Jump to content

George Zimmerman's fate - an indication of anarchy justice


Recommended Posts

Posted

George Zimmerman, the killer of Trayvon Martin who was found innocent of murder, was arrested again. On Monday he threatened his girlfriend, Samantha Scheibe with a shotgun in her home during a domestic argument. Since his acquittal for the Trayvon Martin killing, Zimmerman has drifted aimlessly, getting stopped by cops for speeding, threatened his estranged wife with a gun. Shortly after Zimmerman's trial, his wife filed for divorce. The aftermath of George's life after his trial gives us a glimpse into what anarchy punishment will be for one who is found guilty by the jury of the public opinion. They will be outcasts and exiled, if not physically then at least shunned by the community. Zimmerman's legal case and outcome also demonstrates how poorly statism solves problems dealing with crime and justice. Another hint to contrast anarchy versus state is to observe the lack of manners, rudeness and pushiness of drivers on the roadway. Those same drivers, interacting in their community or with co-workers on the job, may be a pleasant, kind, and courteous citizen or worker. Once they hit the rush hour road, however, common sense, courtesy, and concerns for avoiding accidents takes a back seat to the statist rules of the road, the right of way.

Posted

Apologies in advance for the wall of text.  What was meant as a concise and direct reply, turned into my general ramblings, rantings, and thoughts on Zimmerman, selective media, and THE ROADS !!!(in the US) :woot:    I'm starting to think about self imposing limits on my post lengths...

 

I'm not quite sure how I feel about George Zimmerman.  I think it's tragic whenever any young person loses their life, and who knows what Trayvon might have made out of his.  I think the case for GZ being convicted of murder was pretty weak.  I thought the evidence was circumstantial at best.  He made the case that he acted in self defense, and I don't think there was a case to be made that he was guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt.  When facts and evidence are compared to the legal requirement for conviction,  they fall short.  Better 9 guilty men go free out of 10, than 1 innocent man be incarcerated. 

That being said, I wouldn't have acted in the same manner as he did.   

 

What really rubs me the wrong way about the whole ordeal is the media.  If George Zimmerman were a black man, the story would have been lucky to make it beyond the local paper.  I live about an hour from Baltimore; people get murdered all the time (among the 5 highest rates in the nation).  As long as you murder people in the ghetto, and stay away from the few business/wealthy areas, I'd never hear about it in a million years.  Where is the outrage for people murdered in the ghetto every day?  I think the biggest reasons that George & Trayvon are a big national story are race, testing Stand Your Ground, and Trayvon being a 17 year old child rather than an 18 year old adult. 

 

Just down the street last week, 4 adults (parents&step-parents) went and beat the sh*t out of their 18 year old daughter's 23 year old drug dealer with a baseball bat after he hooked her on heroin, watched her OD, and left her to die because he didn't want to deal with police.  He allegedly threatened the 4 adults with a large knife when later confronted, at which point they picked up a baseball bat in the drug dealers home.  Whatever they're ultimately charged with, they'll almost certainly plead down to something else, and never warrant a blip on the national media scene.  That story is a topic that allows us to ask; What was the parents role in the daughter ending up on heroin?  What should the proper response have been?  Is the well being of an addict more important than incarceration?  Should we condemn the drug dealer for trying to avoid prison at the expense of the girls life when he couldn't be assured saving her life wouldn't cause him prison time.  Etc.  There are stories everyday that illicit mixed feelings for me, and I'm not sure why Zimmerman and Trayvon deserve any more of my attention than any of the others. 

 

I will say though, if someone sticks a shotgun in my face, I hope I would have earned it.  Otherwise, I wouldn't want me, or anyone else I cared about, around such a person.  Of course, it's only an allegation that Zimmerman threatened his ex-wife, and girlfriend.  He said, she said, and can't be proven either way.  It seems to me, the allegations are probably true, but I can't begin to prove it.  I thought he was a victim of the public, political, and media bloodlust the first time around in the Trayvon case.  You'd think going through that whole ordeal would make him reluctant to do it again.  Whether guilty or not, it's pretty clear; the dude could use some therapy.  Even if he is judged to be perfectly innocent, I won't be hanging out with him.  I don't want to be around him.  I can still judge him as a potential threat, right or wrong, without condemning him.  Such would be the natural response for most people in a free society, I think.  He'd really have to earn people's trust, convince them that it's ok to let their guard down around him.  So far, nothing I've seen convinces me that he doesn't have the propensity to be an unstable or violent SOB.  He might still be alive, but he lost his entire life.  If I were him, I'd change my name and move to another country. 

 

Nothing personal, but it really irritates me that people cite him being stopped for speeding.  So what?  I've probably been stopped twice for speeding since Trayvon died.  Does that mean I'm unstable, or unruly, or violent?  Should we have a national media story about my speeding tickets?  I think it just means speed limits were established ages ago when vehicles had a fraction of the performance capability that they do today.  55mph highways with zero crossroads?  That makes me want to rip my hair out!  If I were to project Statism on drivers, I'd put it in on people who think, "well I can't drive 56mph safely, so I'll stick at 55 and hope I find a couple others to help me block all 3 lanes."  I think Pennsylvania highways are much more pleasant than the Maryland/Virginia ones I use most often.  The rule is, you drive in the right lane, or you pass on the left.  You don't drive on the left unless you're passing.  Where I live, you drive wherever you want and generally just piss people (me) off. 

 

There are a million ways anarchism could help traffic, but the people who lack courtesy on the road might just be irritated with people rigidly complying with arbitrary or ancient statist traffic laws.    I don't always use my turn signal when changing lanes unless someone in the vicinity ought to know I intend to change lanes, for both our well-beings.  Other people use their turn signal like the car physically requires it for the wheel to turn.  The latter seems a bit OCD to me.  They say the average person commits 3 felonies every day; so don't do too much to upset the powers that be.  I don't think traffic laws are any exception; the majority of them are only lame justifications to pull people over, search them, and/or tax them.  Phooey!

 

Behavior on a busy road is practically anonymous.  Imagine if people were as open about their preferences in person, as they are in anonymity.  On the road, you exersize your will, with nobody to answer to for your actions, except for mainly passengers, police and insurers.  When the idiot in front of you in the fast lane is going 5 mph below the speed limit, you can make him uncomfortable, ride his rear, honk your horn, flash your lights, whatever.  Yell out the window "GET OUTTA THE WAY!"   It's pretty jerky behavior, to be sure, but so is driving slow in the fast lane.  If you ever manage to get around him, be sure to let him know he's number one              _ _ | |_       Just kidding, don't do that.   Maybe you're not in any particular rush; you ought to avoid people who are, and do so in the right hand lane.  I know the value of time is subjective, as is the perception of risk.  Anarchism would sort out the conflict safely, fairly, and in accordance with cost effeciency; the status quo does not. 

Posted

Dear Falsarius-Rex:

I respect you opinion and differences. This is precisely why an anarchy system is a good solution. What is considered a criminal act based on circumstances or on race by one group can be a polar oppose to another. In an anarchy system, those who work, think, and have similar driving habits would form communities and coexist harmoniously. Under the current system, we are forced to coexist together and further more have the state as an institution of force that takes sides, based on existing rules, favoritism, bribes, race etc. Keep in mind that if you are white or have white values or perspectives, your view of the world is very different and therefore difficult to understand from the perspective of minorities. This is why a black teenager walking down the street in a hoody is viewed as delinquent and should be followed and questioned by one group, and that very act of being following and questioning is viewed as harassment and profiling by another. This is why Barack Obama can connect with minorities in a way that past white Presidents could not. What President Obama said about how Trayvon could have been his son could have prevented a riot whereas whites were probably angered and disturbed by his comments.

Posted

Hmmm, interesting.  I've started to write a few times but then deleted it, it's hard to properly articulate my thoughts on this.

 

The court of public opinion.   In an anarchist society, where it is likely the law will be more fair, just and even-handed, people may not feel like an injustice was done so much because it is likely that the vast majority of crime situations would seen to be handled fairly.  This is completely unlike the current situation, where there are countless innocent people in jail, countless people who have not hurt or stolen anything from anyone and we have people who regularly commit what most would consider crimes yet receive no sanction for it.   Was all the uproar about this case just symptoms of people frustrated with a deeply flawed and unjust system?  Would there be the same level of uproar in an anarchistic justice system?

 

It seems to me that he was innocent of what he was charged.  But, yes, it does seem he is scarred from other, most likely, childhood experiences and this was maybe a trigger that brought him to an edge that he may have been skirting his whole life.  I don't know, it's just speculation.  But I'm very reluctant to say that the court of public opinion was right and the justice system wrong in this case.

 

It seems like there are a lot of complex, interacting factors at work here and trying to unravel them all and draw some meaningful conclusions from it is like trying to unravel the proverbial Gordian knot.  I just don't think we have enough information at hand to do so.

Posted

Dear Falsarius-Rex:

I respect you opinion and differences. This is precisely why an anarchy system is a good solution. What is considered a criminal act based on circumstances or on race by one group can be a polar oppose to another. In an anarchy system, those who work, think, and have similar driving habits would form communities and coexist harmoniously. Under the current system, we are forced to coexist together and further more have the state as an institution of force that takes sides, based on existing rules, favoritism, bribes, race etc. Keep in mind that if you are white or have white values or perspectives, your view of the world is very different and therefore difficult to understand from the perspective of minorities. This is why a black teenager walking down the street in a hoody is viewed as delinquent and should be followed and questioned by one group, and that very act of being following and questioning is viewed as harassment and profiling by another. This is why Barack Obama can connect with minorities in a way that past white Presidents could not. What President Obama said about how Trayvon could have been his son could have prevented a riot whereas whites were probably angered and disturbed by his comments.

 

I am white, and my perspective is surely different than your own.  When I think of a man exhonerated in the courts but guilty in the court of public opinion, O.J. Simpson flies to the front of my mind.  I'm not sure what percentage of black people think he was guilty, but I have no doubt it's a smaller percentage than white people.  Two of my best friends throughout my life were black, but they were black people raised in "white culture" if such a thing exists.  My highschool was about 93-96% white.  I have no extended experience really with urban life.  I spent a night in Baltimore City jail once, and had the opposite experience; I probably saw 2-3 other white people out of a hundred, the whole time I was there.  The experience for me, was like a mind-f*ck.  These people are from a different planet, I thought. 

 

I admit, I thought Obama's comment was irresponsible.  Trayvon had a history of less than desirable behavior; dealing codeine, starting fights, general deliquency.  Obama wouldn't publicly condone his daughters being involved in that lifestyle, but he implies otherwise, by saying Trayvon could have been his son.  What I heard was, Trayvon is black, and young enough to be my son.  So what?  Zimmerman probably thought of himself as some super-vigilante protecting his neighborhood from petty criminals, and Trayvon probably thought of him as some neighborhood nut that wouldn't mind his own business.  Both were probably right to some degree. 

 

All I know for certain is:  Trayvon lost.  Zimmerman lost.  People are more divided.  Being a racial minority is difficult in ways that I could never appreciate.  I believe in my bones, the most rampant racism in the US is in the criminal "justice" system, and most white people I encounter don't want to talk about that.  The more black people in jail for non-violent drug offenses, the better  :ermm:     And then, blame the race for all the effects of their fathers and husbands being rounded up en masse, and locked in cages.  It all just sticks to high hell.  I have a hard time finding anything redeemable in the whole ordeal.  It just makes me sick, all the way around.  Precisely what happened, and how it happened, the night Trayvon died is unknowable, and therefore irrelevant.  We're all left to speculate...   I wish it had never happened.

Posted

Precisely what happened, and how it happened, the night Trayvon died is unknowable, and therefore irrelevant.  We're all left to speculate...   I wish it had never happened.

 

That's pretty much how I feel about it, as well.  That's why I was thoroughly confused by Stef's response video to the situation, "The Truth about Trayvon Martin".  It left me feeling that he was faulting Trayvon almost completely and painting him as someone on a bender looking for a fight, which I can't understand to be true.

 

About OJ?  Black people didn't care if he was innocent or guilty (not that I speak for all) but it was more so just sheer elation over the fact that, for once, a black man "beat" the system.  To be entirely honest with you, I shared that feeling.  It was very unfortunate that two people lost their lives, but for the scales of this "justice" system to tip our way?  Wow.  Even recently, knowing what I know, and knowing just how bought and paid for and evil and manipulative you must be to make it to the highest political post possible, I was still quite happy to see Obama win the candidacy.  Again, just because there is a large part of me that knows how much the odds are against us for succeeding at anything that society generally deems positive.

 

With that being said, I wish black people and all people would hold onto that ability to overlook innocence or guilt.  Primarily because I think that will help people move beyond vengefulness and punishment as it's traditionally enacted.

 

I'd like to see, in a free society, where as soon as it was known that George Zimmerman shot and killed a young man, he is escorted off to be psychologically evaluated and given therapy.  I also really like the DRO model that Stef put forth where he could work off his penance while receiving treatment to possibly even be reintegrated into society.  I've sincerely asked myself that if someone were to murder my child, what would I do.  Obviously, I don't know or ever want to know (I don't even have kids), but I'd imagine that I would harbor as much sympathy for the killer as I did for myself and my child.  I just can't imagine how hellish someone's life must have been to get to a point in which they would harm a child at all, especially fatally.  ***caveat - I would never put my child in a situation where they were around someone harmful. I'm referring to a situation like if we're walking down the street and someone just comes up and does something.***

 

All in all, I agree, Rex, Everyone absolutely lost in the TM/GZ situation, but the question then is, even without enough evidence to determine self defense, why allow someone who has the propensity to even be in violent situations walk free with no counseling or consideration of the fact that regardless of why, he did take someone's life.  I think his behavior as of late speaks to how necessary that was and how skewed pro-GZers were in the first place.

Posted

 

All in all, I agree, Rex, Everyone absolutely lost in the TM/GZ situation, but the question then is, even without enough evidence to determine self defense, why allow someone who has the propensity to even be in violent situations walk free with no counseling or consideration of the fact that regardless of why, he did take someone's life.  I think his behavior as of late speaks to how necessary that was and how skewed pro-GZers were in the first place.

 

I agree.  I think the system basically just took as much of his money as it could get and then set him loose with barely a thought.  The system is, if not directly designed for abuse, certainly has evolved into a very abusive system.   But I guess that's what happens when you get one group of people with a monopoly on law and order with the ability to take people's money to pay for it regardless if people think they are getting a good service or not.  Why put much effort into serving the needs of your customers when they are forced to pay anyway?

 

As for the black/white thing, looking back on the OJ thing, I can certainly understand the reaction of many black people at the time.  I don't think overlooking guilt or innocence is a good thing though.  I think the facts as they exist should always be paramount in people's minds, though I acknowledge in this system that that can be very hard for people to do when justice is so skewed.

 

I guess while ever the system at least appears to serve the needs of the white majority they won't feel a need to make a stink about it for the most part and it's left to the minority of whites, like myself, to point out why it is an incredibly unjust system and can't be fixed imo other than to allow competition to the govt in the area of law and order.  While ever the incentives exist for it to be abused, it will be abused.  But government is nothing if it isn't a monopoly on law and order.

Posted

I agree.  I think the system basically just took as much of his money as it could get and then set him loose with barely a thought.  The system is, if not directly designed for abuse, certainly has evolved into a very abusive system.   But I guess that's what happens when you get one group of people with a monopoly on law and order with the ability to take people's money to pay for it regardless if people think they are getting a good service or not.  Why put much effort into serving the needs of your customers when they are forced to pay anyway?

 

As for the black/white thing, looking back on the OJ thing, I can certainly understand the reaction of many black people at the time.  I don't think overlooking guilt or innocence is a good thing though.  I think the facts as they exist should always be paramount in people's minds, though I acknowledge in this system that that can be very hard for people to do when justice is so skewed.

 

I guess while ever the system at least appears to serve the needs of the white majority they won't feel a need to make a stink about it for the most part and it's left to the minority of whites, like myself, to point out why it is an incredibly unjust system and can't be fixed imo other than to allow competition to the govt in the area of law and order.  While ever the incentives exist for it to be abused, it will be abused.  But government is nothing if it isn't a monopoly on law and order.

Dear PhePhyPhoPhum: 

Thanks again for your support on my perspective. The U.S. statist court is like walking jurors down a narrow grassy path through the heart of Fallujah, Iraq during the height of the U.S. military invasion and the butchering of that town in the mid-2000's and instructing the jurors just to look at the ground, ignore smells, and sounds, and then asking them to judge on the facts of that experience. Lo and behold they will conclude, Fallujah isn't a killing field but just a walk in the park. Stefan, in his video the truth about trayvon martin was trying to prepare the viewers for this unexpected outcome to the case. He was using the mechanics of logic that the statist court, and all white jurors would consider based on the twisted rules of the statist court system. In my opinion, the whole statist court system is a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Posted

"George Zimmerman, the killer of Trayvon Martin who was found innocent of murder, was arrested again"

 

A court never finds a person innocent. He was found to be not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The question of innocence (freedom from wrongdoing) is not even considered.

Posted

I'd like to see, in a free society, where as soon as it was known that George Zimmerman shot and killed a young man, he is escorted off to be psychologically evaluated and given therapy. 

And Martin's family, too.  Therapy not trials. 

 

Also, what efforts are being made to prevent this from happening again?  Like hands across America and everything, but what are they doing to reduce violent in their lives?  Have they accepted the NAP?

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.