is because it is irrelevant./*

Maybe. The judge agreed with you. So.....but since we here are trying the case in the court of public opinion, I'd say it damn relevant that T was into fighting, stolen goods and gangsta life style. Is it unreasonable to think that someone like that with the call sign "no limits nigga" might have attacked Z with no - or minimal - provocation?

*/Those who are not people of color who suggest how people of color "should" behave when racially profiled..... /*

Well, can't we all agree that lashing out with physical violence is the WRONG response. The justification that you are trying to promote has ramifications and they aren't positive.

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 at 4:10:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...

No Blake. It is not "my" facts that "tend to exonerate Zimmerman"; it is THE facts. I do not own them. They are there to be adjudicated, well, judicially, and not cut-and-pasted as people wish.

Z. was acquitted by a U.S. court of law. End of case.

Why was / is Z. being tried in the court of public opinion? Why do people talk about this, and do so badly, which is to say, with such inflamed emotions?

What does this fact say about us and our nation?

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 at 4:48:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...


This post was NOT about the facts of the Z. case, but rather, the way the press skewers its chosen targets (Z., in this one).

Please chew on THAT fact.

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 at 4:49:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger BadTux said...

"No One", all of the things you talk about are irrelevant to a self defense claim in a court of law. Putting the victim on trial may have a long history in the United States -- pretty much every rape victim in the history of the nation, for example, was put on trial for being too "sexy" and "asking for it" -- but it's a sordid and disgusting habit and I will say so bluntly.

There was no evidence to rebut Zimmerman's self defense claim. Thus the only *possible* verdict was "Not Guilty". What actually happened that night, beyond what we know factually happened due to police reports and bystander reports, is sketchy and conjecture. We do know Zimmerman had a gun (he used it, duh). We do know Zimmerman got out of his car and used that gun. The circumstances under which that gun was used cannot be proven and the onus is upon the prosecution to prove the case, thus Not Guilty. Case closed.

Regarding racial profiling, I was talking more to the notion that someone who has been a victim of racial profiling for his entire life should be polite and submissive when racially profiled. If you've never been racially profiled, you have no -- zero -- notion what it feels like to be racially profiled. You are ignorant and refuse to see it, whereas I am ignorant and admit it. Enough said.

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 at 4:54:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger no one said...

NO BT. It is you that don't get it. "No limits nigga" racially profiled himself. Everything that happened flows from that. And people like you and the talking heads are aiding and abetting the next similar tragedy.

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 at 5:14:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger BadTux said...

Wow, so you were there that night and know what happened for sure? Oh wait, no you weren't, you're just pulling **** out of your *** again and spewing racist bigoted bull**** again. Wash your hands.

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 at 5:19:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger no one said...

BT, All I know is that one black man takes advantage of the opportunities offered and becomes POTUS. I even voted for him X2, bigot that I am, even though I now regret it (though that has nothing to do with skin color, but performance and policy and available alternatives).

Another black (almost) man calls himself a nigga and gets shot dead while physically assaulting someone.

There are ample examples of both approaches and both resulting outcomes - well, not POTUS, but Dr, Esquire, PhD, etc.

My simple thought processes develop a theory around these data points.

BTW, BT, All of these wash your hands comments, are they some veiled reference to non TP using islamic jihadis? Are those guys also your champion underdogs?

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 at 10:40:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger BadTux said...

By "wash your hands" I mean you're pulling crap out of your ass and your hands are disgusting and nasty.

Once again, *WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED THAT NIGHT*. You *ASSUME* that the black kid attacked the white guy for no reason because, well, that's what your bigotry calls for you to assume. Myself, I assume nothing. Did Z-man yell "hey nigger, what you doing in my neighborhood" i.e. fighting words? Or did Trayvon attack him without provocation? Or did Z-man himself throw the first punch after Trayvon called him a creepy-ass cracker cop wanna-be who ought to go back to his mommy's basement and cry? You don't know. I don't know. The court doesn't know, even, which is why they had to find Z-man "Not Guilty" (which is *not* the same thing as "Innocent", it merely means "Not Enough Evidence To Prove Guilt Beyond A Reasonable Doubt"). There were no witnesses to the start of the altercation, and thus no way to know who did what, other than that at some point Z-man used his gun to end it. Well, unless you ASSume based on your own prejudices. And the first three letters of that word are?

Pulling crap out of your ass is a nasty habit and leaves an ugly brown stain on your hands as well as a stench. That's why I say you need to wash your hands.

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 at 10:50:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why not refer to Trayvon as a child rather than a boy? That's what Trayvon was, a child. Zimmerman shot and killed an unarmed child.
I haven't followed the case closely but I have no respect for any person who kills a child.
I'm sure this will do wonders for the Florida tourist industry! As a parent myself I wouldn't bring any of my kids there on holidays.
Eurodisney certainly appears a lot safer to this outsider.
I guess this is yet another story of a US child killed by gunfire. It won't be long till we are all discussing the ramifications of the next US child killed by gunfire!


Tuesday, July 16, 2013 at 11:40:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger BadTux said...

Gearoid, the issue that should be at hand is whether it can be proven that Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin. It cannot be, due to a lack of witnesses and scant physical evidence none of which sheds any light on the subject. Under any system of justice that has a presumption of innocence, that means that it was a waste of time to charge Zimmerman with Martin's death to begin with.

As for Martin being a child, he was 16, just turned 17, and a junior in high school. I think he would have been insulted at being called a child. Just as he likely would have been insulted at being called a thug. Real thugs aren't juniors in high school, they're on the streets selling drugs, getting into gang fights, and otherwise doing nasty things. But Martin had a hoodie and gold teeth and flashed a gang sign, just like millions of other middle class kids across the nation trying on notions of what it means to be black or male or both that they got from television and pop culture, and he got into fights and did at least one act of vandalism when he was in high school just as I did when I was in high school and just as millions of other middle class boys do every year, so that makes him a thug. Just as, if a high school junior girl wears sexually suggestive clothing and makeup, that makes her a prostitute, right? Uhm, no. She isn't out there turning tricks on the street corner. She's just trying on an image that she saw in the media and pop culture, something she'll outgrow by her mid 20's when she settles down into a career. It seems to me, though, that some of the commentators here would say that she was asking for it if she got raped. Because, y'know, she shouldn't have been dressed like that and acted like that, right? Right?

Wednesday, July 17, 2013 at 12:05:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger no one said...


"which is *not* the same thing as "Innocent..."

Actually, it is the same as innocent. Innocent until proven guilty is the law.

You don't make sense to me. On the one hand you say you don't know ("You don't know. I don't know") what happened. On the other hand you seem convinced that some form of racism was involved, else, why the hot head?. U R not totally wired together.

Also, you know as much, if not less, of me than you do of the Z/T case, yet you call me a bigot frequently. It seems to me that you have some priors, some fundamental - perhaps unexamined - biases. Those that do not adhere positively to the biases are labeled bigots, etc.

At This point, quite frankly, I don't give a flying fuck what you think as it is merely shit calling crap stinky.

Wednesday, July 17, 2013 at 12:08:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger BadTux said...

NO, the racism is on the part of people who make racist assumptions about Trayvon Martin based upon surface things that are not indicative of anything at all to non-racists.

Look. I've taught in inner city schools. I know thugs, the real deal, the kind of people who do drive by shootings and sell drugs and sh*t. I've taught in suburban middle class schools. I've known middle-class black kids who tried on aspects of popular black culture as depicted in the media, which they eventually outgrow when they get to college and settle down into a career afterwards. I know the difference between the two, and I know *especially* not to make ASSumptions based upon surface things. A high school junior girl wearing sexually suggestive garb and speaking in a sexually suggestive manner is *not*, in general, a prostitute or whore. She is a girl trying on aspects of popular culture that hopefully she will outgrow within a short amount of time.

Making assumptions based on appearance in the first case (the middle class black boy trying on aspects of popular culture) would make you racist. Making assumptions based on appearance in the second case (middle class white girl trying on aspects of popular culture) would make you sexist. You might not *feel* racist or sexist. But it is what it is. Reality just *is*. Just sayin'.

Wednesday, July 17, 2013 at 12:47:00 AM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

BT - Well a jury found Zimmerman not guilty of murder. I don't question the jury's decision.
Trayvon was a child/minor, under 18 and unable to vote or order a beer.
I've never met a 17yr old who was happy to be called a child but that's what they are.
Zimmerman shot and killed an unarmed child.
Florida's legal system has displayed that he did not break the law and did not murder Trayvon.
Still doesn't change my opinion of child-killers or Florida as a holiday destination one bit.

Wednesday, July 17, 2013 at 2:10:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger Spud said...

Bad Tux....
I'll be damned ! For once you and I are of the same mind on this whole issue.
Agreed, some just should not carry as it imboldens them to get into areas for which they have not the skill set or temperment.
I like you question why Z did not resort to his own fists before using deadly force.
Of course like you stated, why on earth did such a wimp get out of his car to start with ? We both think we know the answer to this.
I have carried concealed for most of my adult life, yet not once have I ever considered drawing that weapon, and it ain't because I've led a reclusive life ! Maybe it is because I know my own limitations and avoid trouble if possible unlike some do...
I too think that under the limits of law Z had to be found not guilty.
Given a do over, bet he'd change his mind.

Wednesday, July 17, 2013 at 7:23:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger no one said...

BT, Maybe a white teenager in a white robe and white hood is just trying on some cultural garb. Maybe the youth who grows his beard out, starts citing the Koran, runs off to Somalia and picks up an AK is just doing some cultural experimentation.

Sooner or later it's no longer kids playing make believe and someone is going to get hurt.

And these are always the nicest young men. Their parents, neighbors, classmates are always shocked that such a nice young man could be caught up in something so sinister.

You still make no sense to me at all. I literally don't understand you. However, here is a question: Would be just as comfortable with a 17 year old trying on the KKK role as you would be with a 17 year old trying on the gangsta role?

Wednesday, July 17, 2013 at 7:40:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger no one said...

Or maybe you get your picture on the cover of the Rolling Stone:


Wednesday, July 17, 2013 at 7:56:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

Why do we get our shorts in a wad over TM, but we kill people younger than Tm frequently in the pwot. These people are often unarmed but yet nobody writes doo doo about their deaths?
Why can the POTUS kill with impunity , but we get all crazy about 1 more death when it happens in the homeland?

Wednesday, July 17, 2013 at 8:45:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger Spud said...

Damn fine point Jim !

Wednesday, July 17, 2013 at 9:19:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

I'd suggest that you do a little research on children who kill . Restrict your search to Fl since that's where the TM shooting occurred.
My question is why is it always a racial thing when a white does the violence, but it's swept under the rug if a young black man does the shooting/violence?
Just askin'.

Wednesday, July 17, 2013 at 9:21:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

Pls help me out here.
I thought Z was found not guilty of manslaughter. Murder charges were never on the court docket.
What did i miss here?
If TM had beaten Z's brains out on the pavement would you still be crying crocodile tears?

Wednesday, July 17, 2013 at 9:26:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

I've written a piece on this topic and it'll be posted soon.
Specifically i question why hate crimes always SEEM to be white on black, but SELDOM black on white.
What gives with that?

Wednesday, July 17, 2013 at 9:29:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

You use the word HOPEFULLY and i do not hang my hat on such words.
I went to school in the inner city of Cleveland ohio. 71st and Superior and we didn't wear our pants below our asses and we didn't do drive bys b/c we didn't have cars or guns or drugs. But we did all graduate and do violence and kill folks. The folks we killed were yellow, so was i a racial fool? I tried on the cultural construct of white America and i killed for the concept, so now why should i mourn 1 more act of violence? All my male class mates fought in a war.
Any thug(i apologize if TM wasn't a thug)is a detriment to society.
BTW we are a racial society- why else is the black stats so dismal?
Wearing a hoodie doesn't change the make up of society , it just tells me where you stand.
My inner city life taught me 1 thing-TELL ME WHO U RUN WITH AND I'LL TELL YOU WHO U ARE. Or birds of a feather flock together.
If 17 y/0s are still chilren then why are so many of them pregnant and carrying a second and third rendition in the oven?
Who are we kidding here? In my town we have 13 year olds having babies, and u want me to buy the bullshit that a 17 yo BM isn't a man?
Yep sumbudy needs to wash their hands.

Wednesday, July 17, 2013 at 9:47:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

BT, 454'
Why does it matter that Z got out of his car.
Hell man, he was in his own community and had every right to be walking the terrain as did TM who was a guest.
Why is getting out of the car such a sticking point?
He was in his own community, carrying a legal weapon, and he had every right to be aware of what was going on. Even if he was wrong.
The entire anti crime campaigns of America are based on awareness and citizen participation in fighting crime.
So what's the problem here?
Also i object to you all who keep calling this a murder. That was not the crime for which Z was tried.
Wasn't it manslaughter? Murder requires pre meditation.
Dirty , dirty hands throughout this thread.

Wednesday, July 17, 2013 at 9:58:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger no one said...

Jim, as usual, you put this thing in perspective.

One note: Z was brought up on, and tried for, 2nd degree murder. Manslaughter was the lesser included charge.

Wednesday, July 17, 2013 at 10:22:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger BadTux said...

Ranger, it quite clearly was not murder from day one and I was baffled as to why the subject even came up. Yes, manslaughter would have been the correct charge to lay, and the prosecution may have even been able to make it stick -- though even that would have been problematic since, as you point out, Z-man had a right to be where he was and no duty to retreat to safety under Florida law.

And yes, Z-man had a right to be in his townhouse complex and a right to leave his car and, arguably, a right to stalk TM, although there you might say TM also had a right to not be racially profiled based on surface appearance. But there are a number of things that I have a right to do that would be unwise for me to do. It would be unwise, for example, for me to walk the streets of East Palo Alto at midnight and say hi to the homies selling drugs on the street corners. It would be unwise, for example, for me to jump into San Francisco Bay and attempt to swim to Alcatraz Island. There is no law preventing me from doing so (well, not until I land on Alcatraz, at which point I would be trespassing, but there is no danger of that since I am a rather ordinary late-middle-aged man who has never been a strong swimmer), but performing either of those acts that I have a "right" to do would likely result in serious bodily injury or death to myself and thus while there is no law that would prevent me from doing either, doing either would be seriously unwise.

Which is why I mention Z-man leaving his car as a bad idea, not as illegal or evidence of intent to do an illegal act. An automobile provides significant protection against a possible criminal on foot who is not armed with a firearm, at the very least if he makes a move in your direction you can simply zip away and leave him flatfooted, and leaving that protection is unwise -- just as me walking the streets of East Palo Alto at midnight would be unwise. There are plenty of things that are legal to do, that are stupid to do. And just as the police would assume I was up to no good if they caught me doing the unwise thing of walking the streets of East Palo Alto at Midnight, much of the general public makes the same assumption about Z-man doing the unwise thing of leaving his car when his car provided protection against a possible thug. It is, of course, just an assumption, and one not supported by fact. But when people see other people doing stupid things, they make assumptions. That's just human. SO it goes.

Wednesday, July 17, 2013 at 10:36:00 AM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This whole thing has been done to death but in my defense...

Trayvon Martin was not a "child" but neither was he a man. As a 17 year old he had about as much sense as a bird dog pup - like all 17 year olds. My guess is that he was obnoxious but that's a guess.

My guess/take on Zimmerman is that he is a fearful man who resorted to fatal force over a fistfight. Yes, his nose was broken and he had two scratches on his head. Again, my GUESS is that he likely fell backwards when punched in the nose and his head smacked the sidewalk in the fall. I have to believe that if he could fumble around behind himself to reach a gun, he could have punched Martin.

I couldn't help but think of old advice that if you can't avoid a fight - punch them hard in the nose because it hurts and most will stop fighting at the sight of their own blood. Of course, this advice pre-dated every yahoo in the world carrying a sidearm and fantasizing about using it.

Ranger and I are pretty much on the same page in our take. I may, or may not, be more disgusted with people who put themselves into a highly charged situation and then get hysterical when the other party turns aggressive.

Of course and obviously the verdict was correct according to the law. If the jury followed the law as it is written they could come to no other verdict.

Wednesday, July 17, 2013 at 12:03:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Grung_e_Gene said...

17 is treated as a juvenile sometimes and an adult other times. But, the key here is before Zimmermann called 911, Martin had committed NO CRIME. That's a huge overlooked component. Of course after GZ profiled him and began stalking him, Martin feared for his safety. And this is where the true sequence of events will never be known, Martin and Zimmermann got into a fistfight. Martin ended up dead and the initial investigation was shorted because of the SYG law. Justice was not done in this case.

Wednesday, July 17, 2013 at 5:49:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why do we get our shorts in a wad over TM, but we kill people younger than Tm frequently in the pwot?

I agree Jim, seems we're not even counting the dead kids in Iraq/Afghan etc. Does anyone really know how many children the coalition of the willing has killed? Our media is letting us down very badly there, focusing on Trayvon and Sandy Hook but ignoring the big picture (when it comes to dead children).

My question is why is it always a racial thing when a white does the violence, but it's swept under the rug if a young black man does the shooting/violence?

I never mentioned the racial aspect, just the age factor. Personally I would feel the exact same if the races in this case were reversed. However in my opinion the US has an extremely poor history of race relations and that tends to have an effect on public perceptions.

I thought Z was found not guilty of manslaughter. Murder charges were never on the court docket.
What did i miss here?
If TM had beaten Z's brains out on the pavement would you still be crying crocodile tears?

As I posted earlier I haven't followed the case closely so no argument regarding murder/manslaughter charges from me. I think crocodile tears is a bit harsh, however I buried my 17 yr old kid brother over 20 years ago so I have strong opinions when it comes to grown men killing 17 year old children.

Who are we kidding here? In my town we have 13 year olds having babies, and u want me to buy the bullshit that a 17 yo BM isn't a man?

Well in Ireland where I grew up and Australia where I live 17yr olds are legally considered children/minor, sure they get pregnant, drink and take drugs, but they are still legally considered children. Is it not the same in Florida?


Wednesday, July 17, 2013 at 9:05:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

My condolences regarding your brother.

Thursday, July 18, 2013 at 10:27:00 AM GMT-5  
Anonymous Blakenator said...

I just dropped back in and this was always going to be a source of strong opinion. I can't resist the urge to respond to your answer to my comment regarding "facts." I stand by each individual's tendency to pick and choose how they weigh the "facts" they use to form opinion. Just rescan this thread for some great examples. I was able to find out many "facts" I didn't even know existed in this case. You mentioned you did use "fact" in your opinion and I will just say "all the facts" relevant to this case will never be known...and that's a fact.
Consider this, if Z had to use a public defender, he would have already been behind bars and this thread would have been about something else.
And lastly, RAW and several others have rightfully pointed out that worse things than this are a daily occurence and no one seems to notice, or care.

Thursday, July 18, 2013 at 6:06:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

Here are some facts as seen thru my Ranger eyes.
Both parties in this event were wrong. Neither backed down , or used good sense.
Now for my history lesson. In Infantry officers advance course in 1974 i had to take ASSERTIVENESS TRAINING which seems strange for combat veteran infantry types. At face value i thought it was stupid because we were slap loaded with assertiveness. BUT the course was to teach us to curb our aggressiveness , and to reply to others in a more appropriate manner, thereby lessening chances of stupid reactions..
Strange i got this lesson as a soldier, but nobody required this training of me in a civilian mode.
Wonder why neither Z or T never had such training? Especially Z and all the folks packing heat legally.
Everything we see on entertainment venues teaches us the exact opposite lesson. Enter one dead person which should be no surprise to any one. Think about US SF soldiers on Karzais protective team killing Afghan civilians by mistake. How is that different than the Sanford situation?
When well trained killers kill by mistake we swallow the event and belch, but when a median level IQ dude does the same we are perplexed.
I'm sorry for the loss of life but what's another dead dude. It's only a statistic.My country has killed millions of civilians to include kids in the 20th century and we are killing folks pretty readily in this new century: so color me jaded and numb , and not very surprised.
TM and V were both responsible for this event.
I also question a parent sending a young man out in a strange environment without proper supervision. If TM was such a child, as we are lead to believe , then it logically follows that the male parental unit bears some responsibility in the event.
Why didn't TM just say these words to Z-i'm a visitor at ......
Well there it is.
This wasn't my post entry, but that's my take.

Friday, July 19, 2013 at 12:15:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...


My point is simply that NONE of us have all the facts; only the jury was privy to those, and then, not even all of those. My point was, why do we all rush to a judgement which fingers the white man vs. the black, when we have no idea, really?

You say you "stand by each individual's tendency to pick and choose how they weigh the 'facts' they use to form opinion." I do NOT -- why are people wasting their time speculating over matters over which they are ignorant, serving only to inflame passions?

I initially followed the facts released on this case, and can say that those who have convicted Z. in the liberal media have conveniently ignored many of these facts. ISTM if you honor our justice system, then the facts exonerated Z., correct?

[This, even though the majority of data which might have revealed T. Martin's character and provided a broader view of the encounter were prohibited.]

You say, "Consider this, if Z had to use a public defender, he would have already been behind bars and this thread would have been about something else." How do you know this? You read this somewhere (as did I). What is the purpose of saying this?

The Martin's hired a crack attorney who had already won a difficult racial case. I could say, "If anyone should have won, it would have been the Martin's side." But the prosecution didn't win, you see?

Again, I am simply amazed at the rush to defend a black person on no basis other than his color. When did this happen to our nation? This is a bigotry every bit as dark as that voiced in a Drudge Report segment.

Friday, July 19, 2013 at 4:05:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...


This point is well-taken, "The problem that I see is the Hollywood bullsh*t where a young man straps on a six-gun and is immediately transformed into a real man"; however, it does not apply to guns, alone.

The entire gangsta culture is so degraded as to suggest that a real man is one who has taken a few slugs in a drug deal and who uses women vilely. So the cultural iconography for many young back men today is very far askew from an example that might provide a healthy existence in a mixed society. Forget the presumption that all black people are racially-profiled ... if your total exposure includes exemplars who tell you to be confrontational and have attitude, that is the face you present, and that is not conducive to civil relations. It is especially unsafe in a society which issues CCWs, and in which many people pack and simply don't even bother to buy a license.

You say someone who has not been profiled does not know what that is like, but on the FAMU campus I got a concentrated taste as a white person who was presumed to be the enemy. That is tragedy in itself when people do not see that the only way out is to not play that game. Gandhi, MLK were great exemplars of the correct approach to subjugation, and the only one that will ever triumph.

Friday, July 19, 2013 at 4:22:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger BadTux said...

Lisa -- Trayvon Martin was a teenager. Teenagers, especially male teenagers, are assumed to be prone to do stupid things. Zimmerman was supposedly an adult, supposedly adults are supposed to know better than to do stupid things. Yes, the two were held to different standards, but that's because reality is different -- teenagers are not grown men, and aren't expected to live up to all of the same standards that grown men are supposed to live up to because, well, they're still teenagers, still learning and growing. Adults are supposed to bear that in mind when talking to and about teenagers.

Would Trayvon Martin have attacked me if I'd asked him what he was doing? Probably not, because I've taught enough teenagers -- even gang banger type teenagers -- that I know how to talk to them. But too many adults don't know how to talk to teenagers and don't *want* to know how to talk to teenagers. Because providing guidance to young people would require time and effort and interfere with the latest episode of Survivor:Afghanistan. So it goes.

Regarding my feelings about people overseas being killed by American bombs and bullets, I already wrote the song about that, so I won't repeat it here.

My opinions of gangsta culture are unprintable. I've gotten some of the kids who put on the external trappings to admit that, yeah, it's BS, but they feel they have to pretend to be "gangsta" to fit in and "be black". That said, as a white man it is not my responsibility to tell the black community how to handle their teenagers. I'm not shy about stating my opinion, but we both know that it's my opinion, not some dictum from the heavens above. The black community has some deep-seated problems that it has to work through itself, white people attempting to tell them how to be is demeaning and offensive.

Friday, July 19, 2013 at 11:00:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...


I agree that teenagers are liable to do stupid things, and adults should be exemplars. But how about the example of adults like Notorious B.I.G.? His lyrics are no joke, yet we do not hold these "men" to any standards

I hear you when you say you do not defend that whole degraded rap-gangtsa culture, but that is what informs too many young people today.

Re. presentation, teenagers today are large and powerful, and many emulate violent examples. So TM outsized and out-muscled Z.; add in attitude and one is presented a menacing figure. I wear hoodies; hoodies are not the problem. In the dark, in the rain, in a neighborhood which had been recently savaged, TM should have been coached by his father and his squeeze that the neighborhood was unsafe, and that neighborhood watch was out at night. Attitude would not be a good approach -- to either the neighborhood watch person, OR to any potential criminal one might confront.

Having been racially profiled cannot be an excuse for a confrontational attitude. You would not give attitude to someone who was holding a knife at your throat or had a gun trained on you, so why pull attitude on someone you deem a dull-witted cracker?

Having been racially-profiled myself, I know that attitude in such a situation may get you killed or seriously hurt. I felt the hatred and unjust dismissal of my humanity, and knew the only response was to meet that with directness and honesty. I was not going to feel any love, but I'd get out unscathed.

Is it unfair? Yes -- bigotry is unfair and mean, but the goal is to stay alive and raise yourself up.

Saturday, July 20, 2013 at 12:47:00 PM GMT-5  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home