5 votes

As a Libertarian I can still get on board the Trayvon Martin protests ONLY as they regard

the idea of police, quasi-police, rent-a-cops, militia, or whatever you want to call them, demanding with threat of force, to know what I am doing when there has been nothing to indicate that I have broken the law.

On THAT issue - I could happily be participating.

I have the right to object, to raise my voice, to be outraged, if anything like that were to happen to me.

BUT when I find myself sitting on said officers chest, after having broken his nose, and while pummeling his head into concrete..... then I LOSE my high ground.

And he has the right to protect himself from the loss of his life in any way he can - including shooting me.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

When the time comes

Will you stand your ground or spout off on the forum?

To my Liberal Trolls:
"Really Don't mind if you sit this one out. Your words but a whisper, your deafness a shout. I may make you feel, but I can't make you think."
Ian Anderson 1972

All Aboard!

If they are paid or volunteer

If they are paid or volunteer to protect private property you still have a problem with private security? How about body guards? I'm not sure what your point is. Security is ok until they go too far, and then its not ok? Well no shit sherlock. Trayvon was under no obligation to answer any questions. Did Zimmerman ask him any questions? I don't know and don't care. I don't have to have an opinion on every story that comes across the tube. I didn't know either party in this fiasco so I couldn't care less. It was an isolated incident, not a sign of the times. Time to move on.

I think the objection was a presumption of guilt. There's

nothing reasonably suspicious about someone walking down a street wearing a hoody in the rain, nor is that any evidence of criminal activity.

Iedrespe. ctfully disagree

Iedrespe. ctfully disagree that there was any presumption of guilt. we are not talking about walking down a public road we are talking about walking inside a gated community that is protected by neighborhood watch. Zimmerman may have been over zealous but that is not a crime. then again maybe he was not over Zealous. there are extenuating circumstances that have to be taken into account.

I agree, and the obvious answer to all of this is that if this

was truly a "gated community" then they need a better gate.

If it was closed, then that can only mean, at the least, the kid was tresspassing, which begs "why?"

Nah, better George

Nah, better George Zimmerman's than your average municipal cop.

Whatever the facts, George expressed remorse, which moved even the mercenary that interviewed him.

I do think he should have received some sanction though.

My opinion is George made the wrong choice, but that choice should have some repercussion.

At the time he didn't know if he would be knocked unconscious and possibly killed if he didn't act. His past history tells me he didn't want to kill anyone. Trayvon's past history tells me he was liable to want to take it out on a creepyasscracka. The witness told Trayvon to stop hitting George, and went indoors to call the cops.

At this point Trayvon knew he had limited time. He also knew the cops would likely treat him poorly, and assume some guilt for the crime of walking while black, even if they didn't catch him in the act.

I think Trayvon decided to 'end it' and run. If ending it meant stunning or knocking George unconscious and running or killing him, George couldn't know. Trayvon may not have even known himself.

George had to make a choice with not enough information. If he hadn't chosen to be there I would give him the unmitigated benefit of the doubt. But he did chose, even if, as I feel, for socially conscious reasons. So that's why I think he should have not gotten off completely.

But there is no evidence

That zimmerman did anything other than keep his eye on Martin, he did not stop him, or hassle him at all. Here is a great summary.


So you can get with it as far

So you can get with it as far as everything that has been proven completely true, like how george zimmerman acted with unjust threat of force... but you can't get with it because somehow that same person is credible enough to say it wasn't really his fault or unjust threat of force on his part?

Like no cop has ever lied when they were the only witness about how events played out to stay out of trouble, right?...