-51 votes

concerned letter from a distraught member, re: trayvon martin

Dear DailyPaul.com:

About me: I have been supporting Ron Paul since 2007 and before that I was a brainwashed neo-con supporter. The Daily Paul has been an essential website in my awakening into being and solidification as a libertarian. I don’t often post but I have in the past, most recently the Monday after the George Zimmerman verdict.

I cant wait for the attention on the Trayvon Martin case to die down. The trial has been used as a means to divide the populous, which partisans are taking advantage of to solidify the legitimacy and growth of the state.

Additionally, I want the attention to go away because the Daily Paul’s participation in the spectacle has astounded me. Not only do your reactions support a police state mentality, your exaltation of Zimmerman and celebration of the verdict have been drenched in demagoguery and unwarranted harshness. You are actively contributing to the divide of the people and falling on the side of tyranny.

Regardless of whatever stories or “facts” you believe in surrounding the death of Martin, there are certain truths that cannot be denied that place Zimmerman as a violator of liberty. Firstly, let us all agree, that self defense is a pillar of liberty. Had Zimmerman been just strolling down the street minding his own business and been attacked by Martin out of the blue, without a doubt Zimmerman would be justified in killing him. Of course this was not the case, but let us give Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt and pretend that the story his defense used during the trial is the complete, truthful account of events. Zimmerman was driving in his car and saw Martin walking down the street. Zimmerman slows down and starts following him at night, in the rain. Martin sees that Zimmerman was looking at him and continues towards his destination. Zimmerman doesn’t say “excuse me young man, I want to talk to you.” He doesn’t even say “hey what are you doing?!” Zimmerman pulls his car over and keeps an eye on Martin. He then drives towards Martin again. No one else is around. Martin, taking a short cut, is able to get out of the site of Zimmerman. Zimmerman stops his car, gets out and continues to follow Martin on foot. This is aggressive behavior! After perceiving the escalating threat, Martin, a young man not an old woman, decides to confront this stranger who has been following him back to his home. After strategically positioning himself, Martin, taking no more risks, launches his attack. Zimmerman, unable to fend for himself, takes out his gun and shoots Martin dead.

No matter how you spin it, Zimmerman was the instigator. Had he not been following Martin, the 17 year old would have made it home safely. Zimmerman, even if he was well-intended, handled the situation with no respect towards Martin’s dignity as a person. Not only did he profile Trayvon based on his appearance, he treated him as though he were already guilty of a crime. This attitude is repugnant to a free society. Because of his misdeeds, a young man was shot dead, perhaps Zimmerman is not guilty of second degree murder, but how can you think the law should not hold him at least partially responsible? Let me get this straight: you can threaten someone, and when they fight you, you can just shoot them if you are loosing and get away scot-free? (such provocative behavior by a CC-er will surely be capitalized by the gun control crowd, after all it’s much less likely that Zimmerman would have gotten out of the car and followed Martin had he not had a gun)

Alas, to my horror, too many Daily Paul users think not just that, but also deem Zimmerman a hero, a great citizen and man. One person declared they wished Zimmerman would be neighborhood watch of his neighborhood!?! (apparently killing someone who is staying inside the gated community you are supposed to protect is a sign of good watchman-ship) This is a man who never became the cop he dreamed of being, so instead he carries a gun around and chronically reports things to the police. He is a self-appointed neighborhood watchman! These are the qualities of a man hungry for power and looking for trouble. I’m sure he’ll get a job offering at the NSA in a few years.

Moreover, the Daily Paul response has been toe-in-line with the talking points of the right-wing when it comes to the issues of drugs and race. You’d think these folks have never heard Ron Paul denounce drug-war propaganda or racial discrimination. Too many of you are participating in the vilification of this dead teenager based on selected internet posts and marijuana use! Also astonishing is the completely unnuanced and insensitive dismissal of the relevance of Martin’s race to the national discussion. Astonishingly, those of you who declare Martin’s race irrelevant are also the same ones attempting to legitimize Zimmerman’s actions because Martin fit the profile of wanted criminals, of which being black was an essential ingredient. He was being profiled and followed because he was young black man wearing a hoodie, forget the fact that it’s February and raining and the 21st century and the gated community has a significant population of black people. I mean it’s not like Trayvon was walking around a village in North Dakota where black people are only seen on television. Then many of you troll, “well Zimmerman is half-Hispanic so..” as if Hispanics can’t be racist. It’s not about Zimmerman’s race and it’s not about whether he is a racist, it’s about Martin’s race and whether it is just another coincidence that a young black male has been presumed to be criminal and shot dead for it. Black people experience America very differently than people of other races do. Martin’s death became a national story; it took on a higher meaning for black people—because they know all too well what it means to be looked at walking down a street and deemed suspicious. And they are frigging tired of it and they have a right to be! Your inability to understand that is atrocious. What’s next? Will they Daily Paul mock people in the Islamic world for protesting US imperialism?

When I tried to make these points, I was met with vitriolic denunciations and name-calling. Among other things, I was accused a “Democrat,” an “idiot” and an Al Sharpton echoer. I was not personally offended, just very disappointed: this close-minded hostility does not belong on the DailyPaul! These are the very “mob-rule” tactics that you denounce the left for adopting. Both sides are guilty of demagoguery and manipulation. As libertarians, we ought to transcend the partisan fray. We ought to understand both sides and point out the truth in both. We ought to frame the issue in Natural Law. We ought to protect the second amendment by punishing those who abuse it. We need not buy into the racial politics of the left but we ought to acknowledge the legitimacy of the origins of their grievances. And we ought to always insist on the dignity of the individual as an individual. You may still be glad Zimmerman was acquitted, but don’t pretend that it would be un-libertarian to think otherwise.




Comment viewing options

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

sure, watch this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bF-Ax5E8EJc

if that's not enough, go ahead and use startpage and search "zimmerman tutored black kids for free and voted for obama"

I use Blue Wave, but don't expect one of THEIR silly taglines.

"There is absolutely ZERO

"There is absolutely ZERO EVIDENCE that Trayvon started the fight - for all we know, Zimmerman could have chased him and threatened him." really??

You sure you were watching the trial and not MSNBS' commentary and conclusions of the trial?

1. Zimmerman has broken bloody nose. Trayvon had ZERO marks except gun shot.
2. Zimmerman's flashlight was dropped by the T-Path when he said he got sucker punched, which is consistent with his story.
3. If Zimmerman was the aggressor why not just shoot Trayvon right there? Why wait for Tray to hit him?
4. If Trayvon didn't start the fight, how did it start? Because Trayvon has no marks on him indicating that Zimmerman did not hit him.
5. According to Rachel's testimony Tay was almost at his dad's house when Zimmerman was talking to 9/11, which was 100s ft away from where the fight took place, so Tray had to have gone BACK to meet Zimmerman.

Explain just that to start with?

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

No No

So you are going to judge the man based on anecdotal evidence?

"1. Zimmerman has broken bloody nose. Trayvon had ZERO marks except gun shot."
-Even if that is true, so what....Is there a rule that says the aggressor or person who threatens cannot receive a scratch? Key word is "threaten" - actually Zimmerman could have initiated the aggression with words only.

"2. Zimmerman's flashlight was dropped by the T-Path when he said he got sucker punched, which is consistent with his story."
-A flashlight on the ground is not evidence of aggression or non-aggression.

"3. If Zimmerman was the aggressor why not just shoot Trayvon right there? Why wait for Tray to hit him?"
-That is not evidence but the simple answer could be that zimmerman did not want to kill him.

4. If Trayvon didn't start the fight, how did it start? Because Trayvon has no marks on him indicating that Zimmerman did not hit him.
-Lack of explanation is not evidence one way or the other.

"5. According to Rachel's testimony Tay was almost at his dad's house when Zimmerman was talking to 9/11, which was 100s ft away from where the fight took place, so Tray had to have gone BACK to meet Zimmerman."
-Again, lack of explanation is not evidence of aggression. One simple answer could have been that his brother (?) was home alone and he did not want zimmerman finding out where he lives.

So in general, lack of imagination or perspective should not be used to render judgement

1. "anecdotal evidence"

1. "anecdotal evidence"

What? What are you talking about? Do you even know what anecdotal evidence means? It doesn't apply here. That has to do with people trying to apply a concept to a general group from small individual stories.

2. "actually Zimmerman could have initiated the aggression with words only." IMPOSSIBLE. Did you not watch the trial. Trayvon headed back to confront ZImmerman. The witnesses described THREE verbal exchanges. Zimmerman did NOT know they heard THREE when he told the cops about the THREE he had with Trayvon.

Tray: "You got a problem?" Zim: "No I don't." Tray: "Now you do mother fu-ker.."

3. -A flashlight on the ground is not evidence of aggression or non-aggression.

It is you fool. You think Zim would drop the flashlight on purpose? Why not use that as a weapon?

4. "That is not evidence but the simple answer could be that zimmerman did not want to kill him."

So how does that account for all the narrative that Zim hunting him down to kill him? You make no sense. Why would ZIm pick a fight with someone when he has a gun? Why would he call the cops BEFORE he picked the fight?

5. "Lack of explanation is not evidence one way or the other." What are you talking about? There IS evidence you idiot. And the evidence shows Tray started the fight.

What a waste of time this is..

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

evidence

Still waiting for evidence that Trayvon started the fight. What we have is evidence there was a fight - the two are not the same

Therein lies your problem...

There is no pure evidence to satisfy you. There never was or will be, so we take the evidence that martin came back to Zimmerman's location, and you assume it was to flourish him with praise? Flower him with gifts? Bottom line none of us know for sure why or how the altercation startes, but we take the evidence we do know, and make the best assumption we can. One thing we do not do is fabricate a tale that goes against what we do know to fill a narrative one way or the other, which is what the anti Zimmerman crowd has done, and is apparent in the lack of response to questions from them. Emotions are high; as they should be, but making someone a demon when they might be telling the truth that evidence and eyewitnesses support is only rational.

Always remember:
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." ~ Samuel Adams
If they hate us for our freedom, they must LOVE us now....

Stay IRATE, remain TIRELESS, an

JeanTEL!

"5. According to Rachel's testimony Tay was almost at his dad's house when Zimmerman was talking to 9/11, which was 100s ft away from where the fight took place, so Tray had to have gone BACK to meet Zimmerman."
-Again, lack of explanation is not evidence of aggression. One simple answer could have been that his brother (?) was home alone and he did not want zimmerman finding out where he lives."

dude seriously , you watch too much msnbc

here watch some more , sharpton interviews martins's parents

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/07/19/al_sharpto...

During the whold damn interview the mom goes on and on about how Trayvon was just headed home , and that he just wanted to get to his home.

IN ALL HONESTY
I THINK THAT FAT CUNT EGGED HIM ON OVER THE PHONE TO GO KICK THE WHITE GUYS ASS THAT WAS WATCHING HIM FROM AFAR.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdSxdSPn7HM

Just watch the piers interview when she is actually really being herself and telling the truth because shes all caught up in the media blitz now. She says that zimmerman was prolly a pedophile or something and how do we know she didnt egg him on during that call.
Where is the full transcript of that NSA ?

thanks for reading!

"He's this eccentric Ghandi-Like figure that you cant touch with the normal bribes that people respond to."
the man Doug Wead on DR. RON PAUL

Well. let's see.....

...TM made it to his dad's house, then turned around and stalked GZ. Then jumped GZ.

Again....

.....how compassionate is one to be? Passionate enough to die from blunt force trauma to the head?

And what is with the KID stuff?

Donate to the George Zimmerman Defense Fund

http://www.gzdefensefund.com/donate/

All you'll feel is good...

Kudos to GUS818

Kudos to you GUS. I have felt from the beginning that there was too much hero worship for Zimmerman. Pro-gun advocates have hitched their wagons to Zimmerman - which I think is a mistake for the reasons you outlined and what I am about to say....

Zimmerman and Trayvon were both IDIOTS. Two IDIOTS crossed paths in a gated community and one ended up dead and the other lives the rest of his life in FEAR....This is the result of actions by stupid people...Had either of them shown any common sense or decency - there would have been no violent altercation.

I dont post here that often cuz I feel it is preaching to the choir. But in this case you have brought balance to the force. I often post at Glenn Beck's site, Theblaze.com, and argue the "both are idiots" position and i get the EXACT SAME responses from the neocons as you receive in this article. Again, kudos to you GUS818, you have brought reason, perspective, and logic into the equation.

I'll be back.....

...tomorrow night. I would like to see all the hero worship stuff you have come up with.

Hypocrisy......

"I would expect that...
Submitted by Ground Chuk on Fri, 07/19/2013 - 23:59. Permalink

...from people who need their work done for them....."

Also......

...you are on the wrong thread. This one is for the hero worship facts page that your buddy is going to fill up.

wow

you completely missed the hypocrisy....You asked me for evidence of something that is common sense and at another place called me lazy because i asked for proof of something you said. You are a hypocrite AND stiff-necked

Ahhh...

...you suppose, and expect me to look it up. I tell facts, and I'm to show you.

Hypocrisy?

When emotion is all you have, I think it's up to you to prove. When I have facts, it's up to you to disprove.

I believe that is how it works.

You can "Oh no he d'int" all you want. Facts are facts.....you prove them wrong.

Show me the hero worship

I haven't seen it. I would like to, since it seems to be so large.

Let me add this as well. Since you say that pro-gun advocates have hitched their wagons to Zimmerman, please show this.

I think what you will find is those who you call "pro Zimmerman" are actually people who are pro truth.

Zimmerman's actions have been questioned by many. But what it comes down to is that Martin BROKE THE LAW when he attacked Zimmerman. No matter what Zimmerman may have said.

Martin was close to his dad's house, why did he come back? Why do you not answer this question???

with this story, we will

with this story, we will never know the truth. God will judge Zimmerman's heart - the rest of us should call it a tragedy and move on.

And yes, there is hero worship and "hitching of wagons". You know it is true. Part of the reason is because it involves socioeconomic and racial overtones, which always inflames both sides

ROFL you're the only one seeing colors

And I'd like to see concrete evidence of 'hero worship', too. Saying this was a clear case of self-defense doesn't add up to hero worship.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

well

Well the fact that you call it a "clear case of self defense" is evidence that you are not impartial. We have no proof of the lead-up to the events - only one guy's story and his questionable actions on a 911 call. Nobody really knows what happened and it is all speculation. You cannot judge this case and the fact that you are speaks volumes

Yea....

..........the world revolves around me.

You aren't judging this case, that's for sure.

When you get some facts straight (it wasn't a 911 call) come back and explain why a 17 year old has the right to assault an older man because he is a creepy ass cracka.

Especially when the darling angel was right at where he was going, then turned around and went back.

Where does anyone think this was excusable?

Why is it that only GZ made mistakes and TM didn't?

Again

Again, nobody is excusing anybody. You are overly defensive because you have constructed a narrative in your mind - and that narrative is being challenged. You dont know what happened that night. Things like this are stumbling blocks for those who are quick to judge.

Yea, based on facts....

....you are working on emotion.

You don't know what happened that night either, but you are sure you are right. Based on emotion.

Also...

....I don't really see the hero worship or hitching of wagons. It's the principal, not the person.

?

There is no "principle" here, only a muddled mess and one person's testimony. There are plenty of opportunities to showcase 2nd amendment and "stand your ground" laws which make sense and do not involve such questionable activities.

For one....

....this has nothing to do with Stand Your Ground. It is simply self defense. No fancy wording.

Who is really showcasing this as a 2nd Amendment case? The media made it racial, and then piled on with gun control. Why would the pro 2nd Amendment people sit around and take this beating as well?

Should we all be victims?

and what questionable activities

would those be?

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

Questionable

The reason it is questionable is because GZ had the understanding of the situation, vehicle, and gun. With all those things, any reasonable person would have resolved the situation with words and conversation but things did not work out that way - which, among other things, makes it questionable.

Good grief...

.....because Martin escalated it. If Z was calling him all kinds of names, Martin has NO RIGHT to assault him. Why do you not see this?

I dont see anything because

I dont see anything because you and I do not know what happened that night. You think you know, but it is just an opinion