Self-Defense: You’re On Your Own (and not only in Detroit!)

Recently during the NAACP yearly convention our Attorney General Holder, while remarking about the Zimmerman Case and self-defense gave us his views on Self-Defense. In a nutshell he wants to call the police and retreat before any attempt at Self-Defense. Unfortunately, as this article by Mike illustrates, the police have no obligation to protect you, and they are not liable if they fail at their generalize duty to protect. It is up to us to defend ourselves and our family.

Stately McDaniel Manor

I have often written about the fact that not only do the police have no legal obligation to protect any individual, they can’t be successfully sued for failing to protect any individual.  Recent news stories have hammered home that inescapable reality.

In Detroit, the average police emergency response time–when they respond at all–is now 58 minutes, though police Chief James Craig claims it is “about 50 minutes.” Consider what this means.  Any competent police force would do all that it could to avoid ever announcing a 50+ minute emergency response time to the public.  Such an announcement is essentially admitting that a police force is useless.  Altering the famous aphorism: “when seconds count, the police are minutes away,” to “when seconds count, the police are about an hour away–maybe” is like sunlight to a vampire to competent police agencies.  Yet this glacial emergency response time is the status quo in…

View original post 1,069 more words

Advertisements

Zimmerman the sequel? What about Parental Responsibility?

Last Friday night in the early hours of the morning, around 2 am, Merritt Landry, a building inspector for the city of New Orleans shot and critically injured an intruder in his property.  That intruder turned out to be 14 year-old black boy, Marshall Coulter,  a young teen already awaiting trial for “stealing stuff” as his older brother David Coulter 23, said;

“He would steal — he was a professional thief, sure,” David Coulter said. “But he would never pick up a gun, not in a million years. He was too scared to aim a gun at the grass, let alone aim it at a person. No way. Before he’ll ever pick up a gun, he’ll be your friend first.”

Mr. Merritt who was at home with his pregnant wife and little daughter was alerted that someone had intruded by his dog’s barking when he went outside to investigate he the teen who had scaled his fence and was approaching the home.  According to Mr. Merritt he said “Freeze” at which point the teen reached into his waistband and Mr. Merritt shot him, once striking the teen in the head.

The teen is in critical condition at a local hospital, doctors fear that if he survives he will suffer some brain damage.  He was the 7th of 8 kids, his father had died three years ago of stomach cancer, leaving the oldest brother David to take care of the kids.  The older brother said that Marshall, the young teen was on medication for attention deficit hyperactive disorder and he and his mother had tried their best to keep him out of trouble, with no success. Read more:

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2013/07/marigny_homeowner_booked_after.html

As an ironic twist a neighbor had observed the teen with another teen riding bikes in the neighborhood casing homes, he was in fact standing in front of Mr. Merritt at the time.  The neighbor who observed this though it suspicious and thought about calling the police but did not because he was afraid that they would think he was racially profiling the 2 teen as they were black.

Mr. Merritt has been charged with Attempted Second Degree Murder, and is out on bail.   The City has suspended him without pay pending resolution of the case.

Andrew Branca who I have quoted and linked to extensively has written an article about the event and the applicable laws for Louisiana over at Legal Insurrection that is worth reading, for a better understanding on the laws of the State.

I am not going to linger longer on the case, as most of the information is early reporting and as the Zimmerman case has shown early reporting and biases tend to skew early media reporting and this case is not any different.  As some of you might imagine, some of the same people who are against Zimmerman have jumped on the bandwagon calling this another case racial profiling and racism.

I will continue to follow-up on the case as developments arise but I want to talk about a subject that is contentious and seldom address, Parental Responsibility or duties.  A quick search on Google on parental responsibility will yield 13.5 million hits, but most deal with legal responsibilities as ascribed by government which can be summarized as follows:

  • to have the child living with him or her or otherwise to regulate the child’s residence;
  • to appropriately control, direct or guide the child’s upbringing;
  • if the child is not living with him or her, to maintain personal relations and contact with the child on a regular basis;
  • to act as the child’s legal representative.

As we see can the duties described are pretty dryly described and very broad and open to varied interpretations.  As with morality parental responsibilities are something left up the parents and whatever their interpretation of that is.  How does one go about achieving those 4 objectives and produce good upstanding citizens? After all is that not the responsibility of every parent or at the very least the aim?

I am father of two young men, one 21 years-old the other one just turned 18, I also have a little princess that is 6, I have some first hand experience of the issues that affect a parent as such I took my responsibility very seriously.  I did not have my father or mother with me when I was growing up, so I have little experience on it took to be a good parent.  My wife was the daughter of divorced parents so she also had her issues when it came to parenting and the responsibility of parents in raising children.

Without direct role models, we could have turned to one of the thousands of books on parenting available but we did not do so, instead we decided to work together and use our limited experiences but with a common goal, to do the best we can.  We both made our share of mistakes when we were teenagers and we vowed to at the very least prevent those same mistakes in our children.  I am happy to say that so far both our boys turned out in a way that any parent can be proud off, and we certainly are proud of our 2  young men.

How did we do it? We sacrificed for our children, when we moved we researched the area, the schools,  the neighborhoods, crime statistics and having bi-racial children demographics. We attempted to ensure that our kids were well-rounded in all aspects.

Now, I mentioned the case of the 14 year-old because there are 2 quick questions that I immediately thought about once I read the story.  Where were the parents and why was he outside at 2 am unsupervised?  Reading a little more and getting some of the limited background of the young teen, it made my first 2 questions even more grave.

Let’s examine 2 recent cases involving young teens in which both ended up getting shot, one fatally.  I am talking about Trayvon Martin and now Marshall Coulter.  Both were black teens, both were shot at a very young age, both had difficulties at school, both did not have a father  living with them, both had multiple run-ins with the authorities in Martin’s case the school police had concealed his misdeeds, both made terrible decisions that led directly to their demise.

There is a pervasive need to not speak evil of the dead or in cases of young people their parents.  Had the two teens not gotten hurt, the parents and their parenting skills would be questioned, but because they both ended up seriously injured we do not, instead we take the complete opposite approach and put the grieving parents in a pedestal because of their loss.  I can understand not wanting to add to the grief of the parents or to kick them when they are down, as the saying goes but in doing so we compound the problem as we miss an opportunity to confront a problem head-on with the consequences of inaction so clearly demonstrated.

In Martin’s case he was on his third suspension of the school year, his mother had kicked him out of the house a month prior, at the time he was shot, he was sent to stay with his father’s girlfriend to stay, while his father was attending a convention nearby. He was left that weekend with no supervision and this was his punishment for getting suspended from school for a week?   Now his father is invited to speak to Congress, is travelling around the country and held as a role model of fatherhood of the black family.  Sybrina, Martin’s mother is likewise celebrated and held in such high esteem being compared to other civil rights icons, like Rosa Parks.

But is the fact that their son got killed under what some would call suspicious circumstances, enough to declare them the paragons of parenthood? What about the hundreds of parents of those killed in Chicago or anywhere else in the US?

Instead, why are we not asking what did they as parents do for kids as they turned south?  Why did Tracy Martin knowing the issues of his son, not provide more supervision?  Why did Sybrina kick Mr. Martin from her house, again?  He was on his 3rd suspension of the school year, so for discipline he was shipped out and left to the case of the fathers girlfriend.   What did they do after his first suspension, his second, did they just give up?  If so, then why are we deifying them.

With the Coulter case, very little is known so far, but the fact that young Marshall was a criminal is not even denied.  So the question becomes how much was done to help the young teen to mend his ways?  Was the family profiteering from the young teens exploits?

It is possible to do everything right and still have problems with your kids?  Of course it is, but this should be the exception not the rule.  When people were describing Mr. Martin as a typical because he was using and dealing drugs, vandalism, using all types of epitaphs and getting suspended from school, I cringed.  That is not should it ever be the norm and if you are a parent and think that this is the norm for teenagers in today’s society, you should examine your parenting skills.

It has become a cliché to say how important a job is to be a parent.  and many take it for granted.  Yet, it is perhaps the most important job that you will have as an adult.  It takes sacrifice and lots of hard work it not something to be taken lightly, kids are treated like accessories.  Becoming a parent is not a decision that should be made without taking into consideration what it would entail.

Parental responsibility for kids, needs to be addressed.  To often due to circumstances parents fail in ensuring that one major aspect of their responsibility is taken care of.  Our children are a reflection of us, when we fail our kids the results can be catastrophic to the kids or others.

All 50 states now have laws that can hold the parents responsible for civil damages of acts committed by their children, in varying degrees  but the issue remains, as people seldom use the laws and the courts in their discretion don’t enforce the laws on the books.  And in cases where the perpetrator is injured or kill, what use would it do.

Opponents feel that the laws are intrusive and invade the privacy of the families point out that there are other influences in the kids life that contribute to their delinquency, like social, cultural and economic reasons.

But anytime that there are attempts to address this, the big entertainment interest, and their supporters fight those efforts and resist any attempt to address the issue.  It is a similar story when social reasons are addressed.  The economic reasons are just are hard to fix as the fact that they are a direct result of the other two.  Creating a vicious circle that no ones wants to talk about directly, outside of the usual soundbites or another government program bound to fail as it does not address all the issues simultaneously.

There are not easy solutions but one we can do is not elevate those responsible for bad parenting, who have obviously failed at their most important responsibility as saints or role models.  Doing that sends the completely opposite lesson to all those parents that need help or are failing in theirs.

 

What wrong with Conservatives?

I was watching Bill Whittle‘s speech on YouTube and after it I was left wondering what is wrong with Conservatives?  Watch the speech first, maybe the answer can be found there.

So what is wrong with Conservatives?  Bill thinks that it is because we don’t believe our message and he has a point, but only to an extent.  It not just that some don’t believe the message is that we don’t express it.  We can believe it but when it comes down to it we just don’t know how to express it, we sugar-coated it.  We try to express our ideals by what the other side is saying.

You see a Progressive listening to that wonderful speech, would say that Bill is a war-mongering, agitator, a bully in other words.  They would not get pass that to understand that he is not proposing attacks or more war, but he is holding the other people responsible for their actions.  If the Iranians want to support those that are killing Americans, then they will face the consequences of that decision, because we will retaliate.  See the difference.

Some would say that Bill is uncaring for suggesting that attacks against innocents is the way to act.  I see it as he is very caring, about American lives, first.  We are citizens of the World but we live in America, the citizens of Iran, North Korea, Russia, etc  don’t care about us,  in fact they want to become Americans citizens themselves.

Some have said that Romney would be rude for talking about how rich he compared to others.  Why, he made the money, it is his.  He pays his taxes, and besides the point is that any of us, could be him.  Any of us if we are successful can become a Romney, or a Buffett, or a Trump or a Gates.  How many other places on Earth can say that,  that working out of your garage you could become a billionaire and not have noble birth or are a member of the Communist Party.

There was a time when becoming a millionaire was something rare, a very limited club exclusive to the royalty and country leaders, now in the US alone there are 9 million millionaires, many who started with just and idea and a dream.  We use to celebrate that, they were our role models, today we denigrate them.  It is ironic to me that so many of these are proponents or called themselves Progressives, like Buffett whose company has been fighting the IRS for 10 years.  People like those actors who profess to support every Progressive idea, but have teams of lawyers and accountants to ensure every penny they earned is protected from the taxman.

What is wrong with Conservatives? I have heard civil rights leaders proclaim that Conservatives don’t care about them or their issues.   I have heard some say that Conservatives want to put chains on them again.  When the reality is that we want to unchained them, allow them to reach their potential.  We don’t think that they are less smart, and try to dumb down test so they can pass them.  We think they can be just as intelligent and more.

Conservatives don’t want to remove the safety net, we want the net to catch them when they stumbled, allowing them to get back on their feet,  we just don’t want that net to become a blanket for them to hide under.  Conservatives don’t think it is their business to tell  adult people what to eat,  how much soda to drink, which doctor they can see.  We understand that some schools are better that other, that human, so we want to give vouchers for those willing, or wanting the option for private schools.  We think that a bureaucrat in Washington is not better equipped that the local school board to determine the needs of our kids.

Conservatives believes that we have laws as set forth by the Constitution, that are pretty damn good, it is not a living organism  and it some things can be improved upon, but it has served us well for all of 237 years, there is a reason countries when crafting their own constitutions use ours as a guide.

We believe in freedom of choice, freedom of association, freedom of the press, freedom of speech and freedom to fail or succeed.  Is is a fact that not everyone can become a millionaire, but everyone should have the ability to.  We believe that if you come to our country illegally and break the rules, you don’t get rewarded for that.   Imagine if someone breaks into your house, and sets up camp, without your permission or invitation,  that person eats your food, watches cable  you pay for, perhaps that person even assists you in some way but the fact remains that he broke into your home and now you can’t get rid of him.  That is how Conservatives feel about illegals, it is not that we are uncaring for their plight,  we understand why you want to live in my house and enjoy what I have, but the difference I paid for it, and I did not invite you.

What is wrong with Conservatives?  Well I guess we are uncaring, we believe that you are responsible for your personal choices, if you had unprotected sex, and you got pregnant, you should bear the consequences of that choice, and please don’t ask me to pay for your contraceptives, I am not enjoying the act so why should I pay for it.  We spend millions to educate kids about the birds and the bees, so they should be not surprise if you do the deed and seed is planted.

We don’t like quotas, set asides, graduated scores, affirmative action of any kind, you should succeed on your merits and not as a result of a formula that someone came up with.  We believe that government is working for the people not the people working for the government.  That it should spend the money that we provide properly, with a balance budget, without deficits and in the open.  That government workers are there to serve us, their employers, when government workers are earning more than those in private practice then we have a problem.

We believe that as Bill says entitled to your own opinion, just not your own facts.  What is wrong with Conservatives?

Nothing, maybe we just change the name, Tea Party anyone!

 

NAACP declares war on Zimmerman, This case is about Race or is it?

UPDATE!!!

This is an article from the National Association of Scholars’ President Peter Wood, titled how Academe turned Zimmerman into a racist. It goes along the same lines of what is happened with the NAACP. Enjoy, well worth the read:

http://www.nas.org/articles/how_academe_turned_zimmerman_into_a_racist

 

Today a new Caucus will make an address in the Halls of our Congress.  The new Caucus, which just means a group of like-minded politicians working on a policy or issue, the  Black Men and Boys Caucus will kick off with a speech by Tracy Martin, the father of Trayvon Martin.  The aims of this working group is to find solutions (new Federal funding $$$) for the problems affecting America’s young Black males.  The choice of Tracy Martin is indicative of the lack of seriousness of the Caucus, as it has elevated a neglecting father to a model status, one that anyone who knows the background of the Zimmerman saga knows is undeserving.  This is at the behest of the NAACP which has leveraged its diminished influence on its quest to get Zimmerman.

What we are seeing is a temper tantrum by a once revered organization, that worked with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. hand in hand in bringing a more just and equal society, one more in line with the American ideals.  Their past contributions is undeniable.  That they can help and drive the Black vote is also undeniable, but can they assist the African-American community in today’s world?  Can they address the issues of high criminality, staggering numbers of unwed mothers (73%), high levels of illiteracy (Detroit-47%),  and high unemployment ( nationally 16%,  total if the one who have given up are counted, 23%)?

Bill O’Reilly address some of the issues in his show, quoting him:

The sad truth is that from the President on down, our leadership has no clue, no clue at all about how to solve problems within the black community. And many are frightened to even broach the issue. That’s because race hustlers and the grievance industry have intimidated the so- called “conversation,” turning any valid criticism of African-American culture into charges of racial bias.

You read the rest here: http://www.billoreilly.com/b/Bill-OReilly:-President-Obama-and-the-race-problem/945823226264545887.html

I disagree somewhat, the leadership does know the issues and know that to fix them they are going to have to confront  a sector of  Society that has undue influence not just on Black Youth but of all races, the Entertainment industry.  The issue is criticizing a sector that provides huge amounts of funding, and that you use to drive voters.  So they don’t and try to find solutions or place blame on other things, like racial profiling.

To promote equality of rights and to eradicate caste or race prejudice among the citizens of the United States; to advance the interest of colored citizens; to secure for them impartial suffrage; and to increase their opportunities for securing justice in the courts, education for the children, employment according to their ability and complete equality before law.

This was the mission statement of the NAACP when it incorporated in 1911.  In the beginning the group’s first President was a descendant from earliest Puritans, a wealthy socialist as Chairman of the Executive Board, a journalist, a Jewish woman as Executive Secretary, a black doctor of history as its head of Publicity and research.  Of the original 60 members only 7 were black.  From these humble beginnings the organization grew into a powerful force.  Its monthly magazine The Crisis which was led by W.E. B. Dubois provided first hand accounts of news, current affairs, poems and essays on culture and history and reached a  circulation of 100,000 in the 1920’s and served as Dubois personal opinions  and those of the NAACP.

While the marches and rallies and lobbying were slowly changing attitudes of the public, it was its Legal wing that was making an impact in the courts and slowly over turning the Jim Crow’s law and racial segregation.  The mostly Jewish lawyers, who identified with the Black plight and compared it to their own history as slaves in Egypt, and the riots as pogroms not only contributed financially they composed of most the Executive Directors of the organization, it was not until 1975 that the first Black Executive was elected, though there were Blacks who served as President and members of the Board.

In the 50’s and 60’s when the great civil rights battles were being fought, half of the lawyers of the NAACP were Jewish and half of the NAACP members that went to Mississippi to help register blacks to vote and protest the Jim Crow laws were White.  But after the passage Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, the leadership of the NAACP and their local chapter leaders their relationship started to become strained.  These were volatile times as a philosophical battle was being fought for the hearts and minds of Black America, between T.R.M. Howard the Chicago doctor and activist that preached self-help, entrepreneurship and he was fond of saying:

“There is not a thing wrong with Mississippi today that real Jeffersonian democracy and the religion of Jesus Christ cannot solve.'”

On the other hand were the Socialist Utopia of the far Left that were promoted by NAACP and the anarchist like the Black Panthers who preached revolution and complete separatism of Blacks and Whites.  In the end Socialism won, with its promise of government instituted programs but only with the assistance of the separatists.  These new Progressives went about transforming the country, maintaining and enlarging the gains of the civil rights era.  In some cases whole cities came to be under their control, Detroit, Chicago, Atlanta, Montgomery, Little Rock and many more were now controlled by the children of the civil rights.  With government promising more and more aid in the form of the many programs aimed at them their control grew but so did the dependency on such programs with abysmal results.

The NAACP dedicated itself of protecting those gains, expanding them whenever possible.  It had become a corrupt organization that’s only aim was aiding Progressives in their aim not the advancement of its people.  Its membership dwindled, its differences with NAACP Legal Fund grew to the point that it sue unsuccessfully to remove the NAACP from its former twin organization.  Its members had become anti-semitic against despite its roots and in the end the LDF just dropped the NAACP from its logo, though it is still their legal corporate name.

The problems in the organization continued in the 90’s when membership was at its lowest and mismanagement was high, at point in 1996 the organization had only 50 offices from the 250 it had in 1992.  It all started to change in 1998 when Julian Bond became the Chairman and he reached out to other Progressive organizations.  Flush with cash from these other groups the NAACP help to mobilize blacks for the 2000 election helping Gore win States like Pennsylvania and Michigan.  It also meant an official change in the organization stance in other areas, like LBGT and support for same-sex marriage and adopting Planned Parenthood.

Julian Bond drew a parallel between gay right and the black civil rights, he also brought about the acceptance of immigrant rights.  When Ben Jealous was elected President he continued those positions as a result the organization has Hispanic chapter leaders as their leaders, and it has expanded their membership.

It has come at a price, many church leaders which had traditionally composed the local NAACP leadership have been very vocal against these changes and many have resigned. As Rev. CL Bryant said in an article publish on USA Today:

” After a Florida jury acquitted George Zimmermanin the killing of Trayvon Martin, the NAACP pledged that it “will not rest until racial profiling in all its forms is outlawed.” The reaction is characteristic of today’s NAACP, a group that deals more in political demagoguery than in advancing the causes relevant to African-Americans. The group is a shadow of what it once was.”

He goes on to say: “Then I watched as progressives staged a coup to take over the Garland NAACP chapter and many others, including the national organization. Their agenda is angry, calling for every black man, woman, and child to be dependent on the government from cradle to grave – wards of the state, addicted to government handouts, living with a perpetual victim complex.”

Please read the whole thing, it  provides an insight look at the organization in its current form. http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/07/22/trayvon-zimmerman-naacp-column/2572955/

As both O’Reilly and Rev. Bryant point out the issues of the Black community stem from its problems with Education which are turning young blacks into criminals as their only alternative.  It is a problem few are willing to admit to.  What is the NAACP stands on these issues? Well according to Chairman Bond the NAACP is role is to provide social justice and those problems require social service so they have done all they can (NPR interview Feb. 16 2009)

What does this means? Why is the NAACP targeting Zimmerman? The answer is that it really is not targeting Zimmerman but it is using the controversy caused for by the trial and acquittal to gain both members and to push its Progressive agenda.  Voting rights the NAACP is fighting to have voting rights restored to felons, as well as any voter id. law. Economic opportunities it wants to maintain quotas or racial preferences so that its members are hired. Education while parity used to be the goal, it now supports a program championed by Pres. Obama to end or greatly limit school suspensions and disciplinary actions in Public Schools  against black students.  It is worth remembering that Trayvon Martin was in Sanford that night because he was on his 3rd suspension of the school year.  Civic Engagement it wants to keep promoting the advocacy of young men and women in college. Media Diversity it encourages the media to hire more blacks for tv and movies.  Federal Advocacy-they are lobbying to stop a la carte cable programming as a deterrent to diversity, now in the current system cable providers must include in their packages  or tiers minority owned stations, with a la carte that requirement would be lost.  Gun control; they are also pushing for tougher gun control laws, because they have proven to be so effective in the past (sarc) see Chicago. Filibuster reform they want to do away with the rules to required a simple majority.   As we can see from this list they are all in the Progressive wish list, all items are straight out of their webpage.

As Rev. Bryant states the NAACP should now be call the NAACPP, the added P for Progressive.  What it means is that Zimmerman is a means to an end, using Zimmerman and the controversy to push their ideas of gun control, education reform and energizing their base to vote and choose leaders that would help push these reforms.  Rather than looking for a solution to the Black community the NAACP and its allies are pushing their agenda forward, hoping that nobody notices.  Meanwhile, in Chicago last weekend saw 4 dead and 10 wounded in separate shootings.  This past weekend was also the same when multiple demonstrations were held across the country protesting the verdict in the Zimmerman trial.  It seems that the priorities seem askew, the talk about Stand Your Ground laws  seems ridiculous considering that many of the people who vehemently argue against them now where either proponents or did not oppose the law when instituted, like Rep. Frederica Wilson in Florida and President Obama when he was a State Senator. Instead of offering solutions the leadership is looking for scapegoats, racial profiling , SYG laws, gun control and the very laws they once championed.  I’ll leave you with a quote from Romany Malco, a black actor, published in the Huffington Post:

I believe we lost that trial for Trayvon long before he was killed. Trayvon was doomed the moment ignorance became synonymous with young black America . We lost that case by using media outlets (music, movies, social media, etc.) as vehicles to perpetuate the same negative images and social issues that destroyed the black community in the first place. When we went on record glorifying violent crime and when we voted for a president we never thought to hold accountable. When we signed on to do reality shows that fed into the media’s stereotypes of black men, we ingrained an image of Trayvon Martin so overwhelming that who he actually may have been didn’t matter anymore.

Don’t you find it peculiar that the same media outlets who have worked so diligently to galvanize the negative stigmas of black men in America are now airing open debates on improving the image of black males in American media? Do you honestly think CNN is using their competitive time slots for philanthropy?

You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” – Rahm Emanuel

If we really wanted to ensure Trayvon Martin’s killing was not in vain, we’d stop perpetuating negative images that are now synonymous with black men in America. We’d stop rapping about selling drugs and killing niggas. The next time we saw a man beating a woman, we’d call for help or break it up, but one thing we would not do is stand by with our cellphones out — yelling WORLDSTAR! Instead of rewarding kids for memorization, we’d reward them for independent and critical thinking.

The fact remains that Blacks in this country are doing better than their counterparts anywhere else in the world, but a sector of them is being left behind.  It will require bold leadership, not demagoguery to address the problems head-on and it may require stepping on a few toes.  Lacking this the issues will linger and continue to suffer.  Is there anyone willing to step up to the plate? Black, White or whatever.

The Trayvon Martin Case, Update 36.2: Public Interest Waning?

Awesome recap from Mike, and what has happened since the verdict was rendered a week ago. Also in the news ABC news is reporting that last Thursday Zimmerman who has been hiding since the verdict, came to the aid of a family of 4 who had overturned their SUV on the highway. What a monster!

Stately McDaniel Manor

The fallout from the not guilty verdict in the George Zimmerman prosecution continues apace.  I have often written about the corruption and complete lack of ethics displayed by the prosecutors, but they’ve hit new lows.  The Gateway Pundit reports that prosecutor Angela Corey, when asked to describe George Zimmerman in one word, replied “Murderer.”

The Rule of Law and Lies: Lawyers, particularly prosecutors, simply don’t say such things.  They know that not only is such commentary a direct insult to jurors, it demonstrates a shocking lack of respect for the very system lawyers serve.  It puts their personal and political feelings above the rule of law and erodes respect for the justice system and everyone working in it.  It is unethical, destructive to liberty and irredeemably stupid, but that’s what we have come to expect from Corey and her minions.

Corey’s comment is also a lie.  A murderer is one…

View original post 3,805 more words

Random Thoughts of an Outsider

Thank Aussie for the wonderful recap. It is very interesting that someone thousands of miles away asks the questions that our own Media does not. As you mentioned Barry has very little in common with Trayvon and what he does is not very positive. Anyhow, enjoy the perspective of an outsider.

A world at war

For the past 16 months I have been pre-occupied with the case involving George Zimmerman, the Florida man who shot a 17 year old to death.  The 17 year old, when he was shot was in the processes of beating George Zimmerman within an inch of his life. Trayvon Martin, the dead youth, was not unarmed as claimed by the BGI or Black Grievance Industry, rather he was armed with his fists and concrete. Despite the fact that the evidence indicated a strong case for self-defense, the State of Florida appointed the corrupt Angela Corey as Special Prosecutor, who then charged George Zimmerman with second degree murder. The charging affidavit was based upon the lies of a female known as Witness 8. For the record, I belong to the group who have trouble believing any of the Rachel Jeantel testimony. I note that nothing was produced at the trial that…

View original post 446 more words

Zimmerman, Obama and the Cult of Trayvon Martin my conversation with the President

The Cult of Trayvon Martin has a new member, or perhaps I should say that an old member just renewed his vows to the cult.  Yes, I am referring to our President of the United States,  Barrack H. Obama.  After chiming in after the verdict was read and saying quite reasonably the jury had spoken and we are a nation of laws,  he decides to join the madness of the cult by having an impromptu conference and reaffirming his membership in the Cult of Trayvon.

Like many cults that have preceded it, the members don’t have to be sensible, believe that rules or laws that apply to all others do not apply to them, and they have a leaders who can sound reasonable at times but then launch into the craziness. Like members of other cults, they suspend rational thoughts, they have a persecution complex, and an excuse if anything negative is either done in their name or discovered about them.  Like many cults they have some charismatic leaders, loud mouthpieces and followers in high positions in society. Like many cults they espouse a cause or causes that are totally irrelevant, figments of the imagination or just made up crisis that have no basis in fact. Like many cults some of its aims are reasonable and worthy, but overshadow by emotions and faith in all the wrong places.

After the President delivered his speech, I was livid. How could our President, former Lawyer, Constitutional Law lecturer, Senator and protector of our laws and Constitution speak, well, stupidly? Does he not know that he is the  President of all the US not just 16% of the population? Is he even aware that his words carry some weight, and his involvement on a local story that some groups are desperately trying to make a National one will accomplish that? Did he read what he said prior to saying it?

The judge conducted the trial in a professional manner. The prosecution and the defense made their arguments. The juries (sic) were properly instructed that in a – in a case such as this, reasonable doubt was relevant. And they rendered a verdict.And once the jury’s spoken, that’s how our system works…But beyond protests or vigils, the question is: Are there some concrete things that we might be able to do? I know that Eric Holder is reviewing what happened down there, but I think it’s important for people to have some clear expectations here. Traditionally, these are issues of state and local government. The criminal code and law enforcement is traditionally done at the state and local levels, not at the federal levels.

Allahpundit , sees this part of the speech as a way to let left know that there will not be a Federal charges, while telling them that he feels their pain.  Perhaps that is so, but do we need the President to be the one giving that message?  If that was all the President had said, I would have supported it,  though I still feel it is improper for him to interfere in local matters.  But the President went further, much further in his speech. Read the complete article he makes some points though I may not agree with all of them.

I am getting ahead of myself again, so I will break down the speech and what I would say to the President had I been able to talk to him. President in red, my responses in black, h/t CNN for the transcript.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I wanted to come out here, first of all, to tell you that Jay is prepared for all your questions, and is very much looking forward to the session.

Second thing is, I want to let you know that over the next couple of weeks, there are going to obviously be a whole range of issues – immigration, economics, et cetera. We’ll try to arrange a fuller press conference to address your questions.

The reason I actually wanted to come out today is not to take questions, but to speak to an issue that’s obviously gotten a lot of attention over the course of the last week, the issue of the Trayvon Martin ruling.

I gave a preliminary statement right after the ruling on Sunday, but watching the debate over the course of the last week, I thought it might be useful for me to expand on my thoughts a little bit.

The “I gave a preliminary statement” made my ears perk up,  I suddenly had a bad feeling.

First of all, I want to make sure that once again I send my thought and prayers, as well as Michelle’s, to the family of Trayvon Martin, and to remark on the incredible grace and dignity with which they’ve dealt with the entire situation. I can only imagine what they’re going through and it’s remarkable how they’ve handled it.

Look I get it they lost their son, under any circumstances that alone is tough, but I am sick and tires of hearing about the grace and dignity of the Martins, who refused to help the police, maligned everyone involved, trademarked their dead son, swindled the HOA, went on a tour all across the country with trash cans to get donations in their son’s name and are now repeating the same thing all over.  You want to see grace and dignity, look at the parents of George Zimmerman who had to hide, throughout this ordeal and are still hiding because of the lies and manipulations of the Martins.

The second thing I want to say is to reiterate what I said on Sunday, which is there are going to be a lot of arguments about the legal – the legal issues in the case. I’ll let all the legal analysts and talking heads address those issues. 

The judge conducted the trial in a professional manner. The prosecution and the defense made their arguments. The juries (sic) were properly instructed that in a – in a case such as this, reasonable doubt was relevant. And they rendered a verdict.

And once the jury’s spoken, that’s how our system works.

I know that Obama was not a criminal lawyer, but I am sure that at some point during law school, someone must have mentioned that reasonable doubt is not only relevant but that the prosecution must prove the charges beyond such.

But I did want to just talk a little bit about context and how people have responded to it and how people are feeling.

You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me, 35 years ago.

Oh boy, so not only is he commenting on the story but now he is inserting himself into it.  Narcissistic much.

And when you think about why, in the African-American community at least, there’s a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it’s important to recognize that the African-American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a – and a history that – that doesn’t go away.

What a nice way to say that we are all racists.  That will really go a long way in easing tensions.

There are very few African-American men in this country who haven’t had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. That includes me.

There are probably very few African-American men who haven’t had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me – at least before I was a senator.

There are very few African-Americans who haven’t had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off.
That happens often.

I am Hispanic and some of the same things have happened to me, that does not mean that I can beat the next guy that follows me in a department store and if I was a woman and I saw you in an elevator I too, would clutch my purse, you take enough of my money through taxes both hidden and income taxes.  But, all that is besides the point are you going to mention why are young black males seen, perceived the way some are?  Do I need to quote you the statistics?

And, you know, I – I don’t want to exaggerate this, but those sets of experiences inform how the African-American community interprets what happened one night in Florida.

And it’s inescapable for people to bring those experiences to bear.

The African-American community is also knowledgeable that there is a history racial disparities in the application of our criminal laws, everything from the death penalty to enforcement of our drug laws. And that ends up having an impact in terms of how people interpret the case.

Well, Mr. President this was your perfect opportunity to clarify the issues of this case, but even though the Prosecution, Defense, and Family all have said that Race was not involved in the case, you just made it about race again.  The fact that Zimmerman was as colorblind as anyone possibly could be, is irrelevant to you.  This was your opportunity to set the record straight and use the standing within the community to quashed the misunderstandings about the case.  Instead you have chosen to pander to other people’s fear and bigotry whether founded or not.  Great Job, Mr. President.

Now, this isn’t to say that the African-American community is naive about the fact that African-American young men are disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system, that they’re disproportionately both victims and perpetrators of violence. It’s not to make excuses for that fact.

Although, black folks do interpret the reasons for that in a historical context. They understand that, some of the violence that takes place in poor black neighborhoods around the country is born out of a very violent past in this country. And that the poverty and dysfunction that we see in those communities can be traced to a very difficult history.

First you claim that you are not making excuses for the disproportionate amount of criminal activity in the community and then you go ahead and do so.  There is a reason some is called history, it means in the past and as you are a shining example of, we do not leave 35 years ago when you claim you could have been TM.  Not to mention that the event was not triggered by race as you keep asserting.  At least you don’t claim all of the current crime problems in the AA community are because of past history, question Mr. President how much do you think it is still tied to  past history and how is due to fail policies that destroyed the core of any community the Family Unit MOM, DAD and the kids.

Sundance at the Conservative Treehouse has a post that detail some of the details about the criminal statistics that you have  glossed over and it is worth a read, to put thing is context,  http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2013/07/21/22-5-and-if-you-dont-agree-youre-racist-now-about-that-immigration-reform

And so, the fact that sometimes that’s unacknowledged adds to the frustration. And the fact that a lot of Africa-American boys are painted with a broad brush and the excuses given, “Well, there are these statistics out there that show that African-American boys are more violent,” using that as an excuse to then see sons treated differently causes pain.

Mr. President is more than just statistics, claiming that is just numbers some bureaucrat can up with, does not diminished the facts. The same way that trying to minimize the numbers by using techniques such as those used by the Miami-Dade School System Police used to minimize the number of referrals to the Juvenile Criminal System, such hiding, destroying evidence, falsifying records, using the Baker Act to deal with young criminals, all with the goal of  camouflaging the problem.  Your initiative to forcing those unruly teens in the schools are also designed to fail, they will disrupt things for those that want to learn and they either drop out or continue getting social promotions, to the point that they will be 19 years old and can’t read a sentence in cursive.  Both of those solutions do not address the core issues, they are just paper over a hole in the wall.

I think the African-American community is also not naive in understanding that, statistically, somebody like Trayvon Martin was probably, statistically, more likely to be shot by a peer than he was
by somebody else.

Some credit is due, for this statement of fact.

So – so folks understand the challenges that exist for African-American boys. But they get frustrated, I think, if they feel that there’s no context for it, or – and that context is being denied. And – and that all contributes, I think, to a sense that if a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario that, from top to bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different.

The context is not being denied by the people but you, politician of your party and the news media, that will not report the context of some crimes, lest someone such as yourself Mr. President take out of the correct context and blame past history for the gang problems today.  If a sense exist that a white male teen would have different outcome, it may have to do with how a white male teen might have acted in the situation.  Would he have gone home, or would he have gone back to confront the person, and attack him because of past racial history that disrespect him.  But did conversation is avoided, as we do not want to talk about what the AA community is teaching its black males about resolving conflicts.

Now, the question, for me, at least, and – and I think for a lot of folks is, “Where do we take this? How – how do we learn some lessons from this and move in a positive direction?”

You know, I think it’s understandable that there have been demonstrations and vigils and protests and some of that is just going to have to work its way through as long as it remains nonviolent. If I see any violence, then I will remind folks that that dishonors what happened to Trayvon Martin and his family.

How it is positive to honor a young man who acted in a violent manner?  If your goal is to move in positive direction why not say the truth, that Trayvon Martin acted in an unreasonable violent way, which led to his death, saying anything else will not send any positive message.  Or are you condoning Trayvon’s actions and if you are then the future Trayvons have you to thank for their fate.  Sending the wrong message not only dishonors your office but propagates the same circle of violence that is claiming so many young black males, something you want to avoid, or do you?

But beyond protests or vigils, the question is: Are there some concrete things that we might be able to do? I know that Eric Holder is reviewing what happened down there, but I think it’s important for people to have some clear expectations here. Traditionally, these are issues of state and local government. The criminal code and law enforcement is traditionally done at the state and local levels, not at the federal levels.

I already mentioned this paragraph and what Allahpundit and some other think it means.

That doesn’t mean, though, that as a nation, we can’t do some things that I think would be productive. So let me just give a couple of specifics that I’m still bouncing around with my staff, you know, so we’re not rolling out some five-point plan, but some areas where I think all of us could potentially focus.

Number one, precisely because law enforcement is often determined at the state and local level, I think it would be productive for the Justice Department, governors, mayors to work with law enforcement about training at the state and local levels in order to reduce the kind of mistrust in the system that sometimes currently exists.

You know, when I was in Illinois, I passed racial profiling legislation, and it actually did just two simple things. One, it collected data on traffic stops and the race of the person who was stopped, but the other things was it resourced us training police departments across the state on how to think about potential racial bias, and ways to further professionalize what they were doing.

And, initially, the police departments across the state were resistant, but actually they came to recognize that if it was done in a fair, straightforward way that, it would allow them to do their jobs better and communities would have more confidence in them, and in turn be more helpful in – in applying the law. And, obviously, law enforcement’s got a very tough job.

Just shooting the breeze about more ways the Federal government will interfere on local affairs.  The mistrust in the system is in great part, the politicizing of law enforcement that politicians have done, to garner votes and pander to a public that is waiting for leadership, not more studies and statistics.  Regardless I am still unclear how protesting or demonstrating against an unpopular decision will build trust on the system.

So that’s one area where I think there are a lot of resources and best practices that could be brought to bear, if state and local governments are receptive, and I think a lot of them would be. And let’s figure out, are there ways for us to push out that kind of training.

Along the same lines, I think it would be useful for us to examine some state and – and local laws to see if it – if they are designed in such a way that they may encourage the kinds of altercations and confrontations and tragedies that we saw in the Florida case, rather than diffuse potential altercations.

I know that there’s been commentary about the fact that the “Stand Your Ground” laws in Florida were not used as a defense in the case.

I was wondering when he would get to the Stand your Ground law.  Since its inception in 2005 the law has been invoked 133 times, in the same period there have been 8378 homicides,  which means the law was invoked for 1.5% of the homicides.   Does it really look like the law is creating or encouraging altercations or confrontations?  If we add the Aggravated Assaults which can also use the law in self-defense cases the percentage drops even further.   By the way AA are disproportionately benefiting from the law,  while 33% of the cases invoking the law are AA, they are only 17% of the total population in Florida.  Not only are they invoking the law at a higher percentage but are granted immunity at a greater percentage than whites or Hispanics, as well.

On the other hand, if we’re sending a message as a society in our communities that someone who is armed potentially has the right to use those firearms, even if there’s a way for them to exit from a situation, is that really going to be contributing to the kind of peace and security and order that we’d like to see?

And for those who – who resist that idea, that we should think about something like these Stand Your Ground laws, I just ask people to consider, if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman, who had followed him in a car, because he felt threatened? And if the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, then it seems to me that we might want to examine those kinds of laws.

NO. There is no ambiguity about that, because unless we are in a different country, the act of following someone does not constitute justification for shooting someone.  You would think as someone who has been to Law School would be aware of that.  I could quote case-law on this but what would be the point, the whole Stand your Ground debate is a red herring to distract people from the facts of the case and a pet agenda.  SYG had nothing to do with the case, what ifs, and assumptions still don’t make it so.  The case was a clear-cut case of self-defense, the duty to retreat; had there been one required as is the case on some other states, was hampered by Trayvon Martin who was straddling Zimmerman making retreat impossible.  That, is the reason for all the talk about SYG is deflect from talking about the facts of the case and introduces imaginary scenarios.

Number three – and this is a long-term project – we need to spend some time in thinking about how do we bolster and reinforce our African-American boys? And this is something that Michelle and I talk a lot about. There are a lot of kids out there who need help, who are getting a lot of negative reinforcement. And is there more that we can do to give them the sense that their country cares about them, and values them, and is willing to invest in them?

You know, I’m not naive about the prospects of some grand new federal program. I’m not sure that that’s what we’re talking about here. But I – I do recognize that, as president, I’ve got some convening power. And there are a lot of good programs that are being done across the country on this front. And for us to be able to gather together business leaders and local elected officials and clergy and celebrities and athletes and figure out, how are we doing a better job helping young African-American men feel that they’re a full part of this society and that – and that they’ve got pathways and avenues to succeed? You know, I think that would be a pretty good outcome from what was, obviously, a tragic situation. And we’re going to spend some time working on that and thinking about that.

You want to re-force young black males, how about starting by not idealizing a thug that got himself shot while brutally attack a ‘creepy ass-cracka”.  Now there is a start for you, you mention athletes how about making it forbidden for college athletes to drop out before concluding their degrees.  No degree, no big NBA contract, same for all college sports.  How about recognizing nationally those who achieve academically rather than athletically.  You want them to feel like a full part of society, then stop referring to the “Black Experience”,  referring how black lives are different from others, you can be inclusive if all you do is divisive.

And then, finally, I think it’s going to be important for all of us to do some soul-searching. You know, there’s been talk about, should we convene a conversation on race? I haven’t seen that be particularly productive when, you know, politicians try to organize conversations. They end up being stilted and politicized, and folks are locked into the positions they already have.

On the other hand, in families and churches and workplaces, there’s a possibility that people are a little bit more honest and at least you ask yourself your own questions about, am I wringing as much bias out of myself as I can? Am I judging people as much as I can based on not the color of their skin, but the content of their character? That would, I think, be an appropriate exercise in the wake of this tragedy.

I will give you credit that any race conversation had by politicians is non-productive and actually very detrimental.  But any discussion without honesty is just as much a waste of time.

And let me just leave you with – with the final thought that, as difficult and challenging as this whole episode has been for a lot of people, I don’t want us to lose sight that things are getting better. Each successive generation seems to be making progress in changing attitudes when it comes to race. It doesn’t mean we’re in a post-racial society. It doesn’t mean that racism is eliminated.

But, you know, when I talk to Malia and Sasha and I listen to their friends and I see them interact, they’re better than we are. They’re better than we were on these issues. And that’s true in every community that I’ve visited all across the country. And so, you know, we have to be vigilant. And we have to work on these issues. And those of us in authority should be doing everything we can to encourage the better angels of our – nature as opposed to using these episodes to heighten divisions.

But we should also have confidence that kids these days, I think, have more sense than we did back then and certainly more than our parents did or our grandparents did, and that along this long and difficult journey, you know, we’re becoming a more perfect union, not a perfect union, but a more perfect union.

All right?

Thank you, guys.

I have to give credit, admitting that things are better, but those of us in authority should be doing everything we can to encourage the better angels of our – nature as opposed to using these episodes to heighten divisions.”  What did you think you were doing by your earlier statements?  Holder call us cowards, I agree, because we are dishonest with ourselves and each other.  Pandering to our emotions in time of deep misunderstanding  only make it worse, not better. That is what the President did with this speech, he said just enough to pander to everyone, he justified the protests and legitimize their misplaced sentiments.  At the same time he acknowledge that things have changed and politics make the discussions worse not better.  But he did not take a stand on anything, he did not say to the demonstrators hey your actions are misplaced in this regard.  Or took a stronger stance on the law, he vacillated, he led from behind and led us nowhere.  He did not make the situation better but possibly worse.

Once again, he acted stupidly!