Wagist Has the Word on Trayvon Martin, And Agrees With Me on Question and Confront

Hat tip to Chuck Rudd and OneSTDV, here’s Wagist with the dossier/rap sheet of Trayvon Martin.

Here’s his rundown of the confrontation-

“Hopefully this info paints a somewhat different picture of Trayvon than the one the media has been forcing down our throats for the last several weeks.

“This is a complex case, and while all the facts are not in yet, we do know that Zimmerman was well within his rights to make verbal contact with someone he didn’t know or recognize in his neighborhood.

“In fact, that’s exactly what Neighborhood Watch groups are for, to be the “eyes and ears” of the community. It appears that Zimmerman was very good at this job.

“No matter how offended someone might be to have a stranger come up and ask what they are doing there, it doesn’t give anyone a license to commit assault.

“From what I can tell, Zimmerman was doing a routine neighborhood watch, called in someone he considered suspicious, and was maintaining a visual on him until the police came.

“Then he was attacked, had his nose broken and was in a prone position while crying out for help.”

Wagist explicitly states the opposite of what liberals and blacks imply, which is that Zimmerman did not have the right to speak to or confront Martin, and that Martin did have the right to assault him.

Advertisements

About thrasymachus33308

I like fast cars, fast women and southern-fried rock. I have an ongoing beef with George Orwell. I take my name from a character in Plato's "Republic" who was exasperated with the kind of turgid BS that passed for deep thought and political discourse in that time and place, just as I am today. The character, whose name means "fierce fighter" was based on a real person but nobody knows for sure what his actual political beliefs were. I take my pseudonym from a character in an Adam Sandler song who was a obnoxious jerk who pissed off everybody.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Wagist Has the Word on Trayvon Martin, And Agrees With Me on Question and Confront

  1. Jehu says:

    Most liberals basically deny the moral agency of blacks. This may be why, in actual practice, supposed ‘racists’ who agree with the evidence of their senses that blacks and whites differ significantly statistically from one another on a host of attributes get along better with blacks than does the typical DWL. At least we ‘racists’ (read, whites who are not anti-white) don’t deny blacks moral agency and hence humanity.

  2. Jehu says:

    Thrasymachus,
    I doubt you deny that they can be meaningfully held responsible for their actions in a way, that, say, a wolf or a dog could not be. That’s what moral agency and humanity imply, not that you’re an especially moral person or group or that you’re especially humane.

    • I hardly know what to make of blacks any more. Yes, the remark was partly in jest, but there is a high degree of sociopathy amongst blacks. Blacks just don’t seem to care about right or wrong except as they can use it to manipulate others to get what they want.

  3. Thrasymachus, what do you think of this article?

    I think it’s interesting (especially when you look at all the last names) especially this passage towards the end:

    Lakoff would have liberals combat conservative morality by shouting their own values from the rooftops, and never falling for conservative words and frames. Haidt would increase political civility by remaking our institutions of government to literally make liberals and conservatives feel empathetic bonds and the power of teamwork.

    The former approach is what I’m most familiar with. The latter approach amuses me. How are you going to make people “feel empathetic bonds” when they’re not from the same stock?

    There are some useful lessons in there too for outsiders. I like this part especially:

    Let’s face it: Conservatives have insulted, defiled, and disobeyed the secular, rational, and Enlightenment legacy of the people who founded this country (if you want to get moralistic about it).

    Yes, how dare we notice that egalitarianism is a dangerous and destructive fraud, which harms our people and our families! Gosh darnit, that’s just plain sedition!

    And then the money quote:

    Diversity is great for our society—but not for our objectives.

    Wow!

    • Liberals, when they aren’t screaming in your face about what evil scum you are, like to pretend to be reasonable, rational, empathetic and scientific. But only every once in a long while.

  4. Alex says:

    Police told him not to pursue Trayvon so, no, he wasn’t in the right to confront him.

    That scream for help is obviously a child. Are you fucking retarded?

    The irony of people like you being obsessed with how the media or liberals portray Trayvon as a normal teenager is that it doesn’t matter if he was “normal” or a convicted murderer. If Zimmerman killed him in self-defense, it wouldn’t matter if Trayvon was the fucking valedictorian, he’d be justified. Likewise, if he didn’t kill him in self-defense, it wouldn’t matter if Trayvon was a parolee. Guilty verdicts aren’t handed out based on the victim’s character. Do you understand logic?

    • I really don’t think its at all obvious the yelling was from a ‘child’ (a 17 year old child?), and whether Zimmerman confronted little Tray Tray has yet to be established.
      Besides (and this is always stated wrong) the ‘police’ did not order Zimmerman not to watch the suspect, that was a 911 operator telling him it wasn’t necessary. In any event its starting to seem as though Tray came back and attacked him after Zimmerman spoke to him. We’ll see.

      • grizzle says:

        Under the law, 17 year olds are minors, thereby the argument can be made that a 17 year old is still a child. It’s also quite funny how you claim that “..whether Zimmerman confronted little Tray Tray has yet to be established”. If this hasn’t been established then you have absolutely no right to say “In any event it’s startind to seem as though Tray came back and attacked him after Zimmerman spoke…”

        If that last bit is true, and Trayvon did ‘come back’ and attack Zimmerman then I see it as Trayvon was well within his own rights to ‘stand his ground’. Afterall, he may have been threatened by Zimmerman at this point and was defending himself.

        It’s absurd to me how so many conservatives are rushing in to defend Zimmerman. All the while claiming that “well all the facts aren’t out yet”. If all the facts aren’t out yet then nobody should be certain of anything.

        If anything is certain, it’s this whole event is tragic and at the bottom of it is a dead kid….

      • Grizzle, what are you even talking about? The facts ARE in and da Tray came back and ambushed Zman and was beating his head on the pavement before he finally got blasted. Heh. Yep. Treeboon was certainly standing his ground all right.
        If anything is certain, it’s this whole event is tragic and at the bottom of it is a dead violent criminal thug.
        Oh well!!
        :0)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s