Jay-Z would kill Zimmerman

A newspaper reported that Jay-Z reportedly said he would personally kill George Zimmerman if he had a chance.  And why not?  Zimmerman is the poster boy for white racism (even though technically he is Hispanic, since his mother was Hispanic).  He shot and killed an innocent black teenage for no reason.

Reason has left the building.

Our judicial system

Let’s take a little closer look at this murder.  Granted that Zimmerman is not a boy scout and has somewhat of a dysfunctional personality.  However, we live in a country ruled by laws, laws which are enforced by our justice system.  Of course our justice system is imperfect – just as our laws are — and there are stories every month how an innocent man was found guilty and spent time in jail (often getting compensation for up to a million dollars).

But just like the imperfect umpires in a baseball game make the final decisions, so do juries and judges make the final decisions in our justice system.

Of course, the black con simply denigrates the whole system as racist, run by white supremacists, and enforcing Jim Crow laws.  With that said, our justice system one of the most just and criminal friendly systems in the world.  Our system of justice is much more fair and just than any system in Asia, Africa, or Latin America.

For instance, in the American system, the defendant must be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt – not with 100% certainty, for this would render the justice system impotent, because there it is nearly impossible to prove guilt with 100% certainty.  In addition, our system provides free competent defense lawyers for those who can’t afford them.  Finally, there must be 100% agreement with a 12-person jury before the defendant is found guilty.

Because of the informal laboratory of human history, the government has found that the most effective way of discerning truth in a trial is by only allowing facts and reasonable arguments – all of which is strictly regulated during the trial – to prove innocence or guilt.   How many countries have a similar system?

What happened?

Now, let’s look at the Trevon Martin/George Zimmerman conflict:

The facts are that Zimmerman went to the police station having bruises and contusions on his head.  He stated that Martin was on top of him, pounding him in the face, and then he shot Martin out of self-defense.  One of the few witnesses said that they saw a man described similar to Martin on top of another man, and pounding him.

Stand your ground

Florida has a “Stand Your Ground” law.  This states that a person doesn’t have to run away from a conflict or passively take a life-threatening beating, but he can defend himself by any means necessary, including firing a gun.

Granted that his law is vigorously opposed by Civil Rights Groups, who content that a victim must always give in to a criminal, or run away.  But we live in an imperfect democracy, and this is what the voters in Florida voted in — and since have not repealed.

Not Guilty

Within these legal guidelines, the cops at the station had no reasonable evidence to arrest Zimmerman, since he was injured and the body of Martin had no bruises or wounds, and Zimmerman’s story seemed to be reasonable.  Cops can’t arrest someone unless there is reasonable evidence of their guilt. The jury came to the same conclusion:  Zimmerman was innocent of breaking any law.  The jury is mandated to find guilt (that the defendant broke a law) beyond a reasonable doubt.

But the black con movement is always waiting for an incident that can energize its movement to get more power and pursue more neurotic equality, freedom, and justice.

The myth and the reality

A myth was created that saw Martin as an innocent teenager, simply going out to buy some candy and getting killed by a white racist.  This myth become political reality and Martin has become a poster boy for innocent black men being killed by white racists, and the jury system is seen as a part of our racist judicial system.

Reason has left the building.

The most reasonable explanation of what happened is how Martin’s mother initially interpreted the situation, before Al Sharpton got to her:  A couple of young men got into an altercation and it got out of hand.

The community where Martin was staying with his father had been victim of a series of robberies by young black men.  In one case the thief ransacked the home while the (white) victim hid in the closet, scared for her life.  Zimmerman, an off-duty volunteer patrolman, saw Martin walking off the road, in-between buildings, and followed him.  Since Martin had just moved into his father’s condo – which was in their gated community — Zimmerman didn’t recognize Martin and found him suspicious.

This rational thought is condemned by the black con and Progressives, and considered almost illegal.  It is considered “racial profiling.”  They contend that an ordinary person cannot generalize about people, even though generalizing is a foundation of all knowledge and rational thought.  It is considered racist, taboo, and possibly illegal to have a thought process similar to Zimmerman’s:

Zimmerman’s thinking

Here is a probable line of Zimmerman’s reasoning:

“I have a responsibility to safeguard my community.

We’ve had a series of robberies by young black men.

Here is a young black man who I don’t recognized as part of our gated community, who is not walking on the street, but rather in-between buildings.

I should follow him to be sure he doesn’t do anything illegal.”

This pattern of thought is considered by Progressives and the black con as racist and immoral.

Who hit first?

Zimmerman caught up with Martin, and Martin said something like “Why are you following me?”  Zimmerman asked him what he was doing here, and this led to Martin initiating a fight by slugging Zimmerman, according to Zimmerman (and it seems unreasonable that Zimmerman – as dysfunctional as he is – would initiate a fight for no reason).

Martin was no Obama

President Obama, siding with Martin, said that this could have happened to him when he was younger, since he then looked like Martin.

No, it couldn’t have happened with Obama.   Obama was a reasonable kid who was socialized and a good student.  He had a white mother and white grandparents, as well as a group of white, Hawaiian friends.  If he was asked by a resident “What are you doing here?,” the young Obama probably would have responded, “I’m staying with my father, who lives at _____.”  This response probably would have been the end of the conflict.

But Martin wasn’t an innocent little kid, buying Skittles.  He was a tall, 17-year-old,  ex-high school football player who was a wannabe thug – as his suppressed emails gave evidence towards, as well as his gold teeth and tattoos.  He was thrown out of school for his anti-social behavior in his Miami school, and was sent by his mother to his father, who lived upstate, hoping that his father could influence Martin’s behavior.

The black con, Progressivism and communism

But in today’s political climate, reason is often taboo and considered racist and oppressive.  Reason is seen as a tool of white oppressive men and used as a tool to maintain white supremacy.

The only thought that is considered rational is that thought which promotes neurotic equality, freedom and justice.

This political climate is similar the climate that was in communist USSR, especially in the early years.  The ideology of communism was that there was no such thing as objective truth or pure reason.  The only thought that was “true” and politically and legally acceptable was lines of reasoning that helped to destroy the upper classes; ideas that destroyed free enterprise and democracy; and thought that advanced the power of the working class.  Freedom of thought and freedom of speech were counter-revolutionary and were considered bourgeois concepts.  They were tools of the oppressive class — much as “conservative” or “independent” thought is considered today as a tool for oppressive white supremacists.

The only thought that is tolerated among Progressive, liberal, and black con thinkers (which may be dominant in our current higher education institutions) is thought that helps the following political movements:  the destruction of patriarchy, the end of white supremacy, the making of a majority “people of color” country, racial diversity, and equal racial and sexual outcomes in all areas of American life — especially equal share of the economic pie, regardless of one’s contribution to the pie.

Thus, the only thought that is today permissible among the Progressives, the Hispanic con, and the black con is that thought which promotes the bringing down of the white American male (white supremacy) and thought that aids the promotion of minorities, women, and illegal immigrants.  This is the only thought that is considered to be true and moral.

Freedom of thought has left the building.

So, let’s all give Jay-Z a hand.  He is one of our cultural leaders.