I am cursed with a brain. That is why Id on't let HINDSIGHT blind me to real facts. You see any number of people asserting that George Zimmerman had no "right' to "appont h
imself" as "protecter" of his neighborhood. The people asserting this astounding proposition are spreading MANURE. Sure, Zimmerman might "overstep", and may expose himself to tooo much risk by taking this too serusly, but Zimmerman has a RIGHT to observe in his neighborhood, and APPROACH peple he does nto recognize to try to find out who they are. Now, it is true they don't have to TELL him, which is where Zimmerman could get into trouble (and did). And Zimmerman has not "right' to GRAB someone (not committing a crime), or pull a gun on someone (not committing a crime). But there are all kinds of people out there saing that Zimmerman was VIOLATING THEA LAW by merely following Trayvon Martin (peacefully--that is, the pople takng this absurd position seeem to say that Zimmerman could not even do it peacefully). That is absurd, unless lyou have a very "special" meaning of "oollow". By the way, NO ONE seems to be interested in this question: WHY did Trayvon Martin RU? No, I have not seen that question really answered, as if Trayvon Martin has a "right " to ASSUME that George Zimmerman was going to try to do him harm. Or did Trayvon Martin haave something of a guilty conscience because he was up to something a little shady? I don't know, but I don't see exactly why Trayvon Martin was running away from George Zimmerman. enough media-type SPECULATION which has only marginal relevance. I want to explain this, before I go into "JOURNALISTS" who "FOLLOW" people, one of my own recent experiences.
I was walking aimlessly around a field outside of a field near the public library, waiting for the library to open (a matter of ten mnutes or so). I did not feel like sitting around at the library door. As stated, I was AIMLESSLY walking back and forth behind the back walls of a number of houses (wose back yards "look out' upon this open area--a drainage area/field). Now this was broad daylight, lalthough I think that the situation might be more "tense" all around at night. This is El Paso, which is a relatively SAFE city (believe it or not), but still has its share of burglaries. Some say that increased difficulty for illegal immigrants in getting across the border has DECREASED theft in El Paso. I am not sure about that, and hav ve no idea whether statistics back that up. I have never really endorsed the idea that illeagal immigrants were a JAMOR surce of crime in El Paso. I digress. Th epont is that I was LOITERING, wiht no apparent reason, in an open area behind some residential properties. Don't get disracted here with the thought: "Gee, Skip is WEIRD." My daughters could hve told you that long ago, and pretty much tell anyone who will listen that their father is weird. That is irrelevant here, and sort of makes the pont. I am not a blakc man.
As I was walking back and forth--indeed, walking back toward the wall at the back of the residential homes---I saw a man in the distance. He actualy seemed to FOLLOW me towrd the wall, as if wanting to TALK to me. Yp. He had a lperfect RIGHT to do that--as much right as I had to be there. Now this man approached me from the open drainage area (which has small trees and stuff, and where some hoomelss people sometimes live. Did I have moe reason to be AFRAID of this man than Trayvon Martin had to be afraid of George Zimmerman? I don'tknow. I think maybe so. It is true this was broad daylgiht, but there are aslo NO PEOLE usually in this area (you may add in your mind: "ecept weird people like Skip"). Thre were no peole there this day. the library was half a block away, wiht a big mound of dirt int he way. Wathat did I do? I did NOT "run". I did NOT try to "lose" this man. We had a nice conversation about what I was doing there--if a slightly off-beat conversation. My own opinion ws confirmed --in my mind--that this was a HOMELESS man (maybe thiniing he was speakng to another homess man). Would I have been "justified" in running away from this man, and then turning aournd and ATTACKING him if I decided he was some sort of "threat" to me (even though I never found out what hhe wanted)? I don't think so. The man had a perfect right to come up to me and try to engate me in conversation. Those hindsight merchants out there with an AGENDA are WRONG when they say he had no such "right", because he wasn't a policeman. . No, I have not ccarried or shot, a gun since I was honorably discharged from the United States Army some 40 years ago..
What if I was wrong? What if this man were a "neghborhood watchman", or--more likely--an UNCERDOVER COP. I had never considered that possibility until the George Zimmerman matter. Indeed, Trayvon Martin coulld certainly have suspected he was dealing with an UNDERCOVER cop, which would not make his actinos look very good. But that is not the pont here. I did not HAVE to answer any questions, unless the gy flashed a badge and demanded my identity. That is, however, the worng end from which to consider the "rights' of George Zimmerman. Zimmerman had a RIGHT to approach a suspicion person and try to engage that person in converssation Thre may be some DANGER involved in that sort of thing., but there is NOTHIGN wrong iwith it. If Martin attempted to run, it maight be perfectly natural to "foolow" him to see more about what he is doing. There is not even anything wrong with Zimmerman "following" stranger int he area to see if he is up to mischief. Again, it is WRONG to say that this would make you an "ggressor", and justify a violent attack against you. As I sugget, what if my "homeless man" had started jogging after me to get my attention. Would hat "justify" me in turning around an dATTACKING him? Idon't think so. I aclutally have a RIGHT to RUN, if I want. That does not necessariy give me the right to ATTACK physically a person I thik is "following" me.
What if Zimmerman called out THREATS to Trayvon Martin? What if Zimmerman GRABEED him? What if Zimmerman PULLED HIS GUN. That is why this "neighborhood wathc" bsiness is RISKY, especialy with a gun. (though without a gun, there is that other obvious risk). Was that homeless man taknig a RISK approaching me? Darn right he was. And maybe I was takng a risk by talking to hm. But life REQUIRES all of us to take SOME risks. It is the MEDIA how are stirring up RACE FEAR and HTRED such that people wil react wrongly (such as Trayvon Martn NOT CALLING THE PLICE, if he were really that scared). If balck peple really look upon the olice as their enemy, then it is thte MEDIA that is reallyl PSHING that sefl-defeating idea. This case (the Martin case") is a matter of FACTS. Just how aggressively did Zimmerman "approach" Trayvon Martin, and tid Trayvon Maritn really ATTACK Zimmerman (or just meet an overly aggressive approach by Zimmerman that appeared to be an attack on Marng) . To me, the answers to theese questins are NOT obvious, and I have seen NO actual "evidence" that shows me that Goerge Zimmerman did more than he had a "Right" to do. AS I have said repeatedly, Zimmerman toolk MORE RISK thanI would be prepared to take. But that does not anseer the KYE FACTS. It is NOT a "key fact" that Zimmerman merely tried to approach Martin, unless Zimmerman did so in a way that constituted an aSSAULT (wehther physical contact was actually made or not).
Ah. "Journalists". "Journalists" SEEM to be takng the positin that it is ALL RIGHT to physically asssault someone who is FOLLOWING you.. We could get rid of a lot of people if this ridiculous proposition is accepted (in that broad kind of assertin, which is the very by road kind of assertin that som many "journalsits" are makng in this case). Who is it that does the most FOLLOWING in this coutnry, in an obnozious and even ASSAULTING way? Right. It is those HPOCRITES known as "JOURNALISTS". You may remember Princess Di, who many think was HOUNDED to here DEATH by a sorrt of "journalist". Are American "journalists" any better than those photographers pursuing Princess Di? I don't think so. In some ways, American "journalists' are WORSE. Notice how every time a person (well nown politician or just a "celebrity" by circumstqance) turns around and ASSAULTS a "jopurnalist" (like Trayvon Martin turned around and assaulted Zimmerman?), "journalsits" jump all over the person who DARED to HTI a "journalist" (no matter how "aggeessive" the "journalist" had been). Do you see how this Martn case could have a silver lining.? What if it became ACCEPTED that a person being "pursued" could turn around and REAK THE NOSE of the 'journalist" ? This might be one of the best things that ever happened to civilization!!!! If we someohow managed that, we shuld probably PARDON Zimmerman by acclamation, and erect a satue to Trayvon Martin as giving his life so civiliztion could live. I am actually somewhat amazed, especially in a state like Texas, how "journalists" are not SHOT outside of peole's homes more often than they are. Remember Texas law, which says you can SHOT an intruder outside of your house!!!
Yuo say "journalists' have special rights? That is jsut thepoint. they DON'T. A "journalist" has NO MORE RIGHT to go up and stick a mike in someone's face, or chase soemone down a road, than George Zimmerman has. The Supreme Court has ALWAYS held that "journalists" have no more rights than any other citizen. In fact, looked at proeperly, EVERY CITIZEN (ore even non-citizen) is a "journalist". Is there any reason Zimmerman could not have been gathering materila for a book or for a "free lance" article for which someone might PAY him (Zimmerman hopefully not being as stupid as the author of this blog, who does NOT get paid a dime for thies articles)? "Jounalists' have a "right" (First Amendment, realizing we are LL "journalists"), to TELL a story. They have no special "right' to GET a "story". They often make up a public "right to know" to justify the most OUTRABEOUS behavior. That is a crock They MADE THAT UP. Agian, all "journalists" have th eright tod od is PUBLISH whatever they can find out. they have NO MORE RIHGT to "find out" , or make people tell them, thn George Zimmerman (or any otehr person).
There is just no doubt. "Journalists" are the worst hlypocrites who have ever walked the Eararth , on two legs or four.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight) . Wahat a I doing going to a library? AUDI BOOKS. I treally is effectively mpossible fore me to read a whole book anymore, or an article aas long as most of my blog entiries. And I have nothing agaisnt guns. However, I just have had no urge to own one,or shoot one, since I was discharged from the army thoose 40 years ago. My younger DAUGHTER, in contrast,, liked to shoot a pistol even in high school. That shuld scare the HELL out of you!!!!!! Not that I think my younger daughter, wieghing maybe 110 or 115 pounds, could not handle EITHER George Zimmerman or Trayvon Martin without a gun. That is here problem. She has TOO MUCH confidence. It might get here in troulbe some day, as maybe it go t George Zimmerman in trouble. Did I mentin that my younger daughter also takes BOXING LESSONS? You really should have NIGHTMARES about this, and WOULD HAVE (like me) if you had ever MET my younger daughter (an attorneyin New Yrok City--my REVENGE on New York City for, wel evelrythign about New Yrok City. (eseically the politics). Then there is my OLDER DAUGHTER, who represents my REVENGE on Massachusetts and Boston (Massachusettts being the ONLY sate not to vote for Ronald Reagan in 1984, for whic I will never forgive the state).