Whodathunkit - Little Old Provo

[Rajah Manchou]

4 hours ago, bsjkki said:

But, all of this chaos triggers the left and right fringe groups. Both should be held in contempt. They're both anarchists groups coming at it from the two extremes.

This in my opinion is the reason armed militias are dangerous. A bunch of masked people running around in the streets with military fatigues and guns "defending" the rest of us from the other bunch of masked people running around in the streets with military fatigues and guns. 

Masked gunman on both the left and right who dress up like military and pretend to be each other so they can confuse police and protestors is far from the the "well regulated Militia" the Founders acknowledged as "necessary to the security of a free State." 

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

This in my opinion is the reason armed militias are dangerous. A bunch of masked people running around in the streets with military fatigues and guns "defending" the rest of us from the other bunch of masked people running around in the streets with military fatigues and guns. 

Masked gunman on both the left and right who dress up like military and pretend to be each other so they can confuse police and protestors is far from the the "well regulated Militia" the Founders acknowledged as "necessary to the security of a free State." 

I wonder how many of those gunmen who put a mask on while "overseeing" a protest make fun of people who put a mask on to go to the supermarket...

[teddyaware]

7 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Fact is, there are bad actors on both sides of the political spectrum that are violent. Within the past two months, Salt Lake City and nearly every state bordering Utah has witnessed cases of this Boogaloo movement party-crashing the BLM protests through pre-meditated violence:

Nevada (May 2020): "Three Nevada men with ties to a loose movement of right-wing extremists advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government have been arrested on terrorism-related charges in what authorities say was a conspiracy to spark violence during recent protests in Las Vegas....The complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas on Wednesday said they self-identified as part of the “boogaloo” movement, which U.S. prosecutors said in the document is “a term used by extremists to signify coming civil war and/or fall of civilization....They wanted to use the momentum from riots occurring nationwide because of Floyd’s death “to hopefully stir enough confusion and excitement, that others see the explosions and police presence and begin to riot in the streets out of anger,” the complaint said." (source)

California (June 2020): In late May and early June 2020, two ambush-style attacks occurred against security personnel and law enforcement officers in California. The attacks left two dead and injured three others. "Authorities allege that Carrillo met Justus through a Facebook group associated with Boogaloo, where the two discussed targeting “soup bois,” a term used by the movement’s followers to refer to federal agents. “Let’s boogie,” Justus allegedly responded to Carrillo’s suggestion that they use protests over the police killing of George Floyd as cover for an attack." (source)

New Mexico (June 2020): Armed members of the New Mexico Civil Guard attended a protest, nominally as "peacekeepers." Several members of the group were detained after someone shot a protestor. The group has denied that the shooter was a member of the group, and members have not been charged with any offenses. (source) The governor and the mayor condemned the group; the governor said in part: “The heavily armed individuals who flaunted themselves at the protest, calling themselves a ‘Civil Guard’ were there for one reason: to menace protesters, to present an unsanctioned show of unregulated force.” The mayor mentioned the group, saying that these militia or vigilante groups attempt to prop up white supremacy and intimidate protesters. (source)

Colorado (June 2020): A Colorado man who identifies with an anti-government group preparing for a civil war said police “stole” several of his guns when he went to Friday’s protest in Denver in response to the in-custody death of George Floyd...McGee identifies with the “Boogaloo” movement, which aims to prepare for a civil and race war....The image of the police seizure includes three assault rifles, handguns, gas masks, tactical vests and ammunition. (source) Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security issued an alert that said a white supremacist group was inciting followers to shoot through their doors at FBI agents and police officers, federal prosecutors wrote in a court filing. The warning related to “associates” of Bradley Bunn, a 53-year-old U.S. Army veteran who was arrested on May 1 after FBI agents allegedly found four pipe bombs at his house in Loveland, Colorado, the filing said. (source)

Salt Lake City (June 2020): Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) on Sunday tweeted an Associated Press photo showing two white men atop an overturned police car in Salt Lake City, both holding what appear to be assault rifles. Spray painted on the side of the car is “4 George,” an apparent reference to George Floyd, the unarmed African American whose killing at the hands of Minneapolis police last month sparked the recent unrest. One of the men standing on the vehicle in the photograph was wearing what appeared to be hunting garb. The other was wearing a Hawaiian shirt, as was a third man filming the activity." (source)

Cases where Boogaloos are present, but not violent:

Salt Lake City (May 2020): "Meanwhile, a couple of armed men stood at one street corner, saying they were protecting protesters. At least one of these men was wearing a Hawaiian shirt, an outfit commonly associated with the far-right Boogaloo movement. (source)

Provo (July 2020): Some guy shows up with guns at an armed protest in a Hawaiian shirt. Highly unlikely that he was unaware of the symbolism.

Truly a minuscule (if not microscopic!) presence when compared to the tens of  thousands of leftist rioters, arsonists and looters who have been running amok, murdering and destroying with impunity, all around the country. In addition, I don’t know of a single conservative —and I know a great many of them — who would consider these fringe ‘boogaloo‘ kooks, who want to violently overthrow our divinely inspired constitutional government, to be considered in any way to be legitimately conservative. This stands in stark contrast to the fact that the leftist mobs are being openly supported, or at very least being shown sympathy, by hundreds of left leaning politicians and mainstream media reporters/commentators.

I also need to say that in some of the cases you cite the “evidence” is so weak and tenuous that it’s almost laughable. It’s as if the individual who compiled the list of offenses found so few real instances to support his thesis of right wing mob offenses that he padded the list with speculative, nothingburger cases to make it appear to the casual observer that the boogaloo kooks pose a danger equal to the multitudes of Marxist inspired crazies who really are destroying our nation.

Edited July 14, 2020 by teddyaware

[USU78]

Appears taggart bailed out.

[MiserereNobis]

12 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

our divinely inspired constitutional government,

Do you mean elaborating on your thoughts here? Do you distinguish between the constitution itself and the current government manifestation of it? How is the constitution specifically inspired? What parts? Just the original document or the amendments, too? Or is it more of the general idea of the constitution -- and if so, what is the general idea that is divine?

Thanks!

14 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

multitudes of Marxist inspired crazies who really are destroying our nation.

Ah, the Marxists that are always coming for us in the night  

Who exactly are you referring to here? Violent protestors or all protestors? And how are they destroying our nation? And I gotta say, if the protests of the past weeks are really able to destroy our nation, our nation is pretty dang weak. I simply don't see the United States becoming a failed state because of these protests. Unless by nation, you mean something else?

[Rajah Manchou]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

It’s as if the individual who compiled the list of offenses found so few real instances to support his thesis of right wing mob offenses that he padded the list with speculative, nothingburger cases to make it appear to the casual observer that the boogaloo kooks pose a danger equal to the multitudes of Marxist inspired crazies who really are destroying our nation.

The individual who compiled the list was me. My 'thesis' is not that there are offensive right wing mobs, but that fringe right wing elements are just as violent as fringe left wing elements. The data supports this.

I didn't pad the list, rather I limited the list to cases reported since May in states bordering with Utah. 

CFR that left wing extremism kills more Americans than right wing extremism. Research says the opposite.

Edited July 14, 2020 by Rajah Manchou

[LoudmouthMormon]

15 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

This in my opinion is the reason armed militias are dangerous. A bunch of masked people running around in the streets with military fatigues and guns "defending" the rest of us from the other bunch of masked people running around in the streets with military fatigues and guns. 

We sure saw the danger of this in CHAZ/CHOP.  We can't be sure, but it's entirely possible (and more than a little likely) that the CHOP security murdered the guy who stole the white SUV.  Pity the Seattle left didn't require their protest security to, oh, I dunno, wear body cameras, be trained in de-escalation tactics, call mental health professionals, not have guns, etc.

That said, the left usually doesn't arm up like that (which is good, because they obviously can't be trusted with bang sticks).  The right has been doing armed militias ever since there has been 'the right'.  For decades and decades, thousands upon thousands of potbellied flag wavers wearing their flack vests and running off to their retreats to do training, as often as their wives let them.  99.5% harmless.  Waco and Ruby Ridge would be two notable exceptions.    So yeah, 99.5% are not dangerous, in the sense that they're likely to cause harm.

 

[teddyaware]

14 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

The individual who compiled the list was me. My 'thesis' is not that there are offensive right wing mobs, but that fringe right wing elements are just as violent as fringe left wing elements. The data supports this.

I didn't pad the list, rather I limited the list to cases reported since May in states bordering with Utah. 

CFR that left wing extremism kills more Americans than right wing extremism. Research says the opposite.

Very misleading. Once again, I don’t know of a single conservative defender of constitutional government in the United States, past or present, who would consider the murderous anti Semitic haters of which you speak to be legitimate representatives of the conservative movement . In fact, these knuckle dragging cretins are universally despised by all principled conservatives who champion the rule of law and uphold traditional Judeo-Christian moral values. We would just as soon see them all rot in hell, and wouldn’t even ask for their help if our lives depended on It. This very widespread conservative attitude of revulsion against fringe groups of lawless modern Brownshirts stands in stark contrast the enabling, excuse making, sympathizing and even outright support the present highly destructive  leftist mobs are receiving from those who hold power and influence on the left. 

Meanwhile, true constitutional conservatives consider all manifestations of Fascism and Socialism to be merely minor variants of precisely the same kind of poison — the tyranny of total government and the abolition of individual human autonomy under God in favor of an utterly intolerant collective ruled over by sociopathIc criminals who will tell each individual exactly what they’re allowed to do, think, feel and believe. 

Even so, why are you going back to 2018 for statistics when it’s painfully obvious we now live in 2020’s brave new world of lawless leftIst mobs who have been doing virtually all the killing, maiming, brutalizing  burning, vandalizing, pillaging, desecrating and terrorizing, and then largely getting away with all of it thanks to their many feckless and/or corrupt sympathizers who hold positions of power and influence in government, media, academia and entertainment.

Finally, you must be aware of the fact that the last two items on your list refer to a total of 3 individuals a) who hurt no one, b) committed no crimes, c) were not arrested, but are d) somehow presumed to be guilty of something or other because they were said to be wearing Hawaiian style shits. These are the pathetically weak examples of far “right wing” ‘violence to which I was referring. Good luck getting convictions in courts of law with such “evidence.”

[Scott Lloyd]

22 hours ago, USU78 said:

Appears taggart bailed out.

I predict he’s going to hitch that trailer camper he lives in to his pickup truck and light out for parts unknown. 

[Kenngo1969]

Salt Lake County District Attorney report of investigation of Palacios shooting:

https://slco.org/contentassets/932acae5b89840fb943984301a4d5aad/noreplyslcounty.com_20200709_074341.pdf

[USU78]

33 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I predict he’s going to hitch that trailer camper he lives in to his pickup truck and light out for parts unknown. 

Soros can afford the bail forfeiture. No worries.

[Rajah Manchou]

6 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I don’t know of a single conservative defender of constitutional government in the United States, past or present, who would consider the murderous anti Semitic haters of which you speak to be legitimate representatives of the conservative movement. In fact, these knuckle dragging cretins are universally despised by all principled conservatives who champion the rule of law and uphold traditional Judeo-Christian moral values. 

It is really hard to respond to your comments because you pack them full of so many loaded adjectives.

6 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Finally, you must be aware of the fact that the last two items on your list refer to a total of 3 individuals a) who hurt no one, b) committed no crimes, c) were not arrested, but are d) somehow presumed to be guilty of something or other because they were said to be wearing Hawaiian style shits. 

I was aware, and indicated it by saying those cases were not violent.

Remember my comment was in response to the claim that locally, only left wing nutters are violent. That's not true and I provided enough cases to demonstrate that.

Nutters on both the left and right are violent. You can argue with yourself about how only the far left is crazy and violent, but you won't be able to support that argument with facts.

Edited July 15, 2020 by Rajah Manchou

[Kenngo1969]

6 hours ago, teddyaware said:

... Finally, you must be aware of the fact that the last two items on your list refer to a total of 3 individuals a) who hurt no one, b) committed no crimes, c) were not arrested, but are d) somehow presumed to be guilty of something or other because they were said to be wearing Hawaiian style shits. [sic] These are the pathetically weak examples of far “right wing” ‘violence to which I was referring. Good luck getting convictions in courts of law with such “evidence.”

Gotta watch out for those individuals wearing Hawaiian-style shits.

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

It is really hard to respond to your comments because you pack them full of so many loaded adjectives.

I was aware, and indicated it by saying those cases were not violent.

Remember my comment was in response to the claim that locally, only left wing nutters are violent. That's not true and I provided enough cases to demonstrate that.

Nutters on both the left and right are violent. You can argue with yourself about how only the far left is crazy and violent, but you won't be able to support that argument with facts.

I do find it strange how often the media talks about he Right Wing terrorists that are the most dangerous element in our society. It is as if they are completely blind to Antifa and the so-called BLM peaceful protests that initially were invitations to loot and plunder. I have missed all the protests, the plundering, and violence of these terrible Right Wing folks. However, I do think the folks on the Right tend to act independently rather than in groups. 

That bastion of utter stupidity known as the Southern Poverty Law Center (I used to respect them and now I have learned they are nothing but a shill for the Left) can come up the some doozies. These groups have lost the ability to be neutral and just actually study things rather than achieve an agenda. 

I do agree with you that the fault is found on both sides, but the scales are so out of balance that it seems like we should be focusing on the most often violent side of things. 

[Rajah Manchou]

30 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I do find it strange how often the media talks about he Right Wing terrorists that are the most dangerous element in our society. It is as if they are completely blind to Antifa and the so-called BLM peaceful protests that initially were invitations to loot and plunder. I have missed all the protests, the plundering, and violence of these terrible Right Wing folks. However, I do think the folks on the Right tend to act independently rather than in groups. 

I find it strange how so many discussions like this completely sidestep right wing and religious violence, as if it never happens. I think it comes from the data that left wing violence, although sinister and dramatic, does not kill as many people as right wing violence. 

It comes down to how we define and quantify "violence" and "dangerous".

If we are counting the number of people killed through shootings, pipebombs, cars running into crowds etc, the right wing and religious violence in the USA is far more deadly than ANTIFA and BLM. If we're counting the number of cars or statues that are flipped, or gallons of paint, fistfights, molotov cocktails, blocked intersections, broken windows and dumpster fires, ANTIFA is far ahead. Those are the numbers I've seen, I'm open to be corrected with more accurate numbers.

[rodheadlee]

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Gotta watch out for those individuals wearing Hawaiian-style shits.

No kidding I'll have to throw out my entire wardrobe.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

It is really hard to respond to your comments because you pack them full of so many loaded adjectives.

I was aware, and indicated it by saying those cases were not violent.

Remember my comment was in response to the claim that locally, only left wing nutters are violent. That's not true and I provided enough cases to demonstrate that.

Nutters on both the left and right are violent. You can argue with yourself about how only the far left is crazy and violent, but you won't be able to support that argument with facts.

(Bold emphasis mine for reference.) 

You have a quirky definition of “locally.”  I was referring to Salt Lake and Provo, where we’ve seen the most egregious instances of violence. You had to cast your net beyond the the borders of the state to find your examples. Some dude standing on the corner in a floral shirt was the scariest truly local right wing example you could find?  😆 

Edited July 15, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Gotta watch out for those individuals wearing Hawaiian-style shits.

 

48 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

No kidding I'll have to throw out my entire wardrobe.

Maybe Don Ho was a closet fascist. 

[Rajah Manchou]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

(Bold emphasis mine for reference.) 

You have a quirky definition of “locally.”  I was referring to Salt Lake and Provo, where we’ve seen the most egregious instances of violence. You had to cast your net beyond the the borders of the state to find your examples. Some dude standing on the corner in a floral shirt was the scariest truly local right wing example you could find?  😆 

I included the boogaloos standing with their guns on the top of a flipped SLC police car, the picture that Marco Rubio tweeted and his conclusion that these were extremists taking advantage of legitimate protests to advance their unrelated agenda. Is this local?

You could argue that people all across the country showing up armed to the teeth wearing Hawaiian shirts is some sort of funny coincidence, but that hypothesis doesn't go very far when they themselves admit that Hawaiian shirts and military-grade gear is their uniform.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I included the boogaloos standing with their guns on the top of a flipped SLC police car, the picture that Marco Rubio tweeted and his conclusion that these were extremists taking advantage of legitimate protests to advance their unrelated agenda. Is this local?

You could argue that people all across the country showing up armed to the teeth wearing Hawaiian shirts is some sort of funny coincidence, but that hypothesis doesn't go very far when they themselves admit that Hawaiian shirts and military-grade gear is their uniform.

And how did that police car get flipped in the first place? 

I’m not defending fanatics on either side. But when I start seeing guys in Hawaiian shirts doing things like shooting elderly motorists whose only offense is trying to get to safety by maneuvering through an enraged mob, that’s when I’ll start to acknowledge some functional equivalence. 

 

[Rajah Manchou]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m not defending fanatics on either side. But when I start seeing guys in Hawaiian shirts doing things like shooting elderly motorists whose only offense is trying to get to safety by maneuvering through an enraged mob, that’s when I’ll start to acknowledge some functional equivalence. 

But only in Provo or Salt Lake City right? People self-identifying with the boogaloos shooting/killing people in CA and plotting to kill people in Colorado, Arizona, Nevada is not local enough.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 7/6/2020 at 11:50 AM, Amulek said:

If by "justified to pursue someone who is fleeing" you mean, is it legal to follow someone who you believe to be a criminal and report his whereabouts to the police, then the answer is yes - that is perfectly legal.

Zimmerman had committed no crime either.

Again, following someone isn't a crime - even if you happen to be lawfully carrying a gun while doing so. 

And, just to be clear, there was no evidence to even suggest that Martin believed Zimmerman was armed.

Only, as I'm sure you know, the police never ordered him to "stop following the boy." All the dispatcher said was, "[w]e don't need you to do that;" which was a suggestion - not an order. 

Now, had Zimmerman immediately walked back to his truck and waited for police at that point, then sure, I think Martin probably would have survived the night. 

Here's the thing though: Zimmerman wasn't legally obligated to do that. He wasn't breaking any laws. He was just walking around his own neighborhood, waiting for the police to show up at that point. That's when the altercation took place. 

And when you look through all of the evidence (testimonial, forensic, etc.) it paints a picture which comports with Zimmerman's account - namely, that it was Martin who confronted Zimmerman; Martin who sucker punched and then began beating the tar out of Zimmerman; and finally Zimmerman who fired in self-defense. 

Yes, the whole thing was a tragedy. And yes, it probably could have been avoided. But not every tragedy is evidence of a crime. 

Sadly, it sounds to me as though you have only acquainted yourself with the simplistic narrative which was portrayed by the media. 

Like I said before, if you knew all of the facts, there would be absolutely no question in your mind that Zimmerman was not guilty of having committed murder.

So a minor who is walking home at night unarmed is fair game for anybody to follow or stalk.  Any boy or girl should just assume that the stalker means no harm, even though they have no idea who it is.  Just how safe is anyone in such circumstances?  Should we always assume that the stalker has a legal right to follow and therefore need not be feared, unless and until a murder or rape has taken place?  Is that a wise assumption?

Put yourself in Trayvon's shoes:  He had no idea who this man was who was following him, but he knew that the stalker had no right to accost him in any way, and desperately tried to get away.  Zimmerman continued to follow and accosted Trayvon.  Trayvon had no right to defend himself, primarily because he was a black minor.  Right?  So he should just have allowed himself to be beaten and killed by Zimmerman (if that were Zimmerman's intention, but how would he know?).  Not knowing why he was being followed, and filled with justifiable fear, Trayvon defended himself.  So Zimmerman shot him dead, and the jury allowed Zimmerman to skate.  That is the real story.  An innocent black kid was shot for no reason.  He had committed no crime, and could not understand why some crazy person was stalking him in the dark.  He justifiably feared for his life.

You admit it was a tragedy, and that it could have been avoided.  Just how could it have been avoided?

[alter idem]

7 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

But only in Provo or Salt Lake City right? People self-identifying with the boogaloos shooting/killing people in CA and plotting to kill people in Colorado, Arizona, Nevada is not local enough.

The boogaloos shooting, killing people in California and plotting to kill in surrounding states? Is this being reported by media, cause it sounds like it should be getting more attention.  When was that picture of them on the police car taken? I don't think I saw that, if it was this June. I'm wondering why their activities are not more publicized.

[Storm Rider]

10 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I find it strange how so many discussions like this completely sidestep right wing and religious violence, as if it never happens. I think it comes from the data that left wing violence, although sinister and dramatic, does not kill as many people as right wing violence. 

It comes down to how we define and quantify "violence" and "dangerous".

If we are counting the number of people killed through shootings, pipebombs, cars running into crowds etc, the right wing and religious violence in the USA is far more deadly than ANTIFA and BLM. If we're counting the number of cars or statues that are flipped, or gallons of paint, fistfights, molotov cocktails, blocked intersections, broken windows and dumpster fires, ANTIFA is far ahead. Those are the numbers I've seen, I'm open to be corrected with more accurate numbers.

I haven't seen any numbers, but I tend to agree with you.

The difference is that the whackos on the Right appear to act independently - they go into a church and kill ten people with a rifle. The direct impact is quite small relative to the other side. The Left seems to act in large groups that captures the attention of society because it directly impact communities on a large scale. 

Who has the bigger impact? The lone wolf that directly impacts a small subset of individuals or the large groups that impacts entire cities and communities?  It is a matter of perspective.  

 

[Amulek]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So a minor who is walking home at night unarmed is fair game for anybody to follow or stalk. 

Let's maybe unpack some of those after-the-fact characterizations, shall we?

First, how do you know if someone is actually a minor?
Remember, Trayvon Martin was 17 years old at the time and roughly half a foot taller than Zimmerman. In the dark, from a distance, how do you reliably tell whether or not someone is a minor as opposed to a young adult?

Also, how do you know if someone is walking home and not casing a joint?
Remember, Zimmerman saw a guy wandering around in the rain, looking at the houses; and Zimmerman didn't recognize the individual as someone who lived in the community because, up until just a short time prior to that point, Martin hadn't lived there.
You will also recall that their neighborhood had suffered a number of robberies / break-ins over the past year, including the following incident which had taken place just within the last month:

Quote

 

On February 2, 2012, Zimmerman placed a call to Sanford police after spotting a young black man he recognized peering into the windows of a neighbor’s empty home, according to several friends and neighbors.

“I don’t know what he’s doing. I don’t want to approach him, personally,” Zimmerman said in the call, which was recorded. The dispatcher advised him that a patrol car was on the way. By the time police arrived, according to the dispatch report, the suspect had fled.

On February 6, the home of another Twin Lakes resident, Tatiana Demeacis, was burglarized. Two roofers working directly across the street said they saw two African-American men lingering in the yard at the time of the break-in. A new laptop and some gold jewelry were stolen. One of the roofers called police the next day after spotting one of the suspects among a group of male teenagers, three black and one white, on bicycles.

Police found Demeacis’s laptop in the backpack of 18-year-old Emmanuel Burgess, police reports show, and charged him with dealing in stolen property. Burgess was the same man Zimmerman had spotted on February 2. (source)

 

 

And finally, how does someone go about determining whether or not someone else is unarmed?
Unless they are brandishing their weapon or carrying it in a conspicuous manner there is simply no way to tell. 

 

Quote

Any boy or girl should just assume that the stalker means no harm, even though they have no idea who it is. 

While I think the term "stalker" begs the question, as it implies malicious intent, I happily concede that people can assume whatever they wish. 

Those assumptions, however, cannot be used to justify every conceivable response. 

 

Quote

Just how safe is anyone in such circumstances?  Should we always assume that the stalker has a legal right to follow and therefore need not be feared, unless and until a murder or rape has taken place?  Is that a wise assumption?

Again, you can assume whatever you want. But your actual actions have to be based on reasonable suspicion of harm. And they have to be proportionate to the perceived level of harm.

 

Quote

Put yourself in Trayvon's shoes: 

I have. Have you tried putting yourself in Zimmerman's? 

 

Quote

He had no idea who this man was who was following him, but he knew that the stalker had no right to accost him in any way, and desperately tried to get away. 

Except he didn't "desperately tr[y] to get away." 

Martin had ample time to run (or even walk) home: he didn't. 

 

Quote

Zimmerman continued to follow and accosted Trayvon.

Only there is no evidence that Zimmerman continued to follow. He was likely still looking around as he was walking around to meet up with the police, but he had lost Trayvon at that point and wasn't actively following him.

Moreover, as I have pointed out before, all of the available evidence points to Trayvon being the one who accosted Zimmerman - not the other way around. 

 

Quote

Trayvon had no right to defend himself, primarily because he was a black minor.  Right?

If you want to have a serious conversation about the Trayvon Martin case then let's have one.

If you want to make veiled insinuations that I might somehow be okay with minority children being unjustifiably attacked and/or abused then, as Justin Bieber would say, "you can go and love yourself."

 

Quote

Not knowing why he was being followed, and filled with justifiable fear, Trayvon defended himself.  So Zimmerman shot him dead, and the jury allowed Zimmerman to skate.  That is the real story. 

Hardly.

The "real story" is much less flattering than what was portrayed by the media.

When you go through the timeline and examine all of the available evidence, the story that makes the most sense is the one put forward by Zimmerman and his attorneys. 

 

Quote

An innocent black kid was shot for no reason. 

Again, "innocent" kind of begs the question; as for the reason, we know exactly what the reason was.

We know from witnesses and forensics that Martin had Zimmerman pinned to the ground.

Yet, at that point, Martin didn't stop his attack. 

We know from the 911 calls that Zimmerman yelled for help as many as 12 times in 45 seconds. 

Yet Martin didn't stop his attack.

We know that one of the neighbors came outside and threatened to call the police.

Yet Martin didn't stop his attack.

The only thing that caused the attack to stop was firing in self-defense.

Even if you disbelieve Zimmerman's statements about Trayvon saying he was going to kill him, or even if you doubt that Trayvon was actually going for Zimmerman's gun, at some point you have to accept that it was plausible for Zimmerman to believe that nothing was going to deter his attacker - not his pleas; not the threat of the police; nothing - and that he reasonably feared for his life. 

 

Quote

You admit it was a tragedy, and that it could have been avoided.  Just how could it have been avoided?

Multiple ways. Here are two obvious ones:

Had Zimmerman never gotten out of his truck, Martin would have survived the night. 

Alternatively, had Martin actually gone home (which he had ample time to do), he also would have survived the night.