Art Pedroza: Libertarians should not be supporting or applauding George Zimmerman

Hoodie

Posted to oc politics blog
By Art Pedroza

I am appalled to see that some of my fellow Libertarians are supporting accused murderer George Zimmerman, in the wake of the end of his trial for the killing of teenager Trayvon Martin.

As Libertarians we should be advancing the cause of civil rights and standing up against the racists in this country. The last thing we should do is echo the Republicans who are praising Zimmerman.

Facebook and Twitter continue to urge citizens to stand up for Trayvon Martin through protest: Sunday marks the National Blackout Day in angry response to Zimmerman’s freedom, according to Policymic.

Here are some of the demonstrations taking place around the country today, in opposition to the court ruling that freed Zimerman – and made it legal to stack and accost unarmed teens and shoot them to death:

San Francisco
Sunday, 4pm
Powell and Market

Oakland
Sunday, 4pm
Oscar Grant Plaza

The rest of this opinion can be read here .

George-Zimmerman-Murderer-300x200

Art Pedroza is a local Libertarian, active in Orange County CA

247 thoughts on “Art Pedroza: Libertarians should not be supporting or applauding George Zimmerman

  1. Jared King

    A lot of libertarians seem hesitant to join with with the ‘hoodie’ side of the argument, probably because they see it as associating themselves with the gun control faction. Although they should also consider the embarrassment of associating with the side that says Trayvon Martin ‘shouldn’t have dressed like a thug/gangsta’.

    George Zimmerman may not be a racist, but he is a paranoid cop wannabe who stalked a teenager and then, after a scuffle, killed him. I will not celebrate his being found not guilty.

  2. Commie Watch

    Da. Good Libertarian apparatchiks should not volunteer in their community. Good Libertarian apparatchiks should not protect private property from burglars and street thugs. Good Libertarian apparatchiks should stay indoors after dark with their doors locked and rely on state police to handle everything. Good Libertarian apparatchiks should not arm themselves. Good Libertarian apparatchiks should just lie back and think of England while their head gets bashed in by a street thug. Good Libertarian apparatchiks should never defend themselves!

    Da, komrade. Da.

  3. Concerned Libertarian Citizen

    From what authority does this man speak?

    He is a hypocrite. He mandates Libertarians not take a position then advertises rallies?

    I am a Libertarian (based on the World’s Smallest Political Quiz), and I stand with George Zimmerman and his right to protect himself against criminals like Trayvon Martin.

    Stop painting this thug as some innocent child. He wasn’t minding his own business, he was walking slowly in someone else’s yard, next to their house. This suggests he was casing the place. This 6’2 man fit the description of a neighborhood burglar, and there were unexplained pictures on his cell phone of what appears to be stolen jewelry. He had marijuana in his system, which likely made him paranoid when Zimmerman rightfully pursued him and/or stopped his criminal behavior. He assaulted and attacked the “weakling” Zimmerman, who had a fundamental right to protect himself, and did so.

    The fundamental right of self-defense was upheld at this trial and libertarians should be proud.

  4. Jared King

    So Concerned Citizen has “evolved” into a Concerned Libertarian Citizen.

    Also, marijuna in his system? Oh God, run!

  5. Jake_Witmer

    First of all, I hate getting “stacked and accosted.”

    Second of all, nobody knows who was most at fault in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. Even if Trayvon was unarmed, that doesn’t mean that he had a right to attack Zimmerman. Likely, both parties were at fault. This isn’t a case where anyone should be jumping on either side’s bandwagon.

    All civilians are innocent until proven guilty. There wasn’t enough evidence to find Zimmerman guilty of anything other than self-defense. Those calling for Zimmerman’s blood are just as wrong as those claiming he’s innocent and “in the right.”

    The grotesque prohibitionist state is responsible for the worst outrage in this whole tragic fiasco: they have made it acceptable to arrest someone for the purpose of arresting them for mala prohibita (victimless crimes). Even so, we have no idea if that was Zimmerman’s intent, because things went bad so quickly.

    Perhaps Zimmerman was totally legitimate, and trying to gain more information about Trayvon’s purposes. Perhaps Trayvon was snooping around and looking in windows, for the purposes of robbing houses (if so, then Zimmerman could have chosen to question him to any level of aggression, and we have no way of knowing now what that level of aggression might have been. Would it have been a simply “Can I help you?” would it have been drawing his firearm, or tackling him? We have no way of knowing). Perhaps Trayvon saw Zimmerman stalking him and thought he was about to be attacked, and decided to pre-empt the attack (in which case it’s more tragedy caused by both sides choosing the worst course of action).

    Neither the side championing this as “justice done,” nor the side outraged at the injustice is right. This is a lose-lose situation.

    Those criticizing the jury, and joining the protests are particularly stupid. What are they protesting? The right to armed self defense? (If that’s the case, then women will have to ask their rapists if they’re armed, and if they aren’t, they’ll have to use their fists to defend themselves instead of the great equalizer? That would be an anti-libertarian travesty.) The jury gave the best justice that U.S. courts are capable of.

    A bunch of Republican assholes have taken the side of Zimmerman, without imagining that he could be wrong. As usual, their truncated philosophy has caused them to jump to conclusions.

    The real sickness is that the neighborhood watch associations across the USA would have been content to ruin Trayvon’s life if they had found a marijuana cigarette on him, and possibly if he had even chosen to exercise his rights when they arrived. The real sickness is that they wouldn’t have been trying to find out if he was a burglar, they would have been trying to make an arrest for any of a thousand reasons.

    Neighborhood watch associations are good things only in a society that punishes criminality and otherwise leaves people alone.

    Zimmerman, as a “neighborhood watchman” is either a product of a sick society, or an early adopter trying to correct that sick society. Whether he should be condemned or congratulated, depends on knowing details we will never know. The jury didn’t believe they had enough to convict him, and so he’s free.

    As for what Libertarians should do, there is no one opinion, but any outrage over Zimmerman going free is likely misplaced, and certain to be misinterpreted as a call for “gun prohibition.”

    I’d prefer if Libertarians were either silent on this, or had a complex analysis of the questions involved, as reasons for showing why it’s not good to let the media work you up over one ambiguous case when there are scores of cases that are completely unambiguous, and totally anti-libertarian, and very worth protesting, at Radley Balko’s blog.

    Here’s one of them from the recent past:

  6. Thomas L. Knapp

    The one thing that all of us commenting on the death of Trayvon Martin and the trial of George Zimmerman have in common is that not a single one of us knows exactly what happened that night.

    Maybe George Zimmerman got away with murder.

    Or maybe George Zimmerman was unnecessarily put through a long period of hell for defending himself.

    Or maybe something in between.

    If you’re not George Zimmerman or the ghost of Trayvon Martin, you’re just speculating.

    The state failed to prove its case to the satisfaction of a jury.

    The six people in whose hands the arguments were placed unanimously agreed that there remained reasonable doubt as to whether or not what Zimmerman did rose to the level of murder or manslaughter.

    Nobody has to like it. That’s how it is whether anyone likes it or not.

  7. paulie

    Art Pedroza is absolutely 100% correct. Injustice was done by the racist “justice” system in this case. Hopefully Zimmmerman will receive the justice he deserves through private means. And hopefully that justice will be swift.

    As an IPR article, the title of an opinion piece should always include the name of the original author to make it clear to casual readers that we are not posting an IPR editorial, the latter being only allowed by the site owner or without objection from our whole group of authors/editors. I changed the title to reflect that; hope you don’t mind.

    p

  8. paulie

    I’m advocating justice for cold blooded murderer who got off scott free. Your position is what is disgusting. Zimmerman lynched Trayvon Martin and got away with it. This country is fucked up.

  9. paulie

    415-690-6352 if you ever doubt it’s the real me. I’m him and he is me. And I’m not stupid. I am speaking truth. You are welcome to explain why you think otherwise if you think it is worth your time, but my access to the computer will be too short lived to get into it very much on my end.

  10. paulie

    Concerned Conservative Citizen Persona (CCCP),

    I have no bias or ignorance – show your evidence, if you think you have it. As for emotion, you are no doubt in denial about yours, while I am honest about mine. Too many friends of mine killed and otherwise fucked over by the racist “justice” system. And for whatever deity’s sake, or ours and your own, please stop calling yourself a libertarian already. You are a Newt Gingrich fan, which is the exact opposite of a libertarian.

  11. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Paulie @ 8: You’re right about the title, and thanks for fixing it. I know better and have no excuse as to why I forgot to include Art’s name.

    I must be getting really old. 🙁

  12. ATBAFT

    I’ve heard street interviews that call for ending
    “reasonable doubt” as the way to reform the justice system. Really? I wonder if any of the people spouting this “reform” have thought through the consequences to the many blacks who are caught up in “he says; no, he says…” cases. Getting rid of reasonable doubt may put a few more guilty persons in jail but would certainly lead to lots more innocent persons being thrown in jail. Are you willing to make that tradeoff…if it was you that was the accused??

  13. paulie

    Also, marijuna in his system? Oh God, run!

    Too bad Trayvon Martin wasn’t armed with a firearm to stand his ground and shoot back. Justice deferred, but we can only hope not forever denied.

  14. paulie

    ATBAFT,

    I don’t want to end reasonable doubt as a standard. I don’t think Trayvon Martin benefited from reasonable doubt, that is.

  15. Nicholas Sarwark

    Libertarians shouldn’t praise Zimmerman, but also shouldn’t be calling for his lynching either. Nor should they be supporting a DOJ civil rights prosecution (which would be doomed from the outset).

    Everyone should read this article before commenting further. I can’t make you, but you should.

  16. paulie

    Nick,

    “Lynching” a lyncher? Perhaps not, but what else do you see as justice, no consequences at all for his actions? In that case should there be no consequences to someone who might perhaps take pre-emptive action against him for fear of being attacked just as Trayvon Martin was, based on known precedent, if that were to happen? Or should there be a double standard applied?

  17. paulie

    Jill

    You are not getting too old. You are lively and vivacious. Keep up the good work; we all make a few mistakes here and there. No biggie.

  18. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I read the article, Nicholas, and it’s a good one. This line “First Amendment. But your ignorance shows again when you mention that. The First Amendment protects you from the government, it doesn’t protect you on twitter or Facebook from people calling you out for your ignorance ” is one of the best I’ve read in a long time. I can’t disagree with anything he says, but I also don’t disagree with Art Pedroza. None of us know what happened. What we do know is that a young person died, which is always a tragedy. However, there really couldn’t have been a good outcome for this trial. It was a lose/lose anyway you look at it. A kid is still dead, and George Zimmerman’s life has been unalterably changed.

  19. ATBAFT

    O.K. Paulie, I assume you weren’t there either to witness what went down. So please, calmly and rationally, can you explain to us why you believe
    Zimmerman acted criminally in this matter?

  20. Thomas L. Knapp

    “You are welcome to explain why you think otherwise if you think it is worth your time”

    Well, let’s start with the bullshit “racism” angle:

    1) Both of the parties involved were people of color (Martin’s ancestry was African-American; Zimmerman’s is African-Peruvian);

    2) Zimmerman had a history of anti-racist activism.

    The only “racial” element involved is the desire of various identity politics groups to make cheap hay out of a tragedy. Libertarians should not ally themselves with those groups, and you should stop making shit up.

  21. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I have been amused, however, that there seems to be outrage over Martin having pictures of underage girls on his phone. Martin was underage himself, and they were very likely pictures of his classmates/friends. That certainly didn’t indicate he was some kind of criminal who deserved to die.

  22. paulie

    ATBAFT

    Maybe later. I have only an hour or two at best online left and other uses to put it to. I may have some more computer time in a few days, or not. Not sure yet. Spent too much time on this one already. So the answer is yes I can, but no I won’t, at least not right now. Maybe in a few days, maybe not. Too many other things to do.

  23. paulie

    TLK

    Did I say the racism was on Zimmerman’s part? I did not. I said it was a factor in the “justice” system that let him off, as in feeling that it was OK for him to just shoot someone they presume was a criminal. As for his own background, it was complicated, and he may have had mixed feelings and cognitive dissonance, which may have led up to the incident. I don’t know about that, and I never addressed it when referring to racism above.

    And I certainly haven’t made any shit up. Now please stop misrepresenting what I did say, it is taking way too much time to correct it and distracting from other things I need to get to.

  24. paulie

    I have been amused, however, that there seems to be outrage over Martin having pictures of underage girls on his phone. Martin was underage himself, and they were very likely pictures of his classmates/friends. That certainly didn’t indicate he was some kind of criminal who deserved to die.

    Any lie will do in the ugly campaign to blame the victim, but I’m sure that played no part in the verdict. If you buy that, you should take a look at this bridge property I’d like to sell you that spans Brooklyn and Manhattan…

  25. NewFederalist

    This whole “debate” is tragic. When minds are made up based on “evidence” supplied by the media… well, let’s just say it really is later that we think. I don’t know what happened. I was not there. The jury system either works or it doesn’t. I don’t know of a better system. It worked for both George Zimmerman and O.J. Simpson. Get over it.

  26. paulie

    I don’t care much for the SPLC but they have this one right:

    “They always get away.” These were the words George Zimmerman uttered as he followed and later shot Trayvon Martin — words that reflected his belief that Trayvon was one of “them,” the kind of person about to get away with something. How ironic these words sound now in light of the jury verdict acquitting Zimmerman.

    Trayvon is dead, and Zimmerman is free. Who was the one who got away?

    Can we respect the jury verdict and still conclude that Zimmerman got away with killing Trayvon? I think so, even if we buy Zimmerman’s story that Trayvon attacked him at some point. After all, who was responsible for initiating the tragic chain of events? Who was following whom? Who was carrying a gun? Who ignored the police urging that he stay in his car? Who thought that the other was one of “them,” someone about to get a away with something?

    The jury has spoken, and we can respect its conclusion that the state did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. But we cannot fail to speak out about the tragedy that occurred in Sanford, Florida, on the night of February 26, 2012.

    Was race at the heart of it? Ask yourself this question: If Zimmerman had seen a white youth walking in the rain that evening, would he have seen him as one of “them,” someone about to get away with something?

    We’ll never really know, of course. But we can seriously doubt it without assuming that Zimmerman is a racist in the conventional sense of the word.

    Racial bias reverberates in our society like the primordial Big Bang. Jesse Jackson made the point in a dramatic way when he acknowledged that he feels a sense of relief when the footsteps he hears behind him in the dead of night turn out to belong to white feet. Social scientists who study our hidden biases make the same point in a more sober way with statistics that demonstrate that we are more likely to associate black people with negative words and imagery than we are white people. It’s an association that devalues the humanity of black people, particularly black youth like Trayvon Martin.

    George Zimmerman probably saw race the night of February 26, 2012, just like so many of us probably would have. Had he not, Trayvon probably would be alive today.

    The jury has spoken. Now, we must speak out against the racial bias that still infects our society and distorts our perception of the world. And we must do something about it.

  27. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    NF @c 31: “The jury system either works or it doesn’t. I don’t know of a better system. It worked for both George Zimmerman and O.J. Simpson. Get over it.”

    Yes, the jury system did ultimately work for OJ Simpson, and that sociopath is in prison where he belongs. I don’t think Zimmerman is a sociopath, though, even if it was his gun which killed Martin.

  28. Thomas L. Knapp

    @29,

    “And I certainly haven’t made any shit up. ”

    You called it a lynching.

    Since you weren’t there and can’t possibly know what it was, that’s just some shit you made up.

  29. paulie

    Lynching is a reasonable description of what occurred based on news reports. The context was the discussion of racism, which was about the “justice” system at that point. You misdirected it as a statement about Zimmerman per se.

  30. Thomas L. Knapp

    Paulie,

    When you’re in a hole and want to get out, the first step is to stop digging.

    You don’t know what happened there that night.

    Period.

  31. paulie

    So, that must mean I don’t know what happened in any other story reported in the news, or in history, or related to me by others. And thus can’t have any opinions about any of those. And neither can anyone else. Got it.

  32. Nicholas Sarwark

    @22: There was not proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Zimmerman committed a crime. Your reading of “news reports” notwithstanding.

    The family can seek civil damages. The DOJ could file a civil rights action. That’s about all that’s available.

    I can’t believe that you think vigilante “justice” against Zimmerman is appropriate. The system may be racist, but vengeance doesn’t do anything to fix it.

  33. paulie

    There was not proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Zimmerman committed a crime. Your reading of “news reports” notwithstanding.

    You are presuming the jury was unbiased?

    The family can seek civil damages.

    And even if they collect, which may not happen (and may take many years if it ever does) Trayvon Martin will still be dead.

    The DOJ could file a civil rights action. That’s about all that’s available.

    Didn’t you say above that will go nowhere?

    I can’t believe that you think vigilante “justice” against Zimmerman is appropriate. The system may be racist, but vengeance doesn’t do anything to fix it.

    So doing nothing fixes it?

    If Zimmerman can get away with it once, how about another time? How many more Zimmerman fans can think they can do the same?

  34. Nicholas Sarwark

    @42: There is nothing that can be done with regard to Zimmerman that will fix it. Drug law reform, repeal of mandatory sentencing, DOJ investigations of racial profiling by police, etc, etc. Those things will help. Calling for Zimmerman’s blood is counterproductive to your stated goals.

  35. Deran

    I don’t think it really matters what happened in the last few minutes of Trayvon Martin’s life – Mr/ Zimmerman created the context in which Mr. Martin was killed. Zimmerman was pestering 911 abt a young black man in a hoodie who was walking in Zimmerman’s neighborhood. 911 asked if Martin was doing anything criminal, Zommerman said no. 911 told Zimmerman to stay in his car. Zimmerman did not, he got out of his car, carrying his pistol, and began following, stalking, Martin. Zimmerman pursued Martin, Martin paniced and tried to loose Zimmerman by cutting through yards, Zommerman entered in to “hot pursuit”. Zimmerman chased Martin unmtil their was a confrontation in which Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. Pretty clear cut.

    Concerned Nut-case Citizen. Back in the old country we’d just call you a racist and a perv. You’re a sad ignorant bufoon.

    Personally, I am glad the Martin family will pursue a civil case, it will wreck Zimmerman permanently. But he will still have his sad wanna-be Dirty Harry life. Trayvon Martin is permanently dead. And if the Feds can prove racist intent, all the better.

  36. Thomas L. Knapp

    @42,

    Some things can’t be fixed.

    As far as “news reports” are concerned, there were no news reporters present to film or narrate what happened that night.

    An absolute maximum of two people — and maybe not even that many — knew exactly what happened that night and why. Their names were George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.

    The state of Florida spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps even millions, trying to convince a jury that what happened that night was murder. That jury, which almost certainly had more access to the known facts than you or I, and almost certainly gave those facts more attention than you our I, unanimously agreed that the state didn’t prove its case.

    That’s how it goes.

  37. NewFederalist

    I really do not understand what is going on here but it really does sadden me.

  38. paulie

    Drug law reform, repeal of mandatory sentencing, DOJ investigations of racial profiling by police, etc, etc.

    All good, but none address vigilantes killing people they think “fit the profile” ..and now I am out of computer time

  39. Nicholas Sarwark

    @44:

    Zimmerman did not, he got out of his car, carrying his pistol, and began following, stalking, Martin. Zimmerman pursued Martin, Martin paniced and tried to loose Zimmerman by cutting through yards, Zommerman entered in to “hot pursuit”. Zimmerman chased Martin unmtil their was a confrontation in which Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. Pretty clear cut.

    Except for the fact that you have no evidence to support this narrative. If the prosecution could have proven to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that those were the facts, Mr. Zimmerman would have been convicted.

    You can believe what you want to believe, but that doesn’t make those the facts.

  40. Thomas L. Knapp

    Deran,

    “My imaginary version of what happened is pretty clear cut.”

    There, fixed that for ya. But with respect to a few details:

    “Zimmerman was pestering 911”

    Nope. Zimmerman called the non-emergency police dispatch line.

    “abt a young black man in a hoodie”

    Zimmerman did not mention Martin’s race until he was asked for a description.

    “911 told Zimmerman to stay in his car.”

    In your imagination. As is everything else that follows.

  41. Deran

    LOL. No, let’ stick to the facts. Zimmerman was told to stay in his carby the authorities. He did not, he got out of his car with his pistol and pursued Trayvon Martin, and at one point he shot Trayvon Martin. None of that is imaginary.

    Mr. Zimmerman got out of his car against the instructions of the 911 operator, we know this, he got out of his car carrying his pistol, Zimmerman acknowledges this. He shot the unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin. Facts are facts, one can make all manner of clever word play, but facts are facts gentlemen.

    I’ll agree the prosecution was incompetent.

    If you have sympathies for Mr. Zimmerman please stipulate as such.

  42. Thomas L. Knapp

    “In my imagination, Zimmerman was told to stay in his car by the authorities.”

    There, fixed that for ya.

    “Mr. Zimmerman got out of his car against the instructions of the 911 operator”

    He didn’t get any instructions from the 911 operator, because he wasn’t on the phone with the 911 operator.

    Nor, so far as I can tell, did he get any instructions from anyone else not to get out of his car.

    “If you have sympathies for Mr. Zimmerman please stipulate as such.”

    It’s not about sympathies.

    It’s about knowing, or not knowing, what happened.

    Neither of us know what happened, although it seems that I know more about what happened than you do.

    The difference between you and me is that I’m not pretending to know things I don’t know in order to get the result I want.

  43. Deran

    Sorry, Mr. Knapp. The tapes exist of the 911 conversation. You can review them at your liesure, sir.

    We do know a great deal baesd on the recordings of the 911 calls, and the fact that Trayvon Martin was shot with a pistol registered to Mr. Zimmerman. Not imaginary at the least.

    If we use logic, based on the verifiable facts of course, then all and anyone can make a reasoned arguement that if Mr. Zimmerman was told to stay in the car and he did not and left the car with his pistol, and Trayvon Martin was then shot dead with Mr. Zimmerman’s pistol, we can reason that after Mr. Zimmerman left his car with his pistol he shot Trayvon Martin.

    I’m not speculating here, I am just stating what facts we do know, that are readily available to any and all for their own examination.

    “I imagine that I know more about what happened than you do.”

    There, I fixed that for you, sir.

  44. Thomas L. Knapp

    @52,

    “The tapes exist of the 911 conversation.”

    No, they don’t — because there was no 911 conversation.

    Any discussion beyond that is pointless because it is a foundational factual matter. You claim Zimmerman called 911. Everyone else on the planet knows he didn’t.

  45. Deran

    And if I may, Mr. Knapp. We can verify that 911 told Mr. Zimmerman to stay in his car, we know from the same tape recordings that Mr. Zimmerman first called 911 on this night while he was driving in his car following Trayvon Martin, we know this because Mr. Zimmerman said this to 911, we know via the tape. We can know that Mr. Zimmerman stopped his car 0 because he got out of it, we could imagine that he exited his car while it was still mocving, but let’s say he stopped his car to exit it. Trayvon Martin was seen by persons in the neighborhood still moving along his wawy, so we do know that space existed between Mr. Zimmerman’s car and trayvon Martin. We can say that after exiting his parrked car Mr. Zimmerman would have to pursue Trayvon Martin in order tog et from his car to where Trayvon Martin was. This we can reasonably call “pursuit”. At some point which we can not verify, Mr. Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin.

    Unless of course you don’t approve of reason, Mr. Knapp?

  46. Commie Watch

    So the natural-born Soviet, Paulie Canolli, has joined the Communist lynch mob against the 2nd Amendment?

    Can’t say I’m entirely surprised.

    And isn’t this fucking idiot on the LNC now?

    Another reason to say, “Why bother?” when I am asked by local LP activists to reregister as LP…

  47. Thomas L. Knapp

    Once we get past the irrefutable fact that there was no 911 conversation because Zimmerman never called 911 — he called the non-emergency police dispatch line, and the call was classified as a 13P non-emergency “suspicious person” call — we can get on to the next factual problem with your account, which is this:

    No, the dispatcher did not tell Zimmerman to stay in his car.

    Not only is there no audio or transcript of the dispatcher telling Zimmerman to stay in his car, but the dispatcher testified at trial that he never told Zimmerman to stay in his car because he had no authority to tell Zimmerman any such thing.

  48. Steve Scheetz

    @#5 I was 100% behind what you said right up until
    or had a complex analysis of the questions involved

    My reasoning has to do with the way the press likes to edit statements and will boil a complex response down to one line out of context that will be completely UN-Libertarian.

    I liked your first part much better, Libertarians should remain silent.

    Everyone has opinions on the case, I have my own, but it is not my place to offer my opinions on facts already decided. it is not my place to offer my opinions on facts not in evidence either…

    Best to remain silent on all aspects of this one single case and focus on government abuses of power.

    Sincerely,

    Steve Scheetz

  49. Thomas L. Knapp

    Deran,

    It’s one thing to have a poor grasp of the facts. It’s another thing entirely to let completely go of the facts in order to convince yourself that I hold an opinion I don’t hold.

    For the record, it’s my opinion that Zimmerman almost certainly committed manslaughter.

    That’s just my opinion. I don’t have to manufacture fake 911 calls and non-existent orders to stay in his car to reach it, though.

  50. Deran

    http://www.wftv.com/videos/news/raw-911-call-zimmerman-made-to-sanford-police/vGZq9/

    911 Dispatcher: “Are you following him?
    Zimmerman: Yes
    911 Operator: Okay, we don’t need you to do that

    Okay, on relistening to the 911 call the operator does not ell Zimmerman to stay in his cr. The operator does say “we don’t need you to do that”. And we can hear the normal sounds cellphones make when you are moving while holding one. That’s pursuit. Non-imaginary pursuit.

    and if you will take the time, Mr. Knapp, and listen to the first 2+ minutes of the call I “imagine” you will find it elucidating. But in this case, as to whether you will find it elucidating, I am just imagining that you will.

  51. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Okay, on relistening to the 911 call”

    We can’t re-listen to the 911 call. We can’t even listen to the 911 call once. We can’t do that because there was no 911 call. Which part of that do you not understand?

    I have listened to the call — which was a non-emergency police dispatch call — numerous times.

    Surprise, surprise — I was right when I said it didn’t say what you said it said.

    I’ll start respecting your opinion more once you start basing it on fact instead of fantasy.

  52. Joe Wendt

    This incident has nothing to do with civil rights, even suggesting so is disgusting and belittles the efforts of those actually fighting for civil rights. Trayvon’s murder was sad, but his rights weren’t violated; Zimmerman shot him in self-defense. If anything the media and the government has actively tried to violate Zimmerman’s civil rights. Ask yourself this question: if Zimmerman were black, and Trayvon were white, would the media and the government go through all this bs? No. This whole thing is just a racist attempt to appease black people (not trying to sound racist, but it’s true).

  53. Warren Redlich

    @Jared King (1):
    “he is a paranoid cop wannabe who stalked a teenager”

    @Deran (44):
    “911 told Zimmerman to stay in his car. Zimmerman did not, he got out of his car, carrying his pistol, and began following, stalking, Martin.”

    Both of you are abusing the term “stalking”. You are twisting language, either deliberately or subconsciously, to support your pre-existing view of the events.

    If you listen to the 911 call (I have), they did not tell Z to stay in his car. Never happened. Nor would any libertarian believe the police dispatcher has the authority to tell him to stay in his car.

    He had every right to walk in his own neighborhood, including keeping an eye on an unfamiliar person who was behaving oddly.

  54. Warren Redlich

    @3: “This 6’2 man fit the description of a neighborhood burglar”

    While I agree with much of what you say, Martin was 5’11 and I have not seen any indication he fit the description of any burglar.

  55. Warren Redlich

    @Jake (5): “A bunch of Republican assholes have taken the side of Zimmerman, without imagining that he could be wrong.”

    While I don’t think Z did anything illegal, he may have exercised poor judgment. When you are carrying concealed, you should go out of your way to avoid confrontation. He probably should not have gotten out of the car.

    I limit it to probably because he may have had a good reason for it. I just don’t know.

  56. Warren Redlich

    “Ask yourself this question: If Zimmerman had seen a white youth walking in the rain that evening”

    Listen to the 911 call. Z was not sure what Martin’s skin color was when the operator asked him.

    It was not his skin color. It was the hoodie and Martin’s behavior.

  57. Warren Redlich

    @deran (59): “And we can hear the normal sounds cellphones make when you are moving while holding one. That’s pursuit. Non-imaginary pursuit.”

    Your hearing is amazing. Were you born on Krypton?

  58. Jared King

    “Nor would any libertarian believe the police dispatcher has the authority to tell him to stay in his car.”

    No, but in retrospect, it would seem staying in the car would’ve been pretty good advice.

  59. NewFederalist

    Tom Knapp has made the point that there was no 911 call. Was this recording a 911 call or a call to the local police department number?

  60. Daddyfatsax

    Jared, in retrospect, it would seem not walking at night in a hoodie in the rain would’ve been pretty good advice…of course, not illegal…but retrospect is retrospect. I think Trayvon’s biggest mistake is hitting a man with a gun. I wish more thugs met this end. Too many are too quick to throw a punch to settle their bad feelings. From the Twitter etc., Trayvon was a wannabe gangsta, and he met his end like so many do…

  61. Daddyfatsax

    And how many animals in the wild stalk their prey in wide open space? Isn’t “stalking” a method of closing the gap toward a prey while the intended prey is not aware of the impending hunter? How is Zimmerman stalking? And if Zimmerman is a wannabe cop…then Trayvon is a wannabe thug/gangster.

  62. Warren Redlich

    @jared (68): “No, but in retrospect, it would seem staying in the car would’ve been pretty good advice.”

    In concealed carry training that I’ve been through it has been thoughtfully explained why one should avoid conflict. Take an extreme for the moment and assume both that Z is essentially innocent and that Martin was a thug who had it coming – then Z’s failure to avoid conflict ruined his own life.

  63. Jared King

    Daddyfatsax, how do you know Martin wasn’t compelled to defend himself? Maybe he hit him for no reason, but I’m betting he felt threatned.

    And “I wish more thugs met this end”? Whose the wannabe gangster here?

  64. Jared King

    “…it would seem not walking at night in a hoodie in the rain would’ve been pretty good advice”

    It would’ve been good advice, but there’s obviously nothing wrong with walking in the rain with one’s hood up.

    Who cares that he was wearing a hoodie? Again, it as raining. He had no umbrella, so he put his hood up. Now we have to think about how we dress and when we walk around our own neighborhoods? If we don’t, I guess we’re just asking to be shot.

    He bought some snacks and was walking home. Once he got into a fight with Zimmerman, he clearly did some damage to him, making Zimmerman use his gun. But it seems pretty clear there wouldn’t have been a fight if Zimmerman was minding his own business.

    Zimmerman likely didn’t want to kill anyone that night, he’s not a monster, but he did kill, and the one who’s dead is being BLAMED for the way he dressed? Give me a break…

  65. Oranje Mike

    The only instance of racism I am aware of in this case is Trayvon Martin referring to Zimmerman as a “crazy ass cracker”.

    I don’t celebrate George Zimmerman. I applaud a jury not convicting a fellow citizen on trumped up charges.

  66. Dave Terry

    I am appalled that garbage mouths like Pedroza and Pope Paulie are playing pawns to the black caucus and holding court and and dispensing justice without the benefit of witness or proof.

    > “As Libertarians we should be advancing the cause of civil rights and standing up against the racists in this country.” “The last thing we should do is echo the Republicans who are praising Zimmerman.”<

    And the NEXT to last thing we should be doing is scapegoating an exonerated citizen.

    Libertarians are SUPPOSED to base their opinions of facts, NOT on their prejudices.

    I agree with Starchild, that Jake Witmer @5 was spot on in his analysis of the situation and the correct "libertarian" perspective. Good job!

  67. Warren Redlich

    @jared (74) “Who cares that he was wearing a hoodie?”

    I do. Concealing one’s face has long been a mark of suspicion. I remember in high school the “burnouts” wore hoodies under denim jackets. They were suspicious. And they were all white.

    The simple reality of life is that people wear clothes that signal something about themselves. A guy wearing a Rolex is signalling to women that he’s rich. A woman dressed sexy is signalling that she puts out. A guy wearing a hoodie is signalling that he associates with a “thug” mentality.

    Check out these lyrics:
    http://www.metrolyrics.com/black-hoodie-rap-lyrics-onyx.html

    Now I’m going to put my asbestos suit on. And disclaimer, by signalling I do not mean to suggest that ALL people wearing X are signalling the same thing.

  68. Warren Redlich

    @dave (78): “Jake Witmer @5 was spot on in his analysis of the situation and the correct “libertarian” perspective.”

    Let’s also not forget the constitutional issue of double jeopardy. Libertarians should oppose a federal prosecution.

  69. Hoodie Watch

    There’s a reason why the Klan wore hoods… they attacked people at night too…

  70. Thomas L. Knapp

    WR @ 80,

    Good point.

    92% of individuals charged with a crime in the US plead guilty, either because they are guilty or because prosecutors threaten them.

    Another 6% are found guilty at trial.

    Only 2% are acquitted.

    And these days, the 1 defendant in 50 who is acquitted stands a good chance of being charged with something else, and then maybe something else after that, and so on, until they “get” him or her.

  71. Steve M

    The other legal action is likely to be by the Martin family where they go after him in a civil lawsuit.

  72. Steve M

    absolutely Thomas…. but if Zimmerman loses the civil case he is impoverished for life.

  73. Robert Capozzi

    Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg wears a hoodie. He is more ominous than Bill Gates and Eric Schmidt, so there’s that.

  74. Thomas L. Knapp

    Steve,

    It’s not necessarily true that Zimmerman will be impoverished for life if he loses the case. He may be insured. Or the damages awarded may be manageable. Or donors may assist him in paying the damages.

    And that’s IF he loses the case. Granted, the bar is lower (majority of the jury, preponderance of the evidence), and granted, juries seem inclined to favor the plaintiff in this kind of case (e.g. OJ Simpson, who almost certainly was not guilty), but he might prevail.

  75. Steve M

    @87….. the story goes…. that a trucker was hauling a load of computer parts down 880 through Fremont CA…. and running low on diesel he pulled over at a truck stop to refill…. after gassing up he noticed a small bar and needing a bit of relaxation he walked over to it and was about to enter when he saw a sign on its front door that read…

    “No Nerds”

    Heck I am a truck driver that don’t apply to me… and in he went.

    The bar keeper though looked at him and sniffed and asked him if he was a nerd?

    No.. No I drive trucks… might be the load of computer parts that I am hauling that you are smelling…. whats up with this nerd thing?

    Well then truck drivers are always cool so come on in…. this being silicon valley we are overloaded with nerds…. its got so bad… they have been made open season you don’t even need a permit.

    so that truck driver had a beer or two and then went off.. hopped in his cab and headed south… where as he was traveling along a car cut him off short…. he slammed on his breaks… the truck rocked back and forth and then jackknifed over on its side splitting open…. boxes were sent flying over the highway…

    Cars were pulling off the road…. people were jumping out grabbing boxes and tossing them into their BMWs…

    the driver quickly coming to his senses reached over and pulled his 44 from out of the glove box and started shooting….

    Pretty quickly a state highway patrolman pulled up and hollered at the truck driver…”Stop Shooting”

    The driver said what…. Isn’t it open season on nerds?

    Sure it is replied the CHP officer…. but your not allowed to bate them!

  76. Steve M

    @88 OJ was almost certainly not guilty? whatever in this case Zimmerman is certainly at least partially responsible…. So a guilty or not guilty isn’t the question… it becomes one of what was Martin’s life worth and how much was Zimmerman responsible?

  77. Tom Blanton

    My imagination is telling me that Zimmerman is an asshole. And even though Zimmerman is saying Martin was acting suspicious, I imagine he may be lying or so full of shit that he thinks every teenage kid with a hoodie is suspicious.

    Now, a lot of people think anyone who carries a gun is cool and anyone wearing a hoodie is cool. But, it is very likely that what we have here is a situation where two idiot assholes prone to violence converged and there was a contest to see who was swinging the biggest dick. But, we’ll never really know because half of the eyewitnesses that actually know what happened are dead.

    I’d say anyone, regardless of their political beliefs, who wants to jump into the middle of this fiasco and take a side is pretty much on the same page as Zimmerman and Martin were on that ugly night.

  78. Bob Tiernan

    “…and made it legal to [stalk] and accost unarmed teens and shoot them to death”

    No, that’s not what the verdict means AT ALL.

    B. Tiernan

  79. From Der Sidelines

    Who really gives a shit one way or another? The only reason it made any news was its racial overtones, which were blown up by the media in pursuit of their own agenda.

    IOW, a huge to-do about a shooting that is not unlike any other Florida shooting involving non-whites, and not worth the coverage in the slightest. Yet sheeple gobbled it up like it was the latest reality show (which it was, although a rather pathetic one at best).

    The next similar pile of media bullshit will be Aaron Hernandez, a Hispanic-on-black murder, only because Hernandez was in the NFL until he committed murder 1.

    Move on to more important things, people.

  80. Steve M

    @79 so if woman is dressed in way that a man thinks is sexy it is justifiable to force her to have sex?

  81. Steven R Linnabary

    Steve @ 94…where do you see any such thing in what WR wrote? Rape is a legal and/or moral crime. And it has NOTHING to do with the way a person is dressed.

    But the way you dress DOES say something about you. It’s why they tell me not to wear my Harley Davidson attire when representing the LP.

    If you think it doesn’t matter, then I challenge you to get a midnight shift job at your local 7-11 or drive a taxi in any city and only pick up flag downs wearing hoodies or ski masks. You will be quickly surprised that the criminal element doesn’t want you to be able to identify them.

    I don’t know how you equate rape approval with any of that.

    PEACE

  82. Steve M

    @95 Steven,

    WR wrote in @79 “The simple reality of life is that people wear clothes that signal something about themselves. A guy wearing a Rolex is signalling to women that he’s rich. A woman dressed sexy is signalling that she puts out. A guy wearing a hoodie is signalling that he associates with a “thug” mentality.”

    And I asked if it is ok to shoot a guy wearing a hoodie because you think he is saying he is a thug (by the way my son wears a hoodie do you think it is ok to shoot him too?) are you also not saying that because a woman signals (in your mind that she puts out) its all right to use her so? to rape her?

    We are talking about how people dress and how we can treat people with respect to how we interpret how they dress.

    I think given the statement in @79 my question is appropriate? If a woman dresses in a way you think is sexy does that justify sexually attacking her?

  83. Steven R Linnabary

    Sorry, no. I don’t see the connection to rape.

    Seems like a non sequitur. Or a strawman argument.

    Again, there is no rape approval in anything he said.

    PEACE

  84. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    My son and all his friends wear hoodies. I wear hoodies. I never knew this signalled that we are thugs.

  85. Steve M

    Steven then you have just shown that you didn’t read what Waren wrote. He even added the stipulation “Now I’m going to put my asbestos suit on. And disclaimer, by signalling I do not mean to suggest that ALL people wearing X are signalling the same thing.”

    Waren said he did care about what someone was wearing so it really isn’t up to you to say no he didn’t say that. Waren said that he cared and he used how woman dress as an example.

    Now being a father to both a son (who has worn a hoddie and is as nice a guy as you can imagine) and a girl who is now wondering just what other innocuous clothing might be used by some neanderthal to justify violence against her?

    Now since Warren raised the point how can speaking back against it be non sequitur or an invalid argument?

    Please do better.

  86. Steven R Linnabary

    Jill, it does not.

    BUT…you will be more closely watched if you are hiding your face for whatever reason. You might find it hard to flag a taxi, lol.

    PEACE

  87. Steven R Linnabary

    Steve, EVERYBODY owns a hoodie or two. They are comfortable. What’s your point?

    How a woman is dressed has NOTHING to do with violence. It has nothing to do with violence, rape or otherwise. W R did not say it did.

    PEACE

  88. Jared King

    It’s entirely possible Martin wore his hoodie to hide his head from the rain.

    Bill Belichick is also known to wear hoodies, no one’s accused him of being a ‘thug’ wannabe. Just a cheater.

  89. paulie

    Commie @55
    “So the natural-born Soviet,”

    I was born in the USSR and am a refugee from communism. As far as I know, my birth was as natural as allowed by law in the Soviet system.

    “Paulie Canolli,”

    Misspelling of a nome de plume I no longer use except on social media accounts where I can not change it.

    “has joined the Communist”

    No, I haven’t joined communists, that would be you.

    “lynch mob”

    Zimmerman lynched Martin, I am for justice which the rigged jury denied.

    ” against the 2nd Amendment?”

    I am for the 2nd Amendment. Too bad Trayvon Martin was unarmed. Hope the next “suspect” Zimmerman imagines he sees will be armed.

    “Can’t say I’m entirely surprised.”

    How could you be surprised by your own BS that you invented?

    “And isn’t this fucking idiot on the LNC now?”

    I am an alternate on the LNC, but my views don’t represent the committee in this or many other matters.

    “Another reason to say, “Why bother?” when I am asked by local LP activists to reregister as LP…”

    You seem more suited to register under your first name (commie).

  90. paulie

    “Except for the fact that you have no evidence to support this narrative. If the prosecution could have proven to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that those were the facts, Mr. Zimmerman would have been convicted.”

    If the jury was unbiased, yes.

  91. Bob Tiernan

    Blanton @ 91:

    My imagination is telling me that Zimmerman is an asshole. And even though Zimmerman is saying Martin was acting suspicious, I imagine he may be lying or so full of shit that he thinks every teenage kid with a hoodie is suspicious.

    BT:

    I’m not sure he based this entirely on what Martin was wearing. Wasn’t Martin “suspicious” to Zimmerman because of how he was walking, i.e. close to property fronts and maybe cars and then back on the road and then close in again as if taking closer looks? I could be wrong about that, but the other implication is that he was merely staying out of the rain when he could by going under trees and awnings when possible.

    A neighborhood watch guy would have reason to check out someone based on this behavior or he wouldn’t be doing a service at all. He’s probably seen lots and lots of hoodies over time, and I doubt he would follow anyone because of that factor alone.

    Bob T

  92. paulie

    “how do you know Martin wasn’t compelled to defend himself? ”

    Of course he was compelled. He was walking peacefully down the street, Zmmerman attacked him, he defended himself. Then Zimmerman shot him. And now he walks …

  93. paulie

    “Who cares that he was wearing a hoodie? Again, it as raining. He had no umbrella, so he put his hood up. Now we have to think about how we dress and when we walk around our own neighborhoods? If we don’t, I guess we’re just asking to be shot.

    He bought some snacks and was walking home. Once he got into a fight with Zimmerman, he clearly did some damage to him, making Zimmerman use his gun. But it seems pretty clear there wouldn’t have been a fight if Zimmerman was minding his own business.

    Zimmerman likely didn’t want to kill anyone that night, he’s not a monster, but he did kill, and the one who’s dead is being BLAMED for the way he dressed? Give me a break…”

    Exactomundo!

  94. Rev fatsax

    Why is it ok to say zimmerman should have stayed in the car, but not trayvon should have worn a parka instead? Both are legal acts, but only one side is suggesting that zimmerman is guilty because he did a legal act. If trayvon can wear a hoodie, zim can get out of his car to make sure this isnt a hoodrat casing a house. Trayvons social media and friends have painted him as another useless jackwagon trying to be a bigshot. Well, welcome to fame…your 15 minutes are running.

  95. George Phillies

    You’re proposing that if I wear a felted jacket with hood that every loon is allowed to stalk and shoot me?

    I don’t think so.

    The jury from the one statement appears to have concluded that Travyon assaulted Zimmerman and was then shot. Of course, none of them were there, but that is what they seem to have concluded, at least at the extent of ‘reasonable doubt’.

  96. Jake_Witmer

    Thank you, Starchild @6 and Dave Terry @78!

    I also agree with Warren Redlich @80 that the Federal government (and prosecutorial police state in general) has a repulsive tendency toward “pursuing their enemies or political targets until they get a conviction.” This is double jeopardy, and violates due process. Small-L libertarians should oppose a federal prosecution for that reason alone. (Black victims of the police state injustice have the most to lose if the federal government is allowed to decide who’s guilty and then pursue them until they’re finally able to get a conviction.)

    I also thought that Stefan Molyneux had a good take on the subject:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bF-Ax5E8EJc

    And a good, rational follow-up:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_732059&feature=iv&src_vid=bF-Ax5E8EJc&v=NF0d12WtIRs

    (I generally like Stefan Molyneux, but I believe that his chosen strategy toward individual freedom does not constitute a strategy toward individual freedom. It constitutes “not beating your kids,” which, while good, won’t free society from parasitism by power-seeking sociopaths.)

    I think Paulie’s siding with mainstream Democrats is a political ploy to corral mindless followers, and stems from his self-identification with (part of) hip-hop culture. This backfires when that collectivist culture comes into conflict with individual freedom, because it is …too stupid. Inventor Ray Kurzweil defines “stupid” as “unwittingly self-destructive.” That applies here, because the people most abused by improper courts are asking those improper courts to convict someone without adequate evidence. Does anyone here see how that might make a bad situation worse?

    Zimmerman doesn’t strike me as “the evil white man.” …But all of these bullying cops do:
    http://youtu.be/nBiJB8YuDBQ?t=22m9s

    and so does Wendy Murphy:
    http://youtu.be/nBiJB8YuDBQ?t=37m59s

    and so does Paul Chabot:
    http://youtu.be/nBiJB8YuDBQ?t=32m6s

    I’m going to bottle up my boiling anger and righteous outrage for some other occasion than a man acting in self-defense, who was seemingly not guilty of anything other than trying to prevent a malum in se crime. Libertarians all agree that burglary is a crime, as assault.

    If Zimmerman was either trying to, or willing to, engage someone with the law or his own firearm solely for mala prohibita, then he’d be in the wrong, from a libertarian perspective. However, that doesn’t appear to be the case, and there’s certainly a plausible doubt that that’s the case.

    That the system cannot tell right from wrong, and has sent an army of officers among us to eat out our substance is far more grotesque and offensive. As is the media’s servile obedience to the goals of that same system. The instant this occurred, it wasn’t a battle to hold Zimmerman accountable for wrongdoing, it was to deny the possibility of legitimate defensive use of a firearm, and to deny the legitimacy of the “stand your ground” law. (Which was not even applicable here, since by all accounts, Zimmerman and Trayvon had already been engaged in physical combat.)

    If you carry a gun, and an unarmed man attacks you, there is no onus for you to be killed, in order to save your attacker’s life, or give him a “fair fight.” If you carry a gun, and an unarmed man attacks you, there is no onus for you to be beaten, in order to save your attacker’s life, or give him a “fair fight.” If you carry a gun, and an unarmed man attacks you, there is no onus for you to get a single black eye, in order to save your attacker’s life, or give him a “fair fight.”

    If you are carrying a gun, and someone attacks you, you have the right to resist with deadly force. The person who initiates violence is wrong, from a libertarian perspective.

    The grotesque and grasping police state regularly violates individual rights. The grotesque and power-centralizing police state has institutionalized oppressive racism in our inner cities.

    But the way to fight that is not to exploit a tragic situation that got out of control, and demand the blood of innocents.

    The right way to fight that situation is to demand that the drug war be ended (because it’s a means of arresting a specific minority demographic of people for crimes committed by the whole). The right way to fight that situation is to demand that law-abiding black men have the equal right to carry concealed weapons, and rifles, making them the full equals to heavily-armed police. (How soon would the racist-in-enforcement drug prohibition policies be overturned, if that was the case?

    What if Fred Hampton had had equally-armed protectors with rifles when the police came to assassinate him? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hampton )

    There is a lot to be outraged about in the USA, and the “justice system” of the USA is horribly racist, and horribly evil.

    But it’s even more evil to Mexican immigrants than it is to blacks:
    http://www.azcentral.com/opinions/articles/20130611deny-funding-sweeps.html

    –They live in the fear of politically-motivated fascist stormtroopers raiding and possibly deporting them for the victimless “crimes” (mala prohibita) of crossing an imaginary border and voluntarily working for a willing employer. (It’s always sad to me how the simplest-minded of libertarians defend “deportation” of peaceful people.)
    Just watch this video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vseNHTiM61w

    So George Zimmerman’s lineage is more “racially profiled” against than Trayvon Martin’s. Especially if they dare use the same drugs the President of the USA used when he was a goofy Marxist college kid with coke nails. George Zimmerman is as “white Hispanic” as Obama is “white black.” (And if Zimmerman was the devil he was made out to be, his destructiveness doesn’t rise to a millionth of the destructiveness of the “slightly-darker-skinned-than-normal” white devil who’s now in the whitehouse.)

    (The Libertarian Joke/Party knows all about the Arizona immigration issue. One of Bill Redpath’s favorite “Libertarian” petitioners, Eric Dondero, recently hired and ran an agent provocateur ring in Maricopa County, AZ. His hired agents provocateurs, one of whom was Darryl Bonner –the mercenary petitioner responsible for the 2012 PA LP debacle– created public disturbances on public library grounds where petitioning was tolerated, in order to get ALL petitioners banned from circulating the Joe Arpaio recall petition. So, all the AZ LP donors to the LP have paid to disenfranchise themselves and “their” party, using Bill Redpath’s favorite petitioner! They’ve also paid to interfere with the Democratic process, not just for the “controlled opposition” Joke they belong to, but for all access to ANY ballot, even for pro-freedom initiatives. But hey, militarist anti-liberty praetorian petitioners like Dondero and Bonner need your money, chumps! …Meanwhile, I’m banned from working in AZ, even while my LP voter-registration work in Flagstaff was anonymously credited –at their State Convention– with keeping them on the ballot, while other AZ LP counties –via the state LP– blew money hiring mercenaries whose “work” falls right off the ballot, so you chumps can keep paying to run in circles, instead of building the LP!)

    Wait a minute! The former was independent political reporting. On this site? Sorry. I’ll get back to commenting on what the media tells us we should be outraged about!

    So, I guess what I’m trying to say is this: Those who want individual freedom should call me (or get off their rears and do something intelligent and independent, such as this video suggests: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Zq4f6WYmHU ). Those who want to have silly people fly around the country attending rudimentary classes on Robert’s Rules of Order, while pretending to be concerned about electing libertarians, should donate to the National Libertarian Party. Those who want to give to aging Republicans who falsely claim to be the Arizona Libertarian Party should donate to the AZ LP.

    Those who want justice for Trayvon Martin should stop being led around by their noses by the media. Martin is dead, and his admittedly tragic death appears to be the result of his own actions (and a useless education system) more than the seemingly defensive actions of George Zimmerman. Zimmerman called the police, and behaved consistently with the profile of a person innocent of wrongdoing. To the extent facts are lacking, there simply isn’t anything more to be done.

    The media edited a tape of his call to a police dispatcher to make him appear racist.

    But somehow, giant crowds of indignant and outraged black people didn’t assemble to protest their manipulation by a RACIST, RACE-BAITING media. That indicates to me that they’re less outraged by evil than they are by the right to self-defense that they rely on, in order to be treated with dignity. To the extent that this right is treated as a privilege is the extent to which individual blacks in the USA are treated without dignity.

    Of course, in order to point your anger towards the disease and not its cure, you have to be more than a terrified herd animal that lacks philosophy. You have to have a brain capable of prioritizing hierarchies, and noting the difference in importance between high-level general concepts and low-level implications or granular details related to those concepts.

    If you’re walking around with a head full of details, you’re walking around on puppet strings, being led, and not even knowing it. Look up every now and then. Look at who benefits from your labor, who’s getting a free ride. Look at the people who tax you, and divide your dollar in two, pocketing one, and leaving one for you.

    Cultivate a culture of rebellion. Learn how to say “not guilty.” Learn how the judge wants you to answer the voir dire questions.

    That’s the whole system, right there. That’s the evil white man who sits on piles of money he stole from you and all your friends. That’s his growling dogs that guard those piles of money. That’s the guy who laughs when the little people fight with each other and steal from each other, promising to keep you safe as he strips every penny from you that could be used to purchase real security.

    Here’s a little more about who those blacks protesting against George Zimmerman should be rioting against:
    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1998/12/the-prison-industrial-complex/304669/

    And the FDA that sentences over 150,000 people to die by type II diabetes every year, by teaching improper biology and dietary information in the government youth propaganda camps? They’ve destroyed far more innocent black people than Zimmerman.

    But because most people (black and white) completely lack philosophy, and a rational, hierarchical worldview, they will do what they’re told, and die when they’re told. Because all the really big decisions, they’ve left to Halliburton, G.D. Searle & Associates, Socialist Politicians, and anyone else who really wants power enough to serve the expansion of power for its own sake.

    This is the sociopath mantra: one hand washes the other.

    Withdraw consent, withhold support, educate yourself, break the false laws and disobey the false authorities, and uphold the true laws and listen to the true authorities.

    Stop listening to Barack Obama, and start listening to Daniel Nocera, Ray Kurzweil, and Harry Browne. Stop listening to people who are listening to you, and start listening to people who are listening to nature.

  97. Nicholas Sarwark

    @105: “If the jury was unbiased, yes.”

    Why do you think the jury was biased? Because they acquitted Zimmerman? If they had convicted, would they have been unbiased?

  98. Nicholas Sarwark

    I’ve said it before, but it needs to be said again.

    The jury decides who is guilty, it does not decide who is good. An acquittal is not approval, it’s a verdict.

  99. paulie

    I’m going to bottle up my boiling anger and righteous outrage for some other occasion than a man acting in self-defense, who was seemingly not guilty of anything other than trying to prevent a malum in se crime. Libertarians all agree that burglary is a crime, as assault.

    He profiled Trayvon due to clothing style and the like; ignored police dispatchers who told him his help wasn’t needed; repeatedly provoked Trayvon, who may have fought back or perhaps Zimmerman attacked himself to make it looks like Trayvon fought back. Then killed Trayvon.

    Self-defense?

  100. Nicholas Sarwark

    He profiled Trayvon due to clothing style and the like; ignored police dispatchers who told him his help wasn’t needed; repeatedly provoked Trayvon, who may have fought back or perhaps Zimmerman attacked himself to make it looks like Trayvon fought back. Then killed Trayvon.

    You have any evidence for the assertion in the middle there? Because I didn’t hear any evidence come out in the trial to back that up.

  101. Tim Doran

    Coming late to the thread but I want to make a couple points:

    1. A criminal trial like this is exactly like the OJ trial. Its legal/actual importance is inversely proportional to its media coverage. It is reality TV and by looking at the comments here, it is obvious we (L’s) are little different from the population At-large. For many, opinions are driven mainly by emotion rather than an examination of facts/reason.

    2. The effective way for L’s to speak about this trial is to point out that whatever GZ’s intentions or possible crime(s), it resulted in the death of 1 young Black man/youth. OTOH, the War on Drugs, our militarized police force and our inept centralized education system (that leads to a life of poverty and crime) is responsible for destroying the lives of MILLIONS of Black men and youths. THAT is what we should be protesting and and angry about!!
    3. The idea that because our justice system mistreats minorities (beyond dispute) does not mean that we should wish it to treat others (ie white-looking) that way also (by wishing for GZ to be convicted solely because it was an AA killed. Such thinking is akin to suggesting that we need to subject Caucasians to more racial profiling by LEO rather than fighting to reduce or end such current and future treatment towards Blacks and Hispanics.
    4. ALL Libertarians should be appalled that political pressure and media coverage drove the state to bring charges the local LEO and FBI felt were not appropriate (at most they should have charged him with reckless endangerment or a similar charge rather than 2nd degree murder – as nearly every credible legal analyst had opined). Further, despite an acquittal by a jury of his peers, the Justice Dept. is now looking to try him again because they didn;t like the outcome of the trial. This is State power at its most vile and oppressive.

  102. Thomas L. Knapp

    @ 115,

    You didn’t hear any evidence come out in the trial to back that up because no such evidence did come out in the trial to back it up.

    It’s entirely speculation on Paulie’s part.

    Reasonable speculation, perhaps, and I tend to lean that way myself, but still just speculation.

  103. paulie

    Nick

    That is what it looked like when he came in later looking like he had beat himself up and the news thing I was watching, pointed out how his story had changed and his appearance after the fact etc.

    But even supposing Trayvon fought back, so what?

  104. Thomas L. Knapp

    “But even supposing Trayvon fought back, so what?”

    But even supposing Trayvon was the one who attacked in the first place, so what?

    That’s the question that created the reasonable doubt.

  105. paulie

    Even in that scenario Zimmerman still baited him continuously first, against dispatcher advice. But yes, that would be more of a case of reasonable doubt. I don’t believe that was the case, though.

  106. George Phillies

    Riddle: If Mr Travyon had not been denied his right to keep and bear arms by a deranged Federal government and its age ban, is it possible that mutual politeness wold have averted this tragedy?

  107. Nicholas Sarwark

    @120:

    I don’t believe that was the case, though.

    And this is the root of the problem. You have a belief about what happened that night based on speculation and opinion about Zimmerman, Martin, racism, and whatever other factors go into it. That opinion is not corroborated by evidence. It’s possible that you are right, it’s possible that the scenario @119 is right.

    The jury is not allowed to speculate about what might have happened; the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt without speculation. Reasonable inferences yes, speculation no.

    The fact that you want vigilante “justice” for Zimmerman based on what you think happened is abhorrent.

  108. paulie

    Actually I’d prefer to break the cycle of violence and retaliation or “pre-emptive strikes” but I also don’t want to have him get away scot free and more importantly, perhaps do it again or inspire others to do the same believing they can get away with it too. It’s something of a contradiction and now that I have sobered up a bit I don’t really know the answer to that dilemma.

  109. Daddyfatsax

    The saddest part of all this (aside from a dead young man) is that nobody is talking about the deplorable shape the public school system is in. This case has shown us that his parents didn’t do a lot from what we have seen in regards to his school discipline…probably because their darling baby could never do anything wrong…and even worse is the way that “witness” butchered the language, tweeted about how she could get high now that she was out of the courtroom, and all the stupidity that came out of her mouth in between. When will we learn that the gov’t running schools is like using a riding lawn mower to clean the pool. Yeah, doesn’t make sense to me either.

  110. paulie

    This case has shown us that his parents didn’t do a lot from what we have seen in regards to his school discipline…probably because their darling baby could never do anything wrong…

    You’re talking about Zimmerman here?

  111. William Saturn

    @124

    It’s actually quite simple.

    Do you stand by your calls for violent retaliation or do you admit that emotion clouded your judgment?

  112. Thomas L. Knapp

    DFS @ 125,

    “This case has shown us that his parents didn’t do a lot from what we have seen in regards to his school discipline”

    How do you think that you were “shown” any such thing?

  113. Daddyfatsax

    Clearly he wasn’t home studying, if I got suspended from school, my parents would have done more than plant me in front of the NBA All star game with some money for goodies from the store. But I grew up with two parents, a sense of decency, ethics and respect. Trayvon was a bad citizen, he was prone to drugs at a young age, violent and thuggish tendencies from his twitter and friends’ social media…the burglary tool, pictures of stolen goods…yeah…12 yr old doe eyed innocent…he was not.

  114. Jake_Witmer

    I agree with Nick Sarwark @112-123 and Tim Doran @116

    Taking a side beyond “the jury verdict should stand” in this unknowable situation is self-defeating.

  115. Green Party

    Regardless of what trayvon Martin, was getting involved with, no one should be dead. Zimmerman brought a gun to a fist fight. Sad sad disturbing….

  116. Green Party

    Does anyone remember the Bernard Goetz case from ny many years ago. Google it.

  117. Commie Watch

    @126 — No, @125 is talking about Trayvon Martin and his burglary problem. See the link to Robert Stacy McCain (who has done good reporting on the LP)’s piece in @76.

    Trayvon Martin was caught with evidence from a burglary by Miami-Dade Schools Police. This was covered up by M-DSPD as a part of their crooked policy to “juke the stats” so they could put out fraudulent news releases touting how successful they had been in reducing criminal juvenille delinquency in their system. The scam has since been exposed and the M-DSPD chief has been forced out for it.

  118. Commie Watch

    @127 — Just what the LNC needs, eh? A violent drunk calling for Communist lynch mobs!

  119. Green Party

    Daily beast actually has a comment from Bernard Goetz regarding this case….I googled it. 🙂

  120. Daddyfatsax

    Green Party at 131, nobody would be dead right now if the fist guy didn’t punch the guy with the gun. The true outrage should be saved for the kids being shot by thugs all over the country, but unless it’s a white Hispanic shooting a black, it just doesn’t get press.

  121. George Phillies

    @132 Also the case a new months later, almost the same except the alleged perp was knifed through the heart, and the knifer simply got off at the next subway stop. The NYPD apparently made only a perfunctory effort to find him.

  122. Thomas L. Knapp

    DFS

    “Clearly he wasn’t home studying, if I got suspended from school, my parents would have done more than plant me in front of the NBA All star game with some money for goodies from the store.”

    They sent him 200 miles away to stay with relatives.

    While I’m not privy to their reasons for doing so, one common reason for doing so in such a situation is to get the kid away from “bad influences.”

    So his parents may have very well been doing exactly what most responsible parents would have been doing in such a situation. I don’t know. You don’t either. Stop pretending to.

    DFS @ 136,

    “nobody would be dead right now if the fist guy didn’t punch the guy with the gun”

    Except that you have no fucking idea who started the punching. If you stop pretending to know things you don’t know, your opinion will be more sound.

  123. Deran

    “If Thomas L Knapp stops imagining he knows things he doesn’t, his opinion will be more sound.”

    There, fixed that for you, sir.

  124. Daddyfatsax

    My opinion? Facts in evidence, Zimmerman said he was punched. You have different evidence? I’m not pretending to know anything, I’ve seen his pictures, he is a thug and society is better he never graduated to hard core thuggery. I don’t need you or anyone to approve the soundness of my opinions…that’s the beauty of opinions. The facts are, Zimmerman defended himself and was acquitted by a jury. So…you can disagree that Trayvon would be alive if he hadn’t punched a man with a gun…but your opinion sounds silly.

  125. wredlich

    @96: “I asked if it is ok to shoot a guy wearing a hoodie because you think he is saying he is a thug (by the way my son wears a hoodie do you think it is ok to shoot him too?) are you also not saying that because a woman signals (in your mind that she puts out) its all right to use her so? to rape her?”

    I did not say it was okay to shoot someone who looks like a thug. I said it’s not unreasonable to be suspicious of someone who is hiding his face.

    Nor do I suggest that it’s okay for a man to rape a woman who dresses sexy. It is, however, not unreasonable for him, relying on her attire, to inquire whether she’s interested.

  126. wredlich

    @Jill 98: “My son and all his friends wear hoodies. I wear hoodies. I never knew this signalled that we are thugs.”

    If you conceal your face, it can cause others to be suspicious of you. Is this really that controversial?

    The handshake is thought to have originated as a gesture of peace, showing you have no weapon.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handshake#History

    Do we really have to reject millenia of common sense?

  127. wredlich

    @Jake 111: “Paulie’s siding with mainstream Democrats is a political ploy to corral mindless followers”

    I am puzzled by Paulie’s passionate political position (ah the joy of alliteration) on this but I suspect he’s genuine.

  128. wredlich

    @paulie 120: “Even in that scenario Zimmerman still baited him continuously first, against dispatcher advice.”

    Your comments make me question whether you listened to his call with the dispatcher. I hear nothing remotely resembling baiting on that call. He’s talking on the phone, describing what he sees, and arranging a place to meet with the police when they arrive. He never speaks to Martin during that call. And he does not disregard the dispatcher’s advice.

    But on that last point, why would a libertarian require that someone follow the advice of a low-level government official?

  129. wredlich

    @Green Party 131: “Zimmerman brought a gun to a fist fight.”

    First of all, if that were true it would be a lot smarter than bringing fists to a gun fight.

    Second, he did not bring a gun to a fight. He carried a gun with him at all times as many of my friends do, to be ready in case something bad happens.

  130. Thomas L. Knapp

    Deran @ 140,

    You are a prime example of how controversial cases such as this on can turn normally astute individuals into raving loons.

    Hopefully it’s temporary.

    Have you gotten to the basic facts — that there was no 911 call, and that Zimmerman was not ordered by anyone to remain in his car — yet?

    If you ever get to the basic facts, you’ll be at the starting point of developing an informed opinion instead of an ignorant knee-jerk reaction.

  131. Jake_Witmer

    Does Donald Rumsfeld’s “human face mask” count as a “hoodie”? That’s much more ominous than Mark Zuckerberg’s hoodie. And then what if he wore a hoodie over the whole “David Icke” lizard-head-kit? How menacing would that be?

    Would it be more menacing if Rumsfeld hadn’t lobbied the FDA advisory board to outlaw safe alternatives to nutrasweet (stevia, lo han guo, etc.), and 150,000 diabetics per year hadn’t died unnecessary deaths every year since? And what happens when you call the cops on a suspicious white guy(lizard) in a suit and tie, and they tell you “we don’t need you to do that,” and you get out of the car to investigate his suspicious(flesh-eating-lizard-like) activities anyway, and realize he’s walking into a government building that houses a grossly-unconstitutional, mass-murdering government agency? What if you stay in the car? What if you don’t get out of the car, and the flesh-eating space lizard goes free?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XH_34tqxAjA

    “That’s an easy mask to zip on and off”

    …LOL

    But seriously folks, I don’t believe in space lizards, like Louis CK, I just think it’s funny. I do believe in sociopaths though, because they run our government. …And the useless, self-congratulatory do-nothing controlled opposition that calls itself “the Libertarian Party.”

  132. Dave Terry

    @39: “Like I said — not the real Paulie. He’s not a fucking idiot.

    Wrong Knapp; If Paulie got a little, now and then, he might not be so obnoxious, but he’d STILL be an idiot!

  133. Robert Capozzi

    149 jw: And the useless, self-congratulatory do-nothing controlled opposition that calls itself “the Libertarian Party.”

    me: Well, it is a monumentally difficult task to challenge the cult of the omnipotent state, which is right up there – fantasy-wise – with space lizards. 😉

  134. Dave Terry

    JP@98:”My son and all his friends wear hoodies. I wear hoodies. I never knew this signalled that we are thugs.”

    Do you or your son or his friends ever wear baseball caps? If so, do you all wear the bill facing asswards? If not, WHY NOT?

    A hoody is certainly more suspicious than a dumb cap!

  135. Dave Terry

    GP @ 121: “Riddle: If Travyon had not been denied his right to keep and bear arms by a deranged Federal government and its age ban, is it possible that mutual politeness wold have averted this tragedy?

    It’s equally possible that there would be TWO dead bodies (also without witnesses) Other than the two families and pararacists on this list the main victim would be the New Media without a tragedy to exploit!

  136. Dave Terry

    Deranged @ 140; “There, fixed that for you, sir.

    You CAN’T fix everything with duct tape comrade!

  137. From Der Sidelines

    As I said in @93,

    “Who gives a shit?”

    Apparently y’all do.

    BAAAAAA!

  138. Green Party

    This conversation reminds of some episodes of the old roadrunner cartoon. Wiley coyote trying to outsmart the roadrunner. Actually, Zimmerman and Martin were trying to outsmart each other. Am I off base on this observation ?

  139. Green Party

    I had another thought, I recall once my brother who used to leave at 4:00 am went out to his truck and noticed another car driving slowly. Brother, followed the other car, whom continued to circle the block, my brother continued to follow and circle back around the block. Finally they both stopped back in front of our house, my brother asked “what are you doing?” Other driver says “I just moved in down the block and was wondering what you were doing!” After nervous laughter they both were worried about the other. Both white guys. Now what if one had a gun and had felt threatened? Oh we’ll, that was the closest story to this event I had.

  140. Bob Tiernan

    Paulie @ 107-108:

    Zmmerman attacked him

    But it seems pretty clear there wouldn’t have been a fight if Zimmerman was minding his own business.

    BT:

    You have no business stating that Zimmerman is the one who attacked.

    Also, a neighborhood watch person can’t just mind his own business – otherwise he’d be useless as a neighborhood watch person.

    Bob T

  141. Bob Tiernan

    Green Party @ 132:

    Does anyone remember the Bernard Goetz case from ny many years ago.

    BT:

    Sure – are you gonna accuse Goetz or being over-armed in his confrontation, too? Subways in NYC were very dangerous places to be at that time, and those four youths who were on the subway car with him had sharpened screwdrivers if not more, and were in the process of, if you can believe it, asking him for five dollars. As if they’d give him change had Goetz only a $20 bill.

    Goetz had lots of reasons to fear for his life, or at least think there was a good chance he was about to be seriously injured.

    Bob T

  142. Dave Terry

    BT @ 160: >”You have no business stating that Zimmerman is the one who attacked.

    Also, a neighborhood watch person can’t just mind his own business – otherwise he’d be useless as a neighborhood watch person.

    Bob, you are wasting your time “debating” with Pope Paulie. He has issued an ‘encyclical’ on the subject and by his decree, Zimmerman is guilty of murder and no contrary arguments are allowed or will be considered.

  143. Robert Capozzi

    3clc: He assaulted and attacked the “weakling” Zimmerman, who had a fundamental right to protect himself, and did so.

    me: First, that’s your interpretation, yes? It’s plausible, but since you didn’t observe the entire incident, please admit that you are guessing that it went down that way.

    Second, while I agree there’s a “right” to self defense, that doesn’t necessarily mean that Zimmerman had a right to tote what he was toting on public property, nor does it necessarily mean that he was justified in using the weapon he had in those circumstances. The property owners — the citizens of FL — seem OK with what he was toting where he was toting it. The citizens of NYC — had this happened there — wouldn’t be, as I understand their toting laws.

    What we do know is that the agents for the FLians — the jury — were OK with Zimmerman’s act in this circumstance vis a vis the laws governing the use of lethal force.

    That’s about it.

  144. Nicholas Sarwark

    @155: I was reading Mistrial last night and there was a chapter on the “angry blonde woman.” Don’t get confused by putting Nancy Grace in a left-right paradigm. She’s a statist. If the state says you’re guilty, you’re guilty.

    Good book for anyone interested in how the criminal justice system actually works, BTW.

  145. Cynical in New York

    A couple of things;

    1. Martin wasn’t trespassing, the complex was home to a relative in which he was visiting. (im not surprised that government thug websites are still peddling the lie that the kid was trespassing)

    2. The state overreached big time, if anything the most that Zimmerman couldve been charged with is involuntary manslaughter (but again the state still would have to prove it)

    3. The whole episode was handled badly from the start, the local government thug department, the media and the prosecution and so on.

    4. Idiots painting this as a black vs white issue. Zimmerman was hispanic, which also kinda gave me a chuckle seeing paleocons defending Zimmerman

  146. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Idiots painting this as a black vs white issue. Zimmerman was hispanic”

    Zimmerman still is hispanic.

    He’s also black — at least according to the racist “one drop rule” that both sides of the identity politics hell-hole seem to subscribe to.

  147. libertariangirl

    I guess Im one of few who think George Zimmerman should be in jail. I think they over charged him , Id have gone with voluntary manslaughter.

    If I knew someone with a gun was following me and i did not have a gun whats the best defensive strategy to save myself . I think its a solid idea to hide and surprise attack. He did not want to lead , the man with a gun whom he did not know , back to his house where his family was living and possibly put them in danger as well.

    Trayvon was the one defending himself , PERIOD.

  148. ATBAFT

    #167, what is the evidence that Martin knew he was being followed by a gun-toting cracker and not by, say, a gay man looking for sex? If a guy with a gun was after me, and I had a pretty good headstart to run 400′, I think I’d run, slam the door and call 911, not lay in wait to jump the gun toter. The apparent defense for Martin, if he had
    lived, is that it was he who was standing his ground, that he had no obligation to retreat.
    I think “stand your ground” or “obligation to retreat” are pretty hard to cast into law, and each
    case should be decided on the circumstances.
    I am aware of nothing in this case that doesn’t point to Martin’s ability to have run home rather than engage with Zimmerman.

  149. Thomas L. Knapp

    LG,

    What makes you think that Martin knew Zimmerman had a gun?

    Putting a period after a claim that you can’t possibly know to be true does not magically make it true.

  150. Dave Terry

    Paulie Ravioli @ #12; “Zimmerman lynched Trayvon Martin and got away with it. This country is fucked up.”

    Ravioli @ # 19: “Too bad Trayvon Martin wasn’t armed with a firearm to stand his ground and shoot back. ”

    Yeah! It would be a LOT harder for Zimmerman to “lynch” him if only Martin had a gun!

    What kind of rope did Zimmerman use, Paulie??

    It ain’t this COUNTRY that’s fucked up!

  151. Dave Terry

    Any truth to the rumor that Mr. Cannoli will be leaving the L.P and starting a new Radical Anarchist Party (R.A.P.)

    The Party’s platform will consist of one sentence:
    “Holy Cannoli’s way or the HIGHWAY!”

  152. Andy

    Robert Capozzi said: “Second, while I agree there’s a ‘right’ to self defense, that doesn’t necessarily mean that Zimmerman had a right to tote what he was toting on public property, nor does it necessarily mean that he was justified in using the weapon he had in those circumstances.”

    Every individual has a right to “tote” a gun.

  153. Hoodie Watch

    @174 — Yes, you hadn’t heard that? According to St. Trayvon’s supporters, of course, the reason he was trespassing and pressing himself up against the windows of all those houses was to keep out of the rain, though.

  154. Hoodie Watch

    @178: You miss the point implicit in my educative statement of @177 — i.e., St Trayvon’s defenders do indeed concede Trayvon was trespassing, albeit “innocently.”

    Pay attention.

  155. Robert Capozzi

    172 A: Every individual has a right to “tote” a gun.

    me: Bounded by the property rights of others to exclude toting their property, yes.

    If Tom Knapp showed up at yer crib with a bazooka on his back, you might warmly invite him in. Paulie might ask Tom to leave it in his Hummer.

    Surely you agree that Paulie has that right, yes?

    Similarly, then, the citizens of Alameda County can exclude Knapp from driving on its streets with his bazooka in his Hummer, yes? They are simply exercising their property rights, yes?

  156. Bob Tiernan

    Dave Terry @ 162:

    Bob, you are wasting your time “debating” with Pope Paulie.

    BT:

    Apparently so. Paulie displays what one local radio talk host calls “zero level” thinking about this case.

    Bob T

  157. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC @ 181,

    “Similarly, then, the citizens of Alameda County can exclude Knapp from driving on its streets with his bazooka in his Hummer, yes? They are simply exercising their property rights, yes?”

    Nope. If it’s “public” property, then I am just as much an owner of it as any other citizen of Alameda County. And if I want to carry a bazooka on my property, that’s my business.

  158. Robert Capozzi

    tk 183, interesting. So, if you own one share of Disney stock, you can tote your bazooka into Disneyland, too, even though the shareholder’s have delegated policymaking to management, and management precludes bazooka-toting on the grounds, regardless of whether the would-be toter is a shareholder or not?

  159. Dave Terry

    @183: “Nope. If it’s “public” property, then I am just as much an owner of it as any other citizen of Alameda County. And if I want to carry a bazooka on my property, that’s my business.”

    The issue would be clearer if we dispensed with meaningless terms like “public property”. I would
    suggest “commons” might be more useful. The “public” doesn’t OWN the property; the property is “unowned”, ergo it is accessible to all, INCLUDING even those who don’t live in Alameda County or even California.

    It would ALSO be more meaningful, it we used
    the term “Government Property” for places where
    such restrictions are enforced.

    The greatest fraud is in confusing people into believing that the property that the people are forced through taxation to maintain but are not allowed to use as they please belong to them in any meaningful way.

    At this very moment, there are perhaps hundreds
    of individuals who do no live or have ever lived in
    Alameda County or paid a dimes worth of local taxes using the streets without the expressed permission of the ‘citizens’ of Alameda County.

  160. Robert Capozzi

    tk 183: I am just as much an owner of it as any other citizen of Alameda County.

    me: This concept seems slippery to me. Can we stipulate that you are not an “owner” in that you have no deed? I think we’re in agreement that the citizens collectively own Alameda County for all intents and purposes.

    It appears you are making the bold statement that because you (if you are a citizen of Alameda) have the right to disregard the “condo” rules that govern the property.

    This seems unL to me, even using old-school L-ism as the frame of reference.

    If you own a condo with condo rules that prohibit you from painting your door pink, is it your contention that that rule doesn’t apply to you?

  161. Robert Capozzi

    185 dt: At this very moment, there are perhaps hundreds of individuals who do no live or have ever lived in Alameda County or paid a dimes worth of local taxes using the streets without the expressed permission of the ‘citizens’ of Alameda County.

    me: Sure. Implicitly and probably explicitly, the Alamedans encourage visitors.

    And, sure, you can say that all public property is unowned. I however find that to be an unserviceable notion, leading to utter chaos…driving 100 mph on the left kinda chaos.

    Go “there” is you choose to. Unlikely that you’ll get many takers, though.

    My “let’s view public property as jointly held” is serviceable, and one likely to gain broad buy in and is consistent with the near universal desire for domestic tranquility.

  162. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC @ 186,

    “It appears you are making the bold statement that because you (if you are a citizen of Alameda) have the right to disregard the ‘condo’ rules that govern the property.”

    Where did these “condo rules” come from? I certainly never consented to the one you posit.

    In the absence of unanimous prior consent by all parties to the “condo” agreement, no “condo” rule which restricts my behavior beyond forbidding me to violate others’ rights is acceptable. And if anyone doesn’t like that, well, as you pointed out, I have a bazooka.

  163. Robert Capozzi

    188 tk: Where did these “condo rules” come from? I certainly never consented to the one you posit.

    me: Where? I know your thinking well enough to know that you are not being thickheaded, so maybe you are kidding. I can’t tell.

    The condo rules have evolved over time, tracing its lineage from the magna carta, US Constitution, state constitution, county charters, etc. Rules of law evolve over time, too, such as property rights, which are legal concepts used to facilitate social intercourse and domestic tranquility.

    Yes, you COULD drive drunk at 100 mph on the left toting your bazooka, especially WITH the bazooka, at least for a while. I’d say that would make you a clear and present danger, though, so my guess is that your exercising your “right” to do those things likely would not end well.

    I get that you never consented and all that means. I never consented to gravity, either, but I do deal with the hand dealt me re: G-forces.

    You can view public property as no man’s land, subject to no behavioral rules, I am highly inclined to agree with you regarding PRIVATE property, but it feels loopy to claim public property is no man’s land. That bungle in the jungle’s not all right with me, and I dare to say virtually all.

  164. Oranje Mike

    #167, It is my understanding that Martin did not know Zimmerman was armed until after he had already attacked Zimmerman and was pounding his head onto the concrete. He also made threats to take said weapon and kill Zimmerman. Did Zimmerman have a real choice at that point?

  165. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC @ 189,

    “it feels loopy to claim public property is no man’s land”

    I agree.

    “Public property” isn’t no man’s land. It’s every man’s land. And while rules might evolve to govern its use by all those owners of undivided interests in it, there’s no basis for those rules to impose on non-aggressive behaviors which in no way diminish the rights of others.

    If I drive drunk against traffic while carrying my bazooka, I’m aggressing by recklessly/negligently endangering others.

    If I drive sober with traffic and have my bazooka in the seat next to me, I’m not aggressing and it’s nobody else’s fucking business.

  166. Thomas L. Knapp

    OJ @ 190,

    Suppose I am robbing a bank. And suppose all of a sudden an armed guard appears pointing a gun at me, and I have “no choice” but to shoot him.

    Does this make me innocent of his killing? No, it doesn’t. I shouldn’t have been robbing the bank, and even if my killing the guard was, in a sense, “self-defense” within that two-or-three second timeframe, it was aggression within the larger context.

    It IS relevant whether or not Zimmerman was an aggressor prior to the final act.

    Zimmerman’s story is that Martin initially attacked him, rather than vice versa.

    That story may be true. Or it may not be true.

    The prosecution’s argument was that it was not true — that Zimmerman went into the encounter as the aggressor, either intending to shoot Martin or ending up having to shoot Martin after the fight that HE started went south on him.

    The jury decided that there was reasonable doubt as to the prosecution’s version of what happened, thus the acquittal. But reasonable doubt doesn’t tell us what actually happened.

  167. Robert Capozzi

    191 tk: I’m aggressing by recklessly/negligently endangering others.

    me: Mario Andretti wannabes might feel they are not being “reckless.” “Reckless,” IOW, is subjective.

    It’s also interesting that you conjure up “everyman’s land” out of thin air. You don’t dispute that Disneyland can exclude you from packing on property rights grounds, but to avoid my equilibration of Disneyland and public property, you invent a new category of property rights. That’s grand, btw, except it seems clear to me that the rule of law, esp. re: property rights, evolves over time, and is not subject to invention.

  168. Deran

    I can’t believe you all are still arguing with Mr. Knapp, the fellow is as disputatious as he is pompous. Give it up.

  169. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I’m soooo ready to be over this Zimmerman/Martin tragedy. It was a lose/lose trial from the start and couldn’t have had a good outcome because Martin is still dead and Zimmerman’s life is very likely ruined. Have we learned something from it? I don’t know. What I do know is that the country is falling apart in many categories that directly affect you and I. So, I need to get the work done on my desk so I can get back to trying to bring our country’s citizens and legislators back to their senses.

  170. Thomas L. Knapp

    Deran @ 195,

    Have you come to grips with the fact that there was no 911 call, and the fact that Zimmerman was never told to stay in his car, yet? Or are you still living in a fantasy world?

  171. Andy

    Robert Capozzi said: “me: Bounded by the property rights of others to exclude toting their property, yes.”

    If the property in question is open to the public, then a person has a right to carry a gun there.

  172. Robert Capozzi

    199 a, I recognize your assertion, but not a theory or justification.

    It’s interesting that you say “open to the public,” since many Ls’d say that barring patrons for reasons of color would be aOK in a “L society.” Noxious as the notion is, the idea is that that’s a property rights matter.

    And yet you, at least, believe for unknown reasons that toting supersedes property rights.

  173. Dave Terry

    @199; “If the property in question is open to the public, then a person has a right to carry a gun there.

    I don’t believe this is what Andy MEANT to say, since “open to the public” is vague and confusing.

    It ISN’T because the property is ‘open to the public that conveys the right to be armed, but that the property is either NOT private OR that the private owner has not stipulated that no guns are allowed.

  174. Robert Capozzi

    201 dt: the property is either NOT private OR that the private owner has not stipulated that no guns are allowed.

    me: So, for ex., Congress is a place one can tote into, as you see it, DT. It’s a public place.

    aOK to roll on up there packing?

    Now how’s about airliners. Technically, private. At the moment, the feds make the tote-free zones, but if they didn’t, one could imagine they say No heat here.

    Is that OK for them to do, in your mind?

  175. libertariangirl

    @169 , okay TK lets suppose he just thought some crazy dude was following him, the conclusion still applies. Id hide and surprise attack also unless he was sposed to think it was the prize patrol with publishers clearing house. Zimmermans actions set in play everything that happened. Mind your own business is the lesson here

  176. Daddyfatsax

    LG, Trayvon gave up his innocent card when he decked GZ. After that…well, it is history.

  177. Thomas L. Knapp

    LG @ 203,

    “okay TK lets suppose he just thought some crazy dude was following him, the conclusion still applies. Id hide and surprise attack also”

    And if you did you would be an aggressor committing assault and battery.

    The standard for using force is a REASONABLE fear that the other party represents a threat of death or grievous bodily harm.

    “He was in the same area as me and I thought he was creepy” isn’t even close to meeting that standard.

    “Zimmermans actions set in play everything that happened.”

    True. But we don’t know what happened.

    DFS @ 204,

    “Trayvon gave up his innocent card when he decked GZ”

    Maybe he did.

    But we have no way of knowing whether or not it happened that way.

  178. Dave Terry

    RC @202; “Congress is a place one can tote into, as you see it, DT. It’s a public place.” (?)

    The problem here is ‘semantics’; we must define our terms. We must ALSO recognize that we no longer live in a “constitutional republic”; “GOVERNMENT” property is NOT “public property”.

    The U.S. Constitution clearly authorizes the Federal Government to “own” military bases
    and post offices and (MAYBE) post roads, but even THAT has been subject to debate and controversy, , since 1791.

    “the Act of September 22, 1789 (1 Stat. 70), established (at first temporarily) a post office and created the Office of the Postmaster General. At that time, seventy-five post offices and over 2000 miles of post roads already existed; established
    under the Articles of Confederation.

    >”So, for ex., Congress is a place one can tote into, as you see it, DT. It’s a public place. AOK to roll on up there packing?

    I presume you are referring to the Capital Bldg.
    So, NO, it is NOT a “puplic place”, it is the Fed. Congress’s place!

    >”Now how’s about airliners. Technically, private. At the moment, the feds make the tote-free zones, but if they didn’t, one could imagine they say No heat here.

    Is that OK for them to do, in your mind?

    The short answer is NO! However, the correct answer is that the Airlines don’t have the balls to enact these rules on their own and lobby the Feds
    to do it for them.

    It is is just like the Savings and Loan Association
    lobbying Congress to put a ceiling on interest rates they can pay and then hypocritically advertising that “We pay the highest rate allowable by law”

  179. Dave Terry

    LG @203: “Mind your own business is the lesson here.

    100% wrong! Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch captain. His job is NOT to mind his own business. However, it is ALSO not his job to intervene with a suspect, but to report him to the police for uniformed intervention.

    The conundrum revolves around whether or not Zimmerman confronted Trayvon OR whether Trayvon, seeing that he was being surveilled, confronted Zimmerman.

    THERE WERE NO WITNESSES! Anyone who
    advances an opinion on who is guilty of what is speaking TOTALLY from their own biases!

  180. Robert Capozzi

    207 DT, careening further away from the topic, but while I agree that the operative constitutional republic has been largely unhitched from, I don’t get your distinction between government vs. public property.

    I also don’t understand where you are getting your history, since my understanding is that the government held much unclaimed land from the beginning of the nation.

    The US Capitol and most federal property is owned/controlled by an entity which is owned by someone, effectively. If not collectively by the public, then who?

    It’s novel to me for you to say that the airlines don’t have the right to ban toting on their property. Tell us more why you think any and all passengers can board with Uzis on their backs.

  181. Jake_Witmer

    Green Party @131: ” Zimmerman brought a gun to a fist fight.”

    The Jury disagreed, and believed that Zimmerman had brought a gun to a “non-fight.” They then believed that Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman.

    This is why I despise the Green Party. They lack a valid comprehension of basic human morality, and lack the caring for human life that is necessary to think situations through to their logical conclusions.

    BTW: I have a right to follow you. I also have the right to say “What are you doing, cutting through people’s lawns?” I also have a right to say, “Are you the little dickhead who’s been breaking into people’s houses?” HOWEVER: If I strike you, rush at you, or lunge toward you, you then have a right to defend yourself against me. Prior to that point, but after you’ve accosted me, I have a corresponding right to put my hand on my gun, and say “leave me alone!”

    The Green Party, the Stupid Party, and the Brutality Party (but I’m being redundant) have no right to determine for everyone what level of pummeling they need to take before a “fist-fight” becomes “attempted murder.”

    If that were the case, then the innocent would be at the mercy of the strong. Those who spent the most time in Gyms lifting weights would be the law, and could bully “the rest of us” around with impunity.

    This is just another example of stupid, anti-technology socialists wishing to regress man to a pre-technology era, where we competed on level ground with brutal sociopaths and predatory animals.

    Now then, this doesn’t mean that I’m 100% sold on George Zimmerman. I don’t know the man. I never met the man.

    Further, I think that “Neighborhood Watch” groups that would assist the police in bringing one single “mala prohibita offender” into conflict with the law are in the wrong. Then again, I believe that “Neighborhood Watch” groups that would bring one or more “mala in se offeners” into conflict with the law are in the right. Moreover, they perform a valuable service that the current grossly-unjust profession of “law enforcement” does not adequately provide.

    I have no idea where on this spectrum George Zimmerman sits. But there is some evidence out there to indicate that he is not a “bad apple.” Stefan Molyneux indicated this in his review of the known facts of the case. The unknown facts of the case are significant, but a jury (the only branch of government not comprised-by-default of power-seeking sociopaths) disagreed that there was compelling evidence of a crime.

    For George Zimmerman to be guilty of a crime, he would have had to knowingly or negligently shot Trayvon Martin. When the police lied to Zimmerman, and told him that he had been videotaped (as a means of videotaping his reaction), he expressed extreme relief, and said something to the effect of “Oh, thank god!”

    Zimmerman’s story seems to check out. He seems to be a guy who really, really wanted to cut down on burglaries in the neighborhood. I strongly sympathize with that goal. That goal is a legitimate goal of law enforcement, and comprises a tiny minority of the things law enforcement usually does, on any given day.

    If Zimmerman’s story is true, then I sympathize with him, because he is in the right. If his story is false, or if he would have just as happily had Trayvon arrested for drugs, then I don’t sympathize with him very much, because, to that extent, he would have been in the wrong (though not legally in the wrong; and to that extent, the problem isn’t primarily Zimmerman, but the grotesquely politicized prison-industrial complex).

    Trayvon should not have attacked Zimmerman.

    If I was Zimmerman, I probably wouldn’t have followed Trayvon, and I certainly wouldn’t have followed him if I simply thought he was providing a much-desired counter-economic service to the neighborhood. If, on the other hand, I had just been burglarized, or was aware that several others had just been burglarized, and I was on the “Neighborhood Watch” committee, I might have followed him.

    If he had attacked me, would I have been obligated to have my head pounded into the cement, out of a misguided sense of honor?

    No. Absolutely not.

    If that were the case, then every woman raped by an unarmed offender should only resist with her fists, and if she can’t then she just has to get raped! If that were the case, then every weak man is fair game to any macho weightlifter. Sorry you didn’t put in 30 hours per week at the Gym, skinny! Law of the jungle rules, looks like you have to get beaten senseless whenever an “alpha male” wants some practice mangling someone!

    The blathering, senseless “Green Party,” indeed.

    …More like the “Unlimited Sociopathy” Party. Oh well, I guess not everyone is familiar with Gary Kleck’s famous study, or basic morality, or the concept of “self-defense,” etc.

  182. Thomas L. Knapp

    JW @ 210,

    “The Jury disagreed, and believed that Zimmerman had brought a gun to a ‘non-fight.’ They then believed that Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman.”

    How do you know what the jury believed?

    The only belief that the verdict sustains is that the jury was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the state’s claims regarding Zimmerman’s actions.

  183. Jake_Witmer

    People whose comments are reasonable and accurate:
    Warren Redlich @146; all comments by Bob Tiernan, all comments by Dave Terry; Andy @172; Nick Sarwark’s link to Mark Bennet.

    I’m holding back the venom and bile from some of the other commentators who are making very good arguments for the Libertarian Party not being infiltrated (but rather, terminally stupid).
    I prefer to think that the LNC is a bunch of people who are working for the federal government, and that’s why they don’t do anything smart. I’d like to think that, although the LNC (figuratively) repeatedly spends LP donor money on ammunition, so they can then proceed to blow off both of their feet with with automatic rifles, that it was at least a hard-won victory defeating actual libertarians for spots on the LNC.

    It would make me feel a little better to know that we at least tried to fight the good fight, but simply didn’t have the manpower.

    Being aware of some of the thinking that goes on in people’s heads who sit on the LNC, I shudder to think that there simply might not be any people in the USA who know anything about the possibility of individual freedom. If it’s an act, then more power to you, you’re very convincing actors. May I suggest you move out to Hollywood and engage in a less socially-destructive form of emotive emulation.

    PS: All of the problems I spoke with various LNC members about two years ago have not been solved, and are now significantly worse. Not one finger has been lifted to remedy any of them. We might as well just call it the Federal Path Party and be done with it. We can abbreviate it “Fed-Path” for short.

    Bon Chance.

  184. Jake_Witmer

    Tom Knapp @211

    “JW @ 210,

    “The Jury disagreed, and believed that Zimmerman had brought a gun to a ‘non-fight.’ They then believed that Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman.”

    How do you know what the jury believed?

    The only belief that the verdict sustains is that the jury was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the state’s claims regarding Zimmerman’s actions.”

    OK, Mr.-Anal-Retentive, here’s my corrected edit, since IPR doesn’t allow editing of comments:

    “The Jury disagreed, and I strongly suspect that they disagreed because they believed that Zimmerman had brought a gun to a ‘non-fight.’ (In order for a proper finding of “not guilty” this would have to be true.) I suspect they then believed that Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman. (In order for a proper finding of “not guilty” this would also have to be true.)”

    Happy? If not, you get the last word, because this horse is dead. Beating it, or attempting to ride it, will not get it to take us anywhere but 5 inches lower, very slowly.

  185. Bob Tiernan

    Dave Terry @ 207:

    However, the correct answer is that the Airlines don’t have the balls to enact these rules on their own and lobby the Feds to do it for them.

    BT:

    Well, it’s more likely that the airlines have known that most people would have put up a real stink, claiming that big bad corporations were going too far etc etc. The airlines realized that most people were more likely to accept and obey government imposing the same rules, much like the way the meat packers’ private meat inspection (coupled with inspections imposed by local governments) never impressed the customers (particularly the all-important foreign buyers) the way a USDA Inspection stamp would (even if the inspections were lower quality than earlier private or city inspections).

    Bob T

  186. libertariangirl

    so according to y’all you can instigate a fght then shoot someone when you start losing that fight and thas okay? switch the 2 peoples sides around and you know what youd have , Trayvon Martin sitting in jail for murder.

  187. libertariangirl

    i could care less who agrees with me obedient citizen guy. I happen to be good friends with the 2 people im disagreeing with most , and i havent watched tv in 9 months and have no idea what al sharpton is saying. these opinions are allmine thank you

  188. Reality Watch

    @215 — Trayvon Martin started the fight, hiding until Zimmerman got off the phone, and then assaulting him and banging his head into the pavement. That is what all the evidence indicates.

    And @211 — Every juror/alternate I’ve heard give an interview did indeed come to the common-sense conclusion that Trayvon Martin hit first and assaulted Zimmerman.

  189. Dave Terry

    RC @ 209; “I don’t get your distinction between government vs. public property.

    There is an interesting map @ which shows the portion of each state that is “occupied” by the Federal Gov’t.

    In California 49,842,300 acres (49.9%) of all land is under Federal Control. You could put ALL of New England inside the Federal land in Calif. and STILL have room for New Jersey.
    AND it is only 6th on the list. >

    It will also surprise you to learn that over 85% of ALL “Federal” land is located in the 11 western “colonies and Alaska.

    I don’t know which state you live in, but I am originally from southern California. and lived for many years in various high desert areas. One of my past-times was trail biking the Mojave Desert and “Inland Empire”.

    I was possible to ride for hours without seeing another human being (one reason we never rode alone) On various rides, I would suddenly come upon a 20′ fence in the middle of nowhere with a very obvious “This is a Federal Installation – Keep OUT! sign

    The side of the fence, I was on was “PUBLIC” land the OTHER side of the fence was “GOVERNMENT” land! (ie. a private reserve for those who purport to be our “public servants.”

    > “It’s novel to me for you to say that the airlines don’t have the right to ban toting on their property. Tell us more why you think any and all passengers can board with Uzis on their backs.” <

    You either have me confused with someone else or you totally misread my post. I never SAID that airlines don't have the "right" to ban 'toting"
    on their property.

    I DID say that they would much prefer to avoid the confrontation with us "civil libertarians" and would rather some government agency act as their enforcers.

    NOR did I say or infer that "any and all passengers can board with Uzis on their backs."

    Just the opposite it true.

  190. Dave Terry

    LG @ 217; “I happen to be good friends with the 2 people im disagreeing with most , and i havent watched tv in 9 months and have no idea what al sharpton is saying. these opinions are allmine thank you.”

    I’m doing my best not to be disrespectful, BUT clearly you don’t have one ounce of objectivity.

    Do you consider the two friends that you disagree
    with to be ‘racists’? You say you haven’t watched
    TV in 9 months; have you read a newspaper in that time?

    No doubt your opinions is “all yours”, but WHAT
    do you base them on. Obviously your opinion is based solely on the fact that Trayvon was YOUNG AND BLACK – that, I’m afraid, is bias
    not a reasoned opinion.

  191. libertariangirl

    of course i dont think my friends are racist nor do i think zimmerman supporters are racist. i think the racism card is one being played by media etc

  192. Thomas L. Knapp

    RW @ 218,

    “Every juror/alternate I’ve heard give an interview did indeed come to the common-sense conclusion that Trayvon Martin hit first and assaulted Zimmerman.”

    The only juror I’ve seen any interviews with is B37, who does seem to have belived that.

    But she also claims that the first vote included three votes to convict for 2nd degree murder, which indicates that three of the six jurors initially believed Zimmerman murdered Martin

    It seems far more likely that those three jurors were convinced, in jury deliberation, of “reasonable doubt” than that they were convinced of the exact opposite of their initial conclusions.

    So, once again: The only thing we can really infer from the jury verdict is that the jury unanimously agreed that the state had not proved ITS claims beyond a reasonable doubt, not that they concluded that some particular opposite of the state’s claims was the truth.

  193. Reality Watch

    @223 & @223 – You have both failed to cite a juror or alternate who has made a statement otherwise.

  194. Robert Capozzi

    219 dt: The side of the fence, I was on was “PUBLIC” land the OTHER side of the fence was “GOVERNMENT” land! (ie. a private reserve for those who purport to be our “public servants.”

    me: You still haven’t explained it. Shareholders in a corporation don’t have the right to sit in on senior staff meetings, either. That there are two or more classes of public lands (open to all and restricted access) seems reasonable to me. I mean, do you think you as a citizen should have access to, say, nuclear silos simply because you are a citizen? I doubt most of the public has a problem with being denied access to some publicly-owned places.

    dt: I DID say that they would much prefer to avoid the confrontation with us “civil libertarians” and would rather some government agency act as their enforcers.

    me: Sorry if I misunderstood you. I’m pleased we agree that the property rights extend to what visitors carry — and what’s excluded — onto the owners’ property.

    Is there evidence that the airlines got the government to do their dirty work by banning virtually all firearms from their cabins?

  195. Thomas L. Knapp

    CCL @ 223,

    Thanks for the correction.

    So, if B37 isn’t lying, at the beginning of deliberation, three of the six jurors believed that Zimmerman had committed either murder or manslaughter.

    That directly contradicts RW’s slimy attempt to smuggle the notion that all the jurors agreed that Trayvon was the aggressor into his clever “every juror/alternate I’ve heard” trick.

    Once again: The one, the only and the single thing we can infer from the verdict is that the jurors ended up unanimously agreeing that the state’s case and the defense’s case resolved to reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed murder or manslaughter.

  196. Green Party

    That is the crux of this whole case. Zimmerman instigated a fight while feeling embolden with a gun tucked in his trousers. That is the reason so many are upset. Did you know that Zimmerman has ADHD and takes medication? I found that out yesterday. Not sure how that figures into anything, but curious to me.

  197. Green Party

    Wait, let me rephrase. Perhaps instigated is too strong. Zimmerman went looking for a confrontation of some kind. Was not afraid to possibly confront a stranger.

  198. thom

    This case – and this thread – has revealed the embarrassing underbelly of white, Randian libertarianism. For all of Libertarianism’s waxing eloquent about the ‘non-aggression principle, there are suddenly a host of right-libs doing semantic gymnastics and selective fact-gathering to support a man who was a Statist-Cop-Wannabe, stalked a kid on the basis on his race, initiated a confrontation, and then pulled the ultimate Aggression on him. And THIS is why so many of us left-Libertarians withhold support and active involvement from the LP….there are too many yahoos running the commentary, and i am reluctant to be associated with the selfish angry white male mantra.

  199. Thomas L. Knapp

    GP @ 229,

    It is indeed possible that Zimmerman went looking for a confrontation of some kind.

    What it is not is proven — at least to the satisfaction of a jury — that Zimmerman went looking for a confrontation of some kind.

    If the jury had been convinced that Zimmerman was looking for a confrontation, they’d likely have convicted on the manslaughter charge.

  200. Bob Tiernan

    Green Party 229:

    Perhaps instigated is too strong. Zimmerman went looking for a confrontation of some kind. Was not afraid to possibly confront a stranger.

    BT:

    Cop, neighborhood watch, security guard, night watchman — they all know that making contact with strangers (“confronting”) is part of the job or duty. Nothing unusual there, nor aggressive when routine. Not the same as looking for a confrontation.

    The fact that Zimmerman called 911, as he had in the past, shows that Zimmerman saw his routine as looking for suspicious looking behavior in people, and then calling 911.

    In some cases he or anyone else in his position could easily come face to face with someone almost right away, with no chance to call 911 prior to this contact. That was not the case here.

    Bob T

  201. Dave Terry

    @230: “And THIS is why so many of us left-Libertarians withhold support and active involvement from the LP….there are too many yahoos running the commentary, and i am reluctant to be associated with the selfish angry white male mantra.”

    Your reluctance is only surpassed by the relief
    and gratitude of us “reason-leaning Libertarians,
    that you do not “associate” with us.

    NOW, if you’d only do the honorable thing and STOP self-identifying yourself as a “Libertarian” we could ALL be happy.

    The ONLY thing you seem to KNOW is that a
    young black kid is dead and SOMEONE has to PAY!! So why don’t you and your left-vigilante
    party members get on your horses and ride over to Zimmerman’s house and lynch him or, burn his house down. (or find some other honkie to take his place)

    That should make you feel better.

  202. Reality Watch

    Of course, the precious earwitness also says now that St. Trayvon swung first…

  203. Thomas L. Knapp

    BT @ 232,

    “The fact that Zimmerman called 911”

    That’s not a fact. In fact it is a false statement. Zimmerman did not call 911. He called the non-emergency police dispatch line and the entire call, from beginning to end was classified as a non-emergency “suspicious person” report.

    I hate to keep harping on that, but

    1) It is a matter of irrefutable, established, uncontested fact that there was no “911 call; and

    2) That is material and relevant insofar as it establishes reason to doubt any sense of urgency or emergency on Zimmerman’s part until after the call was over.

  204. Robert Capozzi

    a238, thanks. Interesting, compelling even, actually. I’d like to hear a counter.

    btw, SM looks unwell here. Has he been ill or something?

  205. Robert Capozzi

    230 t: This case – and this thread – has revealed the embarrassing underbelly of white, Randian libertarianism.

    me: While it is embarrassing in its lack of clear, radical thinking, I’m not so sure that the Zimmerman case illustrates the weakness of Randian(/Rothbardian) L-ism.

    I’d be curious what you think of the vid @ 238. btw, I’m generally not a fan of SM, fwiw.

  206. Jake_Witmer

    Robert @240 wrote: [btw, I’m generally not a fan of SM, fwiw.]
    I don’t think SM even enters into the discussion here. That’s more of something that’s a personal lifestyle choice, but thanks for sharing.

    But seriously, I’m glad Andy reposted one of the two Free Domain Radio posts that I posted above @ 111, since this seems to be a particularly flouridated debate, with socialists entering to say “derp derp” on behalf of the mainstream media http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zV5UTHRx0a4 , and libertarians responding with “derp derp, but what about the innocent until proven guilty?” It helps to repost everything because most people don’t pay attention until they see something eight or nine times (and even then they misinterpret it, so what’s the point?).

    Oooh! I definitely side with the liberalternataryans on that one! Derpity derp. (I hope I didn’t just give someone the name of yet another pointless “third party” that will show up in the links to the right on IPR’s homepage. Then again, why not “split the vote” a little more? It’s not like it’s worth keeping whole.)

    I guess all that I have to say is that this seems like a good example of the irrelevant and inconsequential being overpoweringly interesting to big-L “Libertarians.” Hopefully the LNC takes up the vital cause of posting on this thread, so “they” can be slightly less destructive to the cause of actual liberty.

    Wow! 241 posts!

  207. Robert Capozzi

    jw 241: I guess all that I have to say is that this seems like a good example of the irrelevant and inconsequential being overpoweringly interesting to big-L “Libertarians.”

    me: Wait a sec…you’re saying that Ls being interested in the Zimmerman case is a “good ex” of irrelevancy? Really?

    If so, we’s be watching a very different movie. It’s a HIGHLY relevant issue in the public square.

    And it’s actually a GREAT way for Ls to be thoughtful, to address a number of public policy matters with tact, insight and compassion.

    Unfortunately, Ls are mired in a clinical, simplistic thought system that is dogmatic and unfeeling, keeping Ls on the fringes, and therefore QUITE inconsequential.

  208. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC @ 242,

    “It’s a HIGHLY relevant issue in the public square.”

    Actually, I suspect its 15 minutes is about up.

    I noticed the headlines last weekend: “Hundreds” showed up across the country to “Rallies for Type A Identity Politics Demagoguery … er, for Trayvon.”

    The thing isn’t really very exploitable by Type A or Type B Identity Politics demagogues. It’s a flash in the pan.

  209. Dave Terry

    RC @ 242; “Unfortunately, Ls are mired in a clinical, simplistic thought system that is dogmatic and unfeeling, keeping Ls on the fringes, and therefore QUITE inconsequential.”

    Could you please rephrase the above into a form that is intelligible? Just what are “L’s” doing to keep “L’s” on the fringes?

    Clinical and simplistic??Dogmatic and unfeeling?

    This isn’t a soap opera. Perhaps you’d be happier and (not on the fringes) if you devoted more of your day to watching ‘Days of Our Lives” and “Young and Restless”; or is it Old and Useless”?

  210. Jake_Witmer

    Robert Capozzi @ Front 242 wrote:
    “Unfortunately, Ls are mired in a clinical, simplistic thought system that is dogmatic and unfeeling, keeping Ls on the fringes, and therefore QUITE inconsequential.”
    Same as the Republicans and mainstream Democrats they used to be. I exempt Penn Jillette from this criticism, as well as those few intellectuals who actually don’t fit that bill. But sure, there’s a lot of mainstream Republican stink on big-L “Libertarians,” largely because big-Ls are ex-Republicans who only care about their bottom line, and don’t really know what to say when it comes to social issues.

    You can’t fake empathy!

    Even so, the Trayvon case is a can of worms, and “not the droids you seek.” Zimmerman turned out to not be the boogeyman, or at least not provably so. Trayvon turned out to possibly be what Zimmerman said he was. There was rolling about on the ground and much confusion, and a lack of solid witnesses.

    The whole situation is more of a good example of why the legal system should err on the side of mercy in situations of grossly inadequate information, rather than “why the legal system is either perfect or terrible.”

    This does somewhat make me equally as suspicious of “Neighborhood Watch” programs, and physically fit young men, as I’ve always been. Many young men have a poisoned condition sometimes known as “testosterone poisoning.” When combined with a complete lack of useful real-world experience, this can be a dangerous thing. Same goes for neighborhood watch commandos.

    If the Neighborhood Watch commandos could make it clear that they were not interested in involving the police for mala prohibita, that would go a long way to both legitimizing them, and cutting down on the deaths of innocent bystanders like Hadiya Pendleton (one of the most recent people murdered by Chicago’s long-standing ban on guns-in-responsible-black-hands).

    If this whole thing is going to turn into a discussion on race, then let’s have it focus on “the prison industrial complex” and how it targets minorities and dissidents. (Please visit youtube and search for “Matt Fogg DEA”) …and people who own land that the Park Service wants! (…tip o’ the hat to Donald Scott!)

  211. bathroom humor

    The Toronto Personal Injury Lawyer concentrate on injury compensation for the victim so that
    the injured can avail the social security benefits entitled
    to him. There should be a correlation between the fault and
    damage. Also, it is important to quickly give your personal injury attorney all the information you have about
    the case, including details on your injuries and the accident.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *