Naratives Even Stupidify The Allegedly Bright

One very hard lesson I learned over the past couple of years is that when one is invested in a narrative one becomes willingly blind to information that contradicts it. Even worse is that people who are of above average intelligence, will often fall into this trap. The overriding reasons being that since they know they are smart their narrative could not possibly be wrong. If anything those people who hold a differing view are the ones who are "not so bright". And of course there is the aversion to labels such as racist, sexist, uncle tom, sellout, etc, which can put a rather heavy wet blanket on one's social (and employment) life.

Universities are fast becoming places of indoctrination rather than places of critical thinking and the pursuit of facts. The students who graduate from these places are therefore ill equipped to deal critically with subjects to which they have been indoctrinated to think of in a certain way. Today's example comes from Stanford.

In an article about a Stanford grad who supports the Black Lives Matter movement we see the effects that this indoctrination has on bright motivated persons:

As Florida and the rest of world watched George Zimmerman walk away scot-free after a jury acquitted him of shooting and killing Trayvon Martin, a still-troubled nation questioned whether race played a role in the teenager’s death.

So far so good. Race (and gender) did in fact have a large role in the death of Trayvon.

But for Samuel Sinyangwe, it was clear. The Stanford University graduate, who was living in San Francisco during that summer of 2013, remembered growing up as a black child in Orlando’s College Park neighborhood.

I put this here because I want the reader to know that the person at the focus of the article is not simply your average person on the street. This is a person who has graduated from a top tier university in the United States. We should expect that such persons would have higher than average analytical skills than your average person. We're talking people with IQ's over 110, with many over 120. These are the very people who should be asking the tough questions.

And like Martin did on that fateful night of Feb. 26, 2012, Sinyangwe would stop by a 7-Eleven on his way home from school to pick up an Arizona sweet tea and a pack of Starburst or Skittles.

“I was not physically in Orlando, but it hit me very hard,” Sinyangwe, 25, says. “I was that kid. I could have been Trayvon. That’s why it hit me so personally and that’s why I realized that needed to be something that took the priority in terms of my focus.”

While the media made the Skittles and Arizona sweet tea a part of the story, it was not relevant to the story any further than Trayvon had one hand in his pocket to hold those items. As the record shows, Zimmerman was far more concerned with the hood on Trayvon's head and that he was walking around "looking at houses".

But what this part shows is that we are dealing with emotive narratives rather than facts. It would have made no difference had Martin simply been out for a walk or had just gotten off a bus. He was attacked and killed for who he was and where his "who" was.

Because he felt such a connection with Martin, Zimmerman’s acquittal also had a second effect on Sinyangwe – it radicalized him and refocused his work as a data scientist on issues of state violence and police violence.

Since Trayvon was not killed by police how did Sinyangwe come to this particular conclusion? While I certainly had major issues with the jury decision given the facts of the case, it was the state that failed to prove it's burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. That is not state violence. It is very dangerous to declare outcomes we don't approve of as "violence". This is a particularly nasty habit of left leaning groups.

So when Michael Brown, a black 18-year-old, was shot and killed by a white police officer and left on the streets of Ferguson, Missouri, for four hours in 2014, Sinyangwe knew what he had to do.

You mean wait for the investigation to occur? To perhaps go there and interview witnesses? Get a hold of forensic evidence? Oh no. Sorry. I these would be the actions of high IQ persons who understands the value of impartial investigation. Had he done any of that, he would have discovered that the reason that Brown's body was laying out for so long was due to the crowds of people, some armed and letting of shots, that had surrounded the scene. The ME was actually on scene and unable to get to the body because police feared for their safety.

How is it that years after this information is known do we still have people and publications fronting a proven lie?

Also, we should note that Sinyangwe failed to identify with Brown's trip to the store. I wonder why that is.

As they were working to understand the issues surrounding Brown’s death and the deaths of other African-Americans at the hands of police officers, they discovered something puzzling. The federal government did not have a comprehensive national database of people killed by police. Even more troubling, what the federal government was reporting severely undercounted the number of people killed by police by a margin of 2 to 1, Sinyangwe says.

Did it occur to either one of these fellows to take a look at the FBI crime statistics?

In the two years since Brown's death, Sinyangwe and a group of activists created Campaign Zero, a platform that presents comprehensive policy solutions in the hopes of getting the number of people killed by officers to zero. Before any policy solutions, though, they had to know where they stood. Using data, they tried to find the elusive answer to the question: How many people have police killed and why? [my underlines]

Per underlined portion: In what fantasy world do these people live in where they think that in a country which has the highest murder rates of any industrialized countries (perhaps excepting Russia, I haven't checked) would not have even a single person killed by police? In what fantasy world do they live in where police are not shot at, stabbed, etc.? Do these people actually believe that a police officer should allow him or herself to be shot just so the perp can't be shot?

The FBI reported that law enforcement officers across the country had justifiably killed 426 people in 2012. In the same year, D. Brian Burghart discovered that wasn't true.

Using public records, online articles and crowdsourcing, Burghart found that in 2013, 1,271 people were killed during interactions with police. In 2014, that number increased to 1,295, and by 2015, it was 1,299. From 2008 to 2014, the average number of people killed by police was around 419 people per year, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports. Why the discrepancy?

Burghart says he found through his work that the data collected by the FBI was only coming from a fraction of police departments across the country. The Wall Street Journal says it found in a 2014 investigation that "among 105 of the largest police departments in the country, about 45 percent of killings by officers went unreported to the [FBI] between 2007 and 2012. Currently, reporting is optional and records from nearly every agency in three large states, Florida, New York and Illinois, aren't in the FBI's data."

This is important, but not for the reasons Burghart or the Orlando Weekly thinks. If the actual numbers of those killed by police is much higher than 412 or 426 then it means that the level of criminal activity is being underreported by the state. If anything the state is giving a false impression of safety. If data from places like NY and Illinois are missing, particularly with the huge spikes in shootings in Chicago that we've seen this year so far, one should wonder just how much criminal activity that involves firearms has really been going on.

The end result: Mapping Police Violence, a website that breaks down the data into visualizations any reader can understand. The group found that out of the 1,152 people killed by police officers in 2015, 336 of those people were black. African-Americans made up about 30 percent of the number of people killed, despite being 13.2 percent of the U.S. population.

Ahh the other sleight of hand used by those on the left:

Blacks are 13% of the population and therefore should be 13% of every and anything else, except basketball, football and Hip-Hop.

The crime statistics show however that black people commit certain offenses, particularly assaults (with and without firearms) at 7x the rate of the white population and way out of proportion of their US population. Furthermore since it is black males who are usually on the giving and receiving end of said violence we have to realize that it is really less than 6% of the US population that is responsible for huge numbers of homicides and shootings. This is not in dispute. It is known by the FBI and any and all law enforcement communities. But these facts do not make an appearance and those pushing these 13% arguments hope that the readers will not notice them. If the reader does notice these facts then the facts are deemed racist as is the person who points them out. The perfect circle of indoctrination.

The FDLE typically has a 98 to 99 percent participation rate among the state's law enforcement agencies. In 2015, FDLE reported 56 people had been justifiably killed by an officer, according to a supplemental homicide report. In the same WSJ investigation, the publication found Florida had not participated in the FBI's national tally since 1996. Orlando Police Chief John Mina says from 2010 to 2015, 11 people have been involved in fatal officer-involved shootings and three people have died while in OPD custody. All 14 are men, and out of those, 10 are black and four are white.

Say John Mina, what percentage of those committing crimes in Orlando are black and how many of them are white? Here's the City Data report on crime in Orlando. Here is a link to the demographic info where we find black people are 70% of the population which "coincidentally" reflects the "death by police" demographics.

Sinyangwe says he spoke with OPD officials about their use-of-force policy and recommended changes, specifically in regard to the policy that authorizes officers to hog-tie people, also known as the four-point restraint, and another policy that allows officers to shoot at moving vehicles.

Sinyangwe should have been hung up on, escorted out the building or never given an appointment in the first place.

Mapping Police Violence found the homicide rate for black people by police in Orlando was almost double the amount than for all races in 2014. New York and Florida have similar size populations, but three times as many people are killed by police in the Sunshine State than in New York.

Again with the relevant questions: What is the overall crime rate of black people in Orlando relative to other races? In particular what are the rates of crime by black suspects in which those suspects had weapons? Second question: Since we see that in places like NYC, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Chicago, etc., as the temps rise the murder rates soar. If shootings are more likely to happen in 'warm/hot weather, which Florida has in spades, wouldn't that be a better predictor of levels of violence in Florida relative to NY?

"We pay our tax dollars to the police to protect and serve us," Sinyangwe says. "It's their job to do that. So they should take personal responsibility in upholding and performing their job with the level of quality that is in line with what the citizenry demands."

Actually courts have ruled that police are in fact not for our "service" or "protection".

Almost 121 years ago, journalist and advocate Ida B. Wells published The Red Record, a 100-page pamphlet that includes statistics on three years of American lynchings.

Awwww shit. They broke out with thy lynchings! New low.

From the end of the Civil War in the 19th century to the 1950s, thousands of African-Americans, mostly men, were lynched in Southern states, according to a recent report from the Equal Justice Initiative.

Not to minimize the very real terrorism that lynching represented, but we should realize that the number of black people who kill each other over dumb shit far exceeds the total number of persons lynched in the US. As an aside, I find it highly ironic that many of the people who would use this lynching argument have no problems with automatically believing a woman who claims she was raped or other claims of sexual assault. Many of those same persons will disregard jury findings of innocence. Talk about lynch mobs!

A Pew Research Center poll from last year said 59 percent of Americans now believe changes are needed to give African-Americans equal rights, up from the 46 percent of Americans who responded to a Pew poll in 2014.

Did this Pew poll follow up with a question as to what specific rights black people do not have that are enjoyed by the rest of the population?

Matthew Nichter, a historical sociologist who works as a professor at Rollins College, says Mapping Police Violence, the work of Ida B. Wells, and data collection by the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee's research department during the Civil Rights Movement all represent an effort to prove to critics that black people aren't exaggerating when they talk about institutional violence, and that the deaths of Brown, Sandra Bland and Eric Garner weren't just caused by officers who were "bad apples."

Lets get a few things out of the way:

Michael Brown robbed a store and assaulted the manager in the process. This he admitted to his friend. He then assaulted a police officer allegedly because he didn't care for the way he was spoken to. Eyewitnesses say that Brown rushed the officer when he was shot. How is that even a case of "bad apples"?

Sandra Bland should not have been stopped by the state trooper. The trooper clearly arrested Bland because he didn't care for her honest reply to his asinine question. However; Bland killed herself. Furthermore she killed herself after her family did NOTHING to help her get out of jail (all she asked for was $500). Bland and Bland alone is responsible for her death so how is that "bad apples"?

Eric Garner is the only listed case where we can discuss "bad apples". We can also discuss NYS cigarette tax enforcement and the ban on selling loosies as a way to "protect the children".

If you look at surveys of people, white versus black, white folks tend to perceive police as the guys who come get your cat out of a tree," he says. "I think that's why data is so critical. There's widespread obliviousness on the part of the white majority because we still live in such a segregated society. The experience we have in the suburbs is different than police presence in urban black areas."

Does Matthew Nichter have any idea why white folks in suburbs generally see police as those who "come get your cat out of a tree" rather than "Oh shit! Po-po!"? I'll give him a clue. In largely white communities there is very little violent crime. Police literally have nothing to do all day except drive around, hand out traffic tickets and look at porn on their phones. There are white communities where there haven't been murders in 40 years. When murders do happen in these communities it is often either a domestic dispute that went deadly or an outsider committing a home invasion.

By contrast is many black communities there are on the street murders happening every day. You're lucky if there is a 24 hour period where someone isn't shot. This doesn't include things like theft and "simple" assaults. Just shootings. Hence it is the very actions of the people inhabiting black communities that are the cause of the differences in perceptions of police.

And this is what I mean about narrative. All the people noted in the article had invested in a narrative. You have a lynching avenue where there is no lynching. There is the segregation as explanation that fails to hold up under the lightest scrutiny. There is wholesale dismissal of relevant facts in the case of Brown and Bland. There is the total non admission of the sky high murder rates that precipitate police involvement in black communities. In this fantasy world, where police shoot nobody, these facts and observations simply do not exist. Too many "bright" people buy into this and it is literally getting people killed.

Jim Goad Defends Trayvon Martin

Unlike many of my peers, I keep a nice look out on alt-right websites. Unafraid of seeing the various "colorful" references to black folk and with the testicular fortitude to glide past other insults that lesser intellects would fold under. Due to this I get access to data that is overlooked by other outlets and persons with very well documented arguments. That said, like every group, many on the alt-right have their own issues with hubris and herd following. One case in particular is that of Trayvon Martin. Just about every person I've read on alt-right circles has accepted the "fact" that Zimmerman was acting in self defense as the "thug" Martin was stalking and then assaulting and trying to kill him. When evidence to the contrary, that is, the known facts of the case, are shown to completely contradict their line of thinking. Every alt-right person I have seen has either given me the "well the jury decided" statement or simply ignored the evidence. Today on TakiMag Jim Goad showed just how blind those on the alt-right are to the facts of the Martin case simply because Trayvon is black. I'm going to intersperse his article with my discussion of the Martin case.

Goad:

Last Tuesday night I was walking down a poorly lit Brooklyn street en route to meet a friend for dinner when suddenly I noticed a black male strolling alongside me.

The Ghost:

The trial showed that Trayvon was on his cell phone talking to his friend Rachel. We know that while on that phone call Trayvon indicated that Zimmerman was following him and that Zimmerman came across as creepy.

Both Goad and Martin were walking along the street, minding their own business when a suspicious person made themselves apparent to them.

Goad:

A block later, I tried crossing the street merely to shake him. He stayed glued to my side. After another whole block, I stopped, looked him straight in the eyes, and said, “What’s going on here? Why are you following me?”

The Ghost:

I have said to many people that if one EVER thinks one is being followed that one should NOT go to one's home. Why would you lead a potential killer to your place of residence? The police say that Trayvon was hiding behind a sign (and/ore bushes) when he finally confronted Zimmerman. In terms of self-defense Trayvon's hiding makes perfect sense...

Looking at it from Trayvon's perspective, as we should, he sees a person following him in a car. He tries to shake the person by hiding and that person leaves their car to follow him on foot. To Trayvon this is potentially life or death situation which has escalated from a person in a car to a person on foot. . He doesn't know Zimmerman. What reason does Trayvon have to believe that the stranger who is following him means him no harm? None!

We know from the testimony presented during trial that Trayvon ran away from Zimmerman. Hence the "these 'punks' always get away.." commentary. Similarly Jim Goad, feeling threatened by the black guy ghosting him tried to escape. You'll note that Goad and Trayvon thought the same thing and tried to do the same thing: Get away from the creepy guy who they felt threatened by. Difference? Martin is black.

We should also note that it was reported that Trayvon asked Zimmerman "why are you following me?" Goad does the same. We can see that Goad and Martin were thinking the same way in regards to the threat.

Goad:

He stopped along with me. His glazed eyes looked straight into mine. He didn’t say a word. He only nodded in the affirmative, even though I hadn’t asked him a yes-or-no question.

The Ghost:

Since we have no video or eyewitness at this point, I have to make assumptions. I think Trayvon probably said BOTH things. I think that Zimmerman flashed his gun while demanding of Trayvon to explain "what he was doing here". I cannot prove it but given his behavior after the trial, we can surely believe that Zimmerman is the type to have brandished his weapon.

As I said in my post, my commentary as to whether Zimmerman flashed his gun or otherwise made it visible is pure conjecture. The point being that I believe that whatever Zimmerman did when confronted by Martin, it did not make Martin feel any safer. Just like Goad's "ghost".

Goad:

I kept him in my visual periphery and breathed deeply as I remembered all the joint locks and leg sweeps I’d learned in martial-arts classes. At one point I reached inside my denim jacket to pantomime that I was concealing a gun, then I pulled my hand out quickly when I realized that if he actually was toting a pistol, I might have been signing my death warrant by reaching for a gun that wasn’t there.

Now I've read all kinds of commentary on Amren, Taki, Vdare, SBPDL, etc. that Martin's "mixed martial arts" head banging was proof that Martin was a thug hell bent on killing Zimmerman, just because he was white. Yet here we have Jim Goad, going over martial arts moves that he could employ on the person he feels threatened by. Furthermore he actually started to act in a manner that suggested he had a weapon. How is Trayvon Martin who not only thought of defending his life from a threat but actually tried to, a thug and Jim Goad NOT A THUG for seriously considering the same actions??

Goad:

White male privilege in 2015 means that if I get into any altercation with someone who isn’t white or male, I am presumed guilty. It’s happened to me with women. And with anti-racist skinheads. And with a black dude who tried breaking into my car. In each case, I was not the instigator, only the one who fought back. But being unapologetically white and male worked against me in every case.

Sorry to burst your pity party Goad, but white male privilege in 2015 and 2014 means that you can act in self-interest against a threat and nobody will call you a thug. But a 16 year old kid being stalked by a man with a gun is simply because he is black. If Jim Goad doesn't like being assumed to be the instigator, then he can START by looking at his story and comparing it to Trayvon Martin. After that he can get around to advocating that the person walking down the street minding his or her own business, who is stalked by someone who presents themselves as a threat, that the person minding their business should be afforded the benefit of the doubt regardless of his race. I won't hold my breath on that though. Why? Because most of these alt-right types are so busy being mad about the stuff happening to them they cannot even see when an injustice is done to someone else who's not one of them.

And for those who are reading and saying that Goad didn't try to kill his would be "soft mugger". That is true. It was a stroke of luck that Goad didn't have a gun. Imagine that he had pulled a gun and the "soft mugger" turned out to be a "hard mugger" and killed him...in self defense? The mugger's argument would have been that he was walking along the street when Goad pulled a gun and tried to shoot him. Dead Goad wouldn't be able to say otherwise. And there would be no witnesses to say otherwise.

What if Goad had decided to try those martial arts moves, lost and ended up dead? Same deal. "Soft mugger" would have said the same thing. He was walking down the street and this guy assaulted him. Dead Goad can say nothing to counter that. No witnesses to say otherwise. But we know Goad is the "good guy" because not only did he not make it physical (because by his own admission he was too scared to do so) but the"soft mugger" never escalated the situation. Goad lived to tell his story. Trayvon didn't. Lucky Goad.

Trayvon Anniversary

One of the consequences of reading across the ideological spectrum is that one has to deal with material, from both the left and right, that is outright racist. Those on the far right tend to think black people are generally stupid criminals who are just looking for the opportunity to kill and maim white peopple. Those on the left, think that black people have no agency and that everything we do that is negative is the fault of some white person(s) somewhere at any and every time, ever. I have a strong stomach so most times I chuckle and move along. On occasion I have to respond. This is one of those occasions.

This week being the anniversary of the Trayvon Martin killing, the dissident right has had an ongoing tribute to Zimmerman while defaming the name of Martin. No doubt the failure of those on the left to properly discuss that incident (Stand Your Ground was irrelevant) has given these folks ammunition, but I am still bothered by the commentary coming from the right on this matter as it reflects growing trend of cart before horse thinking as has been seen in the issue of campus sexual assault.

Jared Taylor of Ameren.com posted a video a few months ago asking us, black folks in particular whether "facts matter". While it was triggered by the Ferguson matter to which the clear answer from the left was "no, they do not". He brought up Martin as an example of denial of facts. I came about this close to posting a response but didn't. Today however I'm going to address the issue of Martin, yet again for those who simply don't get why Trayvon's demise was so troubling.

The right has spent a lot of time perusing Travon's Facebook and whatever to show him smoking weed, calling himself 'no limit nigga" and whatever else they could find as if any of it was actually relevant to the events on that night. Yet there was a total failure to understand why Trayvon was the victim. Lets go over the sequence of events:

Trayon left his father's house to get some sugary treats at a local store. He is seen on video tape completing his purchase without incident because unlike the late Mike Brown, he wasn't out trying to rob anyone.

It was a misty rain outside and Trayvon was wearing a hoodie. He put the hood up while walking to protect his head from the water. Some on the right have taken this as evidence that he was a criminal because wearing a hood in the rain while outside is evidence of intent to do wrong. George Zimmerman, armed George Zimmerman happened to see Trayvon walking back to his father's apartment and decided that Trayvon looked suspicious. I emphasize armed because I am of the belief that a person who is armed has a larger responsibility to not initiate or escalate conflicts.

What was Trayvon doing to be seen as suspicious. Allegedly it was because he had his hood up and was looking at the homes he was passing along the way to the place he was residing. To even allow oneself to think this is acceptable shows a mind that is possessed. Why? Because who walks down a street and doesn't look at one's surroundings? Matter of fact I would find it odd if a person was walking down a street and not looking around. Situational awareness anyone?

The trial showed that Trayvon was on his cell phone talking to his friend Rachel. We know that while on that phone call Trayvon indicated that Zimmerman was following him and that Zimmerman came across as creepy. That Trayvon called Zimmerman a cracker is irrelevant. The fact that Trayvon thought of Zimmerman as "creepy" IS highly relevant. We can induce that it is likely that Trayvon's head swiveling was in likely him looking to see what the creepy guy in the car is doing rather than actually looking at the homes. But that is supposition. We do not know this because Trayvon was unable to be questioned and no one else has evidence to offer to back up this idea.

What we do know, and what is a fact is that armed Zimmerman was following Trayvon. Trayvon noticed this "creepy" person following him. We know that Trayvon had not, was not in the process of, or intending to commit a crime. He was lawfully going about his business. These are facts. whatever it was that Zimmerman thought was suspicious about Trayvon existed entirely in his head. Whether the audio recording of Zimmerman's phone call said "coons", "goons" or "guys" doesn't really matter. That he used a term that indicated that he assumed criminal activity where there was none does matter. There was no criminal activity and Zimmerman had no rational basis for later confronting Trayvon.

I have said to many people that if one EVER thinks one is being followed that one should NOT go to one's home. Why would you lead a potential killer to your place of residence? The police say that Trayvon was hiding behind a sign (and/ore bushes) when he finally confronted Zimmerman. In terms of self-defense Trayvon's hiding makes perfect sense.

Meanwhile, armed Zimmerman calls the authorities to report suspicious activity. Mind you, as we stated before Trayvon hadn't done anything suspicious. He was lawfully walking to the place that he resided, while on the phone with his friend and observing his surroundings.

The authoritites, being professionals, told Zimmerman to not follow the "suspicious" person. There are two major reasons for the professionals to say this to Zimmerman:

1) Zimmerman may be harmed by the criminal and they do not want to place a civilian in harm's way.

2) The alleged criminal may in fact be an innocent civilian who is alarmed by armed Zimmerman who is not an offical and uniformed law enforcement officer and a conflict may arise that may cause harm (or death) to that civilians and/or Zimmerman.

Zimmerman decided to disregard the directions and handle things himself. This is what we call "negligence". That Zimmerman, armed, decided to take the law into his own hands, on a person who had not committed a crime, was not in the process of committing a crime meant that HE was escalating the situation.

Looking at it from Trayvon's perspective, as we should, he sees a person following him in a car. He tries to shake the person by hiding and that person leaves their car to follow him on foot. To Trayvon this is potentially life or death situation which has escalated from a person in a car to a person on foot. . He doesn't know Zimmerman. What reason does Trayvon have to believe that the stranger who is following him means him no harm? None!

Then we have the conflict. We only have Zimmerman's story to take but there is a confrontation. On one hand we have a report that Trayvon says "Why are you following me!?" and on the other Zimmerman says that Trayvon simply jumps out the bushes and says "you're going to die tonight" and starts to beat on him.

. Since we have no video or eyewitness at this point, I have to make assumptions. I think Trayvon probably said BOTH things. I think that Zimmerman flashed his gun while demanding of Trayvon to explain "what he was doing here". I cannot prove it but given his behavior after the trial, we can surely believe that Zimmerman is the type to have brandished his weapon. I think once Trayvon caught sight of the weapon, he decided that he would take on Zimmerman physically and it was during that fight that Zimmerman was able to shoot Trayvon (lesson, always control the hands of your opponent and ALWAYS end the fight quickly, an eye jab and groin kick would have ended this fight in favor of Trayvon).

So we come to the jury decision. Due to the total fuck up by the prosecution, the jury was lead to focus on the end fight that claimed Trayvon's life. Indeed without argument Zimmerman shot Trayvon in self-defense. But that self-defense is like the self defense a gang member who assaults another gang member during a turf dispute could claim. Yeah, you defended yourself, but YOU initiated the conflict. And here, the facts show that Zimmerman initiated the conflict.

It was Zimmerman that stalked Trayvon. Zimmerman made Trayvon fear for his safety and life by following him for no good reason. It was Zimmerman who disregarded the professional safety personel's advice to not exit his vehicle. That was negligence. It was the armed Zimmerman who decided to up the ante and stalk Trayvon on foot and confront him (while possibly showing his weapon which would be menacing).

The problem I have with those acting like the actual criminal in this case was Trayvon was their total disregard for the idea that one can be stalked by an armed man. That an armed civilian, emphasis on civilian, has the right to demand to ask you why you are on a public street or public thoroughfare and if you resist that and get shot, YOU are the criminal.

Of course I've read enough on these websites to know that many of them are of the opinion that black people, males in particular ought be subject to interrogation by any white person who find their presence disturbing. Yet these individuals do not realize that such an idea poses a threat to general law and order (supposedly a conservative platform) whereby citizens can stalk and harass and threaten other citizens going about their lawful behavior.

As a postscript I find it very interesting that the same people who scoured the net for Trayvon's childish web postings often ignored the frequent interactions with police that Zimmerman has had, which often involved his gun. If Trayvon's antics at his school and on Facebook and Twitter are to be evidence of his "racist" and "criminal intent" towards Zimmerman, the it would stand to reason that Zimmerman's activities with his gun are also evidence (although late) of the likelihood that he did in fact threaten to use his weapon against Trayvon (menacing) and it was THAT escalation that lead to the fight and Trayvon's death. Which would be legally felony murder (a homicide that occurs during the commission of or result of another crime).

Trayvon Watch Part 10: Until Proven Otherwise

So for the past couple of months I've been watching and reading the commentary on various, shall we say, Pro-White, websites as it regards the Trayvon Martin case. Today, one of them, VDare decided to run a piece by Ann Coulter (the one allegedly involved with JJ from Good Times), in which she defends Zimmerman. Before I get into her piece I'm going to re-iterate my oft stated position that the state did not prove murder 2, nor do I think that Zimmerman is in fact guilty of murder 2. This does not mean I don't think Zimemrman is not responsible for the killing, nor that he shouldn't have been charged with something, but that it was IMO a mistake to charge Zimmerman with murder 2. Now onto Ann.

One of the things you will note with many "pro-white" websites is a focus on black crime. I'm not going to get into a debate about black crime. Relative to other US populations black crime, particularly assault and homicide (usually but not always linked) are ridiculously high. Yes, in certain locations practically all assaults on the books have a black face, usually male. Discussing the reasons for this phenomenon is beyond the scope of this post. What is within the scope of this post is that even with the way out of proportion levels of crime committed by black men, it still represents a small minority of the overall black male population.

Using NYC as an example, there were maybe 300 murders in the city last year. I'm rounding, probably up. Most of which were committed by black males. There are 8 million people in NY. A good 2 million or so are black. If we assume, wrongly, that both the victim and the perpetrator of these crimes were criminals it still wouldn't even be 1% of the total black population. If we were to throw in burglaries and other forms of violent crime, you STILL wouldn't hit 1%. As a matter of fact, the majority of records that black males have are for non-violent offenses, number one being drug possession (with or without intent to sell).

Furthermore, when we look at cross racial crimes, they are but a fraction of the amounts of intra-racial crimes. That is, for a white person to proxy their chances of being a victim of a black criminal by the number of crimes blacks commit against each other, they would need to drop that chance to 10% (usually). Not to say it cannot happen. We know it can and does, but the fact of the matter is that the vast majority black people you see on the street isn't paying you any attention. Just like Trayvon was doing when he was minding his business walking from the store.

Which brings us to Ann:

There were at least eight burglaries in the 14 months before Zimmerman's encounter with Martin. Numerous media accounts admit that "most" of these were committed by black males. I'm waiting to hear about a single crime at Twin Lakes that was not committed by a black male.

Lets take that point at face value. There are about 17,000 black persons in Sanford Fl. According to Ann around 8 of them committed burglaries.

Eight.

Ocho.

So according to Ann, if 8 persons who look a certain way have committed crimes in a given location, it is OK to stalk everyone else who "fits the description" on the chance that they too 'might" be number 9?

ust six months before Zimmerman's encounter with Martin, two men had broken into the home of a neighbor, Olivia Bertalan, while she was alone with her infant son. She had just enough time to call 911 before running upstairs and locking herself in a room. The burglars knew she was home, but proceeded to rob the place anyway, even trying to enter the locked room where she held her crying child.

Bertalan had seen the burglars just before they broke into her house—one at the front door and one at the back. They were young black males. They lived in the Retreat by Twin Lakes.

In another case, a black teenager strode up to Zimmerman's house and, in broad daylight, stole a bicycle off the front porch. The bike was never recovered.

Weeks before Zimmerman saw Martin, he witnessed another young black male peering into the window of a neighbor's house. He called the cops, but by the time they arrived, the suspect was gone.

A few days later, another house was burglarized. The thieves made off with jewelry and a new laptop. Roofers working across the street had seen two black teenagers near the house at the time of the robbery. When they spotted one of the teens the next day, they called the police.

This time, the roofers followed the suspect so he wouldn't get away. The cops arrived and found the stolen laptop in his backpack. This was the same black teenager Zimmerman had seen looking in a neighbor's window.

An interesting rundown of prior events. Here's the kicker though, these were actual crimes. Had Zimmerman (or anyone else) ran into the two men (one was actually a minor) in the act Zimmerman could have blasted them to kingdom come and be sitting on his porch with a beer and no one would have said a thing.

Had Zimmerman caught the kid who stole his property from off his property and put a bullet in his head, I'd have nothing to say. Nothing at all. I wouldn't even care if the bike thief was unarmed. You steal you take the chance on having things go very wrong. Oh well.

In the case of the roofers they saw the same men who had committed a crime and followed them. Two points here:

1) As I've pointed out in many writings, it is often a small group of people who are responsible for numerous crimes, rather than a one to one to one relationship between a crime and a new perp.

2) The roofers followed the perpetrators of an actual crime. Had they gotten into an altercation they would have the legal upper hand in anything that happened because a crime had already been committed.

The last point is the point missed by all of the "pro-white" writings I have seen. Not a single one of them, in the months that I have read their commentary has once said:

"Trayvon was committing no crime." "Walking down the street is not a crime." For all their talk, I seriously wonder what these "pro-white" commentators would do if they had been stalked by a strange man (cracker or not) in a car, who then exited said car and perhaps showed a gun. Would they lead him to their house? I mean really, if you are in a neighborhood that is "rife" with burglaries, would you allow a strange man to follow you to the "safety of your home" knowing full well that if he really wants to kill you, he now knows where you lay your head to rest?

Really?

Ann goes on to make a comparison with John White who shot a kid who was menacing his family and threatening to kill his son. Let's make quick minced meat of this laughable comparison.

John White was sleeping in his house. Zimmerman was driving along a "public" street.

John White's son had been threatened by the teenager(s) in question. Zimmerman had no prior contact with Trayvon.

The teenagers came to John White's property and were on his property. Zimmerman was not on his property. Trayvon was not on Zimmerman's property.

The teenagers threatened John White, His family and his property. Zimmerman posed a threat to Trayvon and confronted him.

John White showed his weapon and warned the teenagers. Zimmerman claims that he made no confrontation nor did he warn Trayvon that he was armed (by his own testimony).

John White discharged his weapon. Zimmerman discharged his weapon. This is the only thing they have in common. Clearly though the "long story" explains why John White was fully within his rights, while Zimmerman was clearly reckless in his behavior.

What it boils down to with these folk is that since black men commit so much crime then every black male is to be seen as a criminal until proven otherwise. That Trayvon, by dint of being black, must have had criminal intent against Zimmerman "The Cracker" and was simply waiting to beat up on Zimmerman (supposedly with his free hand while talking to his lady friend, cause you know how athletic and coordinated black men are).What they hope is that the jurors in this case will agree with such a sentiment. The state in levying a charge they cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt, may have provided the means to confirm such an idea. Hopefully they are bright enough to include lesser charges for consideration and the jury rejects this ideology.

Trayvon Watch Part 8: Mind How You Walk....Niggas.

Today the jury got to listen to the unedited tapes of Zimmerman's statement to the police after he shot Trayvon. In the interview he stated why Trayvon caught his attention:

In the recording, Mr. Zimmerman waived his right to a lawyer and said that his concern was piqued that night by the sight of Mr. Martin walking in the rain. Burglaries had been rampant in the neighborhood, he said, prompting him to start a Neighborhood Watch. “These guys always get away,” he told Officer Singleton, a statement that prosecutors would later seize upon. “It was raining out, and he was leisurely walking, taking his time, looking at all the houses. When I drove by he stopped and looked at me.”

Not that Trayvon was trying car doors, house doors or maybe using a flashlight to see if any home was empty.

Trayvon was suspicious because he was leisurely walking. Shit I see people in my neighborhood do every day.

At the time of the confrontation between Zimmerman and Trayvon, ~7:09 PM, Feb 26, 2012, it was slightly raining. What we would call a "light drizzle".

6:53 PM 63.0 °F 60.1 °F 90% 30.30 in 7.0 mi NE 6.9 mph - 0.00 in Rain Light Rain 7:53 PM 63.0 °F 60.1 °F 90% 30.30 in 10.0 mi East 5.8 mph - 0.03in Overcast

It wasn't pouring. It wasn't sleeting, snowing. Nor was there a hurricane blowing through the town. It was lightly raining which means if you're covered you're unlikely to be running (which probably would have made Zimmerman suspicious as well), or in any particular rush to get home (particularly if you're talking to a female on the phone before you get back under parental supervision).

So basically Zimmerman's opinion was that Trayvon was suspicious because he was walking to leisurely [for a negro].

Zimmerman is letting us know that in his opinion, black males aren't supposed to be walking "leisurely" in weather HE thinks warrants non-leisurely walking.

Straight face.

So now you know my fellow Negroes: If it's raining outside, you make damn sure you don't walk to "leisurely" lest you arouse the suspicions of some random "creepy ass cracker" with a gun.

Trayvon Watch Part 6: "Creepy Ass Cracker"

This is how Trayvon described George Zimmerman to his friend Rachel Jeantel. In testimony that cements the fact that Trayvon saw Zimmerman has a threat Jeantel testified:

She said she heard Trayvon say "Why you following me for?" Then she said she heard a "hard-breathing man" say, "what are you doing around here?" Then, she said, she heard Trayvon say "get off, get off."

Ultimately it will be up to Zimmerman to refute the statement of Ms. Jeantel. Zimmerman has claimed that he was returning to his vehicle and not confronting Trayvon. This testimony contradicts his statement.

Even if the voice on the tape was Zimmerman, this testimony would make a reasonable case that the ensuing fight was the result of Zimmerman's stalking and then confrontation with Trayvon with his "what are you doing here?" response to Trayvon's relevant question.

Given Jeantel's testimony and Zimmerman's statements I can make a guess what happened:

When Zimmerman asked Trayvon what he was doing here, Trayvon probably did not react well. I can tell you personally that if I were being followed by a "creepy ass cracker" at night, who demanded I tell him "what I was doing" wherever it is I may be, I'd tell him to fuck off. I think Zimmerman, in his anger at "this punk" (yeah..punk...right...anyway)was "getting away" and had an attitude, Zimmerman put his hands on Trayvon. Trayvon. This is when Ms. Jeantel heard Trayvon say "get off, get off".

Trayvon drops his phone and fights for his life, managing to get Zimmerman on the ground. While on the ground Trayvon notices Zimmerman's gun, and thinks that the "creepy ass cracker" was in fact trying to kill him. At this point Trayvon makes the "you're gonna die tonight" comment that Zimmerman testified to. This is when Zimmerman manages to shoot Trayvon in the chest.

This does not support Zimmerman's claim of self defense. The reason for this is that it is clear from the testimony (thus far) that Trayvon was the one who saw himself in danger from the "creepy ass cracker" who was following him and who he later discovered had a gun. Zimmerman, by this testimony, confronted Trayvon and picked a fight. Once he found himself on the losing end of the fight he started he shot Trayvon. To allow Zimmerman to claim self-defense would be the same as allowing a mugger to claim self-defense if he shot his victim who resisted his attempts to mug them.

Trayvon Watch Part 5: The First Day

Did the Zimmerman defense team sink their client?

"You will see the evidence proves at least one thing. Trayvon Martin hadn't gone home," said West. "He had plenty of time, but choosing not to do that he either left or just hid in the darkness to see about this guy who was following him and turned out of the darkness and said why are you following me."

I believe that this statement by the defense team establishes that Trayvon was the person who was in fear.

just hid in the darkness to see about this guy who was following him

What kind of person "hid[es] in the darkness"? A person who feels threatened.

Why wouldn't Trayvon go home? Would YOU go to your home when you are being followed? You would let a stranger who is following you know where you live? You would lead them to your house?

Of course not.

So with this statement by the defense, it admits that Trayvon reasonably thought that he was in danger and did what he thought was in his best interest. If the jury is paying attention and the defense continues along this line they will have helped convict their own client.

Trayon Watch 4: The Tapes

The judge in the Zimmerman murder trial has decided that expert witnesses for either side cannot testify as to who they think was on the 9-11 recording screaming for help.

I'll admit that when I first heard that tape, I was in my office crying like a baby. Due to my bias I had already made up my mind who the person on the tape was. Putting on my jurist hat I realized that I had no rational reason to believe it was Trayvon. Nor did I have any rational reason to believe it was Zimmerman. There was nothing in the actual words screamed by the party to indicate who it was. Had the voice said "Help! Rhis man was following me!" or "Help! He's beating me up!" then I could make a deductive argument that the voice belonged to one or the other party. So unless the prosecution has other recordings with something other than "help!" then no rational jurist can decide who the voice is.

I was actually hoping that the 9-11 tape would not be admissible. That was a long shot as it is evidence that the crime occurred and so would need to be admitted. This brings us back to my short vs. long story prosecution.

Lets assume that Zimmerman is the one calling out for help on that tape. Remember that Zimmerman does not have to prove anything in this trial. It is for the prosecution to convince a jury that Zimmerman is guilty of the charges. In my mind the prosecution should lay out all the steps leading up to the voice on the tape. That Zimmerman misjudged an unarmed, non-threatening Trayvon as some kind of criminal and stalked him while in his vehicle. That Zimmerman, contrary to the requests of the emergency situation public safety personnel, stepped out of the safety of his vehicle with a loaded gun and attempted to track down an unarmed, innocent Trayvon, who had correctly seen Zimmerman as a threat to his person. That Zimmerman, in the eyes of the now deceased, innocent Trayvon, was a stalking stranger who admittedly flashed his loaded gun. That it was Trayvon who was fighting to protect his life and even IF it was Zimmerman who was shouting for help, that it was Zimmerman who was the person posing a threat to an innocent and unarmed Trayvon.

The prosecution must make it clear that Zimmerman lost his "self-defense" argument once he purposefully left the safety of his vehicle with a loaded gun to stalk and confront Trayvon. Once they do that, they do not need to concern themselves with who the jury thinks is on the tape because Zimmerman would have been shown to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt (of criminally negligent homicide at least) by his own actions. So this tape ruling is not the biggest deal so long as it is played correctly. I do not think that the prosecution will be able to convince every juror that the voice is Trayvon. It only takes one juror to allow Zimmerman to walk. The prosecution would be negligent to make the tape a central part of it's case given all the other evidence in play.

Trayvon Watch 3: RE: Liberals killed Trayvon Martin, and Jamiel Shaw, and…

So one Erik Rush of the Canada Free Press is of the opinion that Trayvon Martin was killed because he wasn't "genial" enough when confronted by an "authority figure".

Trayvon Martin, on the other hand, appears to have been far less genial, and more a victim of his lifestyle than a victim of George Zimmerman. The press narrative spun the picture of a little black waif skipping home with his Sprite and bag of Skittles, only to be ambushed and blown away by a nightstalking, cackling bigot. Though time will tell how it pans out in court, reality tells a different story, one of a thug-in-training for whom being accosted by an authority figure might have presented a welcome and self-affirming confrontation.

If only Trayvon had been more polite to the strange man who was following him in a car and then on foot and then flashed his gun.

I get it.

The victims of 9-11 know all about what happens when you're "genial" to folks who pose a threat to you.

First of all the media has not "pun the picture of a little black waif skipping home with his Sprite and bag of Skittles".

The fact is that "skipping" aside. That is exactly what Trayvon was doing. He was walking home from the store with a Sprite and a bag of Skittles minding his own business. He was not "casing the neighborhood". He was not armed. He was doing what every citizen of the US has a right to do: Walk down the street minding his own business.

As for the "thug-in-training for whom being accosted by an authority figure", this guy can kiss my ass.

First of all. If Zimmerman wanted to present himself as an "authority figure" he could have told Martin he was a part of the neighborhood watch. Perhaps wear a fucking uniform. No. Zimmerman was, in the eyes of Trayvon some creepy white guy who was following him in a vehicle and then on foot. Zimmerman never testified that he presented himself as an "authority figure". Read his numerous commentary and the commentary of his supporters. Never once does he say that he identified himself to Trayvon as an "authority figure". So where is this fellow getting the "authority figure" angle from?

Maybe he thinks that young black men ought to see random white men on the street as having authority over them?

Note to Erik: If you follow me in your vehicle and then on foot, I won't be too "genial" about it either. And I am not a thug.

Trayvon Watch 2: The Burden

Writing in WND, Jack Cashill proposed that

When George wrote this he had no idea that a 911 call from a neighbor would record someone desperately yelling “help” or “help me” 14 times in 40 seconds before the screams ended with a gunshot.

As part of its “burden,” the state must prove that Martin was the one yelling for help. The impossibility of that task is just one reason why Robert Zimmerman remains confident.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/george-zimmermans-brother-spanks-media/#rIyGSLgL0R1sVMmA.99

I do not believe that determining who was crying out for help is a burden on the state. It may work to the defense to have a determination that Zimmerman was the one crying out for help, but it does not help Zimmerman if the state has a lesser included charge of negligent homicide.

This goes back to my Short Story vs. Long Story theory. The prosecution will have to continuously remind the jury that Trayvon was not doing anything illegal. That he had no weapon and posed no threat to anyone.

Assuming that the Trayvon's girlfriend will be able to testify that Trayvon felt endangered by the strange man following him in his car and then on foot, it can be easily established that Trayvon felt endangered by Zimmerman. Furthermore:

“As I looked and tried to find my phone to dial 911,” George continued, “the suspect punched me in the face. I fell backwards onto my back. The suspect got on top of me. I yelled ‘Help’ several times.”

Zimmerman has alaready said that Trayvon "spottted his gun and went for it". Now we see why. Zimmerman flashed his gun when he "tried to find his phone".

So putting ourselves in Trayvon's shoes. Man follows him in car. Man follows him on foot. Man says "I have no problem with you" and then flashes a gun (that would be menacing).

Does it matter who was crying for help when the only person with anm ongoing threat to his life is Trayvon?

I don't think so.

Think of it this way: You don't get to walk into a bank and threaten to rob it and then when one of the customers beats your ass, you shoot him and claim self defense.

Trayvon Watch

Similar to what we did with Sean Bell, we will have running commentary on the Zimmerman trial. Right now jury selection is happening. Won't be commenting on that but I will give an overview of what I expect the jury to be presented with.

Short Timeline vs. Long Timeline

The Zimmerman defense will hinge largely on whether they can convince the jury that the only part of the evening's events that matter is Zimmerman'as claim that he had given up following Martin and was returning to his vehicle when he was confronted by Martin who Zimmerman claims jumped out of "nowhere" and started to punch him.

This "short time line" defense will claim that regardless of what Zimmerman did prior to the confrontation once he no longer posed a threat to Martin (if they even concede such a point) Zimmerman was acting in his self defense once Martin confronted him and "started the fight".

The "Long line" story which could be presented by the prosecution would be that Zimmerman created an environment that lead to Martin's death. They would claim that Zimmerman was the one who stalked and confronted Martin. They would claim that Martin was acting in self-defence against an armed man. They would claim that Zimmerman, being bested by Martin decided to kill Martin in order to escape a violent situation he created.

In either case, the claims of who initiated the violence will be hotly contested. Any claim of self defense requires that the defending party not initiate violence.

For Martin, the prosecution will need to show that Martin was in fear for his safety. Zimmerman's own statements already set up such an argument. Once (and if) Martin's alleged statement to Zimmerman of "why are you following me?" is accepted by the jury, the prosecution's job will be mostly done.

The Charges


I still maintain that the state has a near impossible task of showing malice. Neither scenario indicates malice. While Zimmerman may have had bad intent when he followed Martin, I do not believe it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that at up to the moment of discharge that Zimmerman intened to murder Martin.

What is provable beyond reasonable doubt is that Zimmerman created an environment in which a death could occur. He was armed when he followed an unarmed Martin who was not engaged in any illegal activity. It is clear that had Zimmerman stayed in his vehicle that Martin would be alive today.

That is criminally negligent homicide. That is provable. itr does not require going into Zimmerman's or Trayvon's background.