There’s a video at the link where they interview this brave hero, but it’s not a YouTube video, so I can’t imbed it. But here’s a picture of this awesome guy from his interview:
Armed Citizen Who Threw Wallet to Distracted Suspect: ‘That’s When I Lit Him Up’
January 29, 2017
An armed citizen, who was in Detroit’s E&S Carry Out Shrimp Shack during an alleged robbery, says he threw his wallet on the floor, and when the robbery suspect looked away to retrieve it, the citizen shot him.
The incident occurred around 5:45 p.m. on January 21.
According to ClickonDetroit.com, the armed citizen is a concealed carry permit holder going only by “Dennis” to protect his privacy. He was in the Shrimp Shack with his girlfriend, Latanya, when an alleged armed robbery suspect came in and ordered everyone to hand over their “cash.” Dennis and his girlfriend “and another customer started throwing their money and wallets on the floor.”
The suspect allegedly pointed his gun at Latanya’s face but was distracted by the wallets on the floor and looked away to pick them up. Dennis used the brief distraction as an opportunity to draw his own gun and shoot the suspect in the stomach.
Dennis said, “When I saw he had the gun in her face, and I threw my wallet down and keys, he turned to look and get the money, that’s when I lit him up.” He then “kicked the robber’s gun away” and tended to the wounded suspect until first responders arrived.
Following the incident, Dennis made clear that he did not have a specific plan to distract the suspect, but he took advantage of the situation when the distraction occurred. He added, “Even though you give them everything, they’ll still shoot you, and I wasn’t going out like that.”
WWJ reports that Detroit police said Dennis will face no charges for his actions; he “acted in self-defense.”
Donald Trump’s Companies Destroyed Emails in Defiance of Court Orders
October 31, 2016
Donald Trump has a long, troubling history of destroying and hiding important documents in lawsuits, but he thinks Hillary Clinton’s the one who should be going to jail.
Over the course of decades, Donald Trump’s companies have systematically destroyed or hidden thousands of emails, digital records and paper documents demanded in official proceedings, often in defiance of court orders. These tactics—exposed by a Newsweek review of thousands of pages of court filings, judicial orders and affidavits from an array of court cases—have enraged judges, prosecutors, opposing lawyers and the many ordinary citizens entangled in litigation with Trump. In each instance, Trump and entities he controlled also erected numerous hurdles that made lawsuits drag on for years, forcing courtroom opponents to spend huge sums of money in legal fees as they struggled—sometimes in vain—to obtain records.
This behavior is of particular import given Trump’s frequent condemnations of Hillary Clinton, his Democratic opponent, for having deleted more than 30,000 emails from a server she used during her time as secretary of state. While Clinton and her lawyers have said all of those emails were personal, Trump has suggested repeatedly on the campaign trail that they were government documents Clinton was trying to hide and that destroying them constituted a crime. The allegation—which the FBI concluded was not supported by any evidence—is a crowd-pleaser at Trump rallies, often greeted by supporters chanting, “Lock her up!”
Trump’s use of deception and untruthful affidavits, as well as the hiding or improper destruction of documents, dates back to at least 1973, when the Republican nominee, his father and their real estate company battled the federal government over civil charges that they refused to rent apartments to African-Americans. The Trump strategy was simple: deny, impede and delay, while destroying documents the court had ordered them to hand over.
Shortly after the government filed its case in October, Trump attacked: He falsely declared to reporters that the feds had no evidence he and his father discriminated against minorities, but instead were attempting to force them to lease to welfare recipients who couldn’t pay their rent.
The family’s attempts to slow down the federal case were at times nonsensical. Trump submitted an affidavit contending that the government had engaged in some unspecified wrongdoing by releasing statements to the press on the day it brought the case without first having any “formal communications” with him; he contended that he’d learned of the complaint only while listening to his car radio that morning. But Trump’s sworn statement was a lie. Court records show that the government had filed its complaint at 10 a.m. and phoned him almost immediately afterward. The government later notified the media with a press release.
Prosecutors responded to Trump’s affidavit by showing he had fudged his claim by using the term “formal communication”—an acknowledgment, they said, that he had received what only he would characterize as an informal notification—which they described as an intentional effort to mislead the court and the public. But the allegation slowed the case; it required government lawyers to appear in court to shoot down Trump’s false charge.
The Trumps had more delaying tactics. Trump announced in a press conference that his family and their company were bringing a $100 million countersuit against the government for libel; anonymous tenants and community leaders, he said, had been calling and writing letters expressing shock at the government’s “outrageous lies.” Once again, motions, replies and hearings followed. Once again, the court threw out the Trump allegations.
For months, the Trumps ignored the government’s discovery demands, even though court procedure in a civil or criminal case requires each side to produce relevant documents in a timely manner. This allows for the plaintiffs or prosecutors to develop more evidence in support of their claims, as well as for the defense to gather proof to fight the case against them. When litigation is filed or even contemplated, scrupulous lawyers and corporations immediately impose document-retention programs or require that any shredding or disposing of records be halted. Courts have handed down severe sanctions or even criminal charges of obstruction of justice against executives and companies that destroyed records because they knew they were going to be sued.
Yet when the government filed its standard discovery requests, the Trumps reacted as though seeking that information was outrageous. They argued in court that prosecutors had no case and wanted to riffle through corporate files on a fishing expedition. Once again, this led to more delays, more replies, more hearings…and another specious argument thrown out of court.
Six months after the original filing, the case was nowhere because the Trumps had repeatedly ignored the deadlines to produce records and answers to questions, known as interrogatories. When a government attorney finally telephoned a Trump lawyer to find out why, he was told the Trumps had not even begun preparing their answers and had no plans to do so. The Trumps also postponed and blocked depositions, refused to provide a description of their records, as required, and would not turn over any documents.
Finally, under subpoena, Trump appeared for a short deposition. When asked about the missing documents, he made a shocking admission: The Trumps had been destroying their corporate records for the previous six months and had no document-retention program. They had conducted no inspections to determine which files might have been sought in the discovery requests or might otherwise be related to the case. Instead, in order to “save space,” Trump testified, officials with his company had been tossing documents into the shredder and garbage.
The government dashed to court, seeking sanctions against the Trumps. Prosecutors asked the judge to allow them to search through the corporate files or simply declare the Trumps in default and enter a judgment against them. The judge opted to allow the government access to the company offices so they could find the records themselves.
In three letters and three phone calls, the government notified the Trumps that this inspection would take place on June 12, 1974. When they arrived at the Trump offices, Trump was there, but he and everyone else were “surprised” that prosecutors had come and refused to allow them access to documents without their defense lawyers present. A prosecutor called those lawyers, but they were not in their offices. The frustrated prosecutors then gave up and headed back to court.
They were then hit with a new delaying tactic. The Trumps submitted a filing based on statements by Trump that radically misrepresented what had occurred that day. He claimed a prosecutor, Donna Goldstein, had arrived at the company without notifying the Trumps’ counsel, refused to telephone their lawyer and demanded access to Trump’s office. The prosecutor—accompanied, the Trumps claimed, by five “stormtroopers”—then banged on doors throughout the office, insisting she and her team be allowed to “swarm haphazardly through all the Trump files and to totally disrupt their daily business routine.”
At the same time, in a move that caused another huge delay, the Trumps claimed that Goldstein had been threatening Trump employees who were potential witnesses. In several instances, the employees signed affidavits stating they had been subjected to abuse by Goldstein, then denied it when they were forced to testify. Even one of the government’s key witnesses, Thomas Miranda—who told the government the Trumps instructed managers to flag applications from minorities and that he was afraid the family would physically harm him—suddenly announced that prosecutors had threatened him and that he had never provided any evidence against the Trumps.
These allegations of misconduct, which demanded sanctions against the government for abusing its power, required more hearings. Once again, the Trump claims went nowhere.
In June 1975, more than 18 months after the government filed the case and with the Trumps still withholding potentially relevant records, the two sides struck a settlement. The agreement—which, like all civil settlements, did not contain an admission of guilt—compelled the Trumps to comply with federal housing regulations against discrimination, adopt specific policies to advance that goal, to notify the community that apartments would be rented to anyone, regardless of race, and meet other requirements.
The Trumps ignored these requirements and still refused to rent apartments to minorities, something the government proved by sending African-Americans and non-Hispanic Caucasians to pose as applicants. The government brought another complaint against the Trumps in 1978, who then agreed to a new settlement.
In that case, the government had the financial wherewithal to fight back against abuses of the courts and the discovery process by the Trump family. But many private litigants, who have to spend their own money and hire their own lawyers, have been ground down by Trump’s litigation-as-warfare-without-rules approach.
Courts are loath to impose sanctions when litigants fail to comply with discovery demands; in order to hurry cases along, judges frequently issue new orders setting deadlines and requirements on parties that fail to produce documents. But Trump and his companies did get sanctioned for lying about the existence of a crucial document to avoid losing a suit.
In 2009, a group of plaintiffs claimed Trump duped them into buying apartments in a Fort Lauderdale, Florida, development by portraying it as one of his projects. The fine print of the dense and legalistic purchase contracts, however, revealed that Trump had agreed only to license his name to the developers, and when the project hit financial snags, he walked away from it.
In their initial disclosures in 2011, Trump and his company said they had no insurance to cover any of their liability in this case. That was important because an insurance policy lets the plaintiffs calculate how much money a defendant can pay in a settlement without suffering any direct financial consequences. In other words, that insurance lets the plaintiff know how aggressively to pursue a settlement, knowing the defendant will have some losses covered by the policy.
At the time, a settlement in the then-prominent case could have been disastrous for Trump; he faced an array of similar lawsuits because he had licensed his name to developers around the world for projects that later collapsed. In each case, Trump had marketed the developments as his own, a claim contradicted by the sales contracts. A settlement in any of these cases might have encouraged other people who had lost deposits in a Trump-marketed development to file lawsuits against him.
Two years after denying that Trump had insurance that could have been used to settle the Fort Lauderdale litigation, one of his lawyers made a startling admission: Trump and his company had been insured all along for up to $5 million. But no more—the policy had recently “dried up,” the lawyer said. Stunned, the apartment buyers filed a motion seeking sanctions against Trump and his company, arguing that the case “may very well have settled long ago had the plaintiffs been provided with the policy in a timely manner,” according to a court filing.
Alan Garten, General Counsel at the Trump Organization for the past decade, said that at the time of the original disclosure, the company’s lawyers did not believe that the policy covered any potential liability in the lawsuit, which he said was an error on his part. “This solely fell on me, and if anyone is to blame for that, it’s me,’’ he said. “It was completely an innocent oversight. And it was my innocent oversight.’’ Garten said the other cases in this article preceded his time at the company and he did not know the facts surrounding them. In the Ft. Lauderdale case, Federal Judge Kathleen Williams ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and ordered Trump to pay limited legal fees for failing to disclose the policy, then held in reserve the possibility of imposing additional sanctions. The case subsequently settled.
Perhaps the worst legal case involving Trump and his companies hiding and destroying emails and other records involved real estate developer Cordish Cos., which, through an affiliate called Power Plant Entertainment LLC, built two American Indian casinos in Florida. In January 2005, Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts sued in a state court almost immediately after the opening of the casinos, which both operate under the Hard Rock brand. In his lawsuit, Trump claimed that the companies had unlawfully conspired with one of his former associates to cheat him out of the deal; he argued that the projects should be turned over to him.
Negotiations with the tribe and construction of the casinos had taken many years, raising the possibility that the state’s four-year statute of limitations had passed before Trump finally got around to filing his lawsuit. If Power Plant could prove Trump knew in early 2000 that his former associate was working on the Hard Rock deal, the case would be thrown out of court. The clock here for the statute of limitations starts ticking down when plaintiffs learn they have been swindled.
Trump claimed he learned about the deal in January 2001, about the time of the groundbreaking and more than three years before he filed suit. However, the defendants contended he had been informed of the projects in 1999. Trump offered no evidence in support of his contention except his word, so the opposing lawyers filed extensive discovery demands, seeking emails, computer files, calendars and other records that might prove he knew about the casino deal before 2000.
A full year into the case, Trump and his company, Trump Hotels, had produced only a single box of documents, many of which were not relevant—and no emails, digital files, phone records, calendars or even documents Trump lawyers had promised to turn over. Interrogatories were still unanswered. Lawyers for Power Plant obtained a court order compelling Trump and his company to comply with the discovery demands and hand over the relevant information and documents.
In a March 2006 response, Trump’s lawyers argued that the emails and other electronic documents had not been produced because the company didn’t have them. They claimed it had no servers until 2001—the year Trump claimed he had learned of the Power Plant project. They also claimed Trump Hotels had no policy regarding retaining documents until 2003. In other words, they hadn’t turned over any emails because no emails had been saved on a Trump server.
Judge Jeffrey Streitfeld reacted with near disbelief. “I don’t have the patience for this,” he said. “This has been going on too long to have to listen—and I don’t mean to be disrespectful—to this double-talk. There has to be an attitude adjustment from the plaintiff.”
Streitfeld ordered Trump executives to file sworn statements attesting to how their email systems had worked from 1996 onward. In response, Trump Hotels filed an affidavit from one of its information technology managers stating that it had had no servers prior to 2001.
That was false and by deposing numerous IT specialists with two Trump companies—the Trump Organization and Trump Hotels—lawyers for Power Plant gradually chipped away at it. Finally, during a deposition nine months after he had signed the deceptive affidavit, the same Trump executive admitted his assertions in it were untrue. In fact, an IBM Domino server for emails and other files had been installed in 1999, the same year witnesses for Power Plant contended that Trump had learned of the casino deal. Prior to that, as early as 1997, the Trump corporations used servers off-site operated by a company called Jersey Cape, according to sworn testimony by one of the Trump IT experts; the following year, the Trump Organization and Trump Hotels moved to another email provider, Technology 21.
These startling revelations changed nothing, however, because there was no trove of documents. The Trump records had been destroyed. Despite knowing back in 2001 that Trump might want to file a lawsuit, his companies had deleted emails and other records without checking if they might be evidence in his case. Beginning around 2003, the company wiped clear the data from everyone’s computers every year. Lawyers for Trump Hotels had never sent out the usual communication issued during litigation instructing employees to stop destroying records that might be related to this case. The deletions continued, and backup tapes were reused—thus erasing the data they held. Power Plant lawyers also discovered that after the lawsuit was filed, Trump Hotels disposed of a key witness’s computer without preserving the data on it.
In subsequent filings, Power Plant maintained that Trump Hotels had intentionally deceived the court in its March 2006 filing when it claimed it had located no emails relevant to the case because, at that point, it had not yet conducted any searches of its computer system. Trump Hotels executives did not instruct their IT department to examine backup computer tapes until 2007, and even then the job wasn’t done, depositions show. And when computer specialists finally attempted to electronically locate any relevant documents that had survived the flurry of deletions, the procedures were absurdly inadequate. While looking for relevant documents, the technology team was told to use only two search terms—the name of the tribe and the last name of the former Trump associate. So even if there was an email that stated, “Donald Trump learned the full details of the Hard Rock casino deal in Florida in 1999,” it would not have been found by this search.
With all this proof that Trump Hotels had ignored every court order and filed false documents, Power Plant asked the judge either to impose sanctions or allow its own expert to search for relevant digital records. Trump Hotels argued it had done nothing improper, although its lawyers acknowledged having made some mistakes. Still, Streitfeld ordered Trump Hotels to make its servers and computer systems available for inspection by a computer forensics consulting firm. That review showed there was no digital data in the computers, servers or backup tapes prior to January 2001—the very month Trump claimed to have learned of the Florida casino deal.
With the likelihood of sanctions growing, Trump Hotels dropped the suit a few months later, in part because of the company’s financial troubles. A company involved in the Power Plant case agreed to purchase one of Trump’s struggling casinos in Atlantic City, New Jersey, and included as part of the deal a requirement that the litigation be ended.
This review of Trump’s many decades of abusing the judicial system, ignoring judges, disregarding rules, destroying documents and lying about it is not simply a sordid history lesson. Rather, it helps explain his behavior since he declared his candidacy. He promised to turn over his tax returns and his health records—just as he promised to comply with document discovery requirements in so many lawsuits—then reneged. As a result, he has left a sparse evidentiary trail that can be used to assess his wealth, his qualifications for the presidency or even his fitness. Should voters choose him to be the next U.S. president, he will enter the Oval Office as a mystery, a man who has repeatedly flouted the rules. He has solemnly told the country to trust him while refusing to produce any records to prove whether he speaks the truth or has utter contempt for it.
At age 27, the unmarried woman in this news story already has 4 kids.
But good news! She just won the lottery! And after taxes, she took home a lump sum of $88 million!
But bad news! She seems to be on a path to wasting all of it on bailing out her serial criminal boyfriend!
Every time she bails him out, the bail is double the previous amount. The most recent time, bail was $12 million. And even though he always shows up for his court appearances, between 7% and 10% of the bail is non-refundable. So for the most recent time, she lost between $840,000 and $1.2 million.
Since she won the lottery less than a year ago, she has already bailed him out three times. If she continues to do this at the same rate, and if the bail amount keeps doubling every time, and if between 7% and 10% is non-refundable, then in less than three years, she will have spent all her money on the non-refundable part of bailing out her boyfriend.
The idea of the bail amount being doubled each time is a fantastic idea. It gives smart people a chance to quit their life of crime before it’s too late. And it shows that stupid people are, well, stupid.
I didn’t know until just now.
New Orleans playground shooting suspect has long rap sheet
November 27, 2015
New Orleans police were hunting Friday (Nov. 27) for Joseph “Moe” Allen, 32, the first suspect to be named in the Bunny Friend Park shooting that injured 17 people. And they are pleading for people who were at the Upper 9th Ward playground to come forward with information.
Despite the crowds at the park when the gunfire erupted Sunday evening, no one there had sent videos to police, Mayor Mitch Landrieu said. “And everyone knows there are lots,” he said.
“We need videos. We need photos. We need people to come forward,” police Superintendent Michael Harrison said.
Two groups of people turned their guns on each other, and police found as many as 70 bullet casings just the next morning. No shooters other than Allen have been identified by police.
“This is just the first shoe to drop,” Landrieu said. “We are going to do everything we can to make sure all the other shoes drop as well.”
The mayor warned that anyone harboring Allen also will be prosecuted. “All of us are going to work around the clock,” Harrison promised.
Allen, 32, faces 17 counts of attempted first-degree murder. Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office records show he is a convicted felon with a rap sheet dating from 2002. It includes home invasion, carjacking, illegal carrying of weapon and possession of cocaine and heroin.
At a Friday afternooon news conference, officials sidestepped several questions, including whether they had identified the musical group that was said to be recording a video at the park at the time of the shooting and whether Allen belonged to the gang family that includes the father of murdered 5-year-old Briana Allen.
However, Harrison did say Allen has ties to more than one group. Sheriff’s Office records show Allen was arrested in 2002 with Travis Scott, who recently pleaded guilty to a federal racketeering charge as the ringleader of the FnD gang, named for Frenchmen and Derbigny streets.
Harrison said all but one or two of the Bunny Friend Park victims were in “fair to good condition,” and no one’s wounds were life-threatening. “We are so glad that it wasn’t worse,” he said.
I think this sign is a great idea, because it tells the truth. It seems to me the only people who would be upset by it are the people who don’t want people to know that Brown was a criminal. For example, Obama tried to block the release of the security video which showed Brown committing theft and assault, despite the fact that there had been multiple Freedom of Information requests for the video. I like this sign because it is a victory for the truth.
The News-Gazette reports:
Business’ sign causes a stir
August 13, 2015
FARMER CITY — A local business owner with a penchant for controversy set his sights on Ferguson, Mo., this week.
“Congrats Michael Brown one year with no criminal behavior,” the sign outside Schmidt’s Welding and Machine Shop in Farmer City read Tuesday and early Wednesday, days after the one-year anniversary of a Ferguson police officer shooting and killing unarmed black teenager Michael Brown.
Phil Schmidt, who owns the sign and the business, was unapologetic…
“It is what it is — all these people in Ferguson going crazy over a guy that broke the law three times that day, tried to kill a cop, tried to get his gun, it’s crazy,” Schmidt said Wednesday morning when contacted by The News-Gazette.
He added: “What they’re doing to cops makes me sick.”
Here’s a picture of the sign from the article:
Here’s the video of Michael Brown committing theft and assault:
During the Chrysler bankruptcy, Obama violated the Fifth Amendment and more than 150 years of bankruptcy law by illegally treating secured creditors worse than unsecured creditors. Some of these secured creditors were retired teachers and police officers from Indiana.
Poll: frat jerks cause $75,000 of damage to ski resort: should their parents be allowed to bail them out?
I’m no expert, but I think it’s going to cost a lot more than $75,000 to repair these damages. And that doesn’t even take into account the lost revenues from not being able to rent those rooms. The students who did this should be forced to pay for all of those costs, be expelled from the school, and have criminal charges filed against them.
I think their parents should be prohibited from paying for the damages. The students should have to work to pay for it.
Every decent human being would side with these armed black men.
On the other hand, the looters, arsonists, and anti-gun leftists would prefer to let this business be burned down.
From the Las Vegas Review-Journal:
Black residents protect white-owned store in Ferguson
November 26, 2014
One, a 6-foot-8-inches man named Derrick Jordan — “Stretch,” as friends call him — whisked an AR-15 assault rifle out from a pickup truck parked near the entrance.
Jordan, 37, was one of four black Ferguson residents who spent Tuesday night planted in front of the store, pistols tucked into their waistbands, waiting to ward off looters or catch shoplifters.
Jordan and the others guarding the gas station are all black. The station’s owner is white.
“We would have been burned to the ground many times over if it weren’t for them,” said gas station owner Doug Merello, whose father first bought it in 1984.
After this scumbag raped a child, the child’s father gave him exactly what he deserved.
Associated Press reports:
Police: Fla. father beats accused child abuser
The father called 911 around 1 a.m. after he walked in on the alleged abuse, police said. When officers arrived, they found Raymond Frolander motionless on the living room floor. He had several knots on his face and was bleeding from the mouth.
“He is nice and knocked out on the floor for you,” the father told the 911 dispatcher. “I drug him out to the living room.”
The Daytona Beach News-Journal reports that the father — who was not identified by police — told investigators he walked in as Frolander was abusing the boy.
When asked by the 911 dispatcher if any weapons were involved, the father said “my foot and my fist.”
The father has not been charged with any crime.
“Dad was acting like a dad. I don’t see anything we should charge the dad with,” Daytona Beach Police Chief Mike Chitwood said. “You have an 18-year-old who has clearly picked his target, groomed his target and had sex with the victim multiple times.”
Frolander is charged with sexual battery on a child under 12. He is being held without bail. It was not immediately known whether he’d hired a lawyer.
According to the arrest affidavit, Frolander admitted the abuse.
Listen to Hillary Clinton laugh as she explains how she chose to knowingly save a guilty child molester from spending decades in prison
Sometimes a public defender is forced to take a case they don’t want, but that’s not what happened here. At 0:49, Hillary Clinton says:
“The prosecutor called me a few years ago, he said he had a guy who had been accused of rape, and the guy wanted a woman lawyer. Would I do it as a favor for him?”
At 1:48, she says:
“He took a lie detector test. I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs. [laughter]”
This child molester could have gotten 30 years to life in prison. But at 5:55 Hillary says that she:
“Got him off with time served in the county jail, he’d been in the county jail about two months.”
Hillary Clinton chose to defend a child molester whom she knew was guilty. She saved him from spending decades in prison. And after she was done, she laughed about it.
Trayvon Martin broke Geroge Zimmerman’s nose, gave him two black eyes, and repeatedly smashed his head against the concrete. Zimmerman then shot and killed Martin. Zimmerman was put on trial for murder. During the trial, the medical evidence and witnesses called by the prosecution showed that Martin had violently assaulted Zimmerman, and that Zimmerman had killed Martin in self defense. The jury found Zimmerman not guilty. Liberals across the country responded with huge amounts of criticism and protest. Martin was black, and Zimmerman is a “white hispanic,” and to the Zimmerman haters, the killing and verdict must have been racist.
Roderick Scott is a black man in New York who, in 2009, shot and killed an unarmed white teenager. A jury found Scott to be not guilty of murder because Scott had killed the teen in self defense. Liberals have been silent on this.
Both killers were found not guilty by a jury because the killing was done in self defense. Yet liberals have gotten hugely emotional and hysterical over one killing, while having zero reaction to the other. Why is that?
Here’s my take on this. In order to be objective regarding the issues of race and crime, you have to ask yourself this: if the races of the killer and killee had been reversed, would your opinion of the verdict still be the same? For me, the answer to that question is “yes.” As a strong advocate of self defense, I agree with both verdicts. But for the Zimmerman haters, the answer to that question is clearly “no.” Their hatred of Zimmerman has everything to do with the races of the people involved, which is why they have been silent regarding the Scott verdict.
Dr. Imani Perry, Princeton professor, it’s YOUR fault that your sons cried at the George Zimmerman verdict
Update: I sent an email to Dr. Perry with the link to this blog entry, and I told her, “I welcome you to show this to your students and anyone else whom you think might like to read it and comment on it.”
Dr. Perry wrote back to me and said, “I will be reporting you to the police for harassment.”
“My two sons, bright, creative and kind African American boys, aged 7 and 9, both wept when they heard that George Zimmerman had been acquitted. They were afraid he, or others like him, might come for them next.”
“I did not anticipate that their young lives would be as much defined by the tragedies of the murder and execution of Trayvon Martin and Troy Davis, as by the historic era of the first African American president. They already know the brutal truth of racial inequality, and that they are called to wage the battle against it, just as their forefathers and mothers.”
“I believe that if children are guided honestly through the reality of the world in which they live, it will help them build resilience.”
“I am training my sons to develop resilience in the face of the racial injustice.”
Dr. Perry, why would your sons worry that Zimmerman might “come for them next”?
Or, is it because you lied to them, and falsely told them that Zimmerman “murdered” and “executed” Trayvon Martin?
If you believe that children should be “guided honestly through the reality of the world,” then why did you teach your own children that Martin was “murdered” and “executed,” when the medical evidence and witnesses called by the prosecution showed that Martin had violently assaulted Zimmerman, and that Zimmerman killed Martin in self defense?
Dr. Perry, did you teach your children about Roderick Scott? Scott is a black man in New York who, in 2009, shot and killed an unarmed white teenager. A jury found Scott to be not guilty of murder because Scott had killed the teen in self defense.
Scott was found not guilty for the same reason that Zimmerman was found not guilty. Both killings were done in self defense. But while you taught your children that the Zimmerman verdict was proof of racism, I very much doubt that you told them anything at all about the Scott verdict.
If you want your sons to have “resilience in the face of the racial injustice,” then why did you scare them by falsely telling them that the Zimmerman verdict was the result of racism, instead of reassuring them by truthfully telling them what pretty much every legal scholar who has closely followed the case has said – that the verdict was the result of the fact that Zimmerman acted in self defense?
Dr. Perry, did you teach your sons that a year before Zimmerman killed Martin, Zimmerman had spoken out against the son of a white police lieutenant who had violently beaten a black homeless man? I’m guessing that you did not tell your sons about this, because it contradicts your bogus claim that Zimmerman is a racist.
Did you teach your sons that before Zimmerman killed Martin, Zimmerman had tutored black children for free? I’m guessing that you did not.
Did you tell your sons that before Martin was killed, a search of his backpack at his school showed it to contain a dozen pieces of women’s jewelry, including silver wedding rings, and earrings with diamonds, as well as a screwdriver, which is often used as a burglary tool? I doubt you told them this, because it gives credibility to Zimmerman’s claim on the 911 call that Martin was acting suspiciously. Martin may have been casing houses when Zimmerman saw him.
Did you tell your sons that Martin’s autopsy showed traces of marijuana in his system? I doubt you told them this, because it verifies Zimmerman’s claim on the 911 call that Martin was acting like he was on drugs.
In the real world, Martin was a burglar, and he used illegal drugs, and it’s quite possible that he was casing houses when Zimmerman observed him.
Dr. Perry, since you want your sons to know “the brutal truth” and to be “guided honestly through the reality of the world,” I was wondering if you have ever told them that 93% of black murder victims are murdered by other blacks?
Dr. Perry, your sons did not cry because of the Zimmerman verdict. Instead, they cried because you taught them to see racism where it does not exist. You taught them to have sympathy for a violent teenage thug who brutally beat a man’s head against the concrete. It’s your fault that your sons cried. It’s not George Zimmerman’s fault. It’s not the jury’s fault. It’s YOUR fault.
Dr. Perry, I hope that for your sons’ own happiness, when they go to college, they get degrees in subjects such as math, engineering, computer programming, physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology, medicine, music, art, and literature, and avoid at all costs anything to do with “African American studies,” a subject which seems intent on making people feel like helpless victims, instead of empowered, intelligent human beings.
Update: I sent an email to Dr. Perry with the link to this blog entry, and I told her, “I welcome you to show this to your students and anyone else whom you think might like to read it and comment on it.”
Dr. Perry wrote back to me and said, “I will be reporting you to the police for harassment.”
On July 15, 2013, thousands of protestors in Times Square chanted:
“Trayvon did not have to die. We don’t know the reason why.”
To those thousands of protestors, as well as to the millions of other people who share their point of view, I would like to present the following simple, handy dandy, step by step guide on how to avoid getting shot and killed by George Zimmerman. I follow these steps every day, and the results speak for themselves. If you follow these simple and easy steps, then you, too, can avoid getting shot and killed by George Zimmerman.
Step #1: Don’t pin George Zimmerman down on the ground.
Step #2: Don’t break George Zimmerman’s nose.
Step #3: Don’t give George Zimmerman two black eyes.
Step #4: Don’t repeatedly slam George Zimmerman’s head on the pavement.
That’s it. Just four simply, easy steps.
It works for me.
And if you follow these steps, it will work for you too.
Mainstream media refuses to report on prosecutor’s witness who said Trayvon Martin was “grounding and pounding” George Zimmerman
This is from four days ago, but it’s the first that I’ve heard of it.
As far as I can tell, the mainstream media has chosen to avoid reporting this.
On June 28, 2013, Breitbart reported:
On Friday, in testimony devastating to the prosecution’s case against George Zimmerman in his murder trial for the killing of Trayvon Martin, prosecution witness John Good stated that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, beating him mixed martial arts style – Good used the term “ground and pound” — before Zimmerman shot him. According to Good, he thought Zimmerman was shouting help as Martin beat him. “That’s what it looked like,” he stated. “It looked like there were strikes being thrown, punches being thrown.”
The prosecution struggled to downplay the testimony of its own witness, at one point objecting to a written record from Good being admitted into evidence. The prosecution’s case seems to be that Zimmerman stalked Martin for racial reasons, “evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual,” initiated a confrontation to that end, but somehow allowed Martin to gain the upper position in a physical fight and shouted “help!” repeatedly before shooting him.
I know that liberals hate Brietbart and will say that it’s lying, so here is a video of the testimony:
That witness was called by the prosecution, not by the defense. I’m no legal expert, but that seems like a really odd thing for a prosecutor to do.
Today is July 2, 2013, and even though that testimony occurred four days ago, I have been unable to find any references to it in any mainstream news sources.
Of course this is the same mainstream media which keeps publishing pictures of Martin from when he was 12 instead of from when he was 17, and the same mainstream media which edited the 911 recording to falsely make it look like Zimmerman was a racist.
After a school security camera showed Martin acting suspiciously, a search of his backpack showed that it contained 12 pieces of jewelry, including silver wedding rings, and earrings with diamonds. The backpack also had a screwdriver, which is often used as a tool by burglars. Martin said that the jewelry belonged to a friend, but refused to say who that friend was.
Why would a teenage boy bring a backpack full of silver wedding rings and diamond earrings to school? Do Martin’s millions of defenders really think that he was not a burglar?
The fact that Martin was in possession of stolen jewelry at school is perfectly in line with Zimmerman’s claim on the 911 call that Martin was acting suspiciously. And there had been quite a few burglaries in the area recently.
Also on the 911 call, Zimmerman had said that Martin was acting as if he was on drugs. Martin’s autopsy showed that there was THC in his system. And while other parts of marijuana can stay in the system for weeks after it’s smoked, the THC only stays in the person’s system for a few hours. Therefore, Martin was indeed high when Zimmerman saw him.
And how does President Obama respond to all of this?
“If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”