Libertarians Harming their Cause over Zimmerman Case

I’ve been reading a lot of social media commentary over the Zimmerman case and I’ve noticed something interesting from many claiming to be “libertarians.”  If you ask them, most libertarians will claim to support individual rights and liberty.  I’ve written extensively on my questioning of this assertion.  I happen to believe that most people who call themselves libertarian are actually liberals who want to keep what they have rather than support the liberal socialist agenda of redistribution.  If you read “libertarian” literature, you’ll find indirect support for this argument.  The libertarian propensity to oppose the death penalty is one example.  It has more in common with the liberal left than with true, Jeffersonian Liberalism.  Well, the comments I have seen many self-professed libertarians making in regard to Zimmerman would seem to be yet another indication that my assumption about the average libertarian is correct.

What provoked me to write this post is the trend in this nation toward blaming the victim and defending the attacker.  Now, I understand this where liberals are concerned.  By their very nature, they do not understand personal responsibility.  But when people who claim to support individual rights and liberty so much as to call themselves “libertarians” start attacking a man who broke no law and who acted perfectly within his rights, I have to wonder how well they understand the principles of liberty, themselves.  If they believe in individual rights, where is the acknowledgment that Martin is the one who violated Zimmerman’s rights?  Where is the libertarian defense of Zimmerman’s rights?  Let’s review:

Zimmerman had as much right to be where he was as Martin did.

Zimmerman had as much right to follow Martin as Martin had to follow him.

Zimmerman had as much right to confront Martin as Martin had to confront him.

Zimmerman had NO right to detain or attack Martin, and he did neither.

Martin had no right to detain or attack Zimmerman, yet he did exactly that – attacked him.

Martin cannot claim self-defense because Zimmerman did not attack him.  Yes, people will say we can’t know this because Martin can’t tell us what happened.  But we have an autopsy report, and it does not mention defensive wounds or any other injuries other than the bullet wound.  That means there is no evidence to support the claims that Zimmerman assaulted Martin first.

We also have evidence that supports Zimmerman’s claim that Martin was the one who attacked him.  Zimmerman’s nose was broken, the back of his head had been wounded by being slammed into the cement, and a witness said he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman pummeling him in the head and upper body.

Now, here’s where things go sideways for our “libertarian” friends.  When confronted with this, they are claiming it is still Zimmerman’s fault because he didn’t leave Martin to the police.  Let’s examine that.

1 – You have a right to be on any public grounds you wish.

2 – You have a right to watch your neighborhood and protect your property.

3 – The Supreme Court of the United States has said the police do NOT have a duty to protect you ar your property.  This means you do NOT have a right to police protection.

4 – This means you are responsible for protecting your rights.

5 – So, for a “libertarian” to claim they support individual rights and liberty, yet blame a man who was exercising his rights within the law to protect his property while defending a man who violated Zimmerman’s rights and broke the law  is the epitome of liberal logic.

And that is why I suspect our libertarian friends haven’t gained the popular support of the American people, and why they likely never will: because, when push comes to shove, their true colors are that of greedy liberals.

Now, all that said, there ARE some who DO understand individual rights and liberty, such as Ron and Rand Paul.  However, they are closer to Classic Liberals than they are “libertarians.”  I am speaking about the majority of self-professed “libertarians,” most of whom do not know the distinction to which I just alluded.

107 thoughts on “Libertarians Harming their Cause over Zimmerman Case

  1. Joe, I am a woman , and i can tell you something, if a stranger starts to follow me and harrass me, my first reaction will be of fear but after that I will be prepared to FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT for my life, If you touch my son, I will kill you, now compared to a man or young kid for that matter……with testosterone, which makes you guys much more aggressive than a woman , then you have a VOLATILE situation…Trayvon Martin was acting in SELF DEFENSE!!!!!!!! he got killed because he WAS NOT ARMED>>>>>>> if the police gives an order and you do not comply BECAUSE YOUR FATHER IS A JUDGE AND EVERYBODY MUST treat me with kid gloves then we have a massive problem on our hands….Zimmerman’s story, has not ended, it has just begun… plz google Gary Plauche…..sorry to be this intense, but this story is very emotional for me…. I LOVE MY SON very much……I hope you understand …..

    • Martin did NOT act in self-defense. If he had been attacked, there would have been physical evidence of a wound or injury on his body OTHER than the gunshot. That was NOT presented in court because it did NOT exist. There are no witnesses who said Martin was actually attacked, but there is at least one witness who says Martin attacke Zimmerman.

      Now, if you are trying to tell me your son could have ended up like Martin, then — hard as this may be for you to hear — I am going to ask you WHY DIDN’T YOU RAISE HIM BETTER? Because I love my children as much as you love yours and Martin’s parents loved him, but I raised my sons NOT to attack first — PERIOD! And that they had best be hit — HARD — or threatened with the iminent use of a weapon BEFORE they resort to violence. You see, my children understand what self-defense is, and when it is justified. Getting asked who you are and what you are doing is NOT an attack that warrants self-defense.

      Now, if you would please TRY to get your emotion out of this and look to what actually happened, I would greatly appreciate it. Because, as it stands now, you ar defending the person who started the violence — MARTIN!

      • NO!!!!!!!! I am not comparing him to that young man, I have taught my son to never EVER talk to strangers, we do not know what Z told that kid (remember he died) Z can say anything he wishes…and your sons maybe angels but trust me if some stranger comes up to them with “BAD INTENTIONS” your sons will sense it and will PROTECT their lives….please asked them…..

        • But we DO have evidence that Zimmerman did NOT attack Martin. If there were defensive wounds or any sign of injury caused by Zimmerman on Martin’s body, it would have been in the autopsy and presented as evidence. This was not the case and THAT is evidence in favor of Zimmerman’s story. We also have the witness supporting the story, as well as the claim that it is Zimmerman’s voice on the 911 tape. In truth, there is NOTHING supporting the narrative that Martin was attacked and EVERYTHING supporting the claims Zimmerman has made. TO reject Zimmerman at this point is to walk the fine line of false witness against Zimmerman.

            • Daniella,

              maybe because he was what this nation used to call A RESPONSIBLE CITIZEN! Scripture tells us we are obligated to watch our neighbor’s property. This is what Zimmerman was doing. Natural Law tells us we are obligated to watch our neighbor’s property. The social contract and civil law say we are responsible to watch our neighbor’s property.

              Now, why or why didn’t Martin just go home???

                • Cops do NOT have the sole and exclusive authority in this country. That is called a GESTAPO!

                  This is what is wrong with this nation: we have forgotten what a republic is and how it operates. Are you aware there was once a thing called a citizen’s arrest? Do you know why? Because you and I had every bit as much authority as the police — because WE were the source of their authority. Not so much anymore.

                  I would venture to say you have rendered unto Caesar that which is Caesars AND the Lord’s as well.

    • LOL Daniellajoe … after that tirade, are you going to hold on to “you guys much more aggressive than a woman”?

      You sort of remind me of my buddy Craig’s wife. She’s an Amazon War-bitch from Hell, and you do not seem much different. 🙂

    • What makes you think WE don’t love our Children very much ??

      Or are you saying your feelings are more sincere, more loving more valid than our Feelings for our kids …. because we don’t agree with you ???

        • You gave it as a condition for your reasoning in your first comment…..it was thus set up rhotirically in opposition to those who don’t feel as you do. This is how the rules of argumentation proceed….I didn’t create them…..they are what they are…..I merely highlighted your one of your own points.

          You may not have MEANT what you said….but it IS in fact what you implied.

    • Sorry Daniella,

      Your version of the what happened is not supported by the evidence. The evidence introduced in court. And the vast weight of evidence which was attempted to be suppressed from the defense and then public.

      I urge you yo review law school professor’s “legal insurrection” blog; and review Alan Dershowitz’s editorials, no “conservative” by any stretch of the imagination, explaining that the prosecutors should have been sanctioned or disbarred for the Constitutional violations they have carried out against Zimmerman and “the law”.

      • Hello Texas!! I want to think that z broke the law by assuming the role of a cop and then committing perjury (along with his wife), but lets forgive him his dad is a judge ….what goes around comes around….. His day will be coming when someone thinks that he looks suspicious

        • Daniella,
          Sincerely, I watch my neighbor’s homes, and I dearly hope they watch my home when I am not home. I have elderly neighbors who I look after as if they were my own parents. My children help them too. We all look after one another.

          The evidence [not prosecutor’s claims, the media’s claims, or Obama’s claim, of a 12 year old child- the age of the picture they used] show a man a couple of weeks away from turning 18, an adult under the criminal law, (as 17 is an adult for crimes committed against others), who had been kicked out of school, whose blood tests showed he was high, and who was using racial slurs against a person who lived in the neighborhood and was respected,

          is not your son, nor mine.

          Unfortunately, the police rarely, prevent crimes. Why? Because criminals hide in the shadows, or keep walking until the police are long gone.

          Average crimes take seconds, not minutes to occur.

          The police arrive after the crime has occurred, review the mess, and attempt to figure out what happened. Here, it appears the police figured out what happened, and the jury agreed with the initial investigators and the consistent witnesses and the physical evidence.

          • You have it wrong Texas, the detective that was assigned to the case wanted to charge z, I can get his name for you, I try to distance myself from this horrific case because it was getting to me I live around 4 hrs from Sanford ….and z has anger issues he attacked a cop and got away without jail time because his dad is a judge you try to do that Texas, I guarantee you those big guys will beat you down and then charge you….. I am just saying this guy’s story has only just begun….

            • Daniella,
              I have distanced myself from the entire case too.

              I have only reviewed what Professor Alan Dershowitz wrote with respect to prosecutorial misconduct in the beginning. Reviewed brief video clips of improper Judicial actions by the Judge and Un-constitutional actions by the Prosecutors, and reviewed the defense attorney posts at “legal Insurrection” blog.

              When “the State’s” attorneys and Judges, act improperly, unethically, Un-Constitutionally, and maybe illegally, something is seriously wrong and all law abiding citizens should be concerned, and/or afraid. Basic Constitutional underpinnings were regularly ignored in this case.

              I predict, this case will be used for years to come, as a “teaching moment” for attorneys and Judges of what NOT to do.

  2. lol Auger I am a Christian, Educated and probably make more money than you, but somethings rub the wrong way…. and I am peace loving… and I have never being called a BITCH because i am very LADY LIKE!!!

    • Daniellajoe,

      if you are Christian, then you need to read your scriptures. There is nothing in scripture that tells us we must defend the attacker. Forgive them, yes: even pray for them. But it does not say we are to make excuses for them.

      Scripture also teaches us to turn the other cheek. This means, even if Zimmerman HAD confronted Martin and called him names, etc, Martin should have simply walked away. Or he could have explained himself, mounted a passive defense by justifying his presence. He did neither. He called Zimmerman a creepy-assed cracker and then followed Zimmerman and attacked him.

      There is no scriptural defense for this, but Scripture does tell us to mind our neighbors property. So Zimmerman may have done it the wrong way, but he was on solid ground in principle: both by the law, Natural Law and by Scripture.

      At the same time, there is scripture to support justified self–defense. Even Christ told His disciples to sell their cloak and buy a sword if they did not already have one. This was at the last supper. Now, if you understood how important a man’s cloak was in this culture, you would understand this to be a strong imperative.

      • Also Joe ( and Daniella … But I is a-feared of her and don’t want to be Profiled and Cyber-stalked)…..

        Martin First Jumped then Punched Zimmerman hard enough to knock him dowm…..THEN attacked him AGAIN….this is Twice !! Martin didn’t just hit and knock Zimmerman down and run away …… He attacked a Second time with clear intent to do Bodily harm ( which he DID ) and possibly with intent to Kill…………..That’s what the evidence clearly indicates !!

    • “lol Auger I am a Christian, Educated and probably make more money than you, but somethings rub the wrong way”

      First, for the sake of “education”, please allow me to correct this for you:

      “I am a Christian, Auger. I am educated, and probably make more money than you. It just so happens that some things rub me the wrong way.”

      Now that we have logical sentences with structure, I would simply respond with: “I doubt that very much.”

  3. Progressive Liberal ≠ Logic. When logic is applied the liberals always argue “It” is not what “It” is, “Itself is always something else”, and “It” is neither good nor evil “It” is some alternative.

    In TM’s case and to those who do not support this verdict we can apply the three rules of logic:

    #1. Law of Identity – TM was a known thug not an upstanding member of the community. He chose a life of crime and drugs and had the history to prove it.
    #2. Law of Contradiction – TM can’t act like a thug and not be a thug. He attacked George Zimmerman instead of turning the other cheek and walking away.
    #3. Law of the Excluded Middle or Excluded Third – He could either be good or evil he can’t be both at the same time. He made a choice to be evil and he was living that life on his own free will.

    Funny, when logic is applied to any situation only blinders (racism, hatred, envy, lust) can hide the truth.

    Take the same boy and place him in a home environment with a strong moral father and faithful wife who take the time to attend a house of worship on a regular basis and 99.9% he would still be alive today. Parents look in the mirror.

    The blame really rest with liberal politicians out buying a vote by destroying the person casting the ballot or the race pimps making a fortune off their fellow man’s misery.

  4. There are different kinds of libertarians. There are left wing libertarians and right wing libertarians. I am a right wing libertarian, I believe Zimmerman had the right to self defense, as a right wing libertarian, my beliefs are closely aligned with right wing beliefs in general.

    • 90,

      How can there be a “Left-wing libertarian?” The whole notion of liberty is to the right of center.

      I think this is connected to my argument that too few Americans understand liberty well enough to know where they lie on the political continuum. I do not count you among them, 90, as you seem to have a better understanding than most. Again, I am pounding on the greedy Lefties claiming to be “libertarians.”

  5. So by the whole liberal mindset, as long as I lose, I’m the victim, even if I attacked first?

    I don’t know if what Zimmerman did was legal or not, I’m no lawyer, but sure as the day is long, if I had been Zimmerman, I would have shot Martin if he was on top of me, pummeling my head into the sidewalk, assuming I had that much presence of mind.

    Had Zimmerman not, this would not be in the national news, just another local story of a ‘Hispanic found dead, possibly gang-related’.

    Of course the media isn’t provoking racial divides.

  6. If you trust the court system when it agrees with you, you must also trust it when it doesn’t. The prosecution couldn’t prove their case. That doesn’t mean everything Zimmerman said was the truth, because he did change his story, and he contradicted what his father said. Only 2 people really know what happened and one is dead.

    It has been debated on this site many times that legal doesn’t always equal right or constitutional. The prosecution’s witness said one thing, the defense’s says another. The jury rendered a verdict based on the evidence presented. Was it the correct verdict. I think absolutely. Now did it go down exactly the way the defense says it did? I’m not so sure.

    I see no reason to continue to bash TM. I never saw where he was a known thug with a history of crime. I myself smoked weed in high school and never have been arrested. As far as I know TM hadn’t been either. Zimmerman had. TM did have THC traces of THC in his system and got suspended from school for having an empty baggie. We don’t know about GZ cause he wasn’t tested. Yes, you can act like a thug and not be one. I can impersonate a cop and act like one but I’m not one.

    I feel a kid died that night and there was wrong on both sides. Difference is, once someone is dead there is no do-over. Both had a right to be where they were. There was a struggle a person was shot. That’s what we know. Zimmerman and Trayvon know the rest and neither of them are talking. Anything else is speculation.

    Let the kid rest in peace.

    • “Let the kid rest in peace.”

      Precisely, and thank you for saying it. Now if we can get the mainstream media, the politicians, and the various predatory race baiters on board …

      I honestly wish they would redirect their energy to solving the colossal problems in Chicago, but it’s not “correct” to speak of those things in public, or out loud.

      • Well Augger How about Letting Zimmerman rest too.

        If Zimmerman is to be continually attacked…..then what and who Trayvon was needs to be part of the dialogue. I’m not saying YOU are or were but many here are…….and you are more rational to talk with…….and don’t correct my sentence structure or unique form of “interneteese”.

        • I’ve already addressed Zimmerman in another thread. He should be left alone. However, I am afraid he will be hounded for the remainder of his days.

          Talk about hate crimes ….

        • I don’t see many people on here attacking GZ. But if you talk who and what about one, you have to expect it about the other.

          I agree with what FC said and what the phone call possibly confirmed. The girl told TM to run and he said he didn’t want to. Then he said, “Maybe I’ll just walk fast.” If GZ wasn’t “following” like his brother and dad said he wasn’t, but walking perpendicular to TM, that I agree with FC’s assertion that at some point they met face to face.

          TM at that point probably figured he could take him, and seems as though that was the case, until he was shot. It doesn’t matter if GZ was neighborhood watch or not. Doesn’t matter if TM was going home to make some purple drank, or if he smoked a pound of weed that day. The only think I know weed makes you want to kill is 2 $5 footlongs and a bag of Doritos. They both were at a place they had the right to be at.

          GZ claimed self-defense, the jury agreed.

      • Daniella,

        Since when is stating the truth “biased?” Yes, WM is being diplomatic here, and I agree with the sentiment in his comment, but the truth remains that the evidence presented to and evaluated by the jury did NOT support the State’s assertions and DID support Zimmerman’s story. IF we are supposed to be a nation of laws and not emotions and desires, or even a nation that responds to terrorism (which is what these riots and threats of riots are — terrorism), then aren’t we supposed to go on evidence and trust the jury? And if we do that, how is that “bias?”

        • Joe, Z is not a law abiding citizen, the facts are there, he got away with murder just like OJ, and the guy Joran van der Sloot, who killed Natalie Holloway (it is ironic but I believe his dad was a judge too), we all know he did it but that poor girls body was never found and he was never charged…..etc….

        • I’ll repeat my first sentence:

          “If you trust the court system when it agrees with you, you must also trust it when it doesn’t.”

          People may not agree with that, but I do. The jury reached the correct decision based on the evidence presented. That’s all any trial means. Again, it doesn’t mean that everything played out exactly as described, it only means that the prosecution couldn’t prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

          One or more un-truths in an essay doesn’t discredit the entire essay. Just the false statements. In this case there were contradictory statements on both sides, but the State carried the burden of proof which they couldn’t do. It doesn’t mean that GZ wasn’t guilty. It means the state couldn’t prove that he was.

      • @William Gates, thanks 🙂 p.s I would not have let Z free though, I would have convicted him for involuntary manslaughter, I just see z as an angry arrogant guy who has been getting away with a lot because his dad is a judge, the detective that got the case recomended that they charge him, but the chief said no, because his dad is a judge and by association he is a good kid we all know that judges have LAW ABIDING KIDS….this story has only just begun…..

        • Daniella,

          You are setting yourself above the law because you “feel” about Zimmerman — not because of the law and whether or not he actually broke it. THAT, my friend, is REAL bias. It is also NOT the rule of law, which is tyranny.

        • I spoke with a young lady Saturday night about this and she was exactly opposite of you but using the same logic. She said, “See, he even looks innocent.” I just shook my head.

          We can’t use emotion as a determining factor in judging innocence or guilt. I suggest that you accept the jury’s decision. If it wasn’t self defense, he’ll answer to God on that one. The jury has spoken.

        • daniellajoe,

          “I just see z as an angry arrogant guy who has been getting away with a lot because his dad is a judge . . . . but the chief said no, because his dad is a judge and by association he is a good kid we all know that judges have LAW ABIDING KIDS . . . ”

          All assumptions – not factual at all. You can’t convict anyone on this.

    • William,
      “If you trust the court system when it agrees with you, you must also trust it when it doesn’t. ”

      I wish the system were that perfect. Our courts system is flawed though.

      Even with our flaws, our court system is the BEST IN THE WORLD. IN THIS CASE, WHERE THE PROSECUTORS AND JUDGE ATTEMPTED to “be a King”,
      Justice prevailed with a Jury of Americans. The Jury reviewed the evidence, and based their decision on the great weight, or lack of, EVIDENCE.

      Not, emotion, and outright lies.

      • We all wish it were perfect. But hell, if Casey Anthony wasn’t convicted then how could GZ get convicted?

        “The Jury reviewed the evidence, and based their decision on the great weight, or lack of, EVIDENCE.”

        That’s the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

  7. Daniellajoe,

    With all due respect, you are raising questions that Joe specifically addressed in this post. The bottom line is that the evidence tells us everything we need to know about this case. You’re entitled to your opinion, but the fact of the matter is that the evidence supports the correct story, and does not support the incorrect story. This isnt a matter of evil white republicans manipulating the case for it to work the way they want it to; this is a matter of the criminal justice system doing exactly what it was supposed to do. In this case, Florida’s stand your ground law accomplished the purpose that it was established to do. There is no injustice here.

    In my opinion, I think George Zimmerman is somewhat of a wuss, but that has no grounds in this case. What the prosecution failed to do amongst other things, was to establish the threshold for what George Zimmerman felt was his life being in danger. If different people have different psychological tolerance levels for danger, the George Zimmerman very well may have felt like his life was in danger. The back of your head is rather sensitive. It hurts when you accodentally bang your head on something, does it not? So imagine the back of your head being slammed against the cement, added with an aggressive male ontop of you. You’re probably going to have a heightened sense of being in danger.

    Bottom line, the right decision was made. The prosecution proved nothing beyond a reasonable doubt and did not meet their birder of proof. There is no justifiable reason to demonize Zimmerman.

    • “What the prosecution failed to do amongst other things, was to establish the threshold for what George Zimmerman felt was his life being in danger.”

      The prosecution couldn’t, according to Florida law, establish this threshold.

      Title XLVI CRIMES Chapter 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
      View Entire Chapter
      776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—

      (3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

      http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

    • Another rather excellent post Liber…as always.

      I have to say I’m not sure I entirely agree with you about Z being a Wuss though …… a 45 second screem of help is a long time to be enduring Head banging and threats of being killed, after being sucker punched down. By the accounts Martin went after Zimmerman twice. Not being satisfied with punching him down, Martin then got on top and repeatedly punched his face and head in the ground.

      If you’re not used to this kind of thing, it can be quite frightening and he may have had good reason to believe Martin WAS going to kill him with the attack going on for what seems like well over a couple of minutes. Thus this attack by Martin was way over the Top and far beyond a mere “push” and single Punch.

      • Great thoughts, Don! My comment on Zimmerman being a wuss is just my own subjective opinion (in some sort of vague agreement with Bob Beckle and Greg Gutfeld on that one sole point) and rightly so has no place as evidence or serious reason in any specific argument that I may form on this issue. Really, it’s more irrelevant than anything, and probably could have been left out of that reply.

      • “t can be quite frightening and he may have had good reason to believe Martin WAS going to kill him ”

        That could be true. Obviously he didn’t feel he was winning the fight so he did what he had to do.

        “Not being satisfied with punching him down, Martin then got on top and repeatedly punched his face and head in the ground.”

        Don’t know about all that. I agree with libercrite on the wuss thing here. He didn’t have much damage to his face. EMT said he had a bloody sensitive nose and small lacerations on the back of his head. Other than that, no black eyes, or broken jaw as you would expect from some one repeatedly punching another in the face. If TM sucker punched him, he must has been weak cause it didn’t do much damage. Even the lead cop said he felt he exaggerated his story. I think he did too.

        • Actually his nose was broken.

          About exaggerating his story….maybe…..maybe fuzzy memory about the most vicious moments of the attack. That would be so much exaggeration and adrenaline.Even when arguing verbally, heatedly with say our Significant Others we don’t always remember exactly HOW we say something.

          Not that I have heated arguments with my SO mind you…… ;- ))

          • “Actually his nose was broken”

            He told his PA that the EMT that examined him told him that it was broken. The EMT said he had no blood coming from his nostrils and the pics the cop took with his cell phone shows that also. He has some scratches and slight swelling–that’s about it.

            But even if he did have a broken nose if he got hit 25- 30 times as he claimed he’d have much more than that I would think.

            “maybe fuzzy memory about the most vicious moments of the attack”

            Hey, if I were trying to save my ass, I’d have fuzzy memory too.

            • That’s not true….he was later treated for a Broken nose. Not every broken nose is evident by profuse swelling.

              Those 25-30 hits were probably hit to his shoulders and chest thus smashing his head to the ground.

              Sounds like you are and always have been completely on top of every situation….. the Perfect Zen Person….must be nice to be you.

              Also sounds like , Your posts above notwithstanding, you have “figured out what happened” and thus condemed Zimmerman……..Actually I have come to expect no less ….. And you certainly didn’t disappoint.

              • Nope. I just feel that the conversation should be as truthful as possible. Don’t attack me because you can’t or choose not to substantiate your claim.

                “That’s not true….he was later treated for a Broken nose.”

                He could have been. Some reports said that his PA said that it probably was or could be. The EMT report said that he didn’t. The pics didn’t show that. That’s all I’m saying.

                “Those 25-30 hits were probably hit to his shoulders and chest thus smashing his head to the ground.”

                That could also be true too but it was reported that the lead investigator said that GZ said 25-30 blows to his face. The investigator reported that he said his injuries wasn’t consistent with that.

                “Sounds like you are and always have been completely on top of every situation….. the Perfect Zen Person….must be nice to be you.”

                Attack the messenger. Isn’t this what you claim the liberals always do? You can figure out the rest.

                “Also sounds like , Your posts above notwithstanding, you have “figured out what happened” and thus condemed Zimmerman…”

                Nope. I continue to say that he exaggerated his story,though. That would make your statement a strawman now wouldn’t it.

                “Actually I have come to expect no less”

                We are on common ground there. After the attack usually comes, “Were you there?!?” I expect that from you any moment now.

                I’ve posted things on both sides. The toxicology report said TM had THC in his system and cuts on his hands. GZ has prescriptions for Adderall and other meds. What’s fair on one side is also fair on the other.

                Just because I feel GZ exaggerated his story doesn’t change anything. He defended himself the way he deemed necessary. What I think is irrelevant as far as he’s concerned but still an interesting piece of discussion I think.

  8. Just a minor point. Florida’s stand your ground law did not enter into the defense on this case. the defense attorneys deliberately steered away from that from the beginning. They pled their case as purely self defense, I believe they said they didn’t want to go in that direction, from the beginning.
    Stand your ground was heavily discussed and distorted by the mainstream media. But I believe it presented some difficulties from a trial perspective. Perhaps Texas could shed more light on that .

    • Thanks for the clarification. When I heard self defense mentioned, I assumed it was via “stand your ground”. I didn’t realize there was a difference. Perhaps I should educate myself some more!

    • You’re correct , Ralph but if they received a guilty verdict the defense said they would appeal and use “stand you ground” for the basis so they were prepared just in case.

  9. Self-defense;
    776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
    (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
    (2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
    History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.

    Stand your ground (in part) –
    776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
    (3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

    Compensation for expenses caused by unwarranted prosecution (in part)
    776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
    (1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
    (2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
    (3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
    History.—s. 4, ch. 2005-27.

    http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

  10. Why the hello are you bashing libertarians? Actually. who have you been “reading” that says these things? The libertarians I have spoken to are quite convinced by the evidence in this case. That said, we all can agree that George Zimmerman probably wished he would’ve been carrying a finger-stun thingy rather than a gun.

  11. Hi Joe…I’m coming in late to this discussion, but it is an interesting one and I marked it for comment while I was traveling last week. In the interest of full disclosure, I found my way into the tent of the Chosen, that being the Libertarian tribe, after wandering in the wilderness of “American Liberalism,” not to be confused with “Classic Anglo-American Liberalism,” for about 25-years. While I believe you and I have discussed the Libertarian/Liberal distinction before, I think the Zimmerman/Martin episode provides an interesting case for further discussion. By the way, while I was goofing off on vacation, I read, or reread, three interesting references that bear on these issues: Russell Kirk’s THE CONSERVATIVE MIND, Charles Murray’s WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A LIBERTARIAN and Friedrich Hayek’s essay, “WHY I AM NOT A CONSERVATIVE.” I highly recommend all three for a first, or second, or fifth reading.

    Part of our Libertarian charm is that most of us share a set of basic, clear principles, and then value the intellectual freedom to interpret the meaning of those principles on our own. Also, true Libertarians (I love the snootiness of that opening) do not necessarily emphasize the same issues as critical, do not generally hold party affiliations (including the “Libertarian Party”, which to many is a bit of an oxymoron) and view ourselves as a loose movement based on the Classic Anglo-American Liberal postulates embodied in the US Constitution, the Declaration and the Bill of Rights. To use a Biblical image, we Libertarians function as “salt” within the broader context of American society. Salt, despite Nanny Bloomberg’s prescription, is essential to keeping our nation on its original path as laid out by the truly “Greatest Generation”, but too much salt, or Libertarianism, can spoil the dish, and certainly wreck the average dinner party. Our core principles are individual freedom and liberty, strictly limited government (see Murray for a great discussion of this point), free enterprise capitalist economics, and the freedoms of association, speech, religion, communication, the right to keep and bear arms, and the other limitations on government embodied in Constitution and original Bill of Rights.

    The Martin/Zimmerman Case should pose no real conflicts for the “average Libertarian”, except that the average Libertarian doesn’t exist. George Zimmerman, acting in his capacity as a Neighborhood Watch Captain, or alternatively as a concerned citizen, had every right to follow an unfamiliar figure, Mr. Martin, who was wandering through Zimmerman’s recently burglarized gated community late at night and without an obvious reason for being there. As it turns out, Mr. Martin had a criminal record, which was suppressed at trial, and was dressed in a manner that concealed his identity, rendering Mr. Zimmerman’s concern at least legitimate, if not actually wise. While it is not absolutely certain who initially confronted whom on the night of the shooting, both Zimmerman and Martin had every right to “confront” each other verbally, as both had good reason to feel somewhat threatened, based on the circumstances. Since Libertarians basically view the whole idea of “profiling” as a synonym for “common sense”, neither party did anything illegal up to this point. What happened after the verbal confrontation takes us into an area where Libertarianism has a lot to say.

    Although it is impossible to state definitively, all the forensic, eye witness and cell phone evidence indicates that Martin then struck Zimmerman, breaking his nose and knocking him to the ground, a clear violation of Zimmerman’s right not to be subjected to violence by Martin. As a former amateur boxer, I can attest that a blow sufficiently strong to break Zimmerman’s nose would have been powerfully struck and would have probably taken Zimmerman by surprise, since anyone who had ever boxed or had basic self-defense training would have instinctively “slipped” the punch by moving away from the blow, both backwards and to the side away from the angle of the strike. Also, Martin’s initial strike, which broke Zimmerman’s nose and knocked him backwards onto his back, would have effectively incapacitated Zimmerman. At that point Martin would have had the option of walking, not running, away, from the smaller and weaker man he had just effectively, “sucker punched.” I know this from having had the personal experiences of a street kid growing up in Philadelphia and from having had been the intended victim of a mugging in Trenton, New Jersey several years ago. The rule of the street is strike first if there is any chance you may be over matched by your victim. As a kid I ended a number of discussions by striking my fellow discussant before he could hit me first, thus ending the dialogue precipitously, and the rather foolish fellow who attempted to sucker punch me in Trenton found that I slipped his attempt to cold cock me and leveled him with a left and a right, after which I sat on his chest until the gendarmes arrived. My point here is that Martin would have been in complete control after he broke Zimmerman’s nose, but for a second time he chose to pursue violence rather than walking away from the confrontation.

    As a Libertarian, what followed was a straight-forward violation of George Zimmerman’s most basic right, the right to safety in his own person. When one’s nose is broken violently, particularly if one has not experienced that painful sensation before, it has the effect of creating confusion and generally removes one’s interest in continuing any physical confrontation. Lying on the concrete with a broken nose and the fear that would have been in control of George Zimmerman’s mind, Zimmerman would likely have already been in fear for his life. When Trayvon Martin, already in complete control of the situation, made the decision to drop onto Zimmerman’s chest and begin what is commonly called a “beat-down”, it would have been clear to Zimmerman that Martin intended to seriously injure him and would show no quarter. Martin’s move to begin slamming Zimmerman’s defenseless head into the concrete represented an escalation of Martin’s violence, since a head bashing as he began to administer is not a cosmetic injury, it often results in brain damage and is always life threatening. At that point George Zimmerman would have no alternative to asserting his most basic human right, the right to protect his life from a stronger attacker who gave every appearance of determination to beat him senseless and possibly kill him. With some effort, Zimmerman drew his fully licensed hand gun and prevented Trayvon Martin from taking his life. Had Zimmerman not fired a single shot it is at least even money that George Zimmerman would have died on that sidewalk or suffered permanent brain damage that night. Zimmerman had every right to take the action he took, and by any form of Libertarian reasoning, Zimmerman’s action, while tragic, was either self-defense or justifiable homicide.

    I’m not certain what “Libertarian” arguments could be advanced to dispute the fact that George Zimmerman acted in complete accord with Libertarian principles, and I will appreciate any citations that will direct me to the blasphemies that you reference. We Libertarians are infinitely reasonable people, but our understanding of the inviolability of individual rights is an absolute within our short list of beliefs. I’m interested in your feedback. Cheers, CDE

    • CDE,

      WOW! There’s a lot to chew on here. Give me until tonight and I’ll move this to a new post — if that’s OK with you.

      However, for the moment, I would offer you something to chew on — because this is where I am going to push most “libertarians” the hardest. I disagree with your Biblical metaphor of libertarians as salt. The Bible clearly explains that part of what it means by “salt” is that the Saints (i.e. Christians) exhibit a moral lifestyle to oppose the amoral and immoral world. This is the key difference between “Classic American Liberalism” and modern “libertarians.” The modern Libertarian likes to argue against any attempt to “legislate” morality, but without morality, there is no hope of preserving individual rights and liberty or a free and self-governing society.

      As you say, there is no “typical” libertarian, and this is why I have said they border on anarchists. And when you have all these libertarians claiming that society has no right to enforce morality, you have a bunch of people literally advocating for anarchy while claiming they are only trying to defend their rights.

      The founders realized this and corrected their mistakes. This is why the Articles of Confederation failed (too libertarian) and why it was replaced by the Constitution (classic liberal).

      Now, I’ll get back to this as it interests me, but I need to go make $100 for Obama so I can keep $1 for my value meal for today 🙂

      • Hi Joe: LOL… I’ll look for your response tonight, and I’m sure I’ll find it interesting. I don’t we Libertarians are Anarchists, since I’ve looked at the basic Anarchist positions and personally rejected them. But we are also not Conservatives, which from your expressed views on legislating “Public Morality”, I think is probably where you place your positions. Please post as I have no knowledge of how to do that and I think we’ll get more feedback that way. Warm regards, CDE

        • Charles,

          LOL, we will have a lively discussion and I look forward to it. But no, I am not a conservative. They are to the LEFT of our founders, who are to the Left of you and, if I understand you correctly, you are just “barely” to the left of the Anarchists — much less so than I think you realize. I’ll show you tonight 😉

  12. Joe: I do hope you’ll re-post this discussion at some time this evening, but in the meantime I’m trying to sort out my right from my left, particularly since the notion of my being somewhere left of Guy Fawkes is unsettling at best. TTUL.

  13. Pingback: Critiquing the Modern American Libertarian Movement | The Rio Norte Line

  14. As a “libertarian”-leaning independent, I really must say again, as I walk upon a public sidewalk, minding my own business, being approached by a neighborhood watchman infringes upon my rights. The laws of society have not yet progressed to the point where it can be interpreted otherwise.

      • Joe, again you miss the nuance.

        Being approached by a “neighborhood watchman” violates my rights. By walking on a public sidewalk, I accept that I may encounter other citizens. Although, I may not wish to acknowledge them, or at most nod and say hello, I do not deny their right to ask directions, or even ask for spare change. However, GZ acted in the capacity of law enforcement. His behavior was de facto vigilantism, and that has been long condemned in this country. The rest was predictable. What a shame.

        • Steve,

          I have found that those who rest on claims of nuance are usually admitting they are pleading special case.

          1 — Being approached does NOT violate your right as it does you no harm. If you have a right to speak, then your neighbor is just exercising their right to speak by addressing you.

          2 — You do have the right to ignore them, as Trayvon had a right to ignore Zimmerman.

          3 — Zimmerman did NOT act in the capacity of law enforcement; he asked someone what they were doing. He did not attempt to detain or restrain Trayvon. In fact, he tried to return to his vehicle, so your objection fails.

          4 — Go read the definition of vigilante. You are misusing it.

          5 — Now, this whole case you crafted is based on something THAT WAS NOT FACTUAL! This was NOT public property. If it was, the parents couldn’t have sued the home owners association. So it was PRIVATE property and Zimmerman had right to be there. This then gives him a right to inquire of others what they were doing there. It’s connected to his right to property in his ownership in the PRIVATE property.

          CDE: I REST MY CASE! 🙂

          • “… he asked someone what they were doing. He did not attempt to detain or restrain Trayvon.”

            Since Z refused to take the stand, facts not entered into evidence. What he told police the night of the shooting, prior to investigation, means nothing.

            “This was NOT public property.”

            If indeed the case, was not TM an invited guest of one of the residents?

            • Steve,

              Doesn’t matter if TM was or wasn’t a guest: the fact that Zimmerman had right in the property makes your assertion that he had no right to confront TM moot — unless you now want to take Zimmerman’s right in that property from him to further suit your argument.

              • Joe, I am not disputing your point about Z having a right to be there. I am simply saying he acted outside his proper role. Nonetheless, let’s consider it another way.

                TM is walking down the sidewalk. A resident observes him, and deems him “out of place” and suspicious. He calls the police, grabs his gun, and approaches TM. He says, “Hey boy, what ya doin’ in this neighborhood?”. TM says F-you, honky MFer. In response the resident says F-you n…. and blows him away. This is where Jesse, Al and the media wanted to take this on supposition, but the differences between the two scenarios are likely not that great. GZ was not wrong for being suspicious, given the history of break-ins, but his language on the 911 tape suggests he “profiled” TM as a perpetrator. What took place at the initial contact cannot be known, and since TM is dead, and GZ declined to tell his side of the story to the jury, we are left to our imaginations.

                The trial was about reasonable doubt, and the defense did their job well. But at some point, we must admit that the intersection of these two young men was not random. We can continue to expound upon varying political philosophies until the cows come home, but once this thing is finally put to bed, I suspect very few of us will put our heads on the pillow with the knowledge that we were absolutely honest in our analysis.

                • Steve,

                  So you are now defining the proper role of a citizen in a free and self-governing society as “slave to govt?” If I am not allowed to defend my person, property and community and must depend on a police force the Supreme Court has ruled DOES NOT have a duty to protect me, my property or community, I would argue you are advocating much worse than slave tot he govt. You are saying I have no right at all.

                  Now, Zimmerman did not do what you are describing in your example, so you are arguing a straw man.

                  Next, the other witnesses — even those for the State — all coroberated Zimmerman’s story. The physical evidence supports his story. You are just looking to create a scenario where GZ was the person you keep asserting him to be — in spite of the evidence and testimony to the contrary.

                  BTW: THAT is a violation of GZ rights. It is called FALSE WITNESS, or libel/slander.

                  And Steve, I am totally happy with my analysis in this case — because I didn’t go into it with racial blinders or the overpowering need to exonerate guilty people.

            • CDE,

              See, a self-proclaimed “libertarian” doing what you assert libertarians do: defining rights for themselves. In this case, doing so in a manner that infringes on Zimmerman’s rights to suit the inherent liberal/progressive leanings in “the majority” of self-proclaimed libertarians.

              This is why I can never stand with the libertarian movement, but only with those libertarians who TRULY understand the principles of liberty. Steve does not, nor do many who were agreeing with him on FB.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.