Jeff Sessions Victory After Being Railroaded 30 Years Ago

The Coretta King letter read by Elisabeth Warren was just another delegitimizing attempt by the left, that has no basis whatsoever. For those that don't know, the incident that prompted the anti-(Jeff) Sessions, Coretta King letter centered around allegations of voter fraud in 1984 in Perry County, Alabama. "Perry County has long been plagued by accusations of voter fraud in local elections. As former Alabama Democratic congressman Artur Davis said, “The most aggressive contemporary voter suppression in the African American community” that he saw in Alabama was “the wholesale manufacture of ballots, at the polls and absentee, in parts of the Black Belt.” What the left fails to explain that both the suspects and victim's were black. Yes black candidates complained of voter irregularities having to do with absentee ballots that was being perpetrated by other black candidates. The Loretta King letter was anger against Sessions for doing any investigations on black politicians, as (she said) there are white politicians doing the same thing. Further this was by no means some crusade by Jeff Sessions,"Von Phillips, a black legal assistant in the Perry County district attorney’s office, later testified, his office received numerous complaints during the 1984 election cycle. Black voters and incumbent black officials reported that voters were receiving absentee ballots they had never requested." How black Democrats stole votes in Alabama ... and Jeff Sessions tried to stop it

A result of the investigation led to a County Grand Jury indictment, not filed by the Federal DOJ (Sessions), but the Perry County DA. "On April 20, 1983, a local county grand jury (with a majority of black members and a black foreperson) issued a report concerning problems in the balloting process that targeted the “aged, infirmed, or disabled.” The grand jury called for the “vigorous prosecution of all violations of the voting laws” and requested “the presence and assistance of an outside agency, preferably federal, to monitor our elections and to ensure fairness and impartiality for all."

In the resulting trail the black jury failed to convict (not unusual at the time),"this was a prosecution intended to preserve and protect the right to vote, something to which he dedicated his entire professional career. Anyone who claims this was a racist prosecution by Jeff Sessions is,a liar and a political opportunist of the worst kind".

"The bogus accusation (that Sessions is racists) would be laughable, were it not such a familiar tactic. But this is just another instance of so-called “progressives” going all out to protect their own — even when the victims are black voters."

What seems most likely, besides trying to delay confirming of all of Trumps cabinet positions, is that unlike Loretta Lynch and Eric Holder, Sessions would apply the law equally, even if the law beaker is black; something the Obama DOJ refused to do.

Sitting during the Star Spangled Banner is a Gesture of Ignorance

The police did not cause the deplorable conditions that blacks must endure in Democrat run cities; it is the end product of Democrat social engineering and failed policies. Blacks today are f

The police did not cause the deplorable conditions that blacks must endure in Democrat run cities; it is the end product of Democrat social engineering and failed policies. Blacks today are forced on to "Uncle Sam's Plantation"* due mainly to their dependence on government and the destruction of the black family. The end result is high crime, to which the police are sent to keep order; but the Democrats and black racebaiters like Al Sharpton, try and do a very good job of transferring the anger to the police that are just doing their job. The reality is some 95% of blacks shot by police are armed, while the leading cause of death of black males is homicide by other blacks. IOW the problem is based in the government social engineering that paid black families more if the father was not living in the house and the Democrat propaganda that blacks can't make it in a white world, that blacks don't have to follow the law, and the police are slaughtering unarmed blacks by the thousands (again completely untrue). And the 49er that refused to stand for SSB, rather than making a statement of protest, he is making a statement of ignorance.

*Back on Uncle Sam's Plantation" Star Parker http://townhall.com/columnists...

SSB is and always has been a tribute to our brothers in arms, that fought, and the many that died, to win and preserve the freedom and liberties we as Americans have enjoyed since we declared our independence in 1776. To not honor our national anthem is to piss on the graves of all those that gave everything (and are unfortunately still giving), so we can live free. 

The Biggest Lie of 2014; "Hands up, Don't shoot";

In 2013 the biggest lie of the year was, "If you like your health-care plan, you can keep it." The biggest lie in 2014 has got to be, "Hands up, don't shoot." From the very beginning the Ferguson narrative that a seasoned veteran police officer murdered a unarmed suspect that was surrendering simply didn't pass the smell test. This narrative was first perpetrated by several questionable witnesses and soon after the autopsy results put  "Hands up, don't shoot" in a very questionable light; predictably however the main street media ran with the story and police Officer Darren Wilson and the Ferguson Police Department became ground zero for police violence against blacks. This also attracted the likes of  race-baiter  Al Sharpton, who continues to monetarily profit by stoking the fires of racism and black vicitimism. Well the DOJ report is in and it categorically refutes the  "Hands up, don't shoot" narrative, placing Michael Brown as instigator and controller of his own destiny. The left then adds insult to injury by claiming blacks have a right to the false narrative because of the discrimination they have experienced at the hands of the police; that it is the fault of the police that the false narrative was embraced. It would seem that the police internal affairs have enough trouble trying to investigating what might be real claims of police misconduct, then have to defend themselves from imaginary police conduct.

 "According to these witnesses, who are corroborated by blood evidence in the roadway," the inquiry states, "Wilson fired at Brown in what appeared to be self-defense and stopped firing once Brown fell to the ground...There is no evidence upon which prosecutors can rely to disprove Wilson's stated subjective belief that he feared for his safety,'' the report concludes. DOJ Ferguson Inquiry; Another interesting point is the majority of honest witnesses that testified to the truth had been constantly threatened to lie and maintain the falsehood of the "Hands up, don't shoot" narrative. Ferguson Grand Jury Witnesses often Cited Fear in Testifying.  But this is certainly no surprise to anyone. The left, in league with the main street media has made an art form out of fabricating narratives and stoking the fires of racial unrest. Who can forget the New York Times describing George Zimmerman a white Hispanic, in order to make the Trayvon Martin shooting a black/white issue; and NBC alters a 911 audio tape to make it sound like George Zimmerman was a racists. It's no great secret that a large percentage of American blacks have been relegated to live in isolated black identified neighborhoods that offer more violence, weaker schools and fewer jobs than  whites of the same economic class; and this is where black cognitive dissidence  comes in. Democrats have continually given blacks nothing more then lip service, keeping them marginalized by maintaining their victim mentality and taking for granted the black voting block while they turn their attention to Unions and court liberal rich political donors.

The big lie from the left is how the police discriminate against blacks and due to institutional racism the black man can not succeed in America today. While racism has not disappeared, the police still go where the crimes are being committed and socioeconomic reality of blacks is they commit more crimes than whites. It is not racism that holds the black community down, it is the result of the systematic destruction of the black family and the left passing off black crime as acceptable civil disobedience (not to mention the misogyny of gangster rap) . Black on black crime is a pandemic, but ignored by Democrats and the main street media. Black on black crime is a pandemic, but ignored by Democrats and the main street media. It's much easier to blame the cops than to face the reality that progressive social engineering with the black community has been a disaster.

 If you’re going to correctly compare the rates at which police kill black and white male teenagers, you have to compare teenage crime rates. You can’t just compare crime rates among the entire black and white populations. The rate that these teenagers commit murder, not including rape and other less serious crimes, also provides a somewhat better measure of the perceived threat that they might pose to police...Among blacks, teenage crime is much more prevalent. Based on the most recent available FBI crime numbers, black male teenagers were nine times more likely to commit murder than were their white counterparts. That’s right, nine times, and the gap in these urban areas is undoubtedly even larger  Dangerous Distortions of Cops Shooting Blacks. Instead the left continues to forward the "Hands up, don't shoot" fallacy; that young unarmed black men are being routinely murdered by the police, when the fact is it's a very rare occurrence; in a country of 300 million people, one might be surprised to learn that the number of (ruled) justifiable killings by police (which is the vast majority) is usually less than 400. So, considering the social and racial damage done,  the attempted coercion of witnesses to lie and the fact that the powers that be knew it was a false narrative, "Hands up, don't shoot" is certainly the leading candidate for the biggest lie of 2014.

No Choke Hold in Eric Garner's Death; More Media Lies

Not All Neck Holds Are Chokeholds

Short (relatively) version

Recently when I wrote wrote, "Garner did not die of asphyxiation, he died of heart failure." the response was; Nowhere does the report mention heart failure, (with the two attached links) 
Chokehold Police Custody Cause of Death 
Autopsy: Police Chokehold Caused NYC Man's Death

I responded;

From your first link: "The medical examiner said compression of the neck and chest, along with Garner's positioning on the ground while being restrained by police...caused his death".

From your second link: "Asthma, heart disease and obesity were contributing factors in the death."

Both sentences indicate the factors of his death; but they did not say he died of asphyxiation (which is the manner of death from a chokehold). The term "chokehold" gets used quite a lot, but just because an officer uses a neckhold does not mean it is a "chokehold" that stops breathing.

Question: It may sound technical and it may sound like it's semantics, but if one hold is illegal and the other is legal, that is a big distinction.
Dr Baden: That's a distinction, but in this case, doesn't make a difference to me because when we're looking at the autopsy findings, the autopsy findings, whatever we call it, chokehold, headlock, there was enough pressure on the neck to prevent the blood flow .www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity...

In this case the neck restraint was described as restricting blood flow, not air flow; but air flow was restricted by Garner's positioning on the ground while being restrained by police; ie piled on top. It was a combination of factors that led to Garner's heart to stop. Since the heart stopping is the definition of death, not the cause, the medical examiner is looking for what caused the heart failure; and in this case is was a number of factors. The media however prefers a 4-5 word headline and 2-3 sentences in the body of the article glossing over a 27 page medical report;  they just throw out "He Was Killed By Chokehold," without explaining or going into any detail what the medical examiner was actually describing. It is also apparent that the medical examiner uses the terms chokehold and neckhold (like Dr Baden) interchangeably; however the terms are quite different when it come to the culpability of the police officer.

With the pressure on Garners chest and the other contributing factors (ie asthma), positional asphyxia, which is far more common cause of death, would be the likely suspect; a lateral neck restraint that only restricts blood flow has never to my knowledge been declared a cause of death. It should be noted that while a bar arm choke hold (which can crush the hyoid neck bone and lead to asphyxiation) is against NYPD regulation, but a lateral neck restraint (aka a coradid restraint) is not. You will see in the video, the police turned Garner on his side after he was handcuffed; this is done to help prevent positional asphyxia, which generally occurs in combination with drugs or other contributing factors. Unfortunately for Garner it was to little, to late.

 If you watch the video, Garner is grabbed in a neck hold @ 1:21; @ 1:33 (12 seconds later) the officer releases his neck restraint to grab Garner's outstretched right arm, to pull it behind his back to handcuff him; as another officer is holding down Garner's head. This is also the first time Garner says "I can't breathe". By 1:57 (24 seconds later) Garner is handcuffed and laying on his side and no longer saying "I can't breath." So at worst, the police caused Garner to have trouble breathing for 24 seconds; at this point the person taping the incident is also saying Garner might be having a seizure. If this is an indication that he went unconscious, your still dealing with a person that went unconscious and in 36 seconds subsequently died sometime later. That's a long time with police officers grabbing at you, throwing you to the ground, piling on you and forcing your hands behind your back to be handcuffed, but it is hardly enough time to be suffocated even to unconsciousness. .

There is also a big deal made of the fact that Garner's death was ruled a homicide by the medical examiner. The reason for this is there are only five manners of death the medical examiner can use; Natural, Accident, Homicide, Suicide or Undetermined. Since Garner death was the result of an interaction another person(s) it is by definition a homicide; the same would be the case in a death resulting from self defense

Longer version with pictures

In response to the OpEd on the Eric Garner death at the hands of the police, Eugene Robinson from the Washington Post got a lot of facts wrong. The Garner Case's Sickening Outcome (there certainly was a sickening outcome, but it was from the media not the Grand Jury).  First, the police have a right to overcome resistance when making a lawful arrests and that includes non-compliance. There is also a big deal made of the fact that Garner's death was ruled a homicide by the medical examiner. The reason for this is there are only five manners of death the medical examiner can use; Natural, Accident, Homicide, Suicide or Undetermined. Since Garner death was the result of an interaction another person(s) it is by definition a homicide; the same would be the case in a death resulting from self defense.

A chokehold is not defined as restraining a person by the neck, but that is how the media is treating it. While not a chokehold (meant to compress the suspects windpipe if they struggle), what you actually see is a neck or head take down, where due to the height disparity between the officer and Carter, the officers hand slipped over Carter's windpipe for several seconds. Then you see the officer holding Carter in a head restraint where there was no apparent pressure on his windpipe, so there was no chokehold. A classic chokehold (more properly called a "bar arm" neck restraint), is when the officer places his forearm across the suspects neck with one arm, grabs the subjects shoulder or his own bicep, then places the other arm behind the subjects head, holding the back of the head with an open hand (see below).  The reason choke holds have been banned is they put pressure on ones neck over the windpipe, that can result in tissue damage and/or broken neck bones, which in turn can cause swelling around the windpipe resulting in asphyxiation; however the coroner also found no damage to Garner's neck bones or windpipe, so the finding seems cryptic at best. I think someone should question the coroner to determine, if there was no damage to his neck bones or windpipe, how did a compression on his neck cause his death? I have sat in on numerous autopsies so I have some idea how "cause of death is determined", and this simply makes no sense.




On the other hand, there is another neck restraint that does not put any pressure on the windpipe,   called a "lateral vascular neck restraint", where the officer holds the suspect's neck, with the crook of his arm at the windpipe, so there is no pressure on the front of his neck.

With the Garner's arrest you see the officer holding Garner's neck more in line with a lateral vascular neck restraint.

While it's ambiguous whether there was any real pressure on his windpipe, the hold on Carter's neck lasted from about 1:21 on the video until 1:34 (13 seconds) when the officer released his neck restraint to grab Garner's outstretched right arm, to pull it behind his back. The coroner finding was the deadly encounter Thursday did not damage his windpipe or neck bones Autopsy says Garner Had No Throat Damage. However that was followed up with, compression of the neck and chest, along with Garner's positioning on the ground while being restrained by police caused his death. Garner's acute and chronic bronchial asthma, obesity and hypertensive cardiovascular disease were contributing factors. Timeline Eric Garner Chokehold Death Arrest  Besides, by the time Mr Garner was saying he could not breath, he was no longer being held in a neck restraint; the officer had released his hold on Mr Garner's neck to grab his free hand. Another officer was pinning Mr Garner's head on the ground when he was calling out.

The video, which captured the moments leading up to Garner’s death, showed the 350-pound man saying “I can’t breathe, I can’t breathe,” as Pantaleo placed him in a chokehold and wrestled him to the ground. Garner died of a heart attack on the way to the hospital, according to officials. Garner’s death was ruled a homicide by the New York City Medical Examiner, which identified the cause of death as “compression of the neck” as well as complicating health factors, such as Garner’s weight and asthma. New York state law defines homicide as “conduct which causes the death of a person.” No Indictment with Cop Chokehold death So what the medical examiner is saying is the neck compression caused Garner's heart attack. But since there is no way a neck compression by itself can directly cause a heart attack, the medical examiner is saying the activity surrounding the "neck compression" caused the Garners heart to stop. Again I do not dispute this at all. What I question is the media stating Eric Garner was killed by a choke hold, which he was not. An initial autopsy report shows no damage to his neck bones or windpipe. The likely cause of death (was) a heart attack, precipitated by the arrest, chokehold and takedown. Garner weighed 350 pounds and had chronic asthma, diabetes and sleep apnea."  Eric Garners Death


It appears is was the the indirect stress on Garner's heart from the police overcoming his resistance, that caused his heart to fail. The point being that even if a choke hold was used on Eric Garner (which, while being against NYPD regulations, is not illegal) it caused no damage. There is a huge difference between a suspect, due to a heart condition, dieing of a heart  failure as the result of a confrontation with the police, and the use of a choke hold directly casing the death by asphyxiation; to say that compressions on the Garner's neck caused his death, is a cryptic and dishonest finding that was meant to be misinterpreted for political purposes.

Next there is the numerous "I can't breathe"  statements from Eric Garner. The primary problem with this is, if someone is saying they can't breathe, the very action of them speaking means they are breathing. There are several reasons that Garner would have felt like he couldn't breath that has nothing to do with the police officer's head restraint; what was more relevant were the police officers stacked on top of him. First Garner was asthmatic and asthma attacks can be brought on by stress and/or physical activity. Also, when an overweight person is restrained with both hands pulled behind their back, it expand their chest, making breathing more of a chore; further if a handcuffed person is placed face down on the ground, the additional pressure on their chest makes breathing even harder. In the past there has been an attempt by defense attorneys to claim this position can cause something called "positional asphyxiation"; however this has never been medically verifiable.  In the video of Garner's arrest, you see once Garner stops resisting and is handcuffed, the officer turns Garner on his side; this is per the officer training to err on the side of caution regarding "positional asphyxiation."

In essence you have a lawful arrest gone bad that resulted in the tragic death of the suspect; but it was not due to any improper actions by the NYPD. But like the Brown slogan that never occurred (Hands up don't shoot"), the  headlines saying that a, "NYPD Chokehold" killed Garner is another fairytale, designed to sensationalize these incidents and inflame racial tensions. The reality is bad things can happen when you resist the police, so it is best in the vast majority of cases to respect the law and comply.

edit: In an interview Dr Baden who analyzed the NY medical examiners office said, ... "After he (Garner) loses consciousness, he still breathes for a few minutes -- before his heart stops." but Dr Baden seems to contradict himself in the interview. Dr Michael Baden Offers Insight Into the Death of Eric Garner

Baden: But I think the autopsy itself -- the medical examiner did a great job on this. There's 27 pages in the report. And the female (Medical Examiner), she found that there were 10 hemorrhages on the inside of the neck, in the muscles of the neck, petechial hemorrhages in the eye, hemorrhage in the tongue. And those are all evidence of neck compression. You're right, chokehold has many different meanings in all. What we're concerned at autopsy is was there pressure on the neck. In this statement Baden describes damage to the inside of Garner's neck, but makes no mention of his windpipe or the hyoid bone, which is almost always broken when a person is choked.

Question:   It may sound technical and it may sound like it's semantics, but if one hold is illegal and the other is legal, that is a big distinction.
Baden: That's a distinction, but in this case, doesn't make a difference to me because when we're looking at the autopsy findings, the autopsy findings, whatever we call it, chokehold, headlock, there was enough pressure on the neck to prevent the blood flow ... that you talked about, to prevent air flow, and pressure on the chest and face, so that when he's saying, I can't breathe, he's telling the truth...And he died of not being able to breathe.

In the final analysis,  Dr Baden makes the distinction between the pressure on Garners body, which   made it hard to breath and the pressure on his neck that interfered with blood flow (not the damage from a chokehold. And while Dr Baden says  "he died of not being able to breathe". This seems to conflict with the following statement,  "After he (Garner) loses consciousness, he still breathes for a few minutes -- before his heart stops." The most likely meaning is the pressure on Garner's neck may have rendered him unconscious, while the pressure on Garcia's body, exacerbated by his asthma and heart condition, caused Garner to have a heart attack.

Ferguson, Missouri; All Evidence Points to Michael Brown as the Aggressor

 There is a certain absurdity to how the story line of the shooting of Michael Brown by Officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri is being carried out. The initial story came from the person (friend) of Michael Brown, Dorian Johnson who was with Brown at the time of the shooting. The initial contact  and then re-contact of Brown by Officer Wilson is not really in dispute ( "Dorian Johnson, 22, told CNN that he and Brown were walking in the middle of the street when a white male officer pulled up and told them, "Get the f*** on the sidewalk." The young men replied that they were "not but a minute away from our destination, and we would shortly be out of the street...The officer drove forward but stopped and backed up, almost hitting (them) ...We were so close, almost inches away, that when he tried to open his door aggressively, the door ricocheted both off me and Big Mike's body and closed back on the officer... Still in his car, the officer then grabbed Brown by his neck..missouri-ferguson-michael-brown-what-we-know

There are varying accounts of struggle in Officer Wilson's police SUV after the second contact, what it resulted in a round being fired from Officer Wilson's gun that did not wound anyone. The following is the statement of  Dorian Johnson,   "I saw the officer proceeding after my friend Big Mike with his gun drawn, and he fired a second shot and that struck my friend Big Mike," Johnson told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "And at that time, he turned around with his hands up, beginning to tell the officer that he was unarmed and to tell him to stop shooting. But at that time, the officer firing several more shots into my friend, and he hit the ground and died." Another witness,  Witness Tiffany Mitchell started  filming the aftermath of the shooting and gave a similar story as Johnson,"The cop gets out of his vehicle shooting," Mitchell said. "(Brown's) body jerked as if he was hit from behind, and he turned around and he put his hands up. ... The cop continued to fire until he just dropped down to the ground, and his face just smacked the concrete." .  The problem with Dorian Johnson's and  Tiffany Mitchell's account, is on a video shot by Mitchell herself, an unnamed witness off camera, is heard giving a contradictory account.

Man 1: 'How’d he get from there to there?'
Eyewitness: 'Because he ran, the police was still in the truck – cause he was like over the truck'
Eyewitness: 'But him and the police was both in the truck, then he ran – the police got out and ran after him'
Eyewitness: 'Then the next thing I know he doubled back toward him cus - the police had his gun drawn already on him'
Man 1: 'Oh, the police got his gun'
Eyewitness: 'The police kept dumpin on him, and I’m thinking the police kept missing – he like – be like – but he kept coming toward him
(crosstalk)'
Eyewitness: 'Police fired shots – the next thing I know – the police was missing'
Man 1: 'The Police?'
Eyewitness: 'The Police shot him'
Man 1: 'Police?'
Eyewitness: 'The next thing I know … I’m thinking … the dude started running …  then something about he took it from him'


Read more: Conversation-recorded-bystander-just-moments-Michael-Brown-shooting-casts-doubt-claims-teen-surrendered-Officer

Interestingly enough, this account was almost word for word what was heard in radio interview with a spokesman for Off Wilson (Josie),  "He (Officer Wilson) pulled up ahead of them. And then he got a call-in that there was a strong-arm robbery....he’s looking at them and they got something in their hands and it looks like it could be what, you know those cigars or whatever...so he goes in reverse back to them"He (Officer Wilson)tries to get out of his car. They slam his door shut violently. I think he said Michael did. And, then he opened the car again. He tried to get out. He stands up...'And then Michael (Brown) just bum-rushes him and shoves him back into his car. Punches him in the face and then Darren (Wilson) grabs for his gun. Michael (Brown) grabbed for the gun. At one point he got the gun entirely turned against his hip...and he shoves it away...and the gun goes off. 'Well, then Michael takes off and gets to be about 35 feet away. And, Darren’... stands up and yells, 'Freeze!..(then) Michael and his friend turn around. "And Michael taunts him… And then all the sudden he just started bumrushing him (again). He just started coming at him full speed...and, so he Officer Wilson) just started shooting. And, he just kept coming. And, so he really thinks he was on something." It has also been reported by the St Louis Dispatch that,“Police sources tell me more than a dozen witnesses have corroborated cop’s version of events in shooting,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch crime reporter Christine Byers tweeted, without elaborating witnesses-say-ferguson-teen-attacked-cop-before-shooting

Within this storyline, several issues came up that where treated with absurdity by the forces that wanted to maintain the mythical storyline that Off. Wilson murdered Michael Brown while his hands were up. First there is the case of a video of Michael Brown committing a strong arm robbery, stealing a $50 box of cigars and assaulting the store owner. It was also established by the Chief of the Ferguson Police Dept, that Off Wilson did not know of the strong arm robbery that had committed by Michael Brown during the initial contact, so even if Michael Brown was walking with the box of cigars, Off Wilson would not have known that it was evidence of a robbery. A point of contention was the video was not released for 6 days later.  "But on Friday, police released the video that stoked outrage in Ferguson, with Brown’s family calling it “character assassination” and a smear campaign." feds-urged-police-not-release-michael-brown-robbery-video The reason the Michael Brown family called the video a smear campaign was two fold, #1, the video was not evidence as Off Wilson did not have knowledge of it when he first stopped Brown and #2 the police didn't release the video in a timely manner.

The argument against #1 is while Off Wilson did not know of the robbery during his initial contact, it was certainly evidence of the state of mind of Michael Brown, as Michael Brown surely suspected he was being contacted because of the robbery. Further the fact that Off Wilson drove passed Michael Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson, stopped and suddenly backed up to re-contact Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson, is consistent that at some point Off Wilson was dispatched to help with the robbery. It appears that Off Wilson left Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson ignorant of the robbery, but was then informed of the robbery via his radio. Realizing Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson matched the suspect(s) description(s), he backed up to re-contact them; on both accounts the video was vital evidence and not an attempt to smear Michael Brown's character.

The facts behind #2 is more straight forward, is was the US Attorney General, Eric Holder that held back the video,  The Department of Justice urged Ferguson police not to release surveillance video purporting to show Michael Brown robbing a store shortly before he was shot and killed by police, arguing the footage would further inflame tensions in the St. Louis suburb that saw rioting and civil unrest in the wake of the teenager’s death feds-urged-police-not-release-michael-brown-robbery-video

Below is a diagram of the wounds received by Michael Brown and there are no wounds in Michael Brown's back. "Dr. Baden said that while Mr. Brown was shot at least six times, only three bullets were recovered from his body. But he has not yet seen the X-rays showing where the bullets were found, which would clarify the autopsy results. Nor has he had access to witness and police statements. Dr. Baden provided a diagram of the entry wounds, and noted that the six shots produced numerous wounds. Some of the bullets entered and exited several times, including one that left at least five different wounds*.“This one here looks like his head was bent downward,” he said, indicating the wound at the very top of Mr. Brown’s head. “It can be because he’s giving up, or because he’s charging forward at the officer.”One of the bullets shattered Mr. Brown’s right eye, traveled through his face, exited his jaw and re-entered his collarbone*. The last two shots in the head would have stopped him in his tracks and were likely the last fired.

..there is a contradiction in how Dr Baden's information has been released; most likely the reporters have been confused by Dr Baden's terms, wounds vs bullets vs shot.

 

The information from the below web link said the following. Mr. Brown, 18, was also shot four times in the right arm, he said, adding that all the bullets were fired into his front. *If you take the information from these comments above,  one (bullet) that left at least five different wounds and One of the bullets shattered Mr. Brown’s right eye, traveled through his face, exited his jaw and re-entered his collarbone* and compare them to this comment six shots produced numerous wounds there is a contradiction in how Dr Baden's information has been released; most likely the reporters have been confused by Dr Baden's terms, wounds vs bullets vs shot*. There are 5 wounds on Michael Brown's right arm and chest in the diagram. Assuming these wounds are the ones shown on Michael Brown's right arm in the diagram, it appears a single bullet entered at Michael Brown's left thumb, exited his forearm, re-entered at the lower biceps, exited the upper biceps and re-entered  Michael Brown's chest just above his left nipple; affirming Dr Baden's statements that one bullet caused 5 rounds. Add to that, the three wounds on the diagram show Michael Brown's wounds at his eye, cheek,  and chest, that Dr Baden said was also from one bullet and what appears to be a single wound to the top of his head, it appears that all nine wound were caused by 3 bullets. The report "Dr. Baden said that while Mr. Brown was shot at least six times, only three bullets were recovered from his body" But there is no explanation how this jives with Dr Baden's statements about the wounds.


Under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution a police officer may only use such force as is “objectively reasonable” under all of the circumstances. The standard that courts will use to examine whether a use of force is constitutional was first set forth in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) and expanded by subsequent court cases. The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with 20/20 vision of hindsight. The reasonableness must account for the fact that officers are often forced to make split-second judgments - in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving.

So the real question is, was Off Wilson justified in his shooting an unarmed man that came rushing at him and their is no simple answer. Michael Brown was 604 390lbs, by any comparison, a big man.  Off Wilson on the other hand looks to be of average size, say 509-511 and average build. It would have been shortly after this that Brown reportedly rushed Off Wilson.

There are numerous issues that can be taken into account as to the escalation of force, one is a substantial difference in size and/or strength. Brown was 604 390lbs, by any comparison, a big man.  Off Wilson on the other hand looks to be of average size, say 509-511 and average build. There is also the fact that just moments before, Off Wilson was in a fight for his life, as he and Michael Brown were fighting over his gun in Off Wilson's SUV (resulting in a round being fired in the vehicle); this would have given Off Wilson pre-knowledge as to Michael Brown's strength and fighting ability It has been learned the Off Wilson's eye socket was shattered as a result of the fight with Michael Brown, for possession of his pistol. Off Wilson  would also have knowledge that in their previous altercation, Michael Brown had tried to take away his duty weapon, meaning Michael Brown would probably try to take his gun away again. At some point Michael Brown probably had his hands up; however it most likely occurred after Michael Brown stopped and turned back toward Off Wilson, after running  away from him . Michael Brown was reported taunting Off Wilson, most likely he had his hands up and was asking Off Wilson similar to, "You're are not going to arrest me" and "What are going to do; shoot me?" If one accepts the numerous reports that at this point Michael Brown Add these up and it could be said that within the perimeters set up by Graham v. Connor, Off Wilson could articulate his escalation to deadly force as “objectively reasonable” under the circumstances judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene.

One issue that also needs attention is what were the force options available to Off Wilson. #1 Rubber bullets; rubber bullets are generally fired from a specially designed 37mm/40mm weapon are not routinely carried in your average police vehicle and even if that was the case it would most likely be out of the immediate reach of the officer. #2  Taser; It is unknown if Off Wilson was carrying a Taser, but even if he was, transferring to a taser under these conditions would be contrary to his training. I Taser is not a substitute for a pistol to protect yourself from deadly force; is is an offensive weapon, not a defensive weapon. Off Wilson was obviously still holding his duty weapon which had discharged during the scuffle inside his SUV. Since Michael Brown had already shown he would try and take Off Wilson pistol, there are just too many things that could go wrong if he tried to protect himself with a Taser. Also, the effective range of a Taser (dependent on the model) is about 15 feet;( if Brown was 35 feet from Off Wilson, he would have also been out of the range of the Taser).

The fact is there is very little evidence to show that Off Wilson was doing anything more than reacting to the threat from Michael Brown and the only thing driving the "Michael Brown was shot in the back with his hands up" story are the racebaiters like Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson and Eric Holder; these racists activist always push the "you're a victim of the racists system and this is the result" theme. Even if they are eventually proved wrong (which is most the time) they have already let the smoke out of the box. This means any facts that are later derived from the investigation of the incident, that deviates from their original one side of the story, that paints the minority victim(s) as blameless, will then be paraded around, at an even a louder level of rhetoric, that there now a cover-up. This by the same advocates that live off the victim mentality that they sow and reap and profit by. It's this victim mentality that keeps minorities, especially blacks, dependent on government and continue the myth that they live in such a racist society they will never be allowed to prosper.

Edit: 8/19--"The black teen killed by a white cop in Ferguson, Mo., viciously attacked the officer as he sat in his patrol car, delivering a bone-crunching punch that shattered the cop’s eye socket, a report claimed Tuesday". po-darren-wilson-suffered-orbital-blowout-fracture-to-eye-socket-during-encounter-with-mike-brown

According to the well-placed source, Wilson was coming off another case in the neighborhood on Aug. 9 when he ordered Michael Brown and his friend Dorain Johnson to stop walking in the middle of the road because they were obstructing traffic. However, the confrontation quickly escalated into physical violence, the source said..“They ignored him and the officer started to get out of the car to tell them to move," the source said. "They shoved him right back in, that’s when Michael Brown leans in and starts beating Officer Wilson in the head and the face. missouri-cop-was-badly-beaten-before-shooting-michael-brown-says-source

Deconstructing the Trayvon Martin Murder Trial and Aftermath Part 2; the Blogosphere

Update #1 I submitted a much condensed letter of this piece to the Santa Cruz Sentinel, which they published. Here is the letter and the blog exchange that followed.

"So in your book, whoever brings a gun to a fist fight wins." "You are being absurdly simplistic to make such a blanket statement."

Zimmerman had right to self-defense 

In a letter to the editor, Liz Camarie proclaimed the lesson learned from Trayvon Martin's death is no one should be allowed to carry guns? Really? The next tactic of the anti-gun zealots appears to be an attack on the right of self-defense; Peter Klotz implied that self-defense is always racially biased murder and can never be justified. There is a saying that "God created man; Sam Colt made them equal." But the Liz Camaries and Peter Klotzes of the world would prefer the weak fall victim to the brutish. Zimmerman shot Martin because Martin was on top of him, banging his head against the sidewalk. While the prosecution tried to minimize the injuries, one or two more slams of Zimmerman's head against the concrete could have resulted in his death; by shooting Martin, Zimmerman probably saved his own life, but apparently to some, there are lives more valuable than others. Brad Goodwin, Live Oak

Mitch Alsip · Top Commenter · Santa Cruz, California

Brad - So in your book, whoever brings a gun to a fist fight wins. 

 Brad Goodwin · Top Commenter · Santa Cruz, California

You are being absurdly simplistic to make such a blanket statement.The issue was Zimmerman did nothing to provoke Martin other than follow him and call the police. Zimmerman had followed numerous other suspicious suspects of different races yet none resulted in a violent altercation until Martin decided to jump the "crazy ass cracker." At some point when you're being beaten down you have the right to protect yourself. Zimmerman was on his back with Martin on top of him so he could not run away. Martin was slamming Zimmerman's head against the cement; I've had this done to me and it invokes a certain level of panic; in criminal case slamming someones head against the cement is a felony and considered "Assault with a Deadly Weapon". Every incident needs to be taken on it's own merits; certainly people are beaten to death all the time. When an assault raises to the level of a felony and life threatening, the victim has the right to deadly force to protect himself; even if the victim is a White Hispanic and the aggressor is a 17 year old black teenager.

 geepierces (signed in using yahoo)

Brad Goodwin - I wasn't there, were you? How can you say, "Zimmerman did nothing to provoke Martin other than to follow him and call the police" ? We have no IDEA what transpired prior to the alleged events.

Roy McAlister · Top Commenter · Luthier at Self Employedgeepierces, "We have no IDEA what transpired prior to the alleged events" We know there is zero evidence to support your theory that Zimmerman did anything illegal to provoke assault & battery. All evidence and witness accounts indicate neither of these guys broke any laws...until Trayvon committed battery on George. Tell me what non-physical, legal act justifies that level of assault?

 Brad Goodwin · Top Commenter · Santa Cruz, California
geepierces, to say we have no idea what happened is wrong. First we know for a fact that prior to this incident Zimmerman reported numerous suspicious suspects and called the police on them. We also know that during all those reportings, he never contacted or harassed any of them. Zimmerman's defense presented the narrative I presented and called witnesses to show what evidence there was was consistent with Zimmerman's statements after the fact. The prosecution tried to poke holes in the narrative and failed and Zimmerman was acquitted. It makes no sense to suggest another narrative simply because this one is not politically correct and has also not withstood scrutiny in a court of law. In other words, this is the only narrative we have that has withstood scrutiny to use to determine if there was a violation of the law; regardless it is also this narrative the race baiting media and Al Sharpton's claim is the result of racism.

Several days later the Sentential printed a response letter

  NRA's stamp on gun that killed Trayvon Martin

A 190-pound man with a gun tackles and kills a 140-pound kid with candy he just bought at the store. All of America is a witness to this crime and can do nothing. Because the kid was black the KKK will laugh until their hearts are content. The kid holding that sign in the newspaper saying "Am I next?" knows what's going on. The NRA has their stamp on that gun.

Clay Collins, Soquel

  "You and the media also seems to have missed that in early 2011 Zimmerman participated in a citizen forum at the Sanford City Hall, to protest the beating of a black homeless man by the son of a white Sanford police officer. During the meeting, Zimmerman called the behavior of officers on duty "disgusting" and detailed officers napping while on duty and refusing to take on difficult assignments."

 

Again you have the liberal left exaggerating and fabricating reality. First Trayvon Martin was not an 12 year old kid coming back from the candy store (the Skittles and Coke notwithstanding), we has a 17 year old, almost a man who liked to wear wife beater T shirts, flip off his computer cam, smoke marijuana and party with his girlfriend. These are certainly no reason to demonize or kill Martin, but it does show his level of sophistication. Further as mentioned, Zimmerman's height/weight was 507/ 185 lbs; Martins was 6'/ 160lbs. You and the media also seems to have missed that in early 2011 Zimmerman participated in a citizen forum at the Sanford City Hall, to protest the beating of a black homeless man by the son of a white Sanford police officer. During the meeting, Zimmerman called the behavior of officers on duty "disgusting" and detailed officers napping while on duty and refusing to take on difficult assignments.Wikipedia. There is also the fact that the KKK was a southern Democrat organization that appeared during reformation; this of course was after a bloody civil war fought almost exclusively because the Democrats were against freeing their slaves. There were also Jim Crow laws and voter intimidation that Southern Democrats so often compare to requiring ID to vote, but were also the result of Southern Democrats racism and southern segregation. And lets not forget the 3/5ths rule that forced the North to count Southern slaves as if they were voting free men. What America has been witness to is Democrat demonization, race baiting and fabrication of the facts to create racial distrust and polarization. The poor kid holding the sign will be just one more victim of the likes of Al Sharpton and liberal Democrats that feed and are empowered by spreading the lie of the hopelessness black victimism and black separatism. Are their racial crimes in America? Of course, but just like the boy who cried wolf, if the Al Sharptons and liberal Democrats interject race into every multi-race incident, the real civil rights crimes become buried under a pile of non-related incidents were information has been fabricated, participants demonized, and races separated. Good job Mr Collins, good job

  "There is also the fact that the KKK was a southern Democrat organization that appeared during reformation; this of course was after a bloody civil war fought almost exclusively because the Democrats were against freeing their slaves. There were also Jim Crow laws and voter intimidation that Southern Democrats so often compare to requiring ID to vote, but were also the result of Southern Democrats racism and southern segregation. And lets not forget the 3/5ths rule that forced the North to count Southern slaves as if they were voting free men".

Matt Blechar · Top Commenter

Clay Collins, nothing like throwing out the race card when racism doesn't exist in Martins case. The main fact about this case was that Trayvon was beating Zimmermans head against the concrete endangering his life, Zimmerman acted to save his life with a gun which he had every right to BY LAW. Can we expose and really look at Trayvon for who he was at the time? He was a criminal thug, that used drugs, got kicked out of his parents house, got kicked out of his High School because he got caught with stolen jewelry HE STOLE. Wake up, he wasn't this innocent KID you and all the other race baiters claim he was.

 Will Sharp · Top Commenter

Matt you know only one side of the story because the other person is dead. But only an idiot (or a foxpublican) would think that if the kid had shot zimmerman that he wouldn't have been arrested. And we know that zimmerman decided to get out of his vehicle and confront Trayvon against what he was told by dispatch. Bottom line zimmerman got away with murder because their was a lack of evidence according to the jurors who have spoken out.
And of course since your source is conservative media your unaware that your boy zimmerman was charged with at least 3 assault cases prior to him killing an unarmed 17 y/o.
One of the assault charges was "resisting a police officer with violence". Now what do you think is worse a 16 y/o who got busted with a small amount of pot or an adult with 3 charges of assault? Here's my source for you and other nra dumb@$$es
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/03/27/10894561-zimmerman-accused-of-domestic-violence-fighting-with-a-police-officer?lite

 RealityCheck SantaCruz · Top Commenter · Santa Cruz, California

Will Sharp - At least get the facts straight from your own source. 3 charges are not '3 cases'. And there weren't even three charges. There were two (from the same incident) which were dropped. In the other case, there were no charges, only mutual restraining orders. Then you ignore Martin's priors (dropped, or never brought.)
In the end, both acted stupidly, but only Martin acted criminally, and it was his bad luck that the guy he assaulted was armed.

Brad Goodwin · Top Commenter · Santa Cruz, California

Will Sharp, again you misstating Zimmerman's crimes. #1 he was never arrested or charged with domestic violence; the two simply filed mutual restraining orders and there absolutely nothing that would indicate he committed a crime, since any evidence of Domestic Violence requires a mandatory arrest. #2 the two so-called felony charges and your three cases, were all the result of one incident and one push, where an underage and intoxicated Zimmerman, of a police officer; one push and the charges were later dropped. As you have also said only one person really knows what happened, yet you are content with fabricate your own scenarios to match your world view. Given the fact, which was entered into evidence and not contested by the prosecution, that Zimmerman had called on and followed numerous suspicious persons, yet never harassed or confronted any of them. Zimmerman said he exited his car because he has lost sight of Zimmerman and wanted to see where he went, not to confront him. While this may seem a self serving statement, it is consistent with his past behavior. Your whole attitude is typical liberal fabrication of facts and demonization of anyone or anything that runs counter to their separatist and polarizing world view.

Deconstructing the Trayvon Martin Murder Trial and Aftermath

Having been a police officer and detective for some 26 years, I have seen many criminal trials. Most criminal trials, including homicide trials, developed around the Prosecution presenting a narrative as to what occurred and the evidence that backs up their narrative; the Defense then tries to poke holes in the narrative to create reasonable doubt. The strength of the Prosecution's narrative usually determines whether the suspect is found guilty or innocent. In the Trayvon Martin case these roles were reversed which shows the weakness of the  Prosecution's case. The Defense had a defensible narrative backed by evidence that George Zimmerman, as a neighborhood watch captain, saw a suspicious person (Trayvon Martin), in his gated community and called the police. The police told Zimmerman not to engage the suspect and they would send a patrol car. Zimmerman followed Martin and at some point lost sight of him. Martin than then came up behind Zimmerman, overpowered him and took him to the ground, where he proceeded to pound his head on the sidewalk. Zimmerman, who was legally carrying a concealed firearm than shot Martin one time and Martin died of his wounds. Now, before I continue, I should say this narrative is in dispute by some. There are many who believe that in any altercation between a black and white , the white is always the instigator. Therefore you have a contingent that believe that Zimmerman stalked and attacked Martin, and when Martin got the best of him, Zimmerman shot him. Probably the most compelling argument against this is Zimmerman's past behavior. Zimmerman was well known to the police because he had made numerous calls regarding suspicious people in his neighborhood and not once in all those incidents did Zimmerman ever even contacted one of these people he was calling on. With absolutely no evidence to the contrary, the idea of this counter narrative being a defensible narrative it is nothing more than wishful thinking.

The Prosecution must now take a defense posture and try and poke holes in the Defenses narrative;  this  reversal almost never leads to guilty verdict, which is why most cases of this kind never go to court. The tactics include, minimizing injuries, overstating differences in statements, minimizing the strength of the evidence and a great deal of conjecture and demonization of the defendant and witnesses. These are all things juries hate the most about trials, especially when it comes from the Prosecution as they are usually held to a higher standard. Examples of this were the injuries to Zimmerman that included a broken nose and two lacerations on the back of his head; to the prosecution this was a bump on the nose and a couple of scraps. The Prosecution called the  Medical Examiner from Jacksonville, Valerie Rao solely as a witness to minimize Zimmerman's injuries. Rao said Zimmerman's head didn't reflect that his head was being slammed with great force into a sidewalk as he claims and her contention was that Zimmerman's injuries were insignificant to show the Prosecution's contention that Zimmerman's life was not in danger. The problem with this is first, Rao never examined Zimmerman but simply looked at photos and the photos of his injuries. The so called  "bump" on Zimmerman's nose showed a somewhat disfiguring injury; his nose flattened against his face. Further there is not necessarily a correlation between the surface injury of a head wound and a resulting concussion. Concussions often do not result in cranial bruising or bleeding, which can be seen in an MRI. Usually doctors have to rely solely on the symptoms articulated by the patient. Further, if a person's head is banged against concrete, any resulting lacerations are a result of the skin being parted between the victim's skull and the sidewalk; it would be malpractice for any doctor to declare a person with similar injuries to Zimmerman, as being insignificant and not worth a thorough examination to determine of the person has a concussion. Below is the common photo showing Zimmerman's injures on top and the more graph photot that was rarely shown on the bottom.

Next you have the prosecutions 3 different  versions of the incident by Zimmerman; by all accounts they were simply minor variations. One variation that was touted by the Prosecution was Zimmerman first said that Martin jumped out of some bushes before we was attacked. Later Zimmerman said he wasn't sure if Martin actually jumped out of the bushes, he just assumed so because Martin seemed to come out of nowhere; an absurdly similar statement. There is also a  question during the fight, when Zimmerman was on the ground and Martin on top of him, whether Zimmerman pulled both Martins hands off his mouth or one when Zimmerman said Martin tried to grab his pistol. Another was a question about Martin's hand position at the time of the shooting and some other minor differences that Zimmerman told a friend. All of these can easily be chalked up to a person trying to recall an incident that will probably the most stressful and horrifying incident in his life. 

So, why would the Florida State Attorney file charges against Zimmerman, , if the above is even mostly correct. Well, even a low information voter would surmise, if they didn't know already, that Trayvon Martin was black and George Zimmerman is not. But from the very beginning racial bias that was ruled out.  The Sanford Florida lead investigator in the case,  Det. Chris Serino, said he thought Zimmerman profiled Trayvon because of his attire and the circumstances — but not his race. The FBI investigated the case and reported that after interviewing nearly three dozen people in the George Zimmerman murder case, they found no evidence that racial bias was a motivating factor in the shooting of Trayvon Martin. If nothing else, it is a fact that Zimmerman had called the police on numerous suspicious subjects in his neighborhood of all races for years and never had a violent encounter for years. Even when Zimmerman called the police on Martin, it took a coaxing from the 911 operator even to get his race.

"Black race victimism  is they way civil rights activist like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson make their living. Their interjection into any incident is designed solely to drive a wedge between races and try to retard any progress in race relations."

Black race victimism  is they way civil rights activist like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson make their living. Their interjection into any incident is designed solely to drive a wedge between races and try to retard any progress in race relations.They latched onto this case as a way to increase their stature and forward their twisted message of racial inequality and victimism through continued  race baiting; i.e. "The only reason Martin is dead is because we was profiled and shot by a white man because he was black"; ignoring the actions by Martin that led to his death.  Again this is absurd as Zimmerman had reported many suspicious persons, many of them black before and the only one that resulted in any altercation at all was the incident with Martin. The simple reason was Martin was the only person that had ever decided to physically take on Zimmerman for following him. Martin's reasoning was explained by his girlfriend Rachel Jeantel. Even though her testimony was carefully coached  by the prosecution and some of which contradicted the evidence, she quoted Martin as  saying on the telephone he was being followed by a “creepy ass cracker”. Jeantel is so immersed in her lower class black culture of drug use and partying that she didn't even realize that “creepy ass cracker” is a pejorative. Just like the "N" word in the South,  "cracker" becomes a non-pejorative only through common usage and immersion in a isolated subculture. The end result was obvious, the fact that is was Martin  attacking the “creepy ass cracker” who was following him not only placed the blame for the incident on Martin, but it showed if there was any racial bias going on, it was with Trayvon Martin acting on it, not Zimmerman.

 "..we also have the President personalizing the incident by saying "Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago"; one wonders if that means a 17 year old Barrack Obama would have beat down a "creepy ass cracker"".

With the acquittal of Zimmerman, Al Sharpton and the other race-baiters have turned their attention to a federal civil rights trail for Zimmermann. Even though there is simply no basis for such a trial, is is probably a 50/50 proposition that one may occur. First you have the Attorney General, Eric Holder and his infamous speech in 2008 when he said, "Though race-related issues continue to occupy a significant portion of our political discussion and though there remain many unresolved racial issues in this nation, we average Americans simply do not talk enough with each other about race..", in other words average Americans tend to ignore racial inequality. we also have the President personalizing the incident by saying "Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago"; one wonders if that means a 17 year old Barrack Obama would have  beat down a "creepy ass cracker" because he was following him. So the chances of a federal trail based solely on the racial bias of Holder and President Obama is likely.

I would also be remiss by not commenting on the media that has been part and parcel of the race baiting, trying to drum up protests from the black community at large; the media even invented a new racial identity for Zimmerman, calling him a White/Hispanic. First the media as a whole continued to use photos of Martin taken when was 13-14 and not the 17 year old want-to-be as his later photos and facebook entries showed before they were expunged.

You also have NBC "News" doctoring Zimmerman's call to the police making it appear that Zimmerman was racially biased; as mentioned earlier the police dispatcher had to prompt Zimmerman to describe Martin's race. In totality you have the media at large trying desperately to create the allusion of a racial incident. The media continues this allusion by slanted coverage of the Al Sharpton organized "Justice for Trayvon" protest rallies by not reporting the protests are only drawing a few hundred protestors in large cities and only couple of dozen protestors in smaller cities. Further there is also a disconnect between many of the protest rallies and even President Obama, regarding the Stand Your Ground laws in Florida and elsewhere. The fact is the Zimmerman defense never claimed immunity from the Stand Your Ground law, but it has become a rallying point nonetheless and I would not be surprised if Al Sharpton is perpetuating this ignorance to use it as a protest issue that is more provocative than the nuance of a self defense motive. 

Finally there are the civil rights activists that are calling for large and nationwide protesters to pressure the Federal Department of Justice to file a federal civil rights case against for Zimmerman.   The tactic seems to completely ignore the rule of law that is supposed to protect individuals against the tyranny of the majority, or the loudest group; or the tyranny of criminal trials based on populist pressure or politically expedient rational. In other words those believing the their protests will force a federal trial are hoping the very laws that protect civil liberties will be violated in this case.

Update 

In a strange turn of events Zimmerman came across a traffic accident where he assisted extracting a family from a rolled over SUV and put out a fire with his own fire extinguisher. Zimmerman Saves Family of Four in Florida Car Crash; the end result of being saved by Zimmerman is the family is in fear for their safety from the left ling wackos that will not allow any information to go unchallenged and demonized if it runs counter to their race polarization narrative. 

NAACP Hoping for the Worse

I did not dedicate a blog to the Nancy Pelosi/ Emanuel Cleaver incident where Cleaver claimed to have been spit upon and called the “N word” no less than 15 times. The reason was it didn't happen. Oh the Democarts wanted it to happen and tried their best to make it happen, but much to their dismay nothing did happened, just one Tea Party guy yelling, “Kill the bill”. Another reason I did not dedicate a blog was because the entire incident was caught on video, so every one should have been able to see that it didn't happen. Below is the video with a voice over explaining what can obviously be seen.



And still if this is not enough a journalist name Andrew Breitbat offered $100,000 to anyone that captured the incident on video and shows there was intentional spitting and the use of the N-word. This was done on April 2, 2010 and there are still no takers. Of the thousands of camcorders, Blackberry's, Iphones and other recording devices, including those held by assistants to the black caucus themselves and no one captured anything other than what was originally shown on You Tube. Glenn Beck captured the political posturing inherit in this incident, when he showed a photo of Nancy Pelosi walking arm and arm with Emanuel Cleaver and other members of the black caucus trying to capture a civil rights posture, compared to a photo of Martin Luther King Jr marching in Memphis Tenn. One picture shows an arrogant politician leading her entourage, the other a group of brave men, frightened, but ready to give their lives for what they believed.



What is highly disappointing is the NAACP recent vote to censor the Tea Party as a racist organisation. One would have hoped that the NAACP would raise above the Democrat race baiting and politicizing of racism, apparently for the sole purpose of discrediting an opponent of President Obama's. The criteria for the NAACP censor was this now discredited incident and another discredited incident of Tea Party demonstration where a sign said, "Lynch Our President". Like the spitting/N-word incident, in a world where everybody has a camera, no one has been able to produce any evidence that this occurred either. What is really bizarre is a lack of any evidence of racism in the Tea Party at all. One would think that of the millions of Tea Party members there would be a couple of nuts out there; this has got to be frustrating to the White House.

edited August 4, 2010. The New York Times printed a correction on their reporting of this incident,"The Political Times column last Sunday, about a generational divide over racial attitudes, erroneously linked one example of a racially charged statement to the Tea Party movement. While Tea Party supporters have been connected to a number of such statements, there is no evidence that epithets reportedly directed in March at Representative John Lewis, Democrat of Georgia, outside the Capitol, came from Tea Party members." Soooo, are they saying the incident didn't happen, or that it did happen, but was perpetrated by some person they could not link to the Tea Party. I'm guessing it's the later, as the NYT wouldn't dare insinuate that Rep Lewis was lying, creating a racist incident that could be blamed on the Tea Party Movement, that actually never happened; this is the definition of the ends justifying the means. Either way is was a Gilda Radner moment that no one will ever read.

But of course the Tea Party is not really the crux of the story; it is the continued and over the top race baiting by the Democrats. Add to that the victimization of the Black culture, perpetrated by the progressives that has become so ingrained they have built a religion around it called Black Liberation Theology. The basis of the religion is blacks would be a superior race, except their birthright was stolen from them by whites. They believe in something called collective salvation, where whites can only be redeemed if they give all their worldly possessions to blacks to compensate blacks for what they stole. They also believe that Jesus preached socialism and the redistribution of wealth. BLT is the morale equivalent of Hezbollah and Hamas. Both have told the Palestinians not to make peace with Israel and instead, wait until Israel is annihilated, then everything that Israel was, will be theirs. And they continue to wait in misery.

Obama's Post Racial Society Another Broken Promise

The Democrats have become a one trick pony; disagree with their tax and spend policies and you’re a racist. Keith Olbermann said, “If racism is not the whole of the Tea Party, it is in its heart.” This of course, this was in reaction to Congressman John Lewis reporting a Tea Bag Party protester screamed the N-word 15 times as he passed. A review of the video showed the protester yelled, “Kill the Bill” 15 times, but what Lewis heard was the N-word; the country is still waiting for a retraction or apology. The value system of the left is now, more than ever, being seen for what it is; a belief the status quo is immoral and a free society must progress from a free market system toward a more perfected system of wealth re-distribution. The President is telling us to every one below your economic station, you owe reparations; this is the bases for Obamacare, amnesty for immigrants that enter the country illegally and cap and trade. All are a more perfected form of wealth re-distribution. Any impediment to this progressive agenda is a form of imperative racism. As Janeane Garofalo said about the Tea Party, “This is racism, straight up”. But like the term "Nazi", "racism" has become stale and lost it’s sting; it has simply become a euphemism for any opposition to the left. So in a way, the promise that a black president would usher in a post racial society has come true, as the term itself has become meaningless due to it’s overuse for political expediency.