As in Britain, maintaining order is being criminalized

As you know, another photo has come out showing that five foot eleven athlete Trayvon Martin beat the stuffing out of  five foot seven overweight George Zimmerman, while Zimmerman never hit back, until he finally shot Martin.

And when I say “come out” I mean that Zimmerman’s new lawyers extracted it by a year of litigation.  His first set of lawyers were happy to roll over for the state, and help railroad him as a dangerous raaaaciiiiiist, hence the widespread accusation that he must have been dangerously insane to fire them and get new lawyers.

As you may also know, the sound on one police call of George Zimmerman getting out of his truck to check out Trayvon Martin happens seven and half minutes before the sound of the gunshot on another police call when he shoots Martin, which means that Martin had ample time to walk to his fathers house, rant to his girlfriend a bit about how horrid Zimmerman was, then turn around and walk back to look for George Zimmerman

That Martin was still walking around in the rain seven minutes after passing Zimmerman’s truck implies that he was looking for Zimmerman, or looking for a house to burgle, or both, rather than looking to get home and dry.

Since Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin a short distance from Zimmerman’s truck, and a long distance from Martin’s father’s house, he had to be returning to his truck or hanging about near his truck at the time of the incident.

If the Zimmerman had “chased down” Martin for seven minutes, they would have had to have been creeping along like snails

Benjamin Crump, an attorney for the Martin family, told NBC News:

“George Zimmerman profiled and pursued Trayvon,” Crump said. “Trayvon had every right to stand his ground.”

Whenever someone accuses Zimmerman and defends Martin, they start by accusing Zimmerman of crimethink, and fail to accuse Zimmerman of attacking Martin, which implicitly argues that Martin was justified in attacking Zimmerman, thus implicitly admits that Martin attacked Zimmerman.

This line of argument implies that blacks are entitled to physically attack those that profile them.  The scenario Crump implies is that Martin decided not to go home, either hanging around or doubling back, and that Zimmerman either by his behavior or in actual words, demanded that Martin account for himself, and implicitly or explicitly accused him of being a burglar, (which in fact Martin was, though he may not necessarily have been burgling at that particular time, was not necessarily burgling Zimmerman’s neighborhood, though he had been burgling in someone’s neighborhood to raise funds to buy blunts), and that it is totally and completely unacceptable for whites to accuse blacks of burgling.  (Zimmerman being demoted from mestizo to white, for coming in conflict with a black, blacks being more politically correct than mestizos)

Examining the debate, the theory that Zimmerman “chased” Martin has been quietly abandoned, for the theory that Zimmerman “confronted” Martin by asking him what he was up to, or merely by acting as if Martin was a criminal, and that asking blacks who behave suspiciously what they are doing, or even keeping an eye on them, is a completely intolerable and extraordinary act of aggression, that merely by acting as if Martin’s behavior was suspicious Zimmerman engaged in aggression against Martin, justifying Martin attacking him.

When I debate people on this topic, the issue rapidly turns to whether it is reasonable for you to ask a seeming outsider what he is doing your neighborhood.  When someone argues that this is unreasonable, indeed extraordinary, behavior, he implies that Zimmerman acted wrongfully by watching for crime, and Martin acted rightfully by responding physically to this horrible act of aggression rather than implying that Zimmerman acted wrongfully by attacking Martin.

Whenever you see the words “self appointed neighborhood watch” this implies in the mind of the person using that phrase,  watching Martin was the original act of aggression that started the fight.

No one doubts that Zimmerman shot Martin, so the question is, who started it?  No one can doubt that Martin punched and beat Zimmerman, and Zimmerman did not punch and beat Martin.  No one can doubt that Martin was not heading for his father’s home at the time of the confrontation, and, given his conversation with his girlfriend, the reason he was out in the rain instead of warm and dry with his dad was that he was looking for Zimmerman.   So the real question that no one will quite say out loud is:  Is being suspected of being a burglar legitimate grounds for a black man to attack a white man?

Undoubtedly, all the blacks on the jury will vote yes, all the whites on the jury will come under extreme extra social pressure to vote yes.  There will probably be a hung jury as one or two whites refuse to accept the social consensus.  Blacks will riot, while cops actively make sure that no one does a Zimmerman against rioting blacks.

As a general rule blacks burn down their own neighborhoods, and attack non blacks unfortunate enough to live or work in black majority neighborhoods, but the central key issue in this case is that blacks should be able to attack people in neighborhoods that are not black majority for real and imagined slights, thus the rioting following this case may well intrude on white neighborhoods.

Whenever someone argues against Zimmerman, his arguments make no sense logically, but make sense only as circling around the unstated premise:  That black behavior cannot be questioned, and if you question it you deserve what is coming to you.  AJStrata’s arguments are a good example of this. Zimmerman’s Incoherent Statements Destroying His Defense.” “ The Nail In George Zimmerman False Claims” “As Details Come Out, George Zimmerman’s Claims Crumble” “Crime Scene Proves Zimmerman Covering Up A Different Story

For example, one of AJ Strata’s purported arguments is that it would be impossible for Zimmerman to pull his gun while Martin was sitting on top of him and restraining Zimmerman’s elbow with one hand.

One moment Martin is supposedly a nine year old cherub, and the next he is supposedly superman.  Try controlling another man’s elbow with just one hand gripping the elbow.  It is entirely impossible, and you have to be pretty strong, or have leverage, to do it with two hands.  The elbow is much more powerful than the hand.  I have not read everything AJ Strata says on the Zimmerman case, because he says a lot, but I read quite a bit, and none of it made any sense whatsoever, except we reinterpret it as “Zimmerman is guilty of crimethink”  The general format of all Strata’s arguments is “Zimmerman says X, and X is obviously impossible”, when X is not merely possible, but overwhelmingly probable, the sort of thing that is bound to happen if we suppose that Zimmerman was an honest peaceable guy watching for crime, and Martin a crazy vicious stupid violent punk criminal looking for trouble.  The only reason for supposing X to be impossible is crimestop, that thinking X happened is crimethink.  It is not impossible that Zimmerman could draw his gun while Martin incompetently attempts to restrain him.  It is politically incorrect to think that Martin would be attacking someone who he knew or should have known was armed, because that would mean that Martin was acting like a dumb nigger.  What is impossible is not Zimmerman pulling his gun when a nigger is dumb enough to grab Zimmerman’s elbow instead of his wrist.  What is crimethink, is that Martin was so stupid and violent as to continue to be violent under those circumstances.

Ostensibly, Strata is saying “This aspect of Zimmerman’s story is physically impossible”, but none of Strata’s arguments that I read made any sense as “This aspect of Zimmerman’s story is physically impossible”, only as “This aspect of Zimmerman’s story is crimethink”.

Supporters of Martin believe that it is unthinkable and unspeakable to suggest that Martin behaved as he so obviously did behave, and simultaneously believe that it is perfectly reasonable and entirely appropriate for Martin to behave as he so obviously did behave.  When someone says that Zimmerman’s story falls apart, he means it is politically unthinkable that Martin attacked Zimmerman, and when he says that Zimmerman profiled Martin, he means it is entirely appropriate, proper, and natural that Martin attacked Zimmerman.  Doublethink.

One Response to “As in Britain, maintaining order is being criminalized”

  1. […] As in Britain, maintaining order is being criminalized « Jim’s Blog […]

Leave a Reply