Attitude changes

Last week, I was doing some online research for a Zimmerman post, and I ran across an interesting set of comments on an article about attempts to repeal Stand Your Ground and other self defense laws. There were commenters who were saying that they learned an important lesson from the Zimmerman case:

First commenter: Listening to tv/radio interviews, these uninformed people keep saying they want stand your ground repealed!!
Don’t
the ignorant idiots know that SYG was NOT used in this case??? It has
absolutely nothing to do with the Zimmerman trial???
And why does the
media keep reporting on this when they SHOULD know SYG has nothing to
do with the case??? Why don’t they tell these idiots that when
interviewing them???

Second Commenter: Whether the law is repealed or not I don’t intend to wind up the victim
of a thug. I’ll shoot first and take my chances in court.

Third Commenter:  just make sure it’s in the dark and don’t call 911, because obviously ,
calling 911 is a mistake, just pop the thug and leave the trash on the
curb.

and after that, there were a bunch of comments agreeing with the third comment.  The Zimmerman case has done much to undermine the people’s perception of law and law enforcement on both sides of the issue. Instead of describing the law and educating people on the truth and the law, the powers that be instead jumped on the bandwagon and, together with the media, have inflamed tensions.

Now no one trusts the law as much as they did before. Law is useless without the compliance of the people.

Not getting involved

Two women are carjacked in Orlando. The suspects in the case are described as being in their late teens to early 20s and ranging from 5-feet-5 to 5-feet-10. The police have released sketches of two of the three men who are suspected of committing the crime and are asking people to come forward if they recognize them.

I notice a few things here: when describing the men, you will note that there is no mention of their race, even though the pictures are clearly of black males. Something that I notice is that press reports of a crime where a white person is the victim and a black the suspect, the races of the people involved is never mentioned, even when it is important to the story. When it is a black victim and a white assailant, race is always mentioned, even when it is irrelevant.

The Channel 6 story is the same– no mention of race in the story. Read the comments here, if you want to see how attitudes are shifting. The entire Zimmerman affair has done a lot of damage to race relations in this country.

If I report seeing a person that matches the description of either of these guys to law enforcement, it can be used as evidence that I am a racist. I will take no chances.

Liar

On Friday, the President gave a speech to the nation, where he talked about the Zimmerman/Martin shooting. Here is the video and transcript of the speech. A money quote:

…if Trayvon Martin was
of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk?  And
do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr.
Zimmerman who had followed him in a car because he felt threatened?  And
if the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, then it seems to
me that we might want to examine those kinds of laws…

 As a person who has supposedly graduated from Harvard Law, you would expect that Obama would have been taught that a person following another does not rise to the level of deadly force, nor does it even allow a person to use non-deadly force. In other words, just because someone is following you does not mean that you can punch or shoot him. 
Now since we can be fairly sure that a person who has graduated from Harvard Law, was the editor of the Law Review, and supposedly even taught law classes at Harvard would be knowledgeable enough to understand this concept, we must assume that he is being deliberately misleading. (In other words, lying.) The question then beomes: Why?
Now I have always been of the opinion that when a person asks the question of “Why do they?” or “Why don’t they?”, the answer is almost always: “Money.” I don’t think that is the case here. I think it is bigger than that.
It appears to me that the President is trying to stir up racial animosity and discord, but for what purpose? Is he trying to distract voters from his dismal record, and from the IRS scandal, Fast and Furious, his poor foreign policy, the NSA spying scandal, and other missteps? Possibly.

Is this just a part of his “under the radar” gun control effort? Chances are high there. Gun owners as a Democrat scapegoat is an old story.

Is he trying to stir up the black vote for the next election? Probably not. That election is too far in the future, and the American public has too short of an attention span for this to have an effect on the election a year and a half from now.
Could this discord be designed to cause a race war that will be used to cause enough strife for the President to declare martial law and suspend elections? Possibly, but HIGHLY unlikely. There are too many people, both within and without the military, that would oppose such action.
This could be a combination of the above, or there may be other reasons. There are more questions here than answers, but one thing is for sure: The President is lying.

They know not what they do

The people are marching. and protesting. Why? To have the ‘stand your ground’ law repealed because of the perceived racism of the Zimmerman case. The only problem is that blacks benefit from the SYG law at a rate far out of proportion to their presence in the state’s population.

Black Floridians have made about a third of the state’s total “Stand Your Ground” claims in homicide cases, despite the fact that only 13% of the state’s population is black. This probably has to do with the fact that 52% of murders in the US are committed by blacks. (pdf alert)

With one third of the defendants in homicide cases who have invoked SYG being black, and 55% of those cases being successful, blacks are far more likely to suffer should this law be repealed.

One hundred thirty three people in the state of Florida have used a
“Stand Your Ground” defense. Of these claims, 73 were considered
“justified” (55 percent), while 39 resulted in criminal convictions and
21 cases are still pending.

Forty four African Americans in the state of Florida have claimed a
“Stand Your Ground” defense. Of these claims, 24 were considered
“justified” (55 percent), while 11 resulted in convictions and nine
cases are still pending.

Of the 76 white people who have used the defense, 40 were considered
“justified” (less than 53 percent), while 25 were convicted and 11 cases
are still pending.

Ten Hispanics have used the defense, seven of them successfully,
according to the database, which included George Zimmerman as a “Stand
Your Ground” defendant.

What do I tell the kids?

Protesters have settled in to the Florida Governor’s office, using the Zimmerman case as a rally cry against ‘stand your ground’ laws, even though that law had nothing to do with the case.

Adora Obi Nweze, president of the Florida State Conference NAACP, in
her letter contended that families don’t know what to tell to children
on how to remain safe.

“This verdict has caused families to ask the question — ‘What should I
tell my child in order to keep them safe and alive in Florida?” she
wrote Scott.

Do you want to know what to tell your kids to avoid Trayvon Martin’s fate?
Don’t get suspended from school for drugs, vandalism, and possession of stolen property.
Don’t get involved in street fighting.
Don’t be racist. It is wrong to refer to people as “crackas.”
and
most importantly: Keep your hands to yourself, unless you are being
attacked. Don’t commit felony battery. The soft target you thought you
were going to beat down may be armed.

Zimmernan: a case for gun control?

So there was a rally in Orlando yesterday, the 1200 people who were there blocked traffic downtown during rush hour. I am not sure what the Trayvon protests are about at this point. This time, they were using the incident to promote gun control, although I don’t see how any gun control, short of an outright ban, would have changed the outcome here.
I think what we are seeing is the same disaster that the Occupy movement experienced: there are so many causes that would like to take advantage of the issue that the movement is falling apart like a wave that has hit the shallows. That wave has crested, and is now falling over under its own weight.

EDITED TO ADD: This again shows the abject failure that is the gun control movement. Using this racially charged case to make a gun control rally larger only garnered 1,200 marchers in a town that is 20 miles from the courthouse where the verdict was handed down, while the NAACP convention was in town.