The Exploitation of Trayvon Martin

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's a deeper peek into the soul of the propagandists running the show in this trial:

http://youtu.be/-EdONue0wqY

The attorney for Trayvon Martin's family, Jasmine Rand, is being interviewed by Greta Van Susteren, Rand (nothing to do with our Ayn, thank God) basically said she is not so much an attorney as a social engineer.

Social engineer? That sounds familiar.

You mean like Bernays or Goebbels?

She even bragged about the fact that it was social engineering--not the American law enforcement and justice system--that caused the trial in the first place. (She sure got that right.)

She is very, very disappointed with the USA legal system.

Very disappointed. Tsk tsk tsk.

In other words, this Rand (not ours, thank God) wants collectivized bullying and lynch mobs. For her, screw trial by jury unless it is window dressing for some righteous social engineering project with a preordained outcome. And screw any egg that needs to be smashed to make her omelet.

Another name for social engineering is propaganda. Another name is agitprop. Another is public relations. Another is crowd control.

What you see in this video is the soul of a vicious manipulator who will stop at nothing to serve her King (or Dictator or Fuhrer or Technocrat in Chief).

Make no mistake, this lady wants blood. If she and her kind get real lasting power here in the USA, she will exercise it according to her idea and fancy, not any chartered unalienable rights. The blood will flow. There will be no principles involved except who wields power and who is the better "social engineer."

If you ever get in trouble under a system like that, you better have some good toadying muscles. And they better be well-exercised. Whim and personal favor will be the only shot you will have at defending yourself.

I normally don't like total black and white on complex issues, but in this case, mixing marketing psychology with government power as fundamental policy is creepy as all get out. The fundamental policy should be to uphold the Constitution and the rights contained therein.

The choice we have right now is freedom or dictatorship by technocrats.

It actually is black and white.

And the defense of freedom is not to ignore the technocrats who study propaganda (which they now call social engineering). Freedom-lovers need to understand how propaganda (i.e., social engineering) works. Freedom-loving individualists need to study it just as much as the technocrats do. If you are on the freedom side, start studying. (Nudge by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein is as good a place to start as any. Or maybe Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion by Robert Cialdini.)

Big government technocratic social engineers are power mongers who freak out and really, really, really hate it when they don't get their way. Just look at the facial expressions of Jasmine Rand when challenged by Greta.

That is the face of a bully.

Michael

[dldelancey]

DDL, you are exactly right. Few people actively seek out things to be outraged about (somebody here called them Injustice Collectors, excellent term), the rest of us just react to what comes to our notice and strikes a chord. This case strikes several chords with many and the result is, of course, discordancy.

My chord is the corner store, the teenage boy in a strange neighbourhood. My own son was stopped in the same way, by the police - half a block from his own home - because he was wearing a basketball shirt identical to that of a youth who had been reported attempting to vandalize cars nearby. Although we found later that the vandal was an Asian or Filipino, about 16, 5'7 or 8 with dreadlocks, they arrested my 6'1 20-year-old white short-haired son, kept him in jail overnight and actually took the case right to trial, where they had to drop charges right before proceedings were to begin.

The police were mistaken about who he was. But he is still alive.

You have a son Deanna,and I have two. Most reading this thread have been young men themselves. They identify with the older man who felt threatened by the younger. But I imagine my boys in both positions.

First, sorry for the late response. I didn't realize you had replied directly to me until today. Second, I'm sorry you and your son had this experience, and I'm glad it turned out okay.

So, yeah, I have a son, and I can imagine him in both positions. If he were in the Trayvon Martin role, I trust that my parenting, his good sense, and his rational self-interest would guide him to act in a way that would NOT put him at risk of being shot. If he were in the George Zimmerman role, I trust that my parenting, his good sense, and his rational self-interest would guide him to act in a way that would NOT put him at risk of being beaten to death. Beyond that, there's not much else I can say. There's enough evidence to support the conclusion that very little presented in the media about this case can be trusted, and so I don't trust it. I do, however, mostly trust my country's legal system. I believe that the jury in this trial had access to actual facts and that they acted in good faith in accordance with the laws of the state of FL to arrive at their verdict. No amount of personal experiences, neither mine nor yours, changes that.

This juror btw, had previously been called four times for jury duty . Is this usual? How old is she? I have been only called once and I have lived here 35 years. Maybe the jury pool is much smaller in florida.

Being called for jury duty is not the same thing as serving on a jury. Where I live in LA, I was called twice in one year, but because I didn't actually serve on a jury during either of those two stints, I was eligible again. The third time I was called (the next year), I did serve on a jury, and so I was excused for the next x number of years. I don't remember now how many years that was, but it's been at least 3 years since I was last called. Point being that I was called 3 times for jury duty within about a year and a half. I know many people who have never been called at all. I don't think either is unusual.

[caroljane]

You have nailed it. To not put yourself at risk of being shot should be a primary concern of everyone, especially young men, when you know there are uns everywhere.

[caroljane]

Now I cannot even edit. When I push edit I get a blank screen. Guns everywhere.

[Brant Gaede]

Now I cannot even edit. When I push edit I get a blank screen. Guns everywhere.

Try signing off OL then make sure you're not signed on through another venue. If you are, sign off there too. Then clear your cookies. If IE click on "alt" on the bottom of your keyboard and a drop down menu will give you a "tools" option. Click on delete browsing history then delete temporary internet files and cookies and history.

--Brant

probably won't help

[PDS]

Now I cannot even edit. When I push edit I get a blank screen. Guns everywhere.

Uns everywhere, too.

[Dglgmut]

You have nailed it. To not put yourself at risk of being shot should be a primary concern of everyone, especially young men, when you know there are guns everywhere.

A primary concern???

[Dglgmut]

So here is a case of legitimate manslaughter with the races reversed:

http://emsnews.wordpress.com/2013/07/16/the-roderick-scott-not-guilty-vigilante-case-when-he-murdered-a-17-year-old-white-boy/

[Brant Gaede]

So here is a case of legitimate manslaughter with the races reversed:

http://emsnews.wordpress.com/2013/07/16/the-roderick-scott-not-guilty-vigilante-case-when-he-murdered-a-17-year-old-white-boy/

No such thing as "legitimate" manslaughter.

--Brant

[9thdoctor]

3. Trayvon Marin's fury was actually gay bashing, not race. This speculation is going around based on the recent interview between his friend Jeantel and Piers Morgan. She said she was discussing with Trayvon on the phone that the "creepy ass cracka" following him was probably a gay rapist and it would not be cool if he (Zimmerman) got too near Trayvon's younger brother. That would definitely infuriate someone who didn't like gays, especially gay sexual predators of young kids.

Stay tuned, they're going to indict her for inducement to commit a hate crime. We've got grand juries down here ready to indict a ham sandwich. Someone's got to go to jail over this, dammit!

[Dglgmut]

So here is a case of legitimate manslaughter with the races reversed:

http://emsnews.wordpress.com/2013/07/16/the-roderick-scott-not-guilty-vigilante-case-when-he-murdered-a-17-year-old-white-boy/

No such thing as "legitimate" manslaughter.

--Brant

Meaning he should have been convicted because there was no proof he was defending himself from anything.

[Brant Gaede]

A 76 yo white man has just been convicted of first degree murder in that he put a bullet into a 13 yo black boy in the presence of his mother. Now being considered are any mitigating anger-mental issues. He got hot and bothered thinking the boy had been stealing from him and suddenly popped him a shot in the chest.

--Brant

the trial of GZ was essentially sensationalistic media generated racism with the race hustlers, Obama, Holden, Sharpton, et al., jumping in with cans of petrol

[caroljane]

3. Trayvon Marin's fury was actually gay bashing, not race. This speculation is going around based on the recent interview between his friend Jeantel and Piers Morgan. She said she was discussing with Trayvon on the phone that the "creepy ass cracka" following him was probably a gay rapist and it would not be cool if he (Zimmerman) got too near Trayvon's younger brother. That would definitely infuriate someone who didn't like gays, especially gay sexual predators of young kids.

Stay tuned, they're going to indict her for inducement to commit a hate crime. We've got grand juries down here ready to indict a ham sandwich. Someone's got to go to jail over this, dammit!

[caroljane]

ND, I hope you are wrong. There is no point in pursuing GZ legally anymore. It is the law itself and the endgame of gun prevalence, which changes the game of self-defence, which should be examined.

I will not enjoy seeing Zimmerman grow prosperous over the corpse of Martin, but he is stuck now as the martyr and poster boy for Guns=Liberty and will have to make a living somehow.

[Dglgmut]

Why did Martin attack Zimmerman?

Can anyone in support of Trayvon give me any rational explanation for this???

[caroljane]

The evidence did not prove to me that he did attack Zimmerman.

[caroljane]

And anyway, I grew up with the now-dead concept of "fighting fair" (My dad was an underweight boxer in the army).

If you are getting the worst of a fistfight, whoever started it, it is just not fair to shoot your opponent dead.

[Dglgmut]

Carol, you're speaking in riddles. You can't just say, "The evidence did not prove to me..."

WHAT do you think happened? Two black eyes, a broken nose, cuts on the back of the head...

Do you think Zimmerman found Trayvon, grabbed him, shot him, then beat himself up before the cops came? Oh, and then bruised Trayvon's knuckles, don't forget! (He's either an idiot or a genius, you can't pick both.)

Don't you think insanity on that level would be supported by Zimmerman's past? He resisted arrest while drunk, that does not say anything about him murdering random teenagers...

Here's what I think happened:

Trayvon was suspicious of Zimmerman and did not want to lead him back to his house--this is why he doubled back. He did not call him a cracker in the context that Rachel Jeantel fabricated on the Piers Morgan Show (meaning a wannabe cop or security guard), he thought Zimmerman was a weirdo (possibly a sexual predator).

He decides to confront him fully prepared for a fight, and doesn't exchange many words before getting into it.

This, unfortunately, does not justify the level of beating he gave Zimmerman--and who knows if the words they exchanged could have been different to prevent the situation. Either way, Zimmerman did not put up much or any of a fight... and yet Trayvon continued beating him.

I don't think Trayvon went for Zimmerman's gun, but I'm sure Zimmerman was worried that the next blow to the head could knock him unconscious, and God knows what would happen after that.

Your turn, Carol.

[caroljane]

Here is what I think happened. Zimmerman decided to not let the punk get away, followed and confronted him in some manner. Martin may have punched him in the nose, but I do not believe he hit his head and there is absolutely no proof of this. In any event these injuries were not life-threatening. Neighbours were already calling the police with whom Z had been in contact just two minutes before, and we hear the scream on the 911 call. So Zimmerman had to work fast.

It takes a long time to beat someone to death, usually it takes more than one person when they are unarmed. It is possible that Z feared for his life but it was not reasonable to me that he did. He just needed to get hold of his gun (not his phone to call for help) and win the fight.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Why did Martin attack Zimmerman?

Can anyone in support of Trayvon give me any rational explanation for this???

The words of Ben Carson offer an interesting analysis, including why Martin most likely attacked Zimmerman:

http://youtu.be/JF7xfE60FpY

I like the idea neighborhood watch guards carrying tasers in addition to their guns.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I will not enjoy seeing Zimmerman grow prosperous over the corpse of Martin, but he is stuck now as the martyr and poster boy for Guns=Liberty and will have to make a living somehow.

The "poster boy for Guns=Liberty" is the Minuteman statue in Concord, Massachusetts.

--Brant

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Minute_Man.JPG

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Trayvon's friend Jeantel says Trayvon was dishing out some "whoop ass."

It's Rush, but he plays Jeantel's own words.

She's clear about "whoop ass." And she says it with a "take no shit from nobody" inflection.

"Whupaaaaaaaaasss."

Michael

[Dglgmut]

Here is what I think happened. Zimmerman decided to not let the punk get away, followed and confronted him in some manner. Martin may have punched him in the nose, but I do not believe he hit his head and there is absolutely no proof of this. In any event these injuries were not life-threatening. Neighbours were already calling the police with whom Z had been in contact just two minutes before, and we hear the scream on the 911 call. So Zimmerman had to work fast.

It takes a long time to beat someone to death, usually it takes more than one person when they are unarmed. It is possible that Z feared for his life but it was not reasonable to me that he did. He just needed to get hold of his gun (not his phone to call for help) and win the fight.

So you do not even believe Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman at one point? You think he got punched in the nose, grabbed his gun, shot, punched himself in both eyes (which no witness saw), then ran over to the sidewalk and started hitting the back of his head on the concrete?

Is this accurate?

Also, this argument that the injuries were not life threatening is worthless. If he had received life threatening injuries he could have died, that's why they're called life threatening and are not necessary to justify self-defense.

How long it takes to beat someone to death is also irrelevant, it only matters how long it takes to knock someone unconscious... which can be pretty quick.

Oh, and this did not happen in a boxing ring with a referee...

[Brant Gaede]

Poor Carol. She's like a chicken in a fox pen.

--Brant

one punch can kill you

(just a bear in his lair)

[Dglgmut]

I think Rush is wrong in his interpretation.

I think what she meant was that bashing and killing are not the only things that can happen to a person. You can also get your ass whooped which is not a big deal.

If he were to get bashed, like the Bloods (the gang) bash people, well, what he got was not a bashing but an ass-whooping.