Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Stand-Your-Ground: Gun Control Zombies Exploit Grieving Black Community

Stand-Your-Ground: Gun Control Zombies Exploit Grieving Black Community

As the racialist wing of our body politic suffers through the Kubler-Ross seven stages of grief at the “Not Guilty” verdict in the Zimmerman trial, we find that they are currently transitioning from the “Anger” to “Bargaining” stage. How do we know? Because all they want, they now tell us, is to “reform” the Stand-Your-Ground laws that currently exist in thirty-three states.

bb269ff6f08511e296ed22000aaa0a30_7

Stand-Your-Ground protestors in Florida governor’s office.

What’s Stand-Your-Ground Have to Do With It?

You may, like any normal thinking person, be wondering how the heck the conversation turned to Stand-Your-Ground in the first place. After all, the Zimmerman case had nothing whatever to do with Stand-Your-Ground (as discussed in detail here: The Marissa Alexander Case Wasn’t About “Stand-Your-Ground” Either).

Black People Benefit Disproportionately From Stand-Your-Ground

In addition, all the evidence suggests that Stand-Your-Ground is being used properly by law-abiding people defending themselves against criminal predation–and, further, that a vastly disproportionate number of those doing so are minorities living in high crime neighborhoods. In other words, black people are availing themselves of the protective benefits of Stand-Your-Ground with much greater frequency than their percentage of the population would suggest.

FBI-Homocide-Victims-by-Race-2009

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation

This, of course, follows naturally from the fact that the high rate of violent crime in poor neighborhoods is directed primarily at the other residents of those neighborhoods, resulting in the horrifyingly high rate of black-on-black crime reflected in today’s FBI crime statistics.

Stand-Your-Ground The Law In Large Majority of States

In addition, Stand-Your-Ground is hardly some aberration of Florida law. Only a minority of states–17 as of this writing–impose a mandatory generalized duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense, and many of the Stand-Your-Ground states have been such for decades before Florida adopted its own Stand-Your-Ground statute in 2005.

So, if Stand-Your-Ground is neither new nor unusual, if it disproportionately helps minorities protect themselves from the violent predation of (mostly) other minorities, and if there is nothing in either of the recent high-profile “self-defense” cases involving members of the black community, what’s the deal?

The Grief and Anger in the Black Community is Real

First, it must be acknowledged that the grief and anger in the black community is real and genuine. I’m not, of course, talking about the ring leaders who are fostering this grief and anger for their own personal benefit. I’m talking about the average black person on the streets who obtains most if not all of their information about these matters from those ring leaders and their willing enablers in the mainstream media.

The Disinformation War Waged on the Black Community

From the first days following the shooting of Trayvon Martin the black community, and the American public in general, was fed a pack of lies and disinformation about the events in question. A few that immediately come to mind off the top of my head include:

  • Zimmerman “stalked” Martin. (There is no evidence that Zimmerman ever sought to close with Martin or sought to do anything but observe from a distance.)
  • Zimmerman volunteered Martin’s race to police. (No, NBC doctored the 911 recording to make that appear to be the case, the police asked and Zimmerman answered.)
  • Zimmerman disobeyed police instructions to stay in his truck. (No such instruction was ever given.)
  • Zimmerman disobeyed police instructions to not follow Martin. (No such instruction was ever given; when it was suggested that he not follow, he complied immediately.)
  • Zimmerman has a history of convictions for acts of violence. (Simply, no.)
  • Zimmerman was high on pills at the time. (No evidence of this whatever.)
  • Zimmerman appointed himself head of the neighborhood watch. (No, HOA offered him that role, he accepted.)
  • Zimmerman had called the police about suspicious characters dozens of times in the weeks preceding the events with Martin. (No, it was perhaps a half-dozen calls in similar number of months)
  • Zimmerman used a racial slur in reference to Martin while on the phone to police. (Never happened.)
  • Zimmerman was a racist seething with anger against young black men. (No evidence of this whatever, despite thorough FBI investigation.)
  • Zimmerman injuries prove he was never in danger of death or grave bodily harm. (First, no injury need be suffered before self-defense; second, blows to the head always carry a danger of hemotoma and death.)
  • Zimmerman used a gun against an unarmed child. (Had the events not happened nobody would have referred to 6-foot-plus 17-year-old Martin as a child; in any event, Martin armed himself with his fists and the sidewalk.)

Anybody fully armed with the actual facts of the case understands that all of the above claims are untrue, and remain untrue no matter how many times they are propagated by racial activists, the mainstream media, the justice department, and even President Obama.

If The Lies Are Believed, Anger and Outrage Are Understandable, Inevitable

But imagine, for a moment, how you might feel if you were not armed with the actual facts of the case, and believed those lies to be true. Imagine that you believe that Zimmerman stalked Martin, that he was a seething racist, that he disobeyed police instructions, that he was a “wannabe cop” whose overzealous actions resulted in the death of an unarmed child.

Without question, you would be outraged at Zimmerman’s not guilty verdict, as would I.

The fault with this misplaced outrage of Zimmerman’s perfectly appropriate acquittal lies not with the typical black person in the community, but rather with their racial leaders who, despite themselves being armed with the actual facts of the case, prefer to continue to lie to their supporters to foster and sustain their pain and grief. It’s despicable, really.

So How Does All This Tie Into Stand-Your-Ground Protests?

Still, even that doesn’t get us closer to understanding the Stand-Your-Ground protests. All of the above could be happening without Stand-Your-Ground ever being an issue. (For example, we see no similar protests around the self-defense principles of imminence or proportionality.) What then is driving these misled members of the black community to focus their grief and anger on Stand-Your-Ground?

Radical Gun Control Zombies Remain Mindlessly Persistent

To those of us who have spent decades in the trenches of the gun control wars, the answer is blazingly obvious–we’ve seen these tactics before. The simple truth is that the black community’s grief over their misconceived notions of Trayvon Martin’s death is being exploited by the zombie wing of the gun-control movement. This is the faction that believes that ANY means justify their goal of removing all firearms from private hands, and that each individual’s safety should be secured solely by the state. Fortunately, their track record to date is gratifyingly bad.

images

Gun control zombies remain mindlessly persistent

First, they tried to ban guns entirely. They failed at that–today there are more guns in the hands of private American citizens than at any prior time in our history.

Then, they tried to ban certain types of guns. Major fail–their primary target for elimination, so-called “assault weapons”, have never been more popular or more widely owned.

Next, they tried to keep us from being able to carry our guns for personal protection. They catastrophically failed at that, too–twenty years ago perhaps half the states had a provision for concealed carry, today all of them do (pending IL adopting the necessary procedures).

Indeed, the most recent massive gun control campaign waged in the first half of this year succeeded in achieving . . . absolutely nothing, despite a major commitment of political capital at the highest levels of government.

Radical Gun Control Zombies’ Message Crystal Clear–Aaaargh!

So, if you’re a gun control zombie, what are you to do with yourself? These Stand-Your-Ground protests, properly interpreted, reveal the newest iteration of the gun control scheme with perfect clarity:

Well, I couldn’t take your guns away. And I couldn’t keep you from carrying for personal protection. I couldn’t even exploit the grief over a mass killing of school children to fool the country into taking guns away from the law-abiding. Fine.

But now I’m going to do my best to ensure that if you ever DO use that gun to defend yourself or your family, you’ll spend the rest of your life in prison. I’ll make you so afraid to even touch that gun on your hip that you may as well not even be carrying it.  When we drag you into court, with a jury sitting in a safe environment secured by armed bailiffs, we’ll point out a thousand different ways you theoretically could have “safely retreated” from the vicious attack launched upon you.

Even if we don’t get you convicted and sentenced to decades in prison–and we hope we do–we’ll cost you everything in mounting your legal defense.

Aaaaarrrrrgh!

That’s what this is all about. The gun control zombies tried the frontal assault (banning guns outright, or at least certain types), and they failed. They tried a flanking maneuver (ban the carrying of concealed firearms), and they failed. So now they’ve transitioned into asymmetrical political warfare by exploiting the genuine (if mistaken) anger and grief of the black community to advance their gun control fantasies.

And now you know the rest of the story.

–Andrew


NOTICE: “Law of Self Defense” Seminars are now being scheduled for the fall.

Andrew F. Branca is an MA lawyer and author of the seminal book “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition” now available at www.lawofselfdefense.com and also at Amazon.com as either a hardcopy or in Kindle version, and at Barnes & Noble as hardcopy or (soon!) in Nook version.

You can follow Andrew on Twitter on @LawSelfDefense and using #LOSD2, on Facebook, and at his blog, The Law of Self Defense.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Rastafaustian | July 20, 2013 at 12:34 pm

…from the violent predation of (mostly) other priorities…
Priorities should be minorities?

    Indeed, thanks. Fixed.

    –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense, #LOSD2

      CJOffermann in reply to Andrew Branca. | July 21, 2013 at 8:56 pm

      Wanted to be sure are aware of this:
      http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2013/07/obama-strongly-supported-stand-your-ground-when-in-illinois-senate.html

      Sunday, July 21, 2013
      Obama co-sponsored legislation strengthening Illinois’ “stand your ground” law
      CHICAGO – This past week President Obama publicly urged the reexamination of state self-defense
      laws (see remarks below). However, nine years ago then-State Sen. Barack Obama actually co-sponsored a bill
      that strengthened Illinois’ 1961 “stand your ground” law.
      The Obama-sponsored bill (SB 2386) enlarged the state’s 1961 law by shielding the person who was attacked
      from being sued in civil court by perpetrators or their estates when a “stand your ground” defense is used in
      protecting his or her person, dwelling or other property.
      The bill unanimously passed the Democrat-controlled Illinois Senate on March 25, 2004 with only one comment,
      and passed the Democrat-controlled Illinois House in May 2004 with only two votes in opposition. Then-Governor
      Rod Blagojevich (D) signed it into law.

      Record of Obama co-sponsoring SB 2386 | Source: Illinois General Assembly

      Roll call of SB 2386 | Source: Illinois General Assembly
      As U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) prepares to hold Senate hearings in September to scrutinize states’ self-defense laws,
      he may wish to consider his home state’s public policy, which his former colleague and fellow Illinoisan – President Obama
      – helped craft.
      * * * * * * *
      This past Friday when discussing the George Zimmerman case, President Obama suggested revisiting state “stand your
      ground laws” to determine whether the laws encouraged altercations rather than avoiding them, a position he didn’t raise
      while a state senator.
      Remarks from President Obama:
      “Along the same lines, I think it may be useful for us to examine some state and local laws to see if they are designed in
      such a way that they may encourage the kinds of altercations, confrontations and tragedies as we saw in the Florida case,
      rather than diffuse potential altercations,” Obama said.
      “I know that there’s been commentary about the fact that stand your ground laws in Florida were not used as a defense of
      the case. On the other hand, if we’re sending a message as a society in our communities that someone who is armed has a
      right to use those firearms even if there’s a way for them to exit from the situation, is that really going to be contributing
      to the kind of peace and security and order that we’d like to see?” he asked White House Press reporters.
      “And for those who resist that idea that we should think about these stand your ground laws, I just have to ask these 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?”
      Obama said. “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.”

Hmmmmph! They all look like Trayvon wannabe(s) to me.

This is the direct result of the big disservice being inflicted by the race baiters such as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Eric Holder AND the anointed one himself.

Nobody benefits…

Excellent post.

Rick Scott looks like a one-termer

Could you provide us with a little more background on the history of SYG laws? My recollection is that they were enacted after a number of successful lawsuits against homeowners that confronted and wounded people breaking into their house, and were subsequently sued because they did not retreat or lock themselves into a safe room. Many people cite ALEC as being the source, but I believe that the groundswell came after these lawsuits.

This type of resource may prove invaluable when dealing with low information voters.

    Midwest Rhino in reply to coregis. | July 20, 2013 at 1:10 pm

    yeah, I want to know more on that too. My thin understanding is at some point the judicial branch twisted normal self defense into “duty to retreat first”. So legislatures went to work and reinforced the will of the people with SYG.

Phillep Harding | July 20, 2013 at 12:55 pm

I’m waiting for the end to “Well, a person of your race should have known better than to be in that neighborhood.”

i will give respect an listen when Barry dis-arms the Gangs . The gangs we hear nothing of anymore . We all know they’re vicious with illegal weapons.The NPP also patrols polling precincts with shotguns an clubs , no charges against them . SOoooo
They do want our guns. But ! Will they dis-arm the Black populace too ? I doubt it . Think i will just keep on keeping on !!

NC Mountain Girl | July 20, 2013 at 12:58 pm

Is it just that the mainstream media is a bit behind the times or does it seem to me that so many of these race baiting black leaders are old farts. The younger ones certainly seem to be mostly posuers riding the grievance mongers gravy train. Meanwhile the prospects for young blacks in our largely black led urban centers has been in serious decline.

These are the leader the media allow to speak unchallenged. The question in the next few days and weeks is do they really have that many irate followers? Or will it be the same twin forces of the next generation of parasitic poverty pimps in front of the cameras while the gang bangers looking for a handy excuse to loot and to settle old scores with other black gangs riot under the cover of a political slight.

Look at the protestors flashing gang signs, your kidding me right? We’re supposed to take these clowns seriously? Could these protestors have been Obama’s sons too? If the governor had any guts he have them all locked up, but we all know he doesn’t. They demanded a trial and he gave them a show trial. The governor folded already and now he’s stuck with them. If he had stuck to the rule of law last year they would have slinked away and went on to the next media driven scandal.

    gwest in reply to styro1. | July 20, 2013 at 2:40 pm

    Yep. Scott was definitely a chief wind-sower as far as this whole sorry debacle is concerned.

    I’m not wasting any sympathy over his reaping the whirlwind. He deserves to suffer enormously for his cowardly actions, just as he caused Zimmerman to suffer. Karma, baby.

      tencz65 in reply to gwest. | July 20, 2013 at 3:37 pm

      Scott is darn sure no Governor Perry ..

      BannedbytheGuardian in reply to gwest. | July 20, 2013 at 10:30 pm

      I think it is better that it had gone to trial & lost on all counts.

      It’s as strong a verdict as is possible in a functioning nation of laws.

      Upend that & you ave Egypt.

Exasperated | July 20, 2013 at 1:02 pm

Where are the women? They are a large subset of the people covered by SD and SYG. Why are they taking this lying down?

    robbi in reply to Exasperated. | July 20, 2013 at 1:33 pm

    We’re not taking it lying down.
    If I’m wrong correct me but since this is a state’s rights issue, should the o-man STFU?
    This is a trite argument but even if guns were outlawed, criminals would still have them-they are the bad guys and don’t care about the law.

    smokefan in reply to Exasperated. | July 20, 2013 at 7:31 pm

    Where are the women? Cant speak for the other women here, but I was at the range earlier today putting some rounds through my Glock and earning my son’s envy as I was getting better groups with said Glock than he was with his Browning.

Midwest Rhino | July 20, 2013 at 1:28 pm

Obama does his normal twisting with “Surely you don’t think it would have been OK for Trayvon to shoot George, using SYG”.

He seems to imply that the only reason us white folk can see that would be wrong, is because as racists we can only see it when the black man is the offender.

Along with that he implies (I infer) that of course (maliciously intentioned racist) George was wrong, but he got away with it because (righteously angry child) Trayvon was black.

After completely misrepresenting the facts and the law, he concludes if there is even any confusion on Trayvon killing George scenario (confusion they constantly inject), then we should have that debate.

The debate has been had … citizens don’t want a law that requires them to run and cower from threats. And citizens don’t want the top LEO to be harassing individual good citizens for “racial profiling”, just to appease a group of racist profiteers that are instigating riots.

Obama/Holder are acting more like gang leaders than leaders of a country built on self reliance and lethal opposition to tyranny.

    Carol Herman in reply to Midwest Rhino. | July 20, 2013 at 1:58 pm

    Trayvon caught Zimmerman off guard, and punched him in the nose. The prosecutors kept saying “But George wasn’t injured.” The ladies on the jury were neither blind, nor stupid.

    Florida, by the way is a “sand state.” That means they’re losing jobs as jobs exit the state. And, housing prices remained crumbled.

    “Civil Rights” is now a gang gimmick. Where they already have Detroit. While they also have had a cannibal king in charge of Zimbabwe.

    Most Americans? Aren’t giving a hoot. The rioters aren’t rising to float any boats. And, the only reason obama and holder shout out the Zimmerman name is that they think he’s Jewish.

    milquetoast in reply to Midwest Rhino. | July 20, 2013 at 9:17 pm

    Obama asked, “Would Trayvon Martin have been able to stand his ground?”
    Actually, yes, he would have, had he been the one who was attacked, and had he been the one who needed to use deadly force to save his life — instead of the other way around.

How many innocent law abiding citizens have been victims of Stand Your Ground laws?

Can we compare that number to how many have been victims of Snitches Get Stitches?

Which is more dangerous to our youth, SYG or SGS?

How come the President, and all those very loud self appointed community leaders are not doing anything about SGS?
Are they really concerned about the safety of our young, or there’s another motive?

(Last question is rhetorical. We all know the answer.)

Just thinking…When do you guys think the federal gov’t will attempt the cigarette option (taxing tobacco to the point of not being affordable)on guns? I am a little surprised they haven’t made a big push as of yet. BTW, current rates are 10% for handguns and 11% for all other firearms and ammo.

    inquisitivemind in reply to Jazzizhep. | July 20, 2013 at 2:05 pm

    If heaven forbid the progressives ever control all three branches of gov’t again they will attempt it.
    Instead they have been successful in placing large ammo orders creating shortages and driving supply/demand “taxes”.

    The thing that Libs really fume over is the immunity firearms manufacturers are afforded from civil liability relating to the misuse of their products – amazing how many of them have no idea about FOPA.

    Crawford in reply to Jazzizhep. | July 22, 2013 at 12:14 pm

    I believe it’s been tried in various cities and shot down by the courts. It would be similar to placing an extremely high tax on newsprint in order to drive newspapers out of business.

Offer this one to the Rev Al to reduce gun violence.
A mandatory 5 year prison sentence for anyone found bearing a firearm who is prohibited by law to possess one due to prior criminal conviction.
Absolutely NO plea bargaining.
Absolutely NO early release.

And when are they going to have the decency to admit the truth?

Thanks to another commenter, I found this video:

http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=238752da2b9d

Dr. James Davis Manning, showing a level of decency and honesty that should be copied by we-know-who. You all have to watch it.

—- —- —- —- —- —- —- —-

This matter of Trayvon Martin….(Laugs)…And George Zimmerman….

If you are convinced, beyond a doubt, you’ve already decided…years ago, that George Zimmerman is guilty as sin, that if George Zimmerman, not Zimmerman went about his business, Trayvon Martin would be alive today.
And so, your mind’s set. If you’re focusing on the fact that Trayvon Martin was black, and you believe that George Zimmerman is white; he isn’t. His father is Baptist. His mother, she’s from Peru. He’s Latin; a mix of white and Latin.
Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and all that crowd jumped the gun; they thought he was white. But he isn’t; he’s Latino.
In any rate, you are convinced that it ain’t nothing, that no matter what I preach, no matter what I say, no matter what I do, it ain’t nothing in the world that will convince you that George Zimmerman is not guilty. But you’re wrong.
And the only reason you’re thinking that way is because you’re black; because you see, you see the world not through the blood of Jesus, you see the world through your black eyes. You have not changed yet. You’re black. You’re black before you are anything. You’re black before you’re Christian. You’re black before you’re Holly Ghost, you’re black before you’re anything.
Your blackness is greater than your religion. And that’s why for you George Zimmerman is guilty. But let me ask you a question.

(…)
It’s raining at night (…) You go, park your car. You get on the elevator there, in the Martin Luther King Junior houses, as a pastor going to pray with one of your member and a seventeen year old boy gets on the elevator with a hoodie on. Just you and him on the elevator at night, just you and him.
Tell me what do you think?!
Oh! This must be a prophet of the Lord; he’s got a hoodie on. This must be one of the nicest little boys in the community, he;s got a hoodie on.
(yells) What do you think, when you see that?!!!!
(yells again) Tell me what do you think?!!!!
Do you begin to protect yourself?
Do you think you need to be concerned?
Has it been proven over and over again that these hoodie boys rob, rape, murder and maim?!!!
Are you afraid of him?!!! But you don’t know who he is. You have suspicions because of that hoodie, and because of the color of his skin. Ain’t no telling what’s going to happen to you on that elevator.
(yells) And you know it’s true!!!
(yells) You know its true!!!!

So, why do you blame George Zimmerman?
(screams) Why!!!
Because you’re black!!
That’s why.
You’re not saved. You don’t know nothing about Jesus, and you are full of hate.

(….)

    fogflyer in reply to Exiliado. | July 20, 2013 at 3:39 pm

    Dang, it cut off before he was finished. I would have liked to have heard the rest of that oration.

    My hope is that there are other black leaders out there saying the same type of thing, but that it is just not being picked up by the media.

    tencz65 in reply to Exiliado. | July 20, 2013 at 3:42 pm

    TY . I’ve seen that video , outstanding . No Black , no white . Just the truth

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Exiliado. | July 20, 2013 at 4:19 pm

    God Bless Dr. Manning.

    Manning had a bit to say about that asinine speech given by Barry Soetoro too.

    Rand in reply to Exiliado. | July 21, 2013 at 2:22 am

    If only the Reverand Al Sharpton were the man of God that Dr. Manning appears to be.

    This sermon makes me think – should make us all think twice and look within ourselves before pointing fingers. It takes courage, tolerance, and patience to inspire cooperation and understanding, yet it is so easy to create conflict and strife.

Carol Herman | July 20, 2013 at 1:47 pm

It’s THE fake narrative. From the kids that “can’t do” cursive. That sell drugs at all the schools they attend. And, basically, come out of their education stupider than when they went in.

People flee their neighborhoods. And, what outsiders don’t know just by looking at them, is this: Are they members of the CRIPS? Or de’ BLOODS?

DETROIT is their national anthem.

While, wherever you go out, today, you won’t see demonstrations. And, IF the demonstrations are on Rodeo Drive, I’d just laugh. Since that’s the shopping mecca of the super-duper-libral rich. As she shops there (if they let her live) Barbra Streisand can sing them a loo-loo-bye.

The only way all these protests and support for Martin work is if the narrative is maintained. Martin must be treated as a 13 year old fresh faced kid with unlimited potential while Zimmerman must be portrayed as a racist, hate filled, raging “wannabe” cop.

I am amazed at how many people I talk to use the term “wannabe” cop and blame an ordinary neighborhood watch function as something else. Angela Corey used the term “profiling” in her charging document, but there is nothing illegal, or even unexpected, about profiling.

Anyway, when Zimmerman is correctly portrayed as an ordinary neighborhood watch captain and when Martin is portrayed as the thug in training he was, the narrative collapses. If the Martin family files a civil suit or if the the Feds try to charge Zimmerman with a civil rights violation, all these facts come into evidence. That is why neither will happen. It would destroy the narrative.

There was as much misinformation about SYG as there was about Zimmerman. I sometimes check in at a blog site that is very left-wing. Over there, people actually believe that SYG means that you can walk up to a person — any person, kill him, tell the police you’re afraid of him, and not be prosecuted. If that’s what SYG really meant, who wouldn’t oppose it?

In one sense the Zimmerman case has always been about guns. Media pundits spoke of GZ’s gun in ominous tones, as if the mere possession of a gun proved evil intent. Had Zimmerman defended himself with a pocket knife or a rock I don’t think there would have been anywhere near the same level of outrage. In the minds of many, the gun proved that Zimmerman was looking for trouble, actively searching for someone to kill, his concealed carry permit nothing more than a license to kill.

Gee, a bunch of thugs flashing gang sign want to revoke a law that protects people from their predation.

[…] Branca at Legal Insurrection has up a great post today on “Stand-Your-Ground: Gun Control Zombies Exploit Grieving Black […]

If the gun haters succeed in enacting penalties for self defense, then I suggest criminals will be emboldened; lawlessness will accelerate which is what has happened in GB since self defense has been effectively outlawed. But the citizens of the US are of a different breed. Citizens who have refrained from being proactive will react by shooting criminals who challenge or attack them and then just walk away. We will start seeing anarchy rein in our towns and cities (worse than we see now) and then government will step in with their usual heavy handed methods such as attempting confiscation of the guns of citizens as was done in New Orleans during Katrina. If the mood of our citizenry remains strong against lawlessness, both government and the criminal, there might be a strong counter action as with Shays’ Rebellion in 1786 because of similar concerns. The anger that I see in our country against corrupt government and lawlessness only needs some spark to set off this powder keg.

jayjerome66 | July 20, 2013 at 2:31 pm

Excellent coherent and reasonable explanation of the social forces operating in the Zimmerman aftermath, Andrew… I wish I could be as clear-headed and even-tempered as you. At this point I’m so angry at what’s happened and still happening, my inclination is to yell and rant.

I hope there’s someway to get you more exposure in the media. Your recent appearance on Larry Mantel’s member-supported public radio show was brief but excellent, and it would be a step in the right direction if more of that could follow. If there’s a way we could set up some kind of write-in campaign to applicable broadcast shows, I’d be more than happy to participate, by pestering them with emails and letters, etc. If anyone here has an idea how to do that, who to write to, etc., maybe they can comment on it.

One reason to hope the #GreatKateWait is almost over: the deluge of Trayvon breast-beating by the press will give way to the Royal Baby Breathless coverage, which will at least be a change…//

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to graytonb. | July 20, 2013 at 9:55 pm

    That is so very very ironic.

    I am intrigued by the attention the heir to the English throne is attracting in the American left wing press . There is a baby watch on Huffpo.

    What you say could be very true.

    Obama is going to have to battle with a royal bebe ! He he he .

Uncle Samuel | July 20, 2013 at 2:53 pm

More on FL Governor’s office sit-in.
“Governor Rick Scott met with them late last night’ which was the “Dream Defenders” primary goal and informed them that he actually met the majority of their demands before this rally even started. He selected a Special Prosecutor, had him charged, had a trial, even had a special review committee formed to review the Stand Your Ground law.”

“Last night some protesters decided to use the Capitol Chapel as a sex parlor and a couple of the protesters got caught with their pants down. FCP wanted to make arrests but were instead forced by higher powers to simply “escort” them off the property.”

    tencz65 in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 20, 2013 at 3:47 pm

    My Governor is a wuss . Caves like a Ky mine . Black pressure seems to scare him yellow . The Law is the Law. Appease them an beg for more Whining imo ..

      tencz65 in reply to tencz65. | July 20, 2013 at 3:52 pm

      BTW ” I will Never forget Angela Corey ,bought to us by Scott an Bondi caving . A Million taxpayers dollars spent to try an hide his butt . Errrrrrr

        CJOffermann in reply to tencz65. | July 20, 2013 at 8:55 pm

        Let’s all band together: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/civil-rights-prosecution-angela-corey-united-states-department-justice-she-deliberately-withheld/pGTglGG2

        Civil Rights Prosecution of Angela Corey by United States Department of Justice for She Deliberately Withheld Evidence
        Civil Rights Prosecution of Angela Corey by United States Department of Justice for the unlawful Prosecution of George Zimmerman for depriving him of his Constitutional Rights of Life and Liberty by the United States Department of Justice, Eric Holder, United States Attorney General in United States District Court as swiftly and expeditiously as is possible.
        Angela Corey is alleged to have omitted material exculpatory facts, such as photographs of the wounds on George Zimmerman’s head, which go to his defense of “self defense.”
        She was aware when she submitted an affidavit that it did not contain the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. She deliberately withheld evidence that supported Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense.

        Created: Jul 14, 2013
        Issues: Civil Rights and Liberties, Criminal Justice and Law Enforcement, Government Reform Learn about Petition Thresholds It’s up to you to build support for petitions you care about and gather more signatures. A petition must get 150 signatures in order to be publicly searchable on WhiteHouse.gov.
        Over time, we may need to adjust the petition signature thresholds, but we’ll always let you know what the thresholds are.
        Signatures needed by August 13, 2013 to reach goal of 100,000

It is true that most crime is committed by folks of their own race and that should continue with SYG.

yet you left off the most telling stats – the totals

total…..White…..Black…..Other…..Unknown

6631……3249……3106……158……..118
100%……49%…….47%…….02%……..02%

which are clearly out of proportion for the population as a whole

Uncle Samuel | July 20, 2013 at 3:54 pm

The SYG makes over 1800 Straw Man arguments by Obama.
“By my count, that makes 1,806 straw-man arguments by this president that have been proven utterly fraudulent.”

Why the ‘I could have been Trayvon…” speech?

Deflection from criminal abuse of IRS agency

Uhh, Andrew, that table doesn’t say what it is. I gather that it’s homicide perps by race vs. homicide victims by race, but where? when? arrests or convictions? justifiable homicides or all homicides?

And, most importantly, what does it have to do with SYG?

The title of the JPG includes the imaginary word “homocide”, which makes me suspect that the title at least didn’t come from one of the FBI’s official reports.

    The table comes from here:
    http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_06.html
    It’s cropped from the FBI Table titled “Murder:
    Race and Sex of Victim by Race and Sex of Offender, 2009”

    frisco in reply to rantbot. | July 21, 2013 at 12:03 am

    I agree that the data doesn’t directly support Andrew’s claim as it relates to SYG. Andrew’s data is from 2009, and there’s more recent data available for 2011. The data is for all murders where race & sex of the victim is compared to race & sex of the offender. However, since the data covers the entire US and not every state has a SYG law, it may not be representative of SYG statistics. For example, states with no SYG law may be disproportionately represented in the data, or blacks may invoke SYG more or less frequently than whites.

    The other problem with this data is that it is the offenders in this table who’d be invoking any protections of SYG laws (and then only when the homicide was not initially deemed justifiable). It can’t be the victims, because after all, they’re dead.

    This data is for homicides not deemed justifiable. Justifiable homicides aren’t included in this total; instead, they’re found in Table 15. Table 15 shows that justifiable homicides totaled 260 in 2011. To prove Andrew’s point, one would need to a) exclude justifiable homicides by law enforcement from the 260, and b) break down the remainder (which would be justifiable killings by private individuals) by race AND type of defense (standard self defense or SYG).

    Unfortunately, that data isn’t available in the FBI’s CIUS data, so the claim about blacks benefiting from SYG is speculative. It’s good speculation, but this data just doesn’t support the conclusions drawn.

      I think the most apposite stat when it comes to the issue of SYG laws and race in Florida is this one:

      “Black Floridians have made about a third of the state’s total ‘Stand Your Ground’ claims in homicide cases, a rate nearly double the black percentage of Florida’s population. The majority of those claims have been successful, a success rate that exceeds that for Florida whites.”

      See this article, which sources its figures from this database maintained by the Tampa Bay Times.

      Since blacks are statistically more likely to fall prey to violent crime (committed by other blacks, but that’s not even really the main point), and since blacks in Florida already are successfully making use of our SYG laws here, it would seem to me that law-abiding blacks would (a) want more law-abiding blacks to arm themselves and get their CCW licenses, and (b) want to keep, not get rid of, the laws which allow them to defend themselves against those who would hurt or kill them.

      The race-mongers trying to paint SYG as a “white” vs “black” thing are just dead wrong. It’s a “good guy” vs “bad guy” thing. Good guys have nothing to lose and everything to gain from strong SYG laws, and it’s kind of, um, racist to assume that almost by definition, blacks are always going to fall on the “bad guy” rather than the “good guy” side of the line.

        frisco in reply to Amy in FL. | July 22, 2013 at 10:33 am

        Thanks for the link to the Tampa Bay Times database. That data does support that both blacks and hispanics have successfully invoked SYG in FL at a higher rate than whites.

        After reading too many of the case summaries, it seems that many of the individuals of all races who invoked SYG (especially unsuccessfully) aren’t good candidates for the poster of FL’s most law abiding citizen. It’s also not clear that the existence of SYG helped these situations turn violent; I suspect the participants weren’t thinking too much about law books when they decided to settle their perceived grievances.

Great, as always. However there are too many words for this post of yours to be effective.

Rev. Al can say “Trayvon’s Civil Right — to go buy candy and a drink — has been violated.” and negate all the thousands of sensible words and sentences that you and others have written.

If the Justice Department makes a move towards this case…is there a single murder in the United States that should not become a Civil Rights case?

Who has ever died at the hands of another person whose Civil Rights … by this standard … have not been violated?

The picture shows two “protesters”, one holding up 1 finger, and the other 2 fingers. This is a common gangland symbol, meaning “2-1, for every one you kill, we’ll kill two.”

I think these protesters really do identify with Trayvon, seeing as violence seems to be a part of their culture.

I wish there was a non-violent method of knocking sense into young people who thrive on this type of insanity, but there is a biblical principle too, “Spare the rod, and spoil the child.”

    DriveBy in reply to Paul. | July 20, 2013 at 7:47 pm

    Quoting you: “The picture shows two “protesters”, one holding up 1 finger, and the other 2 fingers.

    No it does not. It shows three (3) young men, each with the same hand gesture of the index and pinky fingers extended.

    Quoting you: “This is a common gangland symbol, meaning “2-1, for every one you kill, we’ll kill two.”

    See above.

    Quoting you: “I think these protesters really do identify with Trayvon, seeing as violence seems to be a part of their culture.”

    Is that the culture of just being an African American young man, or an African American young man that is being followed on a rainy night by an armed stranger?

    Quoting you: “I wish there was a non-violent method of knocking sense into young people who thrive on this type of insanity, but there is a biblical principle too, “Spare the rod, and spoil the child.””

    So since there is no non-violent method in your opinion of making these peaceful protestors stop their protesting because you do not like that, you will go with the violent method. Brilliant! Oh, Rachel Jeantel called, she said to tell you, “That’s retarded Sir!”

    If you would like to learn more about this particular hand gesture, here is a link with information – but it will not correct your vision nor your bias:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_of_the_horns

      Maybe they’re calling “bullsh*t” on the whole thing…?
      …sorry, I know more ASL than I do gang-speak 😉

      Yukio Ngaby in reply to DriveBy. | July 21, 2013 at 12:27 am

      You’re quite right. There is NO violence in the Black community in America. Furthermore, it is not part of the culture and those that think that thought are either racist or are controlled by the racist hate machine that is Amerikkka. Remember Amerikkka’s God is a racist White man.

      Uh, right?

        DriveBy in reply to Yukio Ngaby. | July 21, 2013 at 10:54 am

        Looking at that image of peaceful protestors in the State Capital building and promptly applying “Gangsta” as a descriptive of them is wrong minded, IMO. Do I agree with them, no. But they are not doing anything wrong, in fact they are acting very American and hope they come over to my side and protest for things that I support as they mature.

        Everyone here wanted George to be found not guilty. But in a tizzy to defend him, many took to trashing Trayvon with any and every dubious piece of crap that they could find posted on some obscure corner of the internet. A lot false or uncorroborated stuff was posted here, it was eagerly consumed by many or even most, and I believe that many people just can’t stop!

milquetoast | July 20, 2013 at 9:08 pm

Wikipedia says Martin was 5’11”.

Andrew,

I purchased your book. I look forward to reading it.

Also, I’m running out of energy on other blogs refuting the same list of false claims over-and-over. Would you be okay with me re-posting this excellent list you created of refutations on HuffPost and elsewhere? I can give you attribution if you like and link to this site. Or not. Whatever you prefer.

•Zimmerman “stalked” Martin. (There is no evidence that Zimmerman ever sought to close with Martin or sought to do anything but observe from a distance.)
•Zimmerman volunteered Martin’s race to police. (No, NBC doctored the 911 recording to make that appear to be the case, the police asked and Zimmerman answered.)
……………. and so forth.

milquetoast | July 21, 2013 at 9:05 am

If you do re-post the list of false claims, be sure to fix the false claim that Martin was “six feet plus.” If somebody calls you on that, it will destroy the credibility of the rest of it.”

    Nonsense. Clearly he towers over the 5′ 10″ 7-11 clerk as seen in the 7-11 photo. Also, the cardboard cutouts used by the defense in closing show that Martin towered over Zimmerman, also about 5′ 10″

    The ONLY evidence that Martin was substantially less than 6′ tall is Dr. Bao. Perhaps you give his record keeping more credibility than your own lying eyes, but I don’t.

    –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense, #LOSD2

      I was just going to suggest that someone re-post the 7-11 video or a still from it, along with the clerk’s sworn testimony in court that he himself is 5’10”. Because I have to say, that was a real eye-opener for me, who until then had not realized Martin was so tall.

      Just from experience, I have to agree with milquetoast. The proponents of the “Martin was murdered” theory will latch on to the most irrelevant discrepency and then proclaim: Aha! Got you! See that folks? He’s just a racist tool of the oppressive white power structure running our court system and blah blah blah…….. I will err on the side of caution and say 5′ 11″ if that’s okay with you. 😉

    DriveBy in reply to milquetoast. | July 21, 2013 at 10:44 am

    Dr. Bao was very specific regarding the 71″ “measurement” – it is a measurement of length, not a measurement of height.

    Dead people can no longer stand to get a measurement of height. The process of rigor or rigor mortis affects the muscles, they contract – that would account for this discrepancy.

    Dr. Bao never said that Trayvon was 5’11” tall, never.

Then the Wikipedia page needs to be corrected, because I got called on it, so others should know the objection will come up.
Mr. Branca, I don’t know about the forensic stuff: Are people shorter when measured lying down than standing? is 3″ shrinkage in length, post-death, normal? Or did Bao measure inaccurately? Also, did anybody measure the clerk to see if he is really 5’10”? I’d like to get this detail settled irrefutably.

    DriveBy in reply to milquetoast. | July 21, 2013 at 11:50 am

    Quote from the link:
    “BERNIE DE LA RIONDA, PROSECUTOR: OK and when you say he’s 5’11” or 71 inches is there actually a measurement, is the body put on a table and there is actually something that measured them?

    SHIPING BAO, ASSOCIATE MEDICAL EXAMINER, CONDUCTED AUTOPSY OF TRAYVON MARTIN: It’s a length. We measure the body in length because a dead man cannot stand. It’s not height.”

    Repeat: “It’s not height.” Dr. Bao.

    http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1307/05/cnr.04.html

    Quote from the link below:
    “Rigor Mortis-External
    Rigor mortis is the generalized stiffening of the skeletal and smooth muscles of the body
    following death. Immediately after death the muscles of the body are flaccid (relaxed).
    This period exist for 3 to 6 hours after death. How long flaccidity last is very much
    temperature dependent; the higher the environmental temperature and the temperature of
    the body at the time of death (fever, extreme muscular exertion immediately before death,
    etc.), the faster the period of flaccidity ends and rigor starts; the cooler the environment
    the longer flaccidity remains. This period of flaccidity is followed by the onset of
    generalized muscular stiffening, which is referred to as rigor mortis.
    The development of rigor mortis is due to a biochemical process,…”

    http://forensicmd.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/early-postmortem-changes1.pdf

    Then the Wikipedia page needs to be corrected

    You’re aware that Wikipedia is not the final arbiter of truth and fact, aren’t you?

    Any old anonymous freak with an internet connection can “publish” stuff in wikipedia. It’s not like Encyclopedia Britannica or something.

    C.f. The “Bicholim Conflict” and the “Upper Peninsula War”.

milquetoast | July 21, 2013 at 1:01 pm

Yes, I’m quite aware that Wikipedia is not the final arbiter of trust and fact, but thank you for your condescending sarcasm. I’m asking legitimate questions here. We’re supposed to be on the same side. How about a little more helpfulness, OK?

Right now, the information I have is “Bao says 71 inches,” and “On the video he looks taller than that.” I have information on what rigor mortis is, but no information on whether it typically makes people contract by as much as three inches. (I would have guessed that one would be shorter standing, because of gravity, but am willing to learn if the opposite is true.)

Is there any other evidence of Martin’s height? I recall reading that Martin had been on the football team. Did they list his height on a program, perhaps? School records? Medical records (pre-death)?

Helpful information appreciated.

    Baker in reply to milquetoast. | July 21, 2013 at 5:48 pm

    I do not think you will get any additional information that will disprove the measurement of the ME. Any other measurements will fall under too many assumptions. For instance, football programs are notorious for having height and weight overstated. Other sources of measurement are also highly suspect as they are sometimes made with shoes on and an adjustment is made. (This is even more problematic with weight measurements as they are often done with clothes on and an adjustment of 2-5 pounds is made for the clothing.)

    I agree that he appears to tower over the clerk in the 7-11 who says his height is 5’9″ or 5’10” if I remember correctly. But, people tend to misstate their height for personal reasons. Also, the perspective of the camera may tend to accentuate the difference in the height. And of course TM’s hair and hoodie tend to make him seem taller.

    Overall I think that the best one could say is that TM was at least 5’11” if not more.

andrew, you’re really nothing but a narrow minded hack who spreads bigotry under the guise of an alleged ‘intellectual’.

    Hahaha, coming from you that really hurts.

    I love hate posts–it’s the sound of anguished suffering from the fascist left. Couldn’t happen to a nicer crew.

    Delicious. 🙂

    –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense, #LOSD2

      I know it’s a total waste of time, but I can’t resist going on Huffington Post and other sites and tormenting the half-wits on the various Zimmerman blogs. You may get a lot more of those hate emails if I start spreading links to your site. Don’t say I didn’t warn you. 🙂

      archtyrx in reply to Andrew Branca. | July 22, 2013 at 3:21 pm

      on the contrary, it’s not hate – it’s a fact. Only on this blog could you ever get away with it. I don’t even have to go to leftist media to see that. scrumptious, isn’t it?

CJOffermann | July 21, 2013 at 8:54 pm

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2013/07/obama-strongly-supported-stand-your-ground-when-in-illinois-senate.html

Sunday, July 21, 2013
Obama co-sponsored legislation strengthening Illinois’ “stand your ground” law
CHICAGO – This past week President Obama publicly urged the reexamination of state self-defense
laws (see remarks below). However, nine years ago then-State Sen. Barack Obama actually co-sponsored a bill
that strengthened Illinois’ 1961 “stand your ground” law.
The Obama-sponsored bill (SB 2386) enlarged the state’s 1961 law by shielding the person who was attacked
from being sued in civil court by perpetrators or their estates when a “stand your ground” defense is used in
protecting his or her person, dwelling or other property.
The bill unanimously passed the Democrat-controlled Illinois Senate on March 25, 2004 with only one comment,
and passed the Democrat-controlled Illinois House in May 2004 with only two votes in opposition. Then-Governor
Rod Blagojevich (D) signed it into law.

Record of Obama co-sponsoring SB 2386 | Source: Illinois General Assembly

Roll call of SB 2386 | Source: Illinois General Assembly
As U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) prepares to hold Senate hearings in September to scrutinize states’ self-defense laws,
he may wish to consider his home state’s public policy, which his former colleague and fellow Illinoisan – President Obama
– helped craft.
* * * * * * *
This past Friday when discussing the George Zimmerman case, President Obama suggested revisiting state “stand your
ground laws” to determine whether the laws encouraged altercations rather than avoiding them, a position he didn’t raise
while a state senator.
Remarks from President Obama:
“Along the same lines, I think it may be useful for us to examine some state and local laws to see if they are designed in
such a way that they may encourage the kinds of altercations, confrontations and tragedies as we saw in the Florida case,
rather than diffuse potential altercations,” Obama said.
“I know that there’s been commentary about the fact that stand your ground laws in Florida were not used as a defense of
the case. On the other hand, if we’re sending a message as a society in our communities that someone who is armed has a
right to use those firearms even if there’s a way for them to exit from the situation, is that really going to be contributing
to the kind of peace and security and order that we’d like to see?” he asked White House Press reporters.
“And for those who resist that idea that we should think about these stand your ground laws, I just have to ask these 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?”
Obama said. “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.”

Sharpshooter | July 22, 2013 at 12:29 pm

“And now you know the rest of the story.”

Yes, that being the fact that the best “gun control” is to disarm us betwen the ears, not to empty our holsters or or magazines.

BTW: those pictures above are a good example of WHY self-defense and SYG is SO CRITICAL.

[…] Radical Gun Control Zombies Exploit Grieving Black Community (legalinsurrection.com) […]

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend