Trayvon Martin--Victim of capitalism, the cops, and racism

[srd]

To pull my position together: here's what I posted elsewhere:

Is anyone else on the left bothered by the observation that the movement
demanding that Zimmerman be found guilty is demanding a lower bar for conviction
of murder? And that this effect represents strengthening the state apparatus?
Martin was murdered because of racism, but that doesn't mean Zimmerman was
*legally* guilty of murder. (I feel an echo of Carlos's argument in another
thread.) The whole "neighborhood watch" protofascism and the discretion of the
cops to hassle people, particularly blacks but also the poor and youth, when
they're minding their own business is also the cause. In other words, the
"correct" issue for protest is the killing, not the failure to convict Zimmerman
(who isn't guilty of the crimes charged under existing law--or has this judgment
become a matter of political orthodoxy?) His crime was to be a neofascist
vigilante and the cop *policy* of harassing black youth is also responsible. (I
find reprehensible the frequent "pro-justice" comment that Zimmerman should have
just waited for the police to confront Trayvon.)

[Vngelis]

neofascist vigiliante?
Didn't the Sparts defend a white man who gunned down a black on the new York underground under the right to self defence or the perception that one is under attack one has the right to self defence?

So one assumes you are against communities organising their own self defence and that it should be left to the ...police?

VN

[srd]

It all depends on program. The neighborhood watch protofascists are a paramilitary auxiliary of the police. Zimmerman was merely implementing cop policies of harassing black youth. The news plays up the fact that the cops don't him to remain in his car, but before that they repeated asked and got his information about Martin's whereabouts.

So now the cops are friends because they might split; and neighborhood watch is a soviet.

[Vngelis]

On Thursday, 18 July 2013 00:12:50 UTC+1, srd wrote:

>
>
> So now the cops are friends because they might split; and neighborhood watch is a soviet.

By implication the cops can never split and all local neighbour hood watches are fascist because they aren't soviet... Top analysis.

VN

[srd]

The likelihood of cops splitting increases when the working class is implacably hostile to them. You want to coax them to split by placing nice with them.

Armed local neighborhood watches are protofascist because they are all armed paramilitary auxilliaries of the cops. That's what neighborhood watch is: it is set up by the cops to assist them. It exists to cooperate with the cops.

Now, if you want to ask whether something short of being a soviet might be a means of true mass self-defense: yes, of course. But the cops would have to be part of what they're defending against, not what they're allied with! Like the self-defense set up by the Black Panthers. If you're talking about self-defense, there's no neutrality on the cops. You've chosen your side.

[dwalt...@gmail.com]

In point of fact, the cops never split. There ARE exceptions but they are notable by their infrequent occurrences.

In the US today, which has never, ever, been purged of the racism in it's political DNA (as capitalism itself was built on the foundation of segregation and racism from it's earliest mercantile days), the cops are always united in defend of private property and the State. (Notable exceptions are the Bolivian police which in the early 2000s often sided with the working class *by handing out guns* while the army was the professional right-wing there, and in Brazil where various police unions are CUT affiliated and left-wing in nature).

The private 'neighborhood watch' are considered racist and proto-fascist by the oppressed Black masses. The Zimmerman case took place in a overwhelmingly white *gated community*, the kind Gelis thought was the dominant form of housing in the U.S. at one point many years ago on this list.

The only kind of self-defense we support are the organized self-defense by oppressed Black and Latino communities or class based ones founded for that purpose. The kind of 'watches' Zimmerman was a member of (so he could become a cop which he failed the test for on numerous occasions) are supported and *regulated* by the cops, therefor they ARE reactionary.

I supported the stand-your-ground law prior to this trial. My view was (and still is) that Zimmerman *violated* this law by NOT standing his ground and went out to hunt the young black man who he murdered. This was never the intent of the stand-your-ground law. However, it's clear to me now that the ONLY effect of this law now is that it is legal to go out, stalk young Blacks, and while armed, murder them. This form of blatant murder is not LEGAL in the U.S. The law needs to be overturned and be returned to a case-by-case basis of self-defense.

[HHW]

Here's intelligent lay analysis:

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

[dusty]

On Saturday, July 20, 2013 2:11:10 AM UTC+10, HHW wrote:

> Here's intelligent lay analysis:

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtcveaMUJSI

The death of Martin was tragic but that video above is hysterical. There are plenty of videos on the net.

Here is another giving different "background information" and analysis of the case:

The Truth About George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bF-Ax5E8EJc

[srd]

On Friday, July 19, 2013 9:11:10 AM UTC-7, HHW wrote:
> On Friday, July 19, 2013 9:11:04 AM UTC-5, dwalt...@gmail.com wrote:
>

> > In point of fact, the cops NEVER split. There ARE exceptions but they are notable by their infrequent occurrences. [Emphasis added.]

That's kind of funny, David; the cops *never* split, but there are_ exceptions.

>
> >
>
> >
>
> > In the US today, which has never, ever, been purged of the racism in it's political DNA (as capitalism itself was built on the foundation of segregation and racism from it's earliest mercantile days), the cops are always united in defend of private property and the State. (Notable exceptions are the Bolivian police which in the early 2000s often sided with the working class *by handing out guns* while the army was the professional right-wing there, and in Brazil where various police unions are CUT affiliated and left-wing in nature).
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The private 'neighborhood watch' are considered racist and proto-fascist by the oppressed Black masses. The Zimmerman case took place in a overwhelmingly white *gated community*, the kind Gelis thought was the dominant form of housing in the U.S. at one point many years ago on this list.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The only kind of self-defense we support are the organized self-defense by oppressed Black and Latino communities or class based ones founded for that purpose. The kind of 'watches' Zimmerman was a member of (so he could become a cop which he failed the test for on numerous occasions) are supported and *regulated* by the cops, therefor they ARE reactionary.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I supported the stand-your-ground law prior to this trial. My view was (and still is) that Zimmerman *violated* this law by NOT standing his ground and went out to hunt the young black man who he murdered. This was never the intent of the stand-your-ground law. However, it's clear to me now that the ONLY effect of this law now is that it is legal to go out, stalk young Blacks, and while armed, murder them. This form of blatant murder is not LEGAL in the U.S. The law needs to be overturned and be returned to a case-by-case basis of self-defense.

The intent of stand your ground, which I haven't completely decided about but am inclined to support, is that if you're acting within your legal rights, no private citizen can compel you to act otherwise. From a legal standpoint, to say Zimmerman violated the law for failing to stand his ground turns standing your ground into an obligation rather than a right. This is what bugs me about the case: people don't see the contradiction between saying that Zimmerman couldn't pursue his "investigation" because the *police* told him to stay where he was and our general position that we do NOT support the right of the police to issue orders about the lawful activity people can engage in. The anti-cop point suffers from lack of drama and surface importance, but the embrace of conviction without proof of crime may have the greater political effect.

Do you think citizens don't or shouldn't have the right to follow someone they consider suspicious? Maybe there's a case to be made that, in a workers state, nobody but the authorities *should* have the right to follow people. But under existing law, people have that right, and I'm certainly against taking it away from ordinary citizens while private investigators retain it.

Stand your ground should stay. I'm disappointed that the Spartoids don't see that. They don't see that anti-stand your ground is just part of gun control. ALL gun control makes it easier to kill people without the police interfering; in a racist society, this translates into making it easier for white people to kill black people without police interference. But the socialist response isn't police interference (or anti-stand your ground to facilitate it) but arming the Trayvon Martins.

What do you do if you see an asshole cracker following you? Assaulting him probably isn't the wisest move, but I can sympathize with the impulse; I'm even inclined to *glorify* it. If Trayvon had gotten away with it, I'd certainly favor his defense against prosecution. But I'm not going to argue for letting the prosecutor *convict* someone who didn't break any laws, certainly not because the *cops* urged him to "stand his ground."

This is a matter of political principle, which in some areas the spartoids are actually weak; they just don't care too much for truth if the untruth cuts in their political favor at the same time as it curries favor with others, whether on the facts of the Martin case or on the psychology of homosexuality, questions that really do NOT matter much in the large scheme of things. But the opportunist mentality is sometimes revealed only in small matters, until larger opportunities present, and the masses need truth.

[srd]

>ALL gun control makes it easier to kill people without the police interfering; in a racist society, this translates into making it easier for white people to kill black people without police interference. But the socialist response isn't police interference (or anti-stand your ground to facilitate it) but arming the Trayvon Martins.

Should be ALL gun rights make it easier ...

[HHW]

On Friday, July 19, 2013 6:11:44 PM UTC-5, dusty wrote:
> On Saturday, July 20, 2013 2:11:10 AM UTC+10, HHW wrote:
>
>
>
> > Here's intelligent lay analysis:
>
>
>
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtcveaMUJSI
>
>
>
>
>
> The death of Martin was tragic but that video above is hysterical. There are plenty of videos on the net.
>
>
>
> Here is another giving different "background information" and analysis of the case:

Most of it is not background information about the particular Zimmerman/Martin facts. Accordingly, its relevance to the case is imaginary. It would never get into evidence precisely because it's not background information.

The earlier tape was of interest to me as the commentator was trying to evaluate the implications of the fact that the one pursued was also the one shot.

[HHW]

On Tuesday, July 16, 2013 5:05:03 PM UTC-5, srd wrote:
> To pull my position together: here's what I posted elsewhere:

Hold Your Ground was waived as a defense or somehow deemed inapplicable before trial. It wasn't part of the case. It was a basic self-defense case.

> Is anyone else on the left bothered by the observation that the movement
> demanding that Zimmerman be found guilty is demanding a lower bar for conviction of murder? And that this effect represents strengthening the state apparatus?

That's a bit obscure. Mob demands don't change the law. Mobs don't think about it or understand it coherently. As Stand Your Ground was not in effect, the issue was whether Zimmerman had the right to use deadly force in self defense. Normally a bloody nose would not justify killing a man, but pounding his head on the concrete legitimately put him in danger of death. Surely under the old common law of self defense he was justified in using deadly force.

Zimmerman was legitimately there to watch and report. I don't think he was deputized. He hadn't been armed by the police. He had a right but not an obligation to carry a gun under separate legislation. Yet he pursued Martin and interrogated him. Words were exchanged. It would have been wise for Trayvon to have cooperated as attacking Zimmerman lead to his own death.

> Martin was murdered because of racism, but that doesn't mean Zimmerman was
>
> *legally* guilty of murder.

Zimmerman was not legally guilty of murder, agreed.

(I feel an echo of Carlos's argument in another
>
> thread.) The whole "neighborhood watch" protofascism and the discretion of the
>
> cops to hassle people, particularly blacks but also the poor and youth, when
>
> they're minding their own business is also the cause. In other words, the
>
> "correct" issue for protest is the killing, not the failure to convict Zimmerman

How is protofascism any worse than Communism, Marxism/Leninism?

The Comrades have to have a fig leaf of some sort. How do you legitimately protest a killing when it was done in self-defense? Surely, the LEFT of Vladimir Lenin who eschewed terror as a revolutionary technique would have been against it.

Didn't Zimmerman have a right to use deadly force to prevent his head from being beaten to a pulp against the concrete?

>
> (who isn't guilty of the crimes charged under existing law--or has this judgment
>
> become a matter of political orthodoxy?) His crime was to be a neofascist
>
> vigilante

What he did was stupid but not a crime. He was acquitted.

and the cop *policy* of harassing black youth is also responsible. (I
>
> find reprehensible the frequent "pro-justice" comment that Zimmerman should have
>
> just waited for the police to confront Trayvon.)

What was the basis for a *police* confrontation with Trayvon, much less one by Zimmerman? I've seen nothing. Hard cases make bad law unless juries have an abundance of life experience and, yes, common sense.

[srd]

On Friday, July 19, 2013 11:57:08 PM UTC-7, HHW wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 16, 2013 5:05:03 PM UTC-5, srd wrote:
>
> > To pull my position together: here's what I posted elsewhere:
>
>
>
> Hold Your Ground was waived as a defense or somehow deemed inapplicable before trial. It wasn't part of the case. It was a basic self-defense case.

Of course. I made that point myself against some typical nonsense Dusty posted. My intent was to initiate a discussion of stand your ground, quite apart from any relevance to the Martin case.

>
>
>
> > Is anyone else on the left bothered by the observation that the movement
>
> > demanding that Zimmerman be found guilty is demanding a lower bar for conviction of murder? And that this effect represents strengthening the state apparatus?
>
>
>
> That's a bit obscure. Mob demands don't change the law. Mobs don't think about it or understand it coherently. As Stand Your Ground was not in effect, the issue was whether Zimmerman had the right to use deadly force in self defense. Normally a bloody nose would not justify killing a man, but pounding his head on the concrete legitimately put him in danger of death. Surely under the old common law of self defense he was justified in using deadly force.

We agree on that. My obscure comment tried to explain to certain Marxists why it's bad for socialists to support legally unjust prosecutions. I think it's obscure because one wouldn't think to have to explain that. Or maybe it's just obscure--let me be more specific. There's a radio show called Left-Right and Center on NPR. So you have this left-liberal, maybe someone not so different from your politics, who normally would be an ACLU type, arguing that Zimmerman should have been found guilty based on his not having obeyed the police dispatcher. Histrionic reasoning, like "There's a child dead, and no one is being found guilty." This is the kind of thinking you usually see on the law-and-order right, but now there's a reversal. The rightwinger on the program was saying the correct things: we have a system of criminal law and if you don't know what happened, you can't convict.

This is, on the part of the leftists, pandering to the populist mob. Dusty and vngelis are somewhat ignominious on the "left" because they pander to the *opposite* mob in these parochial, populist disputes, particularly when it concerns mobs' pursuit of vengeance. Socialists have no business demanding prosecutions by the capitalist state--I don't think at all but certainly not under these circumstances.

>
>
>
> Zimmerman was legitimately there to watch and report. I don't think he was deputized. He hadn't been armed by the police. He had a right but not an obligation to carry a gun under separate legislation. Yet he pursued Martin and interrogated him. Words were exchanged. It would have been wise for Trayvon to have cooperated as attacking Zimmerman lead to his own death.

I don't think he should have co-operated. He should have told Zimmerman to fuck off and proceeded on his way. I don't think Zimmerman would have shot him. Well, to tell you the truth, it would have been prudential for him to cooperate; but I wouldn't put it the way you did, because I respect his right not to. And he had, as far as I know, no reason to think of "neighborhood watch." As far as he was concerned, he was being stalked--at least that's a possibility. So the asshole protofascist used his gun to put Trayvon in a terrifying position and was a despicable pig for doing it, but that doesn't make it a crime under existing law. I don't want to see juries finding being a despicable pig, in its opinion, the basis for a murder conviction.

>
>
>
> > Martin was murdered because of racism, but that doesn't mean Zimmerman was
>
> >
>
> > *legally* guilty of murder.
>
>
>
> Zimmerman was not legally guilty of murder, agreed.
>
>
>
> (I feel an echo of Carlos's argument in another
>
> >
>
> > thread.) The whole "neighborhood watch" protofascism and the discretion of the
>
> >
>
> > cops to hassle people, particularly blacks but also the poor and youth, when
>
> >
>
> > they're minding their own business is also the cause. In other words, the
>
> >
>
> > "correct" issue for protest is the killing, not the failure to convict Zimmerman
>
>
>
> How is protofascism any worse than Communism, Marxism/Leninism?

Marxism stands for revolution in the interests of the exploited; protofascism stands for law and order. Some people like one; some like the other; some vainly hope for neither. I don't know that there's any "objectively" worse involved, but the ones hoping for neither communism nor fascism have the wrong theory.

>
>
>
> The Comrades have to have a fig leaf of some sort. How do you legitimately protest a killing when it was done in self-defense? Surely, the LEFT of Vladimir Lenin who eschewed terror as a revolutionary technique would have been against it.

I'm not against protesting the killing; I'm against protesting the acquittal. But it's not just the comrades: the left-liberals are as bad.

>
>
>
> Didn't Zimmerman have a right to use deadly force to prevent his head from being beaten to a pulp against the concrete?
>
> >
>
> > (who isn't guilty of the crimes charged under existing law--or has this judgment
>
> >
>
> > become a matter of political orthodoxy?) His crime was to be a neofascist
>
> >
>
> > vigilante
>
>
>
> What he did was stupid but not a crime. He was acquitted.

We're on the edge of confusing contexts. I agree he should have been acquitted. He committed no crime. But he did commit a "crime." Which is to say, I would consider Trayvon a hero, regardless of what the law says, if he had pulverized the racist vigilante's head. I hope you see, at least, the consistency of that position, although I really don't think anyone else does.

[Vngelis]

You are referring to 'neighbour hood' watch US-UK style.
I am referring to neighbour hood watch when citizens arms themselves or when they form a united front to defend a square or an area from outside forces...

When the police start fighting with riot police which side do you support or do you argue its a plague on both your houses?

When the council police been fired en masse in Athens all 5,000 of them do you then argue they are all coppers,, let them go to the wall?

Will you argue the same for tax officials, prison guards etc and are you not then supporting the privatisation of the nation state?

VN

[Vngelis]

What does stand your ground law mean?



VN

[srd]

On Sunday, July 21, 2013 11:47:50 AM UTC-7, Vngelis wrote:
> On Thursday, 18 July 2013 20:29:47 UTC+1, srd wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, July 18, 2013 2:17:08 AM UTC-7, Vngelis wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Thursday, 18 July 2013 00:12:50 UTC+1, srd wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > So now the cops are friends because they might split; and neighborhood watch is a soviet.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > By implication the cops can never split and all local neighbour hood watches are fascist because they aren't soviet... Top analysis.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > VN
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The likelihood of cops splitting increases when the working class is implacably hostile to them. You want to coax them to split by placing nice with them.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Armed local neighborhood watches are protofascist because they are all armed paramilitary auxilliaries of the cops. That's what neighborhood watch is: it is set up by the cops to assist them. It exists to cooperate with the cops.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Now, if you want to ask whether something short of being a soviet might be a means of true mass self-defense: yes, of course. But the cops would have to be part of what they're defending against, not what they're allied with! Like the self-defense set up by the Black Panthers. If you're talking about self-defense, there's no neutrality on the cops. You've chosen your side.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> You are referring to 'neighbour hood' watch US-UK style.
>
> I am referring to neighbour hood watch when citizens arms themselves or when they form a united front to defend a square or an area from outside forces...

Unfortunately, then, you were talking about something other than the topic of discussion.

>
>
>
> When the police start fighting with riot police which side do you support or do you argue its a plague on both your houses?

This raises an unlikely hypothetical. As David Walters correctly pointed out, the cops don't split. This has been Marxist orthodoxy for a long time. If the pigs are splitting in Greece, it would be necessary to analyze what extraordinary circumstances are involved. For example, perhaps the cops "split" along ethnic lines. Of course, Marxists wouldn't take sides.

>
>
>
> When the council police been fired en masse in Athens all 5,000 of them do you then argue they are all coppers,, let them go to the wall?

Of course.

>
>
>
> Will you argue the same for tax officials, prison guards etc and are you not then supporting the privatisation of the nation state?

So, you want to ally with the prison guards, too.

The fact that you see so many splits is just a symptom of antiproletarian commitments. You're willing to embrace one reaction against another; so, of course, you will see splits whenever reactionaries disagree among themselves.

Here's what I wonder. I recently suggested that the LaRouchites went to the far right and the Sparts went to "special oppression" because of the isolation they endured after taking a correct, principled position on the New York teachers strike. The iron law of Marxist sects--after the second world war proved the working class's incapacity to create a state through a vanguard party--is the necessity of political banditry for survival. (This is because the correct position no longer promotes ultimate mass support when the working class has become *inherently* subrevolutionary.)

To get to the point: did your tendency, per my observations of others, go off into nationalism after suffering a severe organizational setback due to taking a correct, principled position? Be truthful, now.
>
>
>
> VN

[srd]

On Sunday, July 21, 2013 11:51:36 AM UTC-7, Vngelis wrote:
> What does stand your ground law mean?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> VN

Dusty rushes at you, obviously intending to kill you, knife in hand. You have the indisputable opportunity to get away. Do you have the right to kill Dusty or must you run. Stand your ground, which I support, says you can kill him.

srd

[dwalt...@gmail.com]

> Dusty rushes at you, obviously intending to kill you, knife in hand. You have the indisputable opportunity to get away. Do you have the right to kill Dusty or must you run. Stand your ground, which I support, says you can kill him.
>

What it doesn't give you right to do is stalk and *unarmed* teenager and kill him "cuz ya think he's dangerous". See fuck face Zimmerman.

Initially I supported stand your ground laws. An extension of the castle laws, which are not in dispute (if Dusty breaks into your home with a knife intending to kill or do harm to you, you can kill Dusty at that point).

While in principle I support the idea it means, essentially, you can kill *any* brown person if there are no witnesses and get away with it since the context, something SRD always forgets, is a *totally racist society where Black males are considered guilty first, innocent second*. That IS the political reality which is why the NRA teamed up with the racist Tea Party to get these laws passed.

Interestingly, if a Black tries to use it against a white, person who attacks them, they would be charged with murder. If the unarmed Travon Martin had a gun, and killed Zimmerman, I'd stake my life the verdict would come back 'guilty'. But as Martin was Black, it was a forgone conclusion.

[srd]

On Monday, July 22, 2013 6:16:45 PM UTC-7, dwalt...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Dusty rushes at you, obviously intending to kill you, knife in hand. You have the indisputable opportunity to get away. Do you have the right to kill Dusty or must you run. Stand your ground, which I support, says you can kill him.
>
> >
>
>
>
> What it doesn't give you right to do is stalk and *unarmed* teenager and kill him "cuz ya think he's dangerous". See fuck face Zimmerman.
>
>
>
> Initially I supported stand your ground laws. An extension of the castle laws, which are not in dispute (if Dusty breaks into your home with a knife intending to kill or do harm to you, you can kill Dusty at that point).
>
>
>
> While in principle I support the idea it means, essentially, you can kill *any* brown person if there are no witnesses and get away with it since the context, something SRD always forgets, is a *totally racist society where Black males are considered guilty first, innocent second*. That IS the political reality which is why the NRA teamed up with the racist Tea Party to get these laws passed.

These forces also team up to support keeping guns legal, which you do support. In a racist society, the guns will be used more times to injure Blacks. So why not support gun control? Because principles and program are designed specifically to override concern with partial considerations and being blinded by the interests of particular sector of the working class. In the big picture, the free possession of guns is revolutionary rather than reactionary. The same principle applies to stand your ground, which is just an extension of your right defend yourself with a gun.

>
>
>
> Interestingly, if a Black tries to use it against a white, person who attacks them, they would be charged with murder. If the unarmed Travon Martin had a gun, and killed Zimmerman, I'd stake my life the verdict would come back 'guilty'. But as Martin was Black, it was a forgone conclusion.

Not to be rude, but you're adopting a populist style of reasoning, not just the conclusions. All laws will be administered inequitably, by race and by class. That's a forgone conclusion that has nothing to do with stand your ground. In general, fewer rather than more criminal laws are desirable: there is a libertarian element in Marxian socialism, as much as carlos and dusty despise it.

What happened was the result of the power imbalance in the confrontation: Zimmerman was armed, Trayvon wasn't. The problem isn't, in this case, the result of a formal problem with the law or a biased jury. The power imbalance forced Trayvon into a fight or flight position. If the problem isn't in the law, then you have to change the power imbalance. You either have to disarm Zimmerman or arm Trayvon. The justice for trayvon movement wants to disarm Zimmerman--I think it's a gun control movement with stand your ground its leading edge.

[srd]

Another thing not to forget: there's capital punishment in most parts of this country. Abolishing stand your ground widens the scope of murder prosecutions; hence, increases the citizens subjected to potential capital punishment.

[HHW]

On Sunday, July 21, 2013 1:51:36 PM UTC-5, Vngelis wrote:
> What does stand your ground law mean?
>

That's a good question.
>
>
>
>
> VN

[HHW]

On Monday, July 22, 2013 11:32:03 PM UTC-5, srd wrote:

> Another thing not to forget: there's capital punishment in most parts of this country. Abolishing stand your ground widens the scope of murder prosecutions; hence, increases the citizens subjected to potential capital punishment.

I'm not satisfied yet that stand your ground adds much to the common law of self-defense. In both cases the basic issue is when you may use deadly force, particularly a concealed-carry pistol, against an aggressor whom you reasonably believe is posing an imminent danger to your life. How do the standards differ? What does the statute add to the common law?

[dusty]

You and Walters missed your vocation: you both should have been judges.

Why else would you spend so long over such a goin'-nowhere diversion, retrying the poor old fat Mestizo Zimmerman when the Jury got it right in the first place.

Either that or you are both playing the Jew game of divide and rule. Doin' the Minority Rag and all that Jazz...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7CeATYYlb0


You'd both be better off chasing sheilas like the little darlins in the video.

[srd]

It may not add to British common law. American common law came in many jurisdictions to include a duty to retreat that wasn't present in British common law. The stand your ground law eliminates any duty to retreat. To understand stand your ground, you have to start from the duty to retreat rather than the original right to self defense.

[srd]

Because Walters doesn't think the jury got it right, for one thing, you bloody moron. And it's possible to have a discussion because he just might understand what you're saying and, moreover, doesn't argue like an hysterical little girl.

[dwalt...@gmail.com]

SRD...you have to clip the text when responding...they run down many screens until I can read what you wrote. Anyway...this is correct. One has to understand the arguments (Zimmerman case notwithstanding) and SRD, despite my disagreement with him, puts it very simply. The duty to retreat runs common throughout American law, from a simple street fight to the murder of Trayvon Martin.

The SYG laws are the first time that I'm aware of that says you have no duty to retreat when possible but that one can assert one's 'right' NOT to retreat in the face of possible danger and fight back. Sounds kosher, yes? This is why I support the 'idea' of SYG.

What is really means in the American racist context of White Supremacy and the way the jury system works (and how they are selected) means it is simply "OK" to kill young black (and Latino) males as the jury will, *because of SYG laws* and the fact that all Black males are considered guilty, *in effect* it's open season on Black men in the US. And THIS is why I oppose SYG laws.

The difference between SYG and Castle laws is that the assumption, correctly, is that someone breaks into your house, it's illegal from the get go, with violence implied, if not explicit.

David

[srd]

>This is why I support the 'idea' of SYG.

>What is really means in the American racist context of White Supremacy and the way the jury system works (and how they are selected) means it is simply "OK" to kill young black (and Latino) males as the jury will, *because of SYG laws* and the fact that all Black males are considered guilty, *in effect* it's open season on Black men in the US. And THIS is why I oppose SYG laws.

Then I have one word for you, the ugly A-word: Abstention. If it's like you say, then socialists should abstain on stand-your-ground.

As I tend to, I'm coming at things from an odd direction in this discussion--from the bare fundamental demands of Marxist principle. The reason is that it serves to clarify that the sects are all political bandits.

The most fundamental principle of Marxist politics is that socialists must represent the interests of the class as a whole, not the interests of any sector of the working class. To put the matter schematically, if stand your ground is good for whites interacting with whites and Blacks interacting with blacks, but bad only when whites interact with Blacks, you are asking to create artificial divisions in the working class when you take sides. This is merely one of many cases when there's no reformist way to address the underlying power imbalance. Why would socialists choose to take sides on an arcane points of capitalist law, which appeals to Watson and me just because of its basic arcaneness? By failing to abstain on this issue, you participate in turning the movement away from the common issues--armed Black self-defense/trade union defense (or their lesser derivatives like "Cops out of the neighborhoods") and turning it toward the divisive issue of stand your ground, setting libertarian white worker against nationalist Black worker. Stand your ground, at least as you've framed it, is an unprincipled issue.

I've been contending that for pragmatic organizational reasons, the sects take positions on many issues where they should abstain, like stand your ground. The reason this is useful in the present era is that, today, correct principled positions are not necessarily rewarded, even in the long run. If the working class were a revolutionary class, correct principled positions would tend to pay off. Otherwise, sects pay in membership for every principle they retain, for every unprincipled issue like stand your ground they abstain from. When instead, such movements as that against stand your ground should be exposed as an unprincipled, reformist snare which tries to pose justice for Blacks as coming from loss of liberties by whites. It's no different in principle from our fascist wannabe Dusty wanting workers to see their rights coming at the expense of Mexicans.

Increasingly, defending principles--which means looking at things from the standpoint of the interests of the working class as a whole, never disadvantaging one part to benefit another--will leave you increasingly isolated in a declining capitalist civilization. Principled politics becomes, much to my distaste, a question of morality. Not morality for its own sake, of course, but because principled socialism is the best program for workers even when socialism isn't possible. The cults are just trying to establish brands; principle has nothing to do with them.

srd

[dusty]

On Friday, July 26, 2013 9:21:36 AM UTC+10, srd wrote:

"It's no different in principle from our fascist wannabe Dusty wanting workers to see their rights coming at the expense of Mexicans."

Diamond = lying Zionist scumbag who hates white American workers.

[HHW]

On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 3:22:22 AM UTC-5, dusty wrote:
> On Saturday, July 20, 2013 6:35:35 PM UTC+10, srd wrote:
>
> > On Friday, July 19, 2013 11:57:08 PM UTC-7, HHW wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Tuesday, July 16, 2013 5:05:03 PM UTC-5, srd wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > To pull my position together: here's what I posted elsewhere:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Hold Your Ground was waived as a defense or somehow deemed inapplicable before trial. It wasn't part of the case. It was a basic self-defense case.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Of course. I made that point myself against some typical nonsense Dusty posted. My intent was to initiate a discussion of stand your ground, quite apart from any relevance to the Martin case.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Is anyone else on the left bothered by the observation that the movement
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > demanding that Zimmerman be found guilty is demanding a lower bar for conviction of murder? And that this effect represents strengthening the state apparatus?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > That's a bit obscure. Mob demands don't change the law. Mobs don't think about it or understand it coherently. As Stand Your Ground was not in effect, the issue was whether Zimmerman had the right to use deadly force in self defense. Normally a bloody nose would not justify killing a man, but pounding his head on the concrete legitimately put him in danger of death. Surely under the old common law of self defense he was justified in using deadly force.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > We agree on that. My obscure comment tried to explain to certain Marxists why it's bad for socialists to support legally unjust prosecutions. I think it's obscure because one wouldn't think to have to explain that. Or maybe it's just obscure--let me be more specific. There's a radio show called Left-Right and Center on NPR. So you have this left-liberal, maybe someone not so different from your politics, who normally would be an ACLU type, arguing that Zimmerman should have been found guilty based on his not having obeyed the police dispatcher. Histrionic reasoning, like "There's a child dead, and no one is being found guilty." This is the kind of thinking you usually see on the law-and-order right, but now there's a reversal. The rightwinger on the program was saying the correct things: we have a system of criminal law and if you don't know what happened, you can't convict.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > This is, on the part of the leftists, pandering to the populist mob. Dusty and vngelis are somewhat ignominious on the "left" because they pander to the *opposite* mob in these parochial, populist disputes, particularly when it concerns mobs' pursuit of vengeance. Socialists have no business demanding prosecutions by the capitalist state--I don't think at all but certainly not under these circumstances.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Zimmerman was legitimately there to watch and report. I don't think he was deputized. He hadn't been armed by the police. He had a right but not an obligation to carry a gun under separate legislation. Yet he pursued Martin and interrogated him. Words were exchanged. It would have been wise for Trayvon to have cooperated as attacking Zimmerman lead to his own death.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I don't think he should have co-operated. He should have told Zimmerman to fuck off and proceeded on his way. I don't think Zimmerman would have shot him. Well, to tell you the truth, it would have been prudential for him to cooperate; but I wouldn't put it the way you did, because I respect his right not to. And he had, as far as I know, no reason to think of "neighborhood watch." As far as he was concerned, he was being stalked--at least that's a possibility. So the asshole protofascist used his gun to put Trayvon in a terrifying position and was a despicable pig for doing it, but that doesn't make it a crime under existing law. I don't want to see juries finding being a despicable pig, in its opinion, the basis for a murder conviction.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Martin was murdered because of racism, but that doesn't mean Zimmerman was
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > *legally* guilty of murder.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Zimmerman was not legally guilty of murder, agreed.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > (I feel an echo of Carlos's argument in another
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > thread.) The whole "neighborhood watch" protofascism and the discretion of the
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > cops to hassle people, particularly blacks but also the poor and youth, when
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > they're minding their own business is also the cause. In other words, the
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > "correct" issue for protest is the killing, not the failure to convict Zimmerman
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > How is protofascism any worse than Communism, Marxism/Leninism?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Marxism stands for revolution in the interests of the exploited; protofascism stands for law and order.

Marxism stands for class war and designates peasant farmers of all people as the largest component of the class enemies. Nazism is blatantly racist with Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, Blacks, etc., etc, designated as untermenschen, so proto-fascism must must have a racial component.

Some people like one; some like the other; some vainly hope for neither. I don't know that there's any "objectively" worse involved, but the ones hoping for neither communism nor fascism have the wrong theory.

They wouldn't have to have a theory to be correct about the prospects. And ideology was the bane of the twentieth century.

> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > The Comrades have to have a fig leaf of some sort. How do you legitimately protest a killing when it was done in self-defense? Surely, the LEFT of Vladimir Lenin who eschewed terror as a revolutionary technique would have been against it.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I'm not against protesting the killing; I'm against protesting the acquittal. But it's not just the comrades: the left-liberals are as bad.

Let's pass the character reference.

Okay, you protest the killing even though Zimmerman was found by a jury to be justified in doing it.

Unless your left ideology trumps the law, the contradiction is manifest. Either Martin was killed by Zimmerman as of right or not. The Jury acquitted him on all three charges. And you say what the jury did was correct. Therefore Zimmerman did kill Martin as of righted

I know that you adduce rampant class perfidy to avoid the contradiction. You see the system as somehow bankrupt and I don't doubt that it has many of those qualities.

>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Didn't Zimmerman have a right to use deadly force to prevent his head from being beaten to a pulp against the concrete?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > (who isn't guilty of the crimes charged under existing law--or has this judgment
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > become a matter of political orthodoxy?) His crime was to be a neofascist

But you know that is a collection of thoughts and not crimes in the United States. People declare themselves publicly to be fascists in the U.S. and are not prosecuted. Declarations of being Marxist/Leninists are even more common. The orators just take special care not to commit crimes associated with their beliefs, e.g., steps pursuant to revolutionary conspiracies to overthrow the government. The line between thought and action is critical. Once the act takes place the crime has been committed.

> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > vigilante
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > What he did was stupid but not a crime. He was acquitted.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > We're on the edge of confusing contexts. I agree he should have been acquitted. He committed no crime. But he did commit a "crime." Which is to say, I would consider Trayvon a hero, regardless of what the law says, if he had pulverized the racist vigilante's head. I hope you see, at least, the consistency of that position, although I really don't think anyone else does.

Consistency is not justification for for bad logic.

>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > and the cop *policy* of harassing black youth is also responsible. (I
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > find reprehensible the frequent "pro-justice" comment that Zimmerman should have
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > just waited for the police to confront Trayvon.)
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > What was the basis for a *police* confrontation with Trayvon, much less one by Zimmerman? I've seen nothing. Hard cases make bad law unless juries have an abundance of life experience and, yes, common sense.
>
>
>
>
>
> You and Walters missed your vocation: you both should have been judges.
>
>
>
> Why else would you spend so long over such a goin'-nowhere diversion, retrying the poor old fat Mestizo Zimmerman when the Jury got it right in the first place.
>
>
>
> Either that or you are both playing the Jew game of divide and rule. Doin' the Minority Rag and all that Jazz...

We're just "talking shop". The training and the experience lead to systematic ways of evaluating the law and facts related to it. The equivalent is true of a couple of machinists reading blueprints and working metal side-by-side all day.
They will talk about it in the bar on the way home.

>
>
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7CeATYYlb0
>
>
>
>
>
> You'd both be better off chasing sheilas like the little darlins in the video.

But Dusty! You've been talking Marxist shop here for over ten years.

[HHW]

The retreat obligation is not what I'm asking about though I can see why you thought so. That's irrelevant to to the Martin case anyway. What escapes me is whether there is a difference in the degree of threat which 'triggers' the right to kill the man in self-defense under common law and under the SYG statute. Do the stand your ground laws not just eliminate the retreat obligation but also alter the circumstances under which a citizen can pull his weapon and fire.

Perhaps I'm being a little lazy because I know you've kept your law library up and I've given mine away. I apologise for that.

[srd]

On Thursday, July 25, 2013 7:53:09 PM UTC-7, HHW wrote:

> > > Marxism stands for revolution in the interests of the exploited; protofascism stands for law and order.
>
>
>
> Marxism stands for class war and designates peasant farmers of all people as the largest component of the class enemies. Nazism is blatantly racist with Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, Blacks, etc., etc, designated as untermenschen, so proto-fascism must must have a racial component.

Peasant farmers who employ labor as their main source of income, like the kulak, are class enemy; not most peasants, who are usually landless, their interests generally lying with the workers.

There are only two plausible bases on which to build a political ideology: class or nation. Racism is just nationalism taken to its conclusion. Marxism is based on class: fascism on nation.

>
> Some people like one; some like the other; some vainly hope for neither. I don't know that there's any "objectively" worse involved, but the ones hoping for neither communism nor fascism have the wrong theory.
>
>
>
> They wouldn't have to have a theory to be correct about the prospects. And ideology was the bane of the twentieth century.

The 20th century and its horrors began with the first world war, which itself received no great help from ideology.

[srd]

On Thursday, July 25, 2013 8:16:59 PM UTC-7, HHW wrote:

> The retreat obligation is not what I'm asking about though I can see why you thought so. That's irrelevant to to the Martin case anyway. What escapes me is whether there is a difference in the degree of threat which 'triggers' the right to kill the man in self-defense under common law and under the SYG statute. Do the stand your ground laws not just eliminate the retreat obligation but also alter the circumstances under which a citizen can pull his weapon and fire.

No. The circumstances remain reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm.

But there's a subtle difference in how that's *interpreted* compared to the common law, due to the *express* negation of duty to retreat. Before the duty to retreat had been conceived, was there a duty to retreat or not? In essence, obligations to retreat, which American jurisdictions have made a question of law was under common law left to the juries (as far as I can tell). If someone attacks you, whether or not you can retreat might figure into whether you had a "likelihood of imminent death" depending on how the particular jury viewed the particular facts of the case.

Maybe you're wondering why there's so much talk about stand your ground around the Martin case, although the doctrine had no legal bearing on it. There's a vague analogy between stand your ground the whole course of Zimmerman's conduct. Stand your ground laws say you can kill without doing everything reasonably possible to avoid killing (i.e., retreating). Zimmerman failed to do everything possible to avoid finding himself in a situation where he had to kill. Stand your ground provides a certain moral justification for Zimmerman's behavior, which arguably encouraged Zimmerman and helped the jury acquit him.

[srd]

On Thursday, July 25, 2013 7:53:09 PM UTC-7, HHW wrote:

>But you know that is a collection of thoughts and not crimes in the
>United States. People declare themselves publicly to be fascists in
>the U.S. and are not prosecuted. Declarations of being
>Marxist/Leninists are even more common. The orators just take special
>care not to commit crimes associated with their beliefs, e.g., steps
>pursuant to revolutionary conspiracies to overthrow the government.
>The line between thought and action is critical. Once the act takes
>place the crime has been committed.

I'm absolutely against making thoughts into crimes. Notice that I refer to Dusty as a fascist wannabe. He's not a fascist, since he does absolutely nothing. Fascists belong to armed groups and engage in terror against workers, minorities, and socialists. Pursuing a youth gun in holster as part of a law and order posse (while colluding with the cops) is fascist conduct. It's not illegal under U.S. law, but that doesn't mean it would be a thought crime if workers enforce it. Socialists oppose thought-crime laws.

srd

[srd]

>Okay, you protest the killing even though Zimmerman was found by a jury to be
>justified in doing it.

>Unless your left ideology trumps the law, the contradiction is manifest. Either
>Martin was killed by Zimmerman as of right or not. The Jury acquitted him on
>all three charges. And you say what the jury did was correct. Therefore
>Zimmerman did kill Martin as of righted

>I know that you adduce rampant class perfidy to avoid the contradiction. You
>see the system as somehow bankrupt and I don't doubt that it has many of those
>qualities.

Hunter, you're blinded by ideology, although you think all ideology is evil. In another circumstance, you would see that there's no contradiction in thinking that the law is bad. For example, Snowden broke the law, yet you defend him (I think).

The reason people think there's a contradiction is that they don't recognize the asymmetry between prosecution and defense: it is unacceptable to demand the prosecution of someone for something that's not against the law, no matter how vile the deed. Whereas it's entirely acceptable to demand that someone not be prosecuted despite his clear guilt according to existing law, because you oppose the law.

While we're on the Martin case, here's an unrelated observation. No why the Martin case became such a big deal despite Zimmerman's innocence? The reason, it seems clear to me, is that the original story was that the voice calling for help was clearly Martin's. Critical evidence that might have resulted in conviction at least for manslaughter. First impressions are remarkably persistent.

[HHW]

On Saturday, July 27, 2013 6:29:58 PM UTC-5, srd wrote:
> >Okay, you protest the killing even though Zimmerman was found by a jury to be
>
> >justified in doing it.
>
>
>
> >Unless your left ideology trumps the law, the contradiction is manifest. Either
>
> >Martin was killed by Zimmerman as of right or not. The Jury acquitted him on
>
> >all three charges. And you say what the jury did was correct. Therefore
>

> >Zimmerman did kill Martin as of right.

>
>
>
> >I know that you adduce rampant class perfidy to avoid the contradiction. You
>
> >see the system as somehow bankrupt and I don't doubt that it has many of those
>
> >qualities.
>
>
>
> Hunter, you're blinded by ideology, although you think all ideology is evil. In another circumstance, you would see that there's no contradiction in thinking that the law is bad. For example, Snowden broke the law, yet you defend him (I think).

I see Snowden as a whistle-blower in a case of government overreaching. It's quite clear that NSA exceeded the intention of the legislature and, perhaps, of the special court judges too. That sets-up a contest between Snowden's civil liberties, the statutes and NSA's bureaucracy. I think it will be resolved (temporarily) by cutting back on the abuses. President Obama probably has the authority to do it, but getting it right is not going to be easy. It's been very damaging to relationships with our actual allies. Can you imagine them being able to settle it behind the curtains now?

> The reason people think there's a contradiction is that they don't recognize the asymmetry between prosecution and defense: it is unacceptable to demand the prosecution of someone for something that's not against the law, no matter how vile the deed.

No question. There was politically driven prosecutorial abuse, but look at the situation they were in. You don't watch tv but when this was happening I was in a brief period of watching MSNBC. They were way, way out of bounds in a frenzy of prejudice in its fundamental sense. Rachel didn't answer my cautionary letter, haha.

Whereas it's entirely acceptable to demand that someone not be prosecuted despite his clear guilt according to existing law, because you oppose the law.

If you want us to be a nation of laws (and I don't think you have a choice so long as your revolution has not arrived) you'll have problems with that formulation.

> While we're on the Martin case, here's an unrelated observation. No why the Martin case became such a big deal despite Zimmerman's innocence? The reason, it seems clear to me, is that the original story was that the voice calling for help was clearly Martin's. Critical evidence that might have resulted in conviction at least for manslaughter. First impressions are remarkably persistent.

That issue ended up muddied at best. The trial was clean enough but not perfect.

[HHW]

On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 3:22:22 AM UTC-5, dusty wrote:

I protest not being included in the group which should have been judges.

[dusty]

On Friday, July 26, 2013 3:12:16 PM UTC+10, srd wrote:

"I'm absolutely against making thoughts into crimes. Notice that I refer to Dusty as a fascist wannabe. He's not a fascist, since he does absolutely nothing. Fascists belong to armed groups and engage in terror against workers, minorities, and socialists. Pursuing a youth gun in holster as part of a law and order posse (while colluding with the cops) is fascist conduct. It's not illegal under U.S. law, but that doesn't mean it would be a thought crime if workers enforce it. Socialists oppose thought-crime laws."

AS opposed to the shyster Diamond who hasn't done anything politically for the working class since 1973 and who now supports all the Ziono-Fascist New World Order Agendas and works through his bum boy Walters.

[srd]

>>Whereas it's entirely acceptable to demand that someone not be prosecuted despite his clear guilt according to existing law, because you oppose the law.

>If you want us to be a nation of laws (and I don't think you have a choice so long as your revolution has not arrived) you'll have problems with that formulation.

Then what about Snowden. You say there's a contest between his civil liberties and the security laws, but there's no contest under existing laws. There's no bill of whistleblowers rights. There's a "contest" between Martins rights (in a nonlegal sense) and existing law too.

My concern isn't with having a society of laws because the left lacks potential control over that under capitalism. It's a question of placing as much limitation as possible on the power the state can use against workers, youth, leftists. Supporting illegal prosecutions increases the power of the prosecutors and cops, even if the defendant acted badly in a "moral" sense (like Zimmerman did). Defending Snowden while admitting he acted illegally has the opposite effect.

srd

[HHW]

On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 12:42:00 PM UTC-5, srd wrote:

> >>Whereas it's entirely acceptable to demand that someone not be prosecuted despite his clear guilt according to existing law, because you oppose the law.

The word "demand" is a bit much given the circumstances of the radical left today, but, yes, that's entirely acceptable. It's just that it verges on comic opera when what you're making is a proposal for legislative change like any other political activist in the U.S.

> >If you want us to be a nation of laws (and I don't think you have a choice so long as your revolution has not arrived) you'll have problems with that formulation.
>
>
>
> Then what about Snowden. You say there's a contest between his civil liberties and the security laws, but there's no contest under existing laws. There's no bill of whistleblowers rights. There's a "contest" between Martins rights (in a nonlegal sense) and existing law too.

There's a federal whistleblower protection statute. I've never read it but the question is what it means in this unique context. And that will be especially true once the government makes reforms and thus indirectly legitimizes Snowden's acts.

My concern isn't with having a society of laws because the left lacks potential control over that under capitalism. It's a question of placing as much limitation as possible on the power the state can use against workers, youth, leftists.

You guys really were about *control*. The fact that you couldn't stay in control if you shared it was a fatal flaw. It made a dictatorship of the Vanguard a necessity.

Supporting illegal prosecutions increases the power of the prosecutors and cops, even if the defendant acted badly in a "moral" sense (like Zimmerman did). Defending Snowden while admitting he acted illegally has the opposite effect.

Neither pole of thehe kind of support you are speaking of has no effect whatever. It isn't even noticed. You are enjoying yourself with speculation about causal links which don't exist. It's a benign hobby for left intellectuals, but it's more than that. It's reflective of the "Dream That Failed" (Walter Laqueur), which once had half the globe in its grip. As such it is fascinating
>
>
>
> srd

[srd]

>AS opposed to the shyster Diamond who hasn't done anything politically for the working class since 1973

You're disingenuous to imply that I would do more for the working class by engaging in political activity. As much as I think think the existing vehicles are cults, you think they're neofascist! From your perspective, you should be hailing me for at least knowing enough to abstain.

What politics should I have participated in? Oh, I know, the truther movement of crackpot engineers. Fine, just as long as everyone else knows what you mean by favoring "political activity."

[srd]

>There's a federal whistleblower protection statute. I've never read it but the question is what it means in this unique context. And that will be especially true once the government makes reforms and thus indirectly legitimizes Snowden's acts.

You're doing exactly what the Trayvon Martin movement did: Bending the law to fit your political biases. Having read it or not, you know the statute doesn't protect disseminators of classified information. And you know that reforming the program surveillance gives no *legal* support to Snowden for revealing previously classified information.

srd

[srd]

>>My concern isn't with having a society of laws because the left lacks potential control over that under capitalism. It's a question of placing as much limitation as possible on the power the state can use against workers, youth, leftists.

>You guys really were about *control*. The fact that you couldn't stay in control if you shared it was a fatal flaw. It made a dictatorship of the Vanguard a necessity.

The fatal flaw was that the working class didn't rise up in the Western countries. This was always regarded as *essential* to building socialism and the workers retaining power in Russia.

srd

[HHW]

My computer is dying. It just posted this unbidden and unfinished. I will pick up where I left off.

On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 4:05:27 PM UTC-5, HHW wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 12:42:00 PM UTC-5, srd wrote:
>
>
>
> > >>Whereas it's entirely acceptable to demand that someone not be prosecuted despite his clear guilt according to existing law, because you oppose the law.

> The word "demand" is a bit much given the circumstances of the radical left today, but, yes, that's entirely acceptable. It's just that it verges on comic opera when what you're making is a proposal for legislative change like any other political activist in the U.S.

> > >If you want us to be a nation of laws (and I don't think you have a choice so long as your revolution has not arrived) you'll have problems with that formulation.
>

Do you have a choice? That's a big, central issue.

> > Then what about Snowden. You say there's a contest between his civil liberties and the security laws, but there's no contest under existing laws. There's no bill of whistleblowers rights. There's a "contest" between Martins rights (in a nonlegal sense) and existing law too.

> There's a federal whistleblower protection statute. I've never read it but the question is what it means in this unique context. And that will be especially true once the government makes reforms and thus indirectly legitimizes Snowden's acts. Can you imagine the hypocrisy of prosecuting him while making the reforms he "demanded"? Well yes, I guess so but it's a bit squirmy isn't it?

> My concern isn't with having a society of laws because the left lacks potential control over that under capitalism. It's a question of placing as much limitation as possible on the power the state can use against workers, youth, leftists.
>
>
>

> You guys really were about *control*. The fact that you couldn't stay in control if you shared it was a fatal flaw. It made a totalitarian dictatorship of the Vanguard a necessity.

> Supporting illegal prosecutions increases the power of the prosecutors and cops, even if the defendant acted badly in a "moral" sense (like Zimmerman did). Defending Snowden while admitting he acted illegally has the opposite effect.

> Neither pole of the kind of support you are speaking of has any effect whatever. It isn't even noticed. You are enjoying yourself with speculation about causal links which don't exist. It's a benign if rather compulsive hobby for left intellectuals, but it's more than that. It's reflective of the "Dream That Failed" (Walter Laqueur), which once had half the globe in its grip. As such it is fascinating in retrospect. I admire Dave Walter's approach to it. He is sifting through the socialist middens so to speak, preserving a great library, sources for the ultimate intellectual historiography of that dream. I believe it to be a noble effort even though he may be doing it in the mistaken expectation of a second coming of Lenin and Trotsky.

My wife once observed that I'd be content to serve a life sentence so long as the cell had direct access to the University of Michigan Graduate Library. Perhaps I might work on annotating Dave's collection. Slow, monkish work which couldn't be completed in dozens of lifetimes, but would add to the legacy he is leaving. It's usually true that history by a non-believer has a better chance to approach the truth.

[HHW]

------------------------------------

Look at this in re my earlier comment about Snowden and the law:

News

CNN: NSA Surveillance Programs to be Declassified
Jul 30, 2013

UPI

Add a Comment

The U.S. intelligence community plans to declassify information about the National Security Agency's surveillance programs, CNN reported.

A senior official told CNN the information included not only "white papers" on surveillance programs but also previously undisclosed information about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

The official said the information could be revealed as soon as Tuesday.
The official said the release was part of a "concerted [and] deliberate" effort to declassify additional information in the wake of the leaks by former NSA contract worker Edward Snowden.

The moves come amid growing bipartisan congressional pressure to pass legislation that would change or possibly end some of the NSA's surveillance programs.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has been trying to declassify at least some detailed case opinions by the surveillance court, the official told CNN.

"I think there is a high likelihood of FISC opinions being declassified soon," the official said.

A DNI spokesman told CNN Monday the agency was "leaning forward and telling others to be more transparent as much as possible."

Snowden has been in a Moscow airport's transit zone since June 23 and has sought temporary asylum in Russia. He has been on the run since leaking information on NSA electronic surveillance programs.

Washington has called on Moscow to reject Snowden's request for asylum and return him to the United States for trial.

RELATED TOPICS
NSA Espionage

[HHW]

-------------------------------------------------

This one too is consistent with what I was saying in my "squirmy" comment.

Bradley Manning verdict brings anger, disappointment – and relief
Manning supporters condemn long sentence in store for army private but acquittal of 'aiding the enemy' charge brings relief
Share

Email
Ed Pilkington at Fort Meade
Follow @edpilkington
theguardian.com, Tuesday 30 July 2013 19.00 BST
Jump to comments (42)
Activists in support of Bradley Manning, the alleged leaker of documents to WikiLeaks
'Aiding the enemy' is an 'any person' law that renders it equally applicable to civilians as to military personnel such as Manning. Photograph: Jacquelyn Martin/AP
Transparency campaigners condemned the harsh sentence in prospect for Bradley Manning, but journalists and lawyers closely associated with the trial were relieved with the acquittal for the most serious charge – that he "aided the enemy" by transmitting state secrets to WikiLeaks.

In a statement, Manning's family said they were disappointed by so many guilty findings – he was deemed to be guilty of 17 of the 22 counts against him in their entirety and three others in an amended form. But the statement, written by a US-based relative, said the family was "happy that Judge Lind agreed with us that Brad never intended to help America's enemies in any way."

Yochai Benkler, a Harvard law professor who has written influentially on the role of WikiLeaks and who was a key defence witness in the trial, said that in finding Manning not guilty of "aiding the enemy" the judge presiding over the case, Colonel Denise Lind, had made an "extremely important decision, under what must have been trying professional conditions, by denying the prosecution's effort to launch the most dangerous assault on investigative journalism and the free press in the area of national security that we have seen in decades."

Benkler said that "sentencing is yet to come, but it is critical that we not let the relief over the 'not guilty' verdict on Article 104 distract us from the potential decades of imprisonment Pfc Manning still faces for those offenses in which the Judge found him guilty.

"Leakers and whistleblowers, together with the investigative journalists they inform, are a critically important pressure valve, however imperfect, that protect us from an overreaching national security establishment that uses the justifiable needs of operational secrecy to avoid scrutiny for its errors of judgment, incompetence, or malfeasance.

"While the 'aiding the enemy' charge was the most extreme of the charges Pfc Manning faced, the prospect of decades of imprisonment is still too high a price for any democracy to demand of its whistleblowers."

Jennifer Robinson, a London-based lawyer for WikiLeaks, the anti-secrecy organisation that received more than 700,000 documents from Manning and published many of them on the internet, said that the soldier's trial was at the centre of Obama's war on whistleblowers and the press and was a direct attack on national security journalism and the first amendment.

She said that the fact that Manning was found guilty of all eight offences of which he'd been accused under the 1917 Espionage Act was a very serious blow.

"This is a serious and disturbing precedent that cannot be allowed to stand: it is the first time that a whistleblower has been convicted of espionage." She added that throughout this trial the US government has made clear its intention toward WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange.

"The convictions rendered today will undoubtedly be used in the ongoing criminal probe against WikiLeaks. This has serious implications for all media organisations: the prosecution said explicitly that they would pursue the same legal approach of the recipient had been the New York Times instead of WikiLeaks."

Bill Keller, the former editor of the New York Times, heralded the not guilty verdict on this charge as a "victory of common sense over petty vindictiveness." Under Heller's editorship in 2010 the New York Times joined forces with the Guardian and Der Spiegel to publish many of the first WikiLeaks disclosures.

Keller said that in his opinion, Manning had displayed a complicated mix of personal and political motives, but that the judge had been right to dismiss the US government's allegation that he had knowingly assisted al-Qaida by transmitting documents to WikiLeaks. "I haven't seen any evidence he intended or even imagined that his disclosures would help America's enemies."

Amnesty International's senior director of international law and policy, Widney Brown, said: '"It's hard not to draw the conclusion that Manning's trial was about sending a message: the US government will come after you, no holds barred, if you're thinking of revealing evidence of its unlawful behaviour."

Free speech organisation Index on Censorship also condemned the guilty verdicts. The group's Sean Gallagher said: "Manning is a whistleblower who leaked files in order to inform the world about what really happened during the Iraq War to no personal gain. The US government should abide by its duty to protect whistleblowers who speak out in the public interest."

In its successful effort to rebuff the "aiding the enemy" accusation, Manning's defence team leant heavily on web chats between the soldier and a transgender woman called Lauren McNamara, (who was at the time a man boing by the internet handle ZJ). Manning's lead lawyer, David Coombs, told the court that Manning's comments in the course of the ZJ chats reflected the soldier's true character in its purest form.

McNamara said she was relieved that the government's effort to nail the soldier for "aiding the enemy" had failed. "It was inappropriate, and an excessive overreach by the government," she said.

In the chats, which were published for the first time in full by the Guardian, Manning talked about having "foreign affairs on my mind constantly now". Writing shortly before he was deployed to Iraq as an intelligence analyst in 2009, he adds that he was "delving deeper into philosophy, art, physics, biology, politics" in the hope of providing "more information to my officers and commanders, and hopefully save lives."

McNamara said that her conversations with Manning showed that he was "someone who was concerned about the well-being of his country and about the ability of the military to operate effectively – I don't believe that he would have done anything to endanger American troops".

Even Adrian Lamo, the former hacker who informed on Manning to the US authorities after the soldier confided in him about his leaking activities in a series of web chats, told the Guardian that he was pleased that the "aiding the enemy" charge had failed. "The rest of the charges are sufficiently numerous and sweeping to cover everything that Manning did – there is no need for the government to have tacked on this extra charge," he said.

Lamo said that during his internet interactions with Manning he had at no point felt that Manning had any malice aforethought in trying to help enemies of the US. "He incidentally did a little to help the enemy, but I don't think he was in a state of mind to be capable of contemplating the consequences of his actions in doing that intentionally."

[dusty]

Who was to know where the Far Left was going say 30 or 40 years ago? To know the answer to that one would have to have predicted the direction that world capitalism has taken AND that the Far Left would completely accommodate to it. The collapse of "Communism" was an intimately connected part of the whole equation. If we go back to the heady days of the early 70's and imagine someone in a Far Left sect predicting the future that has happened, they'd have been instantly expelled as a totally defeatist Orwellist germ and nutcase.

I agree that not since the turn of the C20th has the prognostication been so bleak. But who's to know: things may well be turned around. That has happened before.

[srd]

So when do you date the "accommodation" of the far left? You know my dating of its effective dissolution.

[srd]

On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 5:50:53 PM UTC-7, srd wrote:

> So when do you date the "accommodation" of the far left? You know my dating of its effective dissolution.

Let me add that as I see it the fact that the left was composed of a bunch personality cults was readily observable by the early 1970s (probably well before). The IC was grossly opportunist and baldfaced liars. For instance, they claimed to have a democratic centralist international when they were really the Healyites and Lambertistes in an unprincipled confederation. They claimed that the "crisis" made reformism revolutionary. Etc.

[HHW]

On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 7:19:04 PM UTC-5, dusty wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 7:10:15 AM UTC+10, srd wrote:
>
> > >AS opposed to the shyster Diamond who hasn't done anything politically for the working class since 1973
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > You're disingenuous to imply that I would do more for the working class by engaging in political activity. As much as I think think the existing vehicles are cults, you think they're neofascist! From your perspective, you should be hailing me for at least knowing enough to abstain.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > What politics should I have participated in? Oh, I know, the truther movement of crackpot engineers. Fine, just as long as everyone else knows what you mean by favoring "political activity."
>
>
>
> Who was to know where the Far Left was going say 30 or 40 years ago? To know the answer to that one would have to have predicted the direction that world capitalism has taken AND that the Far Left would completely accommodate to it. The collapse of "Communism" was an intimately connected part of the whole equation. If we go back to the heady days of the early 70's and imagine someone in a Far Left sect predicting the future that has happened, they'd have been instantly expelled as a totally defeatist Orwellist germ and nutcase.
>

What's happened to scientific socialism's ability to predict the future?

[srd]

Sparts on the Martin case: http://www.spartacist.org/english/leaflets/martin.html

Hyperbole to match the best of vngelis:

"The verdict is the 21st-century echo of Chief Justice Taney’s infamous declaration in the Supreme Court’s 1857 Dred Scott decision that black people “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”

srd

[srd]

On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 8:46:22 PM UTC-7, HHW wrote:


> What's happened to scientific socialism's ability to predict the future?

Don't you recall that the standard antiMarxist refrain was that Marxism isn't a science because it didn't even claim to make exact predictions.

srd

[dwalt...@gmail.com]

>
> Dusty rushes at you, obviously intending to kill you, knife in hand. You have the indisputable opportunity to get away. Do you have the right to kill Dusty or must you run. Stand your ground, which I support, says you can kill him.
> srd

But that's not what happened, was it, with T. Martin? The pig Zimmerman confronted HIM and not the otherway around. How is this stand your ground? In fact, it was Zimmerman with the gun...Martin was unarmed.

[srd]

I was only responding to vngelis's request to define stand your ground. Stand your ground was NOT applied in the Zimmerman case, and I don't think it has any application there.

We don't know who confronted who, in any event. Zimmerman (legally) stalked Martin. Then what happened? We only have guesswork, and you can't and shouldn't be able to convict someone based on hunches. If you want _my_ guess, Martin saw Zimmerman stalking him and attacked him pre-emptively. (However, I'll also add that I have less confidence in that guess after reading of Zimmerman's subsequent behavior. I think he's a psychopath, and it's entirely possible that he simply murdered Martin. But I'm fundamentally against letting the capitalist state punish *anyone* without proving its case, and I agree with the jury that the state didn't prove its case against Zimmerman.)

[dusty]

On Thursday, August 1, 2013 2:04:10 PM UTC+10, srd wrote:

"Hyperbole..."

What could be expected of New York based Zionist Jews like the "Sparts" who don't give a shit about "schwartzes" (widely used Jew term) but who only use them, Tribalist fashion, to perpetually play the Zionist divide-and-rule, Jews on top of the pack game.

You included Diamond!

All you do is play the Zionist divide and rule game. You: a "lawyer"! Hahahhahahhah!


Concentrate on the power of Jewry in America and the way it controls US policy - from the Jew banks, the Rothschild Fed racketeers and associated Global institutions down...all with the backing of the petty bourgeois Tribe - you included: THAT is Abram Leon's "Jewish Question" today in a nutshell.

And you, you yapping Shifty Cosmopolitan, support ALL the Agendas.

A man in need of ANY Identity other than self-serving shysterism.

It's a wonder your shiksa doesn't see through you.

[Vngelis]

It could actually be the reverse of what it appears.

A judgement so blatant and crude pure anti-black in content in the best traditions of the USA to take a swipe at the 'stand your ground' laws in many states, in order to go for the disarmament of the US population for the needs and desires of the NWO. After all we had shootings of politicians to jsutify the suspension of anti-immigrant laws in southern states why not this?

That is why Obama supports Trayvon: disarm the population...

VN

[Vngelis]

On Wednesday, July 17, 2013 1:05:03 AM UTC+3, srd wrote:
> To pull my position together: here's what I posted elsewhere:
>
>
>

> Is anyone else on the left bothered by the observation that the movement
>
> demanding that Zimmerman be found guilty is demanding a lower bar for conviction
>
> of murder? And that this effect represents strengthening the state apparatus?
>

> Martin was murdered because of racism, but that doesn't mean Zimmerman was
>

> *legally* guilty of murder. (I feel an echo of Carlos's argument in another

>
> thread.) The whole "neighborhood watch" protofascism and the discretion of the
>
> cops to hassle people, particularly blacks but also the poor and youth, when
>
> they're minding their own business is also the cause. In other words, the
>
> "correct" issue for protest is the killing, not the failure to convict Zimmerman
>

> (who isn't guilty of the crimes charged under existing law--or has this judgment
>
> become a matter of political orthodoxy?) His crime was to be a neofascist
>

> vigilante and the cop *policy* of harassing black youth is also responsible. (I

>
> find reprehensible the frequent "pro-justice" comment that Zimmerman should have
>
> just waited for the police to confront Trayvon.)

So to let me understand the above.
Zimmerman followed a black man asked him something or another an altercation occurred and he shot him and that aint murder?

If he hadn't followed him and let him go or just continued to follow him from afar what could have happened?

I can follow someone down the street call him a queer or poke him he turns round knocks me out and I fall and die. I started the trouble, so if it aint murder its manslaughter. The other bloke could argue that in self defence he was frightened from the look of my eyes I was going to kill him so he acted pre-emptively but in what way does it imply I weren't the obvious troublemaker here? Altercations lead to death, the issue is whether it was pre-emptive ie cold blooded murder.

Seems like a state job to me done deliberately to get rid of certain laws. Zimmerman is playing an act for the state wouldn't give it national prominence and Obama declare for one side so openly.

VN

[Vngelis]

On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 2:44:29 AM UTC+3, srd wrote:
> On Sunday, July 21, 2013 11:51:36 AM UTC-7, Vngelis wrote:
>
> > What does stand your ground law mean?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > VN

>
>
>
> Dusty rushes at you, obviously intending to kill you, knife in hand. You have the indisputable opportunity to get away. Do you have the right to kill Dusty or must you run. Stand your ground, which I support, says you can kill him.
>
>
>
> srd

I have the right of self defence of course.
But the opposite happened here. Dusty followed me hunted me down I lost in the altercation. I wasn't armed.
So how do I know he weren't out to get me?

Bullet wound and other forensic evidence would need to be seen to make a proper judgement as to what might have happened plus seeing the body.

The state after 9/11 and 7/7 fabricates forensic reports and says whatever it wants to.

VN

[dusty]

[Vngelis]

On Friday, July 26, 2013 4:01:43 AM UTC+3, dusty wrote:
> On Friday, July 26, 2013 9:21:36 AM UTC+10, srd wrote:
>
>
>
> "It's no different in principle from our fascist wannabe Dusty wanting workers to see their rights coming at the expense of Mexicans."
>
>
>
>
>
> Diamond = lying Zionist scumbag who hates white American workers.

He singles out mass immigration as if it is only from Mexico when it global... That is the zionist lawyer in him.

VN

[dusty]

No: it was the nature of the Prosecution case: they didn't go for Manslaughter but something akin to "Premeditated Murder", which wasn't the case.

Martin rammed Zimmerman's face into the bitumen/concrete till he (said) that he believed his life was threatened. The wounds were displayed. So he shot him..."defensively".


Why keep it going? Martin's death was clearly sad. Zimmerman was a sad joker who would like to have been a copper but missed his vocation, likely because he wasn't up to being a copper (!)


Leave it to the Jewish lawyers and the Jewish Far Left to play the ethnic game. They need NO supplementation, and will go gung ho on cases like this, except when direct Jewish interests are involved (eg NY school teachers "control" strike against Black Nationalism in early Seventies).

[dusty]

In other words, there is NO POINT in just poking borak at "Americans" (as though they were homogeneous, when all indicates that they are anything BUT) by assessing the Martin case like a ACLU Operative. It is necessary to assess the issue, both from the point of view of Justice, stripped of lawyer philistinism - and in terms of the broader Ethnic Games that are perpetually played in America.

[Vngelis]

Thats what I said a long time ago.
The yanks aint a nation but an agglomeration of ethnic groups in the attempt to portry at being a nation with a division of roles.

Fake jews run media and blacks have been given prominent roles in anti-discrimination places (but the reality is far sinister).

Blacks are now worse off than in the 60's and the fake jews a lot better off than in the 60's.

They moved up the ladder from factories unions to university degrees, media property etc whilst blacks moved down the ladder into prisons.

Its interesting how their interests coincide with the Obama regime...
legalisaion of 11 million (walters said repeatedely they would be expelled)


VN

[dusty]

So the huff and puff (Walters, Diamond..)is strictly confined to the ideological superstructure...while the hard realities - TOTALLY SEPARATED FROM THIS reamian! That too is my take, though not so clearly expressed. Maybe I need re-education classes in getting across my points! Hahhahahahaahah! Fair enough. It's NOT through "injustices" like this that blacks are marginalised but through the Jew Banks policies of economic marginalisation of the WHOLE US working class. Marginalisation that fills their greedy pockets in every way, crisis management (money printing galore) included! Meanwhile the liberal Jew lawyers and the Globalist fake Left provide the smokescreen!


But why kick the poor little Mestizo Martin in the guts to get it across?

[dusty]

On Saturday, August 3, 2013 8:24:26 PM UTC+10, dusty wrote:
> On Saturday, August 3, 2013 7:59:13 PM UTC+10, Vngelis wrote:
>
> > Thats what I said a long time ago.
>
> >
>
> > The yanks aint a nation but an agglomeration of ethnic groups in the attempt to portry at being a nation with a division of roles.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Fake jews run media and blacks have been given prominent roles in anti-discrimination places (but the reality is far sinister).
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Blacks are now worse off than in the 60's and the fake jews a lot better off than in the 60's.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > They moved up the ladder from factories unions to university degrees, media property etc whilst blacks moved down the ladder into prisons.

VN:

"Its interesting how their interests coincide with the Obama regime...
legalisaion of 11 million (walters said repeatedely they would be expelled)"

It hasn't been the any section of the Far Left that has developed the understanding of this - if they had they wouldn't be so marginalised on a World scale (the old Marxist Left surely DID NOT - refer to my posts on this if required) - but the Patriotic Right. In particular, people like Kevin MacDonald and Nat Kapner who have a visceral understanding of it.

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/

http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=839

Similarly the Far Left avoided Zionist control of the Mass Indoctrination Media and Finance Capital in the WHOLE of the Post War Period - like the Plague! We can thank Ezra Pound and his delegate who exposed the Rothschild role in the Federal Reserve. NO MARXIST DID IT AND THAT IS FOR SURE! That failing to document and keep up with the now hugely accelerated developments arising from that fact has now come home to bite then on the bum.

Eustace Mullins - Secrets of the Federal Reserve
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1p4vX6a2Ijw

[dusty]

> VN:
>
> "Its interesting how their interests coincide with the Obama regime...
>
> legalisaion of 11 million (walters said repeatedely they would be expelled)"
>
>
>
>
>
> It hasn't been the any section of the Far Left that has developed the understanding of this - if they had they wouldn't be so marginalised on a World scale (the old Marxist Left surely DID NOT - refer to my posts on this if required) - but the Patriotic Right. In particular, people like Kevin MacDonald and Nat Kapner who have a visceral understanding of it.
>
>
>
> http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/
>
>
>
> http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=839
>
>
>
> Similarly the Far Left avoided Zionist control of the Mass Indoctrination Media and Finance Capital in the WHOLE of the Post War Period - like the Plague! We can thank Ezra Pound and his delegate who exposed the Rothschild role in the Federal Reserve. NO MARXIST DID IT AND THAT IS FOR SURE! That failing to document and keep up with the now hugely accelerated developments arising from that fact has now come home to bite then on the bum.
>
>
>
> Eustace Mullins - Secrets of the Federal Reserve
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1p4vX6a2Ijw

And this is the poetic expression of the problem:

Ezra Loomis Pound CANTO XLV - WITH USURA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3IpkOZjyVw

[dwalt...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 3, 2013 2:01:03 AM UTC-7, Vngelis wrote:

>
> So to let me understand the above.
>
> Zimmerman followed a black man asked him something or another an altercation occurred and he shot him and that aint murder?

> If he hadn't followed him and let him go or just continued to follow him from afar what could have happened?
>

Yes, that's exactly what happened.

> I can follow someone down the street call him a queer or poke him he turns round knocks me out and I fall and die. I started the trouble, so if it aint murder its manslaughter.

"murder" in the U.S. has always meant intent. What you describe is either "Murder 2" or "Manslaughter 1".

>The other bloke could argue that in self defence he was frightened from the >look of my eyes I was going to kill him so he acted pre-emptively but in what >way does it imply I weren't the obvious troublemaker here? Altercations lead >to death, the issue is whether it was pre-emptive ie cold blooded murder.

Actually no, I think. In Zimmerman's case everything that went on before was irrelevant. It's that during "an altercation" (whose fault it was to start went out the window) Trayvon supposedly went for the gun that Zimmerman had holstered. On that basis Zimmerman was given a pass to murder Trayvon.

>
>
> Seems like a state job to me done deliberately to get rid of certain laws. Zimmerman is playing an act for the state wouldn't give it national prominence and Obama declare for one side so openly.
>

The stand your ground law is solid in Florida. The Black community is up in arms about it because the social, not legal specifics are obvious, except to SRD and yourself, maybe (SRD has no excuse, you do as you don't live here) si that in *any* altercation between a Black male youth and non-Black, if the Black guy dies, it's "OK". The racist social context with which all American politics has gestated dictates this. If a black women defends herself against her ex with a rifle firing a warning shot, as happened a few years ago, then she goes to jail for 20 years (and she's still there).

The Stand Your Ground laws was implemented by a lobby by the far-right Tea Party racists (all of whom are afraid of black youth) and the NRA which hoped for more guns sales (they are financed by a dollar to 3 dollars per gun sale in the U.S. by agreement with the manufacturers).

The SYG laws were unnecessary as it's always been legal to defend yourself. And in fact, the SYG law, as SRD noted, wasn't used in this case. It was based on "self-defense". If Trayvon was armed and shot Zimmerman for attacking him, in theory, he'd have a right to apply SYG laws but as he's black, no one on an all-white Jury (or almost all white) would believe him. It's that simple. It's what goes for "justice" in white-privileged America.

[dwalt...@gmail.com]

Obama's administration has deported more undocumented workers than any previous administration EVER. I never sayd they would ALL be expelled, but that deportations would increase, just like ALL attacks on our working class. The Democrats implemented more privatization and free trade crap while cracking down heavily on immigrant rights and workers; extending violations of privacy through NSA wiretaps, etc etc etc. In everyway he's become more reactionary implementing a far right agenda.

Where he hasn't is because the working class has pushed back, like on immigrant rights. the political 'caste' inside the ruling class knows that if they don't do *something* more voters will vote against them so they have to come up with something that appeases the racist anti-immigrant sector as well as supporters of immigrant rights (including the huge legal voting Latino 'bloc' on this question).

[Vngelis]

On Wednesday, July 17, 2013 1:05:03 AM UTC+3, srd wrote:
> To pull my position together: here's what I posted elsewhere:
>
>
>
> Is anyone else on the left bothered by the observation that the movement
>
> demanding that Zimmerman be found guilty is demanding a lower bar for conviction
>
> of murder? And that this effect represents strengthening the state apparatus?
>
> Martin was murdered because of racism, but that doesn't mean Zimmerman was
>
> *legally* guilty of murder. (I feel an echo of Carlos's argument in another
>
> thread.) The whole "neighborhood watch" protofascism and the discretion of the
>
> cops to hassle people, particularly blacks but also the poor and youth, when
>
> they're minding their own business is also the cause. In other words, the
>
> "correct" issue for protest is the killing, not the failure to convict Zimmerman
>
> (who isn't guilty of the crimes charged under existing law--or has this judgment
>
> become a matter of political orthodoxy?) His crime was to be a neofascist
>
> vigilante and the cop *policy* of harassing black youth is also responsible. (I
>
> find reprehensible the frequent "pro-justice" comment that Zimmerman should have
>
> just waited for the police to confront Trayvon.)

You say whose fault it is to start a fight went out of the window?
Is that a legal argument or a real live one?

I provoke a fight with a guy who is unarmed. I then say after he punched me in the head and knocked me down he went for my gun so I shot him and the only part of the case that is in dispute is the altercation?

I am lost there or is it some American style of logic? From the moment someone follows a bloke harangues him to provoke a fight or some type of reaction since when is that thrown out?

Secondly if it isn't pre-meditated murder it is manslaughter why doesn't the second charge stick automatically? Can you only apply for one charge and if it fails the person is acquited?

The father, Robert Zimmerman Sr., is a retired military man.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-03-22/lifestyle/35446691_1_george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-unarmed-black-teenager

That to me stinks of something dodgy. Pre-medidated murder to get an acquital in order to get rid of 'stand your ground laws' which you assert were introduced by the Tea Party and Hestons lot? Which in my eyes links to the disarmament agenda over the state shootings in multiple schools ie a roll back of the constitution...

VN

[Vngelis]

In Florida, Zimmerman shifted his plans, enrolling in Seminole State College with hopes of becoming a law enforcement officer. He became the self-appointed protector of the streets around his home, although his neighborhood watch organization was not officially registered. He called the police department at least 46 times since 2004 to report everything from open garages to suspicious people. In 2005, according to police records obtained by the Orlando Sentinel and other news organizations, Zimmerman was twice accused of either criminal misconduct or violence. He had a concealed-weapon permit and had a black Kel-Tec semiautomatic handgun and a holster the night Martin died.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-03-22/lifestyle/35446691_1_george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-unarmed-black-teenager

So what was his job?
Does being a neighberhood watch man pay money?
What was his actual work? How did he live? On air?

Records show he had previously worked at a car dealership and sold insurance, but what he was doing at the time of the shooting is unclear.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17682245

In 2005, Mr Zimmerman was arrested for shoving a state alcohol agency officer near a bar.

The charge was later dropped when he agreed to fulfil a "pre-trial diversion" programme for first-time offenders, which usually involves fines and anger management classes.

Shortly after, a girlfriend took out a restraining order, following an argument where each accused the other of being the aggressor.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17682245

So who the fuck is Zimmerman? No real source of income in conflict with state authorities etc. So far leads me to think a patsy.
Cant find any other information about him.

VN

[Vngelis]

The Shadow Patsy Rises Again: How Mind Control Is Connected To Gun Control

The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

Saman Mohammadi
Infowars.com
July 30, 2012

“Goodness is something to be chosen. When a man cannot choose he ceases to be a man.” – The Prison Chaplain from Stanley Kubrick’s 1971 film, “A Clockwork Orange.” Watch the review of the film by Alex Jones here.

Near the end of 1999, a Memphis court held the “trial of the century” that resolved the lingering questions surrounding the 1968 assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. Attorney and author William F. Pepper represented the King family. Watch his opening statements at the trial here.

After the 30-day trial was over, the jury concluded that Martin Luther King Jr.’s death was caused by a government conspiracy, not a lone gunman. The government’s version of King’s murder was proven to be fake. A citizen jury legally put to death the myth of the “lone gunman” that has overshadowed America’s recent political history.

Fast forward to the year 2012. The “lone gunmen” of the world are being manufactured by the mind control technicians in the U.S. deep state like microchips. The secret “manufacture-a-patsy” government industry has become so advanced and sophisticated that it has enabled the hijacked U.S. government to get away with the most atrocious of crimes against the American people and humanity.

Whenever a state crime is committed by the deep state a patsy mysteriously rises to the surface from the shadows.

There is disturbing evidence that suggests the “Dark Knight” shooter James Holmes is a shadow patsy who was involved in a secret government mind control program. He was catapulted onto the scene of the crime in the Colorado movie theatre after professional government killers finished off massacring movie goers in the dark of night.

One of the most startling pieces of evidence is that Holmes was under the stewardship of an ex-government psychiatrist named Dr. Lynne Fenton, who is currently the “medical director for student mental health services at the University of Colorado-Denver Anschutz Medical Campus,” (National Post, “Colorado shooting suspect James Holmes was seeing university psychiatrist”).

Psychiatrists and psychologists have been involved in developing torture techniques for the CIA, so to believe in their “professionalism” and “morality” is blind foolishness. We live in an age of moral bankruptcy and mass mind control. Professional psychologists help the government in many ways, from lending their expertise to improve the mental conditioning of the public to performing outlandish research on government subjects, mostly from the military and universities.

II. The Extraordinary League of Shadow Patsies

The U.S. shadow government’s love affair with patsies has really gotten out of hand. Oswald was only a prototype. Washington has created an extraordinary league of shadow patsies. Holmes could be the next-generation model of mind control assassins; the T-1000 of government patsies.

Paul Joseph Watson describes the similarities between Holmes and another manufactured patsy in his article, “James Holmes Is Behaving Like Sirhan Sirhan,” writing:

“The parallels between alleged Colorado shooter James Holmes and Sirhan Sirhan are staggering. Both appear to have been drugged, both cannot remember the shootings they were accused of carrying out, and in both cases other shooters were reported by eyewitnesses.”

It is super convenient that individuals who are connected to some of the biggest crimes in U.S. history are mentally incapacitated at the moment the crime is committed and never seem to remember pulling the trigger in the days and weeks after the event.

Moreover, the political ramifications of the “Dark Knight” massacre are beginning to be felt as establishment media pundits, Supreme Court judges, and the President attack the legitimacy of gun rights and the honored American tradition of self-defense.

Kurt Nimmo examines the bipartisan war on American gun ownership in his article, “Establishment Media Circles the Wagons on Gun Control.”He writes:

“The highly suspicious mass shooting in Colorado arrived at exactly the right time for the globalists and their corporate media scriveners. Outlawing semi-automatic weapons with brand spanking new assault weapons legislation will now take center stage and will be used as a stepping stone for more draconian legislation down the road.”

The dangerous path to all-out gun confiscation begins with government brainwashing and media propaganda that gain steam after ritualistic events like the “Dark Knight” shooting. The fascist tyrants begin with baby steps, as always, but their sight remains on their larger goal: instituting a global totalitarian regime run by criminal private international banks and corporations.

For this dangerous and tyrannical goal to be realized the American people must first be disarmed.

[Vngelis]

I dont know if Dusty uploaded this.
But the article below shows the new case is politicised for a reason and if Al Sharpton is on the scene he is working closely with Obama for disarmament.
End of arguments I think....

VN

The Black George Zimmerman the Media Doesn’t Want You to Know About

The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

lastresistance.com
July 24, 2013

Did you notice during the George Zimmerman trial how the media kept repeating the salacious question “What if Trayvon Martin had been white?” They acted as if this question was the perfect response to Zimmerman defenders. They pretended that this was a question without a “safe” answer, but in reality, the question had already been answered.

Image: Roderick Scott

In April of 2009 Mr. Roderick Scott awoke at 3am to the sounds of three young men breaking into cars on his street. He called the police and went down to the street to make sure the young men did not flee before the police arrived. He shouted at the three to “freeze” and told them that the police were coming soon. The three boys stood before the big man obviously considering what they should do.

That’s when Christopher Cervini (17) rushed at Mr. Scott uttering “I’ll get you” or “I’ll get him.” Roderick Scott fired twice, killing the teenager. The trial that followed was again a case of prosecutorial overreach, as they tried to charge Mr. Scott with manslaughter. Fortunately for Mr. Scott, a jury of his peers agreed with him that he did only what was needed to protect himself.

Afterwards the prosecutor opined, “I just hope it’s not a message to this community… that you have the right to shoot an unarmed 17-year-old kid for breaking into a car.” The problem is that Mr. Scott did not shoot young Christopher Cervini for breaking into his car, but for attacking him. While the Cervini family may now be in much pain over the loss of their son, he brought himself to his tragic end through a series of terrible choices. Roderick Scott had every right to protect himself; he did what he should have… and a jury of his peers agreed.

Oh, and Roderick Scott was a 42 year old black man about the size of an NFL linebacker. Christopher Cervini was a skinny, 17 year old white kid with a little bit of marijuana in his system. Scott was justified in the killing of the younger man not because of the crime that Cervini had committed, but because Scott rightfully feared for his own safety.

There was no “white uproar” over the shooting of a young white man at the hands of a black man with a “hero-complex.” The NAACP didn’t show up to argue that the shooter should be jailed, or that the Justice Department should pursue charges of civil rights violations against the man for killing Cervini. Jesse Jackson, Al Shartpon, and all of the other race hate baiters stayed home for the trial. The trial was treated as a tragic situation that a young man brought on himself by turning to violence.

Which is exactly how the George Zimmerman case should have been treated. The next time someone tells you, “What if…?” You can tell them it already happened, and the outcome was exactly the same… minus the racial tension.

[Vngelis]

So let me understand it from another angle.

Zimmerman is racist as he has white blood in him or is it because he is Latino more racist?

By implication is Roderick Scott anti-racist as he is black and he killed a white unarmed boy?

So was it an all white jury that let Roderick Scott off the hook and if so does that make them racist or anti-racist?

VN

[Vngelis]

Not guilty: The verdict in the manslaughter trial of Roderick Scott. After more than 19 hours of deliberations over two days, a jury acquitted the Greece man in the shooting death of Christopher Cervini, 17, last April.

"I just want to say thank you to the people who believed in me, who stood by me,” Scott said following the verdict. “I still have my regrets for the Cervini family; it's still an unfortunate situation for them. I am happy that at least this chapter is over."

As deliberations dragged on over two days and the jury asked for testimony to be read back, Scott admits he didn't know how it would all turn out.

"I was nervous of course,” he said. “You never know what direction this whole thing is going to turn, so I have no idea. But it worked out and I feel that justice (was) served today."

Cervini's family members say justice wasn't served. They say Christopher was murdered in cold blood, that he'd never been in trouble and Scott acted as judge, jury and executioner.

"The message is that we can all go out and get guns and feel anybody that we feel is threatening us and lie about the fact,” said Jim Cervini, Christopher’s father. “My son never threatened anybody. He was a gentle child, his nature was gentle, he was a good person and he was never, ever arrested for anything, and has never been in trouble. He was 16 years and four months old, and he was slaughtered."
http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490926/jury-finds-roderick-scott-not-guilty/

[Vngelis]

Scott says he acted in self defense when he confronted Cervini and two others saying they were stealing from neighbors cars. He told them he had a gun and ordered them to freeze and wait for police.

Scott says he shot Cervini twice when the victim charged toward him yelling he was going to get Scott.

"How can this happen to a beautiful, sweet child like that?” asked Cervini’s aunt Carol Cervini. “All he wanted to do was go home. And then for them to say, he was saying, 'Please don't kill me. I'm just a kid,' and he just kept on shooting him."

Scott says the last seven months have been difficult for him and his family. If he could go back to the events in the early morning hours of April 4, there are things he says he would do differently.

"If it meant a person not losing their life, absolutely,” he said. “Would I still have tried to stop what was going on? That I would have done. But if I knew ahead of time that I could do something to help somebody from losing their life, I don't want anyone to lose their life."

Scott says the first thing he was going to do was go home and get a good night sleep. When asked if he'll continue living in his current home, which is just one street away from the Cervini's, he said “for the time being.”

http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490926/jury-finds-roderick-scott-not-guilty/

[Vngelis]

Liberal hypocrisy: George Zimmerman vs Roderick Scott

Trayvon Martin broke Geroge Zimmerman’s nose, gave him two black eyes, and repeatedly smashed his head against the concrete. Zimmerman then shot and killed Martin. Zimmerman was put on trial for murder. During the trial, the medical evidence and witnesses called by the prosecution showed that Martin had violently assaulted Zimmerman, and that Zimmerman had killed Martin in self defense. The jury found Zimmerman not guilty. Liberals across the country responded with huge amounts of criticism and protest. Martin was black, and Zimmerman is a “white hispanic,” and to the Zimmerman haters, the killing and verdict must have been racist.

Roderick Scott is a black man in New York who, in 2009, shot and killed an unarmed white teenager. A jury found Scott to be not guilty of murder because Scott had killed the teen in self defense. Liberals have been silent on this.

Both killers were found not guilty by a jury because the killing was done in self defense. Yet liberals have gotten hugely emotional and hysterical over one killing, while having zero reaction to the other. Why is that?

Here’s my take on this. In order to be objective regarding the issues of race and crime, you have to ask yourself this: if the races of the killer and killee had been reversed, would your opinion of the verdict still be the same? For me, the answer to that question is “yes.” As a strong advocate of self defense, I agree with both verdicts. But for the Zimmerman haters, the answer to that question is clearly “no.” Their hatred of Zimmerman has everything to do with the races of the people involved, which is why they have been silent regarding the Scott verdict.
http://danfromsquirrelhill.wordpress.com/2013/07/24/liberal-hypocrisy-george-zimmerman-vs-roderick-scott/

I dont agree with both verdicts for if you go chasing blokes for whatever reason, shit happens.
But if US juries are anti-black (many of course are) Scott should have been done, but he wasn't.

Which takes me back to my original point. Zimmerman works for the state.
VN

[Vngelis]

In the English law of homicide, manslaughter is a less serious offence than murder, the differential being between levels of fault based on the mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind"). In England and Wales, the usual practice is to prefer a charge of murder, with the judge or defence able to introduce manslaughter as an option (see lesser included offence). The jury then decides whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of either murder or manslaughter. On conviction for manslaughter, sentencing is at the judge's discretion, whereas a sentence of life imprisonment is mandatory on conviction for murder. Manslaughter may be either voluntary or involuntary, depending on whether the accused has the required mens rea for murder.

www.crappedia....

[Vngelis]

So intent in English law is based on actions preceding the altercation.
Can we establish intent or not?

Why is Zimmermans white heritage trump his Mexican and why does he come 'racist' after the altercation with Zimmerman as he came out on top?

So how does Scott fit in? Why isn't he mentioned previously?

VN

[srd]

> in *any* altercation between a Black male youth and non-Black, if the Black guy dies, it's "OK".

If that's what you think made it murder, then you would have to say that any time a white guy kills a black guy it's murder.

You also say the issue is the social context rather than the legalities. My point is that the orthodoxy among the left cults now requires that you take a FALSE legal position as a means of expressing solidarity with blacks.

The effect of this opportunism on _blacks_ is precisely that anger at the social conditions and the racist legal system is *misdirected* toward legalism around the Zimmerman case, such as the call for the Justice Dept. to investigate.

But apart from this, you're just engaging in the disingenuous group think of the cults. What it comes down to is that you KNOW Zimmerman had a tenable *legal* position, yet you deny it because it doesn't go down well with blacks. You could justify abstaining from talking about the legal issue, but instead you invent stupid theories just to justify a popular issue. You earlier contended that stand your ground really applied to Martin. This proves you not only have no real interest in the legal issues, which is fine, but that you also have a *strong* interest in perpetuating the legal misinformation that's floating around among blacks.

Anyway, don't get on a moralistic high horse because, if Zimmerman didn't have the right to carry the firearm, Martin would be alive, and THE BLACK COMMUNITY NOW FAVORS GUN CONTROL. Those aren't arguments I'd make, but your "humanitarian antiracism" should lead you to favor gun control if you had the courage of your "antiracist" convictions.

[srd]

On Saturday, August 3, 2013 12:13:50 PM UTC-7, Vngelis wrote:

> You say whose fault it is to start a fight went out of the window?
>
> Is that a legal argument or a real live one?
>
>
>
> I provoke a fight with a guy who is unarmed. I then say after he punched me in the head and knocked me down he went for my gun so I shot him and the only part of the case that is in dispute is the altercation?
>
>
>
> I am lost there or is it some American style of logic? From the moment someone follows a bloke harangues him to provoke a fight or some type of reaction since when is that thrown out?

Oh, that's so obvious, isn't it vngelis? I mean who would notice that you added a fact not in evidence, although perhaps you think following someone is automatically provoking a fight.

It's unknown who provoked the fight. In the U.S. you have the right to follow someone. I'd bet the same is true in Greece. And words alone never suffice to justify physical force.

So you're making your conspiracy case based on an equivocation around "provoke" (and also around a hypothetical haranguing that wasn't in evidence and isn't therefore admissible as evidence). If provoke means start the chain of events, then provocation is not justification. If provoke means do something illegal that creates reasonable fear, then it isn't known who provoked who, and since it isn't known, the jury decided correctly.

[srd]

You won't have following people while armed made illegal because it would kill the private detective industry. But more importantly, you seem to think cops should have the right to follow people while armed while ordinary citizens don't. Perhaps it's just ignorance, but you also could be read to think that juries should decide whether following someone is reasonable, which gives prosecutors more power. Here, you're falling prey to philistinism: elevating your common sense perception of reasonableness above the class struggle. In any event, the jury couldn't lawfully decide against the right to follow people while armed; there would need to be a law. And if there's a law against following someone while armed, it's a law limiting the right to bear arms, if you really care about that.

>
> But if US juries are anti-black (many of course are) Scott should have been done, but he wasn't.
>
>
>
> Which takes me back to my original point. Zimmerman works for the state.
>

But you come to this conclusion by either failing to understand or deliberately obfuscating the governing law. Which only goes to show how ready you are to embrace a conspiracy theory without real evidence. Remember, you think the jury could have convicted (or that juries would ordinarily convict) based on following someone being a "provocation." That's what you base your conspiracy theory on, and it's legally ridiculous. (And if you're blatantly wrong about law in supporting your conspiracy theories, then you're probably blatantly wrong about other technical matters on which I don't happen to have any expertise.

[srd]

On Saturday, August 3, 2013 1:15:35 PM UTC-7, Vngelis wrote:
> In the English law of homicide, manslaughter is a less serious offence than murder, the differential being between levels of fault based on the mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind"). In England and Wales, the usual practice is to prefer a charge of murder, with the judge or defence able to introduce manslaughter as an option (see lesser included offence). The jury then decides whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of either murder or manslaughter. On conviction for manslaughter, sentencing is at the judge's discretion, whereas a sentence of life imprisonment is mandatory on conviction for murder. Manslaughter may be either voluntary or involuntary, depending on whether the accused has the required mens rea for murder.
>
>
>
> www.crappedia....

Manslaughter is called a "lesser included offense." The jury considered manslaughter as well as second degree murder (which should not even be charged on the evidence available).

Without knowing what happened, you can't call it manslaughter any more than you can murder. I only skimmed your numerous posts on that Greek case, but it does seem very similar. If you encounter someone while you're both alone and shoot him, since no witnesses were present and other evidence absent, you may get away with murder. This upsets people, so they propose to go the other way: since Zimmerman or the Greek guy might get away with it, they should be found guilty. Or they look for loopholes that allow the verdict they feel is justified to avoid letting people like that get away with murder. This is pure philistinism when committed by a Marxist; it's also a way of adapting to the victim's ethnicity.

Let me give you a hypothetical to test your intuitions. David Walters's answer would be interesting too.

Hypothetical: X hates gays and calls a particular gay, named Y, a "faggot." Y, being a body builder like various bodily narcissistic gays, is much stronger than X and starts beating the holy shit out of X. X pulls a gun and kills Y.

What verdict? Did X have the right to shoot Y, despite the fact that X "provoked" Y? Do "harangues" (even if they occurred) constitute legal provocation to assault someone?

[srd]

There is a "fighting words" doctrine in U.S. law that might be confusing you, vngelis. U.S. jurisdictions are allowed to outlaw words that are likely to lead to violence, when those words are used orally on public property. My own view is that fighting words laws unnecessarily compromise the First Amendment. But although the state can make fighting words illegal, actually responding to fighting words with a fight is never legal.

Say that Zimmerman had used fighting words and there was a fighting-words law in Florida. Then Zimmerman could be convicted of a fighting words misdemeanor but still have the right to use deadly force when physically attacked.

[srd]

On Friday, August 2, 2013 11:49:07 PM UTC-7, dusty wrote:
> On Thursday, August 1, 2013 2:04:10 PM UTC+10, srd wrote:
>
>
>
> "Hyperbole..."
>
>
>
> What could be expected of New York based Zionist Jews like the "Sparts" who don't give a shit about "schwartzes" (widely used Jew term) but who only use them, Tribalist fashion, to perpetually play the Zionist divide-and-rule, Jews on top of the pack game.
>
>
>
> You included Diamond!
>
>
>
> All you do is play the Zionist divide and rule game. You: a "lawyer"! Hahahhahahhah!
>
>
>
>
>
> Concentrate on the power of Jewry in America and the way it controls US policy - from the Jew banks, the Rothschild Fed racketeers and associated Global institutions down...all with the backing of the petty bourgeois Tribe - you included: THAT is Abram Leon's "Jewish Question" today in a nutshell.
>
>
>
> And you, you yapping Shifty Cosmopolitan, support ALL the Agendas.
>
>
>
> A man in need of ANY Identity other than self-serving shysterism.
>
>
>
> It's a wonder your shiksa doesn't see through you.

You'll say anything against an opponent because you're just too plain dumb to argue. I'm not wasting time with you. You try to artificially inflame discussions to bring them down to your level of stupidity. Epithets are all you are capable of, so they're all you use. You haven't said an intelligent thing in ten years; you haven't not because you don't want to but because you can't. You resent your own stupidity and try to make other people stupid like you by enraging them.

Good riddance. I'll discuss with vngelis if he wishes. At least he tries to present arguments on occasion. You never do. You know your own intellectual inferiority deep down, so you stay away from anything cerebral. The result is that you are a bane to any serious discussion--even to an unserious discussion on apst. You're on ignore; you needn't bother replying to any questions I've asked.

[srd]

On Saturday, August 3, 2013 2:01:03 AM UTC-7, Vngelis wrote:

> On Wednesday, July 17, 2013 1:05:03 AM UTC+3, srd wrote:

> I can follow someone down the street call him a queer or poke him he turns round knocks me out and I fall and die. I started the trouble, so if it aint murder its manslaughter. The other bloke could argue that in self defence he was frightened from the look of my eyes I was going to kill him so he acted pre-emptively but in what way does it imply I weren't the obvious troublemaker here? Altercations lead to death, the issue is whether it was pre-emptive ie cold blooded murder.
>
I can't follow what you're saying here, but I see you do deal "pre-emptively" with my hypothetical in part. It _would_ be manslaughter, but the fact that you "started the trouble" is beside the point.

You seem to think that you shouldn't have the right to call someone a queer. That if you do, you're starting the trouble. And here I had thought that you Greeks weren't so politically correct! Although jurisdictions have mild fighting-words laws imposing minor penalties on calling someone a queer, etc., none hold that words alone provide justification for retaliation (although they might make the retaliation other than premeditated).

And I really doubt this is different in Greece? Do you know? It seems to me that you're saying what is based on what you think *should* be. You really think calling someone a queer *should* constitute a legal provocation. You really want more cop action in society. You want to see defendants "held responsible" for mere provocative insults? Am I wrong? As I said, I can't say I understand what you wrote.

[srd]

> I dont agree with both verdicts for if you go chasing blokes for whatever reason, shit happens.

A nice, convenient position, disassociating yourself from the ethnic issue while opposing the verdict so as not to offend blacks.

But you can't go changing your position arbitrarily to make it convenient and retain any credibility. You had maintained that neighborhoods should have the right to arm to defend themselves against crime. How could they possibly do this if they never have the right to follow someone armed?

[srd]

> You resent your own stupidity and try to make other people stupid like you by enraging them.

Yes, it's quite clear; why didn't I see it before. YOU HATE THE JEWS BECAUSE YOU RESENT THEIR "SUPERIOR INTELLECT." Some Jews must have really humiliated you. You blame the Jews for your humiliation. "It's not that I'm stupid," you squeal; "it's the Jews and all their tricks."

A hatred based on your own fundamental inadequacy. But, really, most Jews are smarter than you only because most _people_ are smarter than you. Live with it, fuckhead.

[Vngelis]

Zimmermans job?
Dad in the military?

As usual SRD skips over the finds...

Typical 9/11 shirker.
VN

[srd]

On Sunday, August 4, 2013 3:18:50 AM UTC-7, Vngelis wrote:
> Zimmermans job?

Some conspiracy theory you are! You don't even do a preliminary search before deciding that there's a mystery about Zimmerman's job, which is widely known to have been an insurance-fraud investigator.
>
> Dad in the military?

Which proves what? Only that Zimmerman had the background of a dyed in the wool reactionary, which you strangely try to deny.

BUT THE WAY YOU DISTORTED THE LEGAL ISSUES IS DECISIVE ABOUT YOUR COMPLETE LACK OF OBJECTIVITY.
>

[Vngelis]

On Sunday, August 4, 2013 12:25:49 AM UTC+3, srd wrote:
> On Saturday, August 3, 2013 12:13:50 PM UTC-7, Vngelis wrote:
>
>
>
> > You say whose fault it is to start a fight went out of the window?
>
> >
>
> > Is that a legal argument or a real live one?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I provoke a fight with a guy who is unarmed. I then say after he punched me in the head and knocked me down he went for my gun so I shot him and the only part of the case that is in dispute is the altercation?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I am lost there or is it some American style of logic? From the moment someone follows a bloke harangues him to provoke a fight or some type of reaction since when is that thrown out?
>
>
>
> Oh, that's so obvious, isn't it vngelis? I mean who would notice that you added a fact not in evidence, although perhaps you think following someone is automatically provoking a fight.
>

> An armed person follows someone for a reason.

If Zimmerman has the right to stop and search anybody with his gun in his holster then to me that is a provocation. I have the right to go about my business without due interference from any tom dick or harry, police included. I have refused to be searched in the street but only in a police station. They have suspended this right under 'terrorist' legislation.

Now if Trayvon was hot headed and decked him one and the other guy killed him then it should be grounds for manslaughter. To argue he should be let off and the judgement is correct sounds absurd.

In the other case the black bloke went out saw some hoodlums nicking cars confronted them and shot one. Excessive force could be argued was used as it is many times in Europe. But in the states allmost everyone is armed and property is considered to have more value than life. Hence people get killed for nothing.

You have different parameters which are phrased in legalistic nonsense which we are forced to adopt. Fighting words appears to be 'incitement to racial hatred' but it generally only applies to the indigenous population but they allways start with a prosecution against a black man for good measure so as to not appear blatantly racist...

Swearing at someone then asking them to stop then manhandling them may lead to an altercations. That is a provocation in my eyes. Now if you have the right as a 'neigberhood watch man' to stop and search, then that is a difference with european law. That right under 'normal' circumstances is subscribed to the police, not random individuals.

VN

[Vngelis]

Which of the two ethnic positions?
Zimmerman being half white or the black bloke who killed the white kid is an ethnic issue. Everything in the states is an ethnic issue as you aint a nation but an agglomeration of ethnic entities hence I am lost as to the content of your argument, again.

VN

[Vngelis]

On Sunday, August 4, 2013 4:41:46 AM UTC+3, srd wrote:

Neighberhoods implies more than one lone joker does it not.
5 people acting as neighberhood committee is better than one on their own.

I dont know the case nor do I understand American logic in many cases as you have a different set up than Europe.

The same case occurred in reverse for what I posted up between a black man and a white kid. SHould the kid have been shot for breaking into cars? In my opinion no. Its only a fucking car for fucks sake it aint worth a life. But altercations do occurr if people are armed and you shouldn't go round attacking other peoples property in the united states unless you are armed as well, as you might get shot. Shit happens.

The right to bear arms adds weight to the argument that you are allowed to shoot at random if injury occurs or is perceived to be occurring (we werent there so we dont know what really happened if only one of the two people are alive to tell the tale) to either life or property in individual case by case issues. That does not mean I subscribe to disarmament but in a society of many ethnics its basically a jungle. Evidence being we cant understand what each other is saying and we allegedly both speak english...

Think about me trashing in your car you waking up in the middle of the night with a gun in your hand and me swearing at you (whilst being unarmed) shit may happen and many times it does.

VN

[dwalt...@gmail.com]

The ethnicity of Zimmerman is less relevant than the victim. Zimmerman could of been black and it wouldn't only make a slight difference in the reaction. Zimmerman was playing the role White society laid out for him, just as it does for all Black cops, of which there are plenty. Zimmerman was *protecting* (in his imagination) this mostly White gated-community. 5 of the 6 jurors where white. The judge was white. The witnesses for the defense were white. The system favors whites or that that stand in for them. It's very simple. American is not like Europe not because of the different nationalities but because of the development of Capitalism which was wholly different here, than in Europe.

It is not a question of "ethnicity" it's a question of nationalities and racism which is how capitalism was able to successfully keep the working class from uniting politically. That the US is a 'nation' or not (Marx thought it was) is not so wholly relevant as it is the actual dynamics of the development of the multi-racial working class. Racism, especially anti-Black racism, permeates this country. if you don't understand this, you can never understand the class struggle here.

[dusty]

Vn,
You're in a little nest of Tribal Jew vipers here doing what they do best: playing their divide and rule "down with Whitey" game. Walters plays it as his main political activity and the Jew Front ACLU supporting Diamond likely made a living out of it for much of his career.

In reality, both support the marginalisation of the Blacks by the activities of the mainly Jew owned New York banks and their economic and propaganda agencies - through mass immigration, and the rustbelting of American Industry.

Mass Third World immigration after all is not only good for bank profits but also marginalises both the Whites and the Blacks with the Jews coming out on top. The Jewish organisations have pushed it for decades. Why not rustbelt US industry (Western Industry) when profits are so much better when you can make, or have it made, cheap and sell it dear into the West?

The welfarising and criminalising of Black Americans, along with the destruction of their family lives (they were good family people in the 50's!) is thus largely due to the Jewish bourgeoisie (just as they as the main slave traders brought most into America). And it's a rare phenomenon in history where the petty bourgeoisie don't support their own bourgeoisie - and doubly so for the highly cohesive Jews.

[srd]

On Monday, August 5, 2013 1:56:55 AM UTC-7, Vngelis wrote:

> Neighberhoods implies more than one lone joker does it not.

"Neighborhood watch" often involves single individuals acting for the "committee."

>
> 5 people acting as neighberhood committee is better than one on their own.

Yeah, but that doesn't mean one acting alone is illegal or could practically be made illegal while allowing groups to act.

>
>
>
> I dont know the case

But your lack of knowledge didn't quell your self-confidence in pontificating about the case.

nor do I understand American logic in many cases as you have a different set up than Europe.
>
>
>
>The same case occurred in reverse for what I posted up between a black
>man and a white kid. SHould the kid have been shot for breaking into
>cars? In my opinion no.

U.S. law in every jurisdiction agrees with you. Property destruction isn't enough. There has to be reasonable fear of great bodily injury or death resulting from a personally aggressive illegal act.

Also, related to another post of yours, there is no evidence that Zimmerman tried to stop or search Martin. He was working in tandem with the cops, trying to be sure Martin didn't get away, as there had been considerable vandalism (according to Zimmerman's story, which is the only story that anyone can recite). On this point, I think Zimmerman's story is probably true. You always add your own facts that were not the actual facts.

I agree with you that following someone who's unarmed while you're carrying a gun is a provocative thing to do. Only a total asshole like Zimmerman would do it. But it's not illegal and couldn't be made illegal without compromising the right to bear arms, which you supposedly support, as (like me but unlike David Walters) you're against repealing "stand your ground."

>Its only a fucking car for fucks sake it aint worth a life. But altercations do occurr if people are armed and you shouldn't go round attacking other peoples property in the united states unless you are armed as well, as you might get shot. Shit happens.

Right, so what do you do about it societally? A reasonable philistine case can be made for gun control on this basis. If you don't want people following other people while armed because shit will happen and it's pretty uncivilized behavior, then you have to ban guns. From a philistine perspective, there's a good case for gun control. But if you think, like I do and I assume you do, that it's good *politically* that workers have guns, you can't just prosecute people when you don't like the shitty outcome.

>
>
>
>The right to bear arms adds weight to the argument that you are allowed
>to shoot at random if injury occurs or is perceived to be occurring
>(we werent there so we dont know what really happened if only one of
>the two people are alive to tell the tale) to either life or property
>in individual case by case issues. That does not mean I subscribe to
>disarmament but in a society of many ethnics its basically a jungle.
>Evidence being we cant understand what each other is saying and we
>allegedly both speak english...

I don't understand why we can't understand each other (other than you often seem to write so as intentionally to be not understood). We both live in societies with multiple ethnicities, since you think there's enough non-Greek ethnicities in your country to pose a threat to national self-determination!
>
>

>
> VN

[srd]

HOWEVER, I must admit that you have hit on something re Zimmerman's means of support. A little further research reveals that he was actually unemployed according to the police report. "Insurance-fraud investigator" is an impossible real occupation for one so uneducated and stupid as Zimmerman. (The guy couldn't even successfully "investigate" Trayvon Martin.) It's obviously information obtained from Zimmerman himself (by a single Reuters reporter, from whose story all the other reports derive). Most likely, it's just Zimmerman's own grandiose exaggeration (you know, like Dusty claiming to have done significant political work).

So, what were his means of support? His wife is a cosmetologist, a low-paying occupation. Zimmerman never seems to have had reliable employment. He recently worked as a security guard (which at least in the U.S. is a huge step down from "insurance-fraud investigator.")

I wouldn't be surprised if he were an FBI informant, although informing on what exactly I don't know; but FBI informants are all over the place. This doesn't add up to a conspiracy, but I wouldn't rule out that some kind of conspiracy was involved. Or maybe he was a patsy.

Anyway, although I largely disagree with you, one thing you actually have helped clarify is that these big blowups between the right and the "left" are often put-ons designed to increase the "street creds" of both.

srd

[dusty]

Diamond:

"HOWEVER, I must admit that you have hit on something re Zimmerman's means of support. A little further research reveals that he was actually unemployed according to the police report. "Insurance-fraud investigator" is an impossible real occupation for one so uneducated and stupid as Zimmerman. (The guy couldn't even successfully "investigate" Trayvon Martin.)"

Where does that put Trayvon Martin! Thanks for the visceral self-revelation!

This is a Jews-eye view of the Mestizos and Schwartzer's he lyingly pretends to have empathy for. No wonder his ilk have richly earned the name "Shyster" (=Diamond's "Good Jewish Lawyer"). Hahahhahahahahhahaahahhahah!:

Of course Diamond and the Jewmedia is still wailing about the fact that Zimmerman isn't white but a Mestizo, just as Martin was likely partly of European racial extraction. Nevertheless the fink Diamond continues with the fiction strictly for Tribal purposes! Hopefully one day the mischievous MSM hate-filled shit won't have any media at all! And the "Secret of the Tribe" will at last be cracked (and thus dissolved) by the nationalisation of money issuance, Banking and Hyper-Speculation!

Diamond:
"Dusty claiming to have done significant political work."


Listen you dubious and lying piece of politically putrid Tribal shit: I didn't claim anything more than that I played a central role in driving the cop union from a significant Trade Union centre. You can claim NOTHING within the Labour movement because you were never there. Just a Zionist pest who one day swallowed a gramophone needle, because it's in your "DNA". Oh, and your only tangible claim (which I accept): the father-hating mom's boy of deeply Zionist parents who were members of the deeply Zionist Communist Party of the USA.

Concentrate on criticising the crimes of Israel, something you almost never do, or of the Jew put up job of 9-11, which you studiously COVER for. In doing that you might be able to claim some political authority.

[dusty]

Diamond:

"Some conspiracy theory you are! You don't even do a preliminary search before deciding that there's a mystery about Zimmerman's job, which is widely known to have been an insurance-fraud investigator."

What! This seems to indicate that Diamond has been doing a bit of insurance fraud as well as his other nefarious activities!

Criticism of "profiling" of course goes out the window here, because it's all for a good - Tribal - cause: that of "Playin' the Ethnic Game". Forgive him Lord: it's in his DNA!

[Vngelis]

On Wednesday, August 7, 2013 5:36:03 AM UTC+3, srd wrote:
> On Monday, August 5, 2013 1:56:55 AM UTC-7, Vngelis wrote:
>
>
>
> > Neighberhoods implies more than one lone joker does it not.
>
>
>
> "Neighborhood watch" often involves single individuals acting for the "committee."
>
> >
>
> > 5 people acting as neighberhood committee is better than one on their own.
>
>
>
> Yeah, but that doesn't mean one acting alone is illegal or could practically be made illegal while allowing groups to act.
>
> >

If one person is armed and acts as a lone gunman then he is nothing more than a vigilante as the case shows how things can go wrong if they were an 'accident' not engineered, like Columbine. I am of the opinion most cases that become national are engineered for they are commented on by the fake left, the fake media and the fake lawyers in and around all organisations who couldn't spot a real story if it landed infront of them as they are paid to say and write any amount of bullshit handsomely like are journalists.

> >
>
> >
>
> > I dont know the case
>
>
>
> But your lack of knowledge didn't quell your self-confidence in pontificating about the case.
>

Thats because I dont live in the USA and cannot realistically know a case from afar. I tracked an identical case in reverse. Then I am told by Walters in his anti-white diatribes that all juries in America are white but presumabely the jury that acquitted Scott was what black?

>
> nor do I understand American logic in many cases as you have a different set up than Europe.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >The same case occurred in reverse for what I posted up between a black
>
> >man and a white kid. SHould the kid have been shot for breaking into
>
> >cars? In my opinion no.
>
>
>
> U.S. law in every jurisdiction agrees with you. Property destruction isn't enough. There has to be reasonable fear of great bodily injury or death resulting from a personally aggressive illegal act.
>

Reasonable fear cannot be explained when there is only one person alive to explain what happened. Reasonable fear may explain the opposite as well. Zimmerman threatened Trayvon with a gun he went for him and it went off. Not everybody that threatens someone with a gun then has the balls to carry it out. A greek not long ago was woken up came into the lounge and saw his mum having a knife at her throat by illegal intruders of albanian descent. He shot one dead. The police were going to arrest him for murder and hundreds gathered outside the court house threatening its existence. We dont have the laws of the right to self defence, hence like I said before we have a different history and one of the differences with the fake left is that they want a mini-USA in Greece, not the legal right to bear arms or self-defence in ones home and disarmament of all state authorities. Ie Americanisation at one end and Obamaism at another (overturning the right to bear arms)...

>
> Also, related to another post of yours, there is no evidence that Zimmerman tried to stop or search Martin. He was working in tandem with the cops, trying to be sure Martin didn't get away, as there had been considerable vandalism (according to Zimmerman's story, which is the only story that anyone can recite). On this point, I think Zimmerman's story is probably true. You always add your own facts that were not the actual facts.
>
>
>
> I agree with you that following someone who's unarmed while you're carrying a gun is a provocative thing to do. Only a total asshole like Zimmerman would do it. But it's not illegal and couldn't be made illegal without compromising the right to bear arms, which you supposedly support, as (like me but unlike David Walters) you're against repealing "stand your ground."
>

I weren't simply talking law. Provoking someone after following them and possibly raising a gun (I dont know who the defender of Trayvon was I presume some tinpot public defender who doesn't know his arse from his elbow) and what line of questioning he pursued. I would need to read the transcripts of the court case, like I said I dont know the case...you obviously do so where are the transcripts?

>
>
>
> >Its only a fucking car for fucks sake it aint worth a life. But altercations do occurr if people are armed and you shouldn't go round attacking other peoples property in the united states unless you are armed as well, as you might get shot. Shit happens.
>
>
>
> Right, so what do you do about it societally? A reasonable philistine case can be made for gun control on this basis. If you don't want people following other people while armed because shit will happen and it's pretty uncivilized behavior, then you have to ban guns. From a philistine perspective, there's a good case for gun control. But if you think, like I do and I assume you do, that it's good *politically* that workers have guns, you can't just prosecute people when you don't like the shitty outcome.
>

The fake left is in bed with Obama. Over mass immigration, over gun control, over fake support for humanitarian causes eg Haiti etc. I dont expect tham to argue differently.

>
> >
>
> >
>
> >The right to bear arms adds weight to the argument that you are allowed
>
> >to shoot at random if injury occurs or is perceived to be occurring
>
> >(we werent there so we dont know what really happened if only one of
>
> >the two people are alive to tell the tale) to either life or property
>
> >in individual case by case issues. That does not mean I subscribe to
>
> >disarmament but in a society of many ethnics its basically a jungle.
>
> >Evidence being we cant understand what each other is saying and we
>
> >allegedly both speak english...
>
>
>
> I don't understand why we can't understand each other (other than you often seem to write so as intentionally to be not understood). We both live in societies with multiple ethnicities, since you think there's enough non-Greek ethnicities in your country to pose a threat to national self-determination!
>
> >

You can see we dont understand each other as you have a different set up for neighberhood watches which are linked to police. Where they have existed in Greece they are set up by a Greek community under threat of some external force eg police state terror, illegals etc.

Greece is under threat of dissolution and the govt in power alongside the fake Left are working for that end...

VN

> >
>
>
>
> >
>
> > VN