-14 votes

If George Zimmerman Had Wings… He'd be a DRONE!

Quick critique of US foreign policy, racial profiling, and public perception. Not very long.. Please give it a quick read.. and a comment/share if you like/agree!



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

ChristianAnarchist's picture

Wow! It's about race?? I

Wow! It's about race?? I read the article and I did not even get a bit of impression that race was an issue. The writer was very clear to me (maybe I'm a racist too?) that his point was that we have a double standard in morality and "justice". We apply one standard to people who we look upon as "citizens" and one on people who we see as "enemies of the state" (or whatever term we are using on those "we" disassemble with drones). Hypocrisy is the issue, not race.

Beware the cult of "government"...

If one does not want to be questioned

about playing the race card ... don't play it.

How can an inferring one to be a drone which is part of an alleged racial foreign policy not be construed as playing the race card? We perceive what we want to perceive. You read the article and took away the closing sentence. I read the article and took away the closing sentence has no meaning if it is sitting on a crappy foundation.

Using one specific example from the article:

"Trayvon Martin, an American citizen, was denied his rights. He was denied his right to walk peacefully to his home with candy and a drink. For this, his assailant was brought before a jury of his peers. Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, an American citizen, was denied his rights. He was denied his right to peacefully eat BBQ with family at an outdoor cafe in Yemen."

Those sentences say nothing about me. I did not author them. To assert "walk peacefully to his home with candy and a drink" is presenting a racially motivated narrative as true (ie. we can't trust George's narrative because it's just one side of the story ... or we don't know for sure what happened because one is dead ... but let's go with the narrative we know with certainty what Martin's intentions were while walking). If the point is what you say ... can it be made without using racially motivated narratives?

"Trayvon Martin, an American citizen, was killed. For this, his alleged killer was brought before a jury of peers. Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, an American citizen, was killed. For this, his known killers have faced zero legal accountability."


Furthermore if the point is one of justice, things like reasons a killer should be brought to justice are irrelevant. If the point is one of justice then who gives a shit about why there ought to be a trial. If the point is the purpose of justice is to bring every killer before a jury to determine if a killing was justified then say what you mean.

If the point is all killers should stand trial to determine if a killing is justified then what possible reason could one have to talk about what al-Awaki or Martin were doing? If they were killed and the point of justice is to adjudicate all killers then why would an author even bother to include irrelevant racially motivated narratives as true?

If I want to make a point that all killers should be tried by a jury of peers to determine whether a killing is justified I don't need to talk about what they were doing leading up to their being killed because it is irrelevant. If I am going to talk about what they were doing leading up to being killed it is only to point out the injustice of focusing on it.

So what is the author's point? Is it that all killers should be brought before a jury of peers to determine whether a killing was justified or is the author's point that a judicial system has discretion to determine which killers should be brought to trial based upon evidencing things like probable cause, intent, or some other standard?

Or is the author's point that a judicial system ought to have discretion to determine which killers to bring before a jury as long as such discretion is not racially motivated? Or is the author's point it is ok for a judicial system having policies set by a majority to use discretion to determine which killers are brought to trial and which ones have immunity as long as the author is in the majority?

And to all racists who

perpetuate myths about or distort the circumstances surrounding events.

You folks would have us believe the only reason George left the house was to noose up some nigger and hang him to the nearest tree because he is a "KKK Drone" on a mission. There is no evidence that supports the reason George left his house was to find and kill some random nigger. There is no evidence that supports the reason George called the police was so the racist Sanford police department could come get in on some nigger hanging action.

You folks bitch about one citizen observing another citizen arguing over whether any perception of suspicious activity was valid yet not one of you complain about the concept of public property which is a root cause. If you are walking down, the street, sidewalk, or cutting across lawns in front of or near my house at night, in the rain, I see you, and do not know you ... I do not care if you are black, white, red or yellow I will watch you because you are suspicious to me. I do not care if you are wearing a hoodie, suit, jeans, or a uniform I will watch you because you are suspicious to me. In some neighborhoods walking, irregardless of whether it is day or night, is suspicious in and of itself because people are rarely seen walking. Do not people even stop to roll down their window and ask "need help or a ride" because suspicions have been aroused?

Moving on with my hypothetical ... if you are the type of punk who has been kicked out of your mom's home and school because your unruly ... or if you are the type of punk who likes a good confrontation or fight ... or if you like to go out at night to get ingredients for lean or whatever the latest drug fad is so you can get a buzz on ... and you stop what your doing and stare at me with a "what the hell is that cracka doing looking at me" look ... I might follow your ass for a bit just because you further aroused my suspicions.

I know I am not George because I wouldn't lose your punk ass because I stopped to call the police. If your punk ass turned around to violently confront me, beating my head on the sidewalk, or making death threats while beating my head on the sidewalk... I might shoot your punk ass too.

Let us consider for a moment what normal human behavior is when two strangers meet and there is no suspicion. They say "HELLO," "HI," "HOW ARE YOU DOING," flippen something friendly. The fact that neither one of them stopped to meet and greet a fellow human being and be friendly is an indicator of perception. When these two met how did they react to each other? George called the cops. Maybe its Zimmerman secret code for "HELLO." Perhaps George considers the police his personal diplomats for known friendly encounters. What did Martin do? He stared or stopped to look at George. Perhaps he was taking a moment to ponder over whether or not his fine gentlemanly southern upbringing and high standards of personal integrity demanded he walk over to that cracka and give greetings. Nah, fuck it ... I ain't gonna say nuttin to that cracka. Dude must have some kind of problem but if he brings it any closer to me I'm gonna solve it for him.

So let's get to the article mentioned in the OP. Are you seriously going to compare the United States government officially dropping a hellfire missile on an intentionally targeted American citizen with no subsequent trial to the events or trial of George Zimmerman?

Jan Hanfield...

thinks he's the drone of reason applied to every specific/unique circumstance (even when his degree of certainty is as low as everyone else's)... This applies to the "certainty" held by the bunch here at the DP as well.

To ALL YOU (closet) RACIST "Liberty" lovers I DEDICATE this Article to YOU::


p.s... don't forget to read it... it might actually better you as a person...


Let's not forget to look

at the evidence.

This is Rachel Jeantel's testimony, she is in a court of law, under oath:


At approximately 9 minutes into the recording, according to her testimony, Jeantel tells Martin to run, she then testifies Martin tells her he is near his father's house, he's not going to run. According to her testimony, this is where Martin asked Zimmerman, "why you following me for?" You are led to believe Zimmerman pursued Martin to near his father's house, where the incident took place. There's no indication that Martin left the area near his father's house, according to Jeantel's testimony.

Yet, the crime scene photos record the incident taking place approximately 70 yards away, near where Zimmerman parked his truck, near the pool and the mail boxes.

I'd like you to explain how the above has anything to do with race.

D why did the 17 yr old have MJ in his system?

I'll play Devil's Advocate.

Don't get me completely wrong here. I do not think GZ should have been carrying a firearm on his person in consideration of the activity he was participating, re: Community Watch. The HOA's Community Watch was obviously Bonded in some way; hence the insurance payout to TM's parents. But I have yet to hear or read of a reporter questioning the HOA on authorizing a "Drone Strike" re: its okay to conceal carry why performing the watch.

But back to the Mary Jane question. What does this say about TM's rebellious nature?

Would he be a person who's nature would be respectful of authority?

Was TM chased down by GZ?

What's wrong with an easy going, "Hey Dude, you're freaking me out. I'm just walking to my Pop's house."

Or if not that, why did TM stand his ground? He is 17, legally he has no Adult rights. Why didn't he bolt?

If he's smoking dope at 17 he certainly knows a little something something about his rights. And don't say no, at 17, I was growing pot and reading high times. I think TM was street smart in many ways, just not smart enough to know what to do at the right time when it really mattered. He like to talk smack and tried to back it up. Bottom line is you do not bring a knife to a gun fight. And if I see that TM 12 year angel picture again, I think I am going to puke, TM was no angle. Many kids like myself in a busted family situation are not and were not. That's why weed was an escape. The kid was out of his league and was not chased down. The incident occurred a mere few yards from GZ's truck. Maybe TM profiled GZ and didn't see "This is ain't no punk" until his nads got the best of him. You know the saying, Young Dumb and full of Cum. Its all possible brother, and yes I have heard the dispatch. Voice print analysis will prove who was saying what as consumer technology gets cheaper. (Which the Feds have probably already done, hence no Hate crime, hence the Power Brokers used the story for their advantage)

This TM/GZ story is jacked brother! And there are those out there that want Charlie Manson to be right. Its to their political advantage to have a race war.

Getting to Abdulrahman. He was rebellious too. He took off from grandpa's to find his dad. His dad, who at the time, was not completely confirm as BBQ'd and there have been various reports saying AaA took off after hearing the news of his fathers possible death. So in a nutshell, Dude this comparison is a fuct-up comparison that doesn't even come close. Obama is a war criminal with an Ivy League degree. GZ is an idiot with a gun. End of story.

You seem to me as a bright individual, but if a year from now breaks-in drop in GZ's community and some busted fence ends up having merch with TM finger prints on it, the crap is really going to hit the fan.

March 2012






TM was a trouble teen with an attitude and crappy(now rich) parents.
AaA was a trouble teen too. He was troubled by the fact that even though his dad was brilliant and his grandfather was highly successful, he wanted to know what was on the other side of river; well he found it. A drone. TM just wanted to find another bag of weed and get though a 10 day suspension. My father would have had my ass for ten day suspension, I would be grounded (no 7/11), and I would be only wishing a load of TNT would land on me.

Don't get sucked into the racist BS.
For God sake please use your wonderful intellect and writing skills to nail these war criminals with more finesse.

You asked for an opinion/comment/etc.
Well... You got it brother.


Zimmerman was on his way to the grocery store when he spotted a suspicious person in the neighborhood. Zimmerman was armed. Let's stop right there. Is it your theory that persons going to the grocery store should not be armed?

Keep in mind, Zimmerman, by law, was permitted to own a weapon, passed a background check,and paid a fee to the state to carry concealed.

You're missing the point in your comments

and you are getting bad information about the Zimmerman case... as always. This is the 'Daily Zimmerman' because most of us have been exposed to enough facts about this case, whereas a very small group of others have been exposed to spin by the racial paranoia groups.

You mentioned the 9/11 call, http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/soap-in-a-sponge-the-en..., it's a myth, you've totally misunderstood that information because you're reading hysterical sites with false information.

The difference between drones and Trayvon is that all Zimmerman was guilty of was investigating as a private citizen what a suspicious teenager was doing, when suspicious teenagers had been behind multiple robberies in the past. That's it, that's all he did: investigate. Trayvon jumped him, Trayvon was on drugs, Trayvon dominated him, Trayvon racially profiled him as a 'creepy az cracker' who apparently needed to be jumped because he looked white and dared to see what he was up to - oh, and the candy and tea was to make sizzurp. And even if I'm half wrong, ALL the evidence anybody has shows the basic facts that Zimmerman only investigated Trayvon and violated none of his rights since you don't have a right to walk around in public at night and expect that no one will notice you or wonder what you're doing, and that Trayvon initiated violence against Zimmerman.

Drones on the other hand: this is the deliberate use of a weapon of assassination to indiscriminately kill people - without warrant - just the discretion of the person giving the order - and in the name of America, with our money.

Big huge stinking difference.

But the bad sites you're reading, or whoever you're talking to, have pushed this story that Zimmerman was out to get Trayvon that night, which ALL the evidence says to the contrary.


So, Zimmerman and drones have nothing in common, unless you believe really baseless propaganda. That's why people have a problem with your comparison.

On the other hand, most of what you wrote was very good. If you compare the outrage that people (who believe wrong information) have about Zimmerman, then that outrage should be 10 fold for drones. So, your article would be very powerful if directed at an audience that for whatever reason has bought into the lies about Zimmerman. Since the main topic was drone killings, not Zimmerman, that's why I approved of your post. But I do disagree with your position on Zimmerman and I think you need to eat some humble pie and maybe research it a bit more, play devil's advocate, and maybe ask yourself why so many people here are so strong in their opinion on the case.

so.. this convo never

so.. this convo never happened?

9/11 operator: "Are you FOLLOWING him?"

George Zimmerman: "Yeah"

9/11 operator: "Ok, we don't need you to do that."


"Trayvon jumped him" -- you simply don't know that.

"Trayvon was on drugs" -- NO. He had marijuana in his system.. could have been MONTHS ago.

That Trayvon was going to make sizzurp -- you don't know that.

I'm getting my info from watching the trial. Zimmerman profiled Trayvon. He identified him as a "punk" without ever engaging in dialogue. Trayvon profiled Zimmerman..referring to him as a "creepy ass cracka." From there..only two people know exactly what happened. One of them is dead.

That's all fine. The point of my article was that Trayvon was profiled. Obama objected to it. Obama profiles. NO ONE calls him on it.

That's it.

No humble pie.

You're still barking up the

You're still barking up the wrong tree with the 911 call, read the two links I posted. It's just not like that.

As for your point, ok, I get your clarification, fair enough.

Like I said from the get go, though, Zimmerman profiled a teen to see what he might be up to. Big difference from profiling someone for assassination. Important distinction because people do think Zimmerman profiled Trayvon basically for assassination.

When I bring up Trayvon on drugs and the sizzurp, what I mean to say is that unknown to Zimmerman, Trayvon probably had reasons to fear someone looking into his situation. If Trayvon had simply said, "Yo, I'm going to my dad's house." Zimmerman most likely would have been like, "Oh, okay". But we DO know more or less what happened, there are witnesses, and audio, and physical evidence. There's a remote possibility Zimmerman started the fight, but there's just as much evidence that the dinosaurs were killed by aliens - it's 'possible' but the evidence strongly suggests otherwise.

What are we profiling for? Zimmerman was profiling for further investigation. Obama is profiling for assassination.

Since Trayvon was probably going to use the ingredients for sizzurp (since those exact two brands are the ingredients and his facebook shows him talking about it), he probably feared being investigated. But Zimmerman wasn't investigating sizzurp use, he was investigating robberies - since there had been many.

What I'm trying to get at is profiling isn't a crime or violation. In Obama's case, the violation is assassinating someone with a drone. Justice, even libertarian theory, dictate that you can kill someone in response to an initiation of force. That includes the idea of a due process.

Assassination by profiling is wrong, not because profiling is wrong, but because profiling doesn't justify assassination and makes assassination wrong.

Zimmerman was trying to find out if Trayvon was a criminal, he was investigating - in fact, he wasn't even investigating, he was calling to let the cops investigate. This isn't a crime, or an initiation of force. It was because Trayvon created the reasons to fear investigation (not for his skin color, but his behaviors, most likely) that he turned something over which violence has no bearing - the investigation of suspicious behavior - and turned it into something with violent effects - by jumping Zimmerman.

If anything, Trayvon is guilty of profiling Zimmerman as 'out to get him' and responded with initiation of violence. So he deserves more of that comparison to Obama.

Nevertheless, Obama's big problem isn't that he profiled a kid - from what I understand he targeted the kid. The goal was to shut the kid up. But THAT is speculation.

You shouldn't doubleback

Throw the first punch and start ground and pound. You simply can't do that.

Was GZ profiling ? May be...may be not. It was very simple for TM to solve. Just simply stand where he was, turn around, and ASK.

Don't DOUBLE BACK and throw a suckerpunch.

Especially if the neighborhood had a well displayed "neighborhood watch program" board (my previous apartment complex had one such board) then GZ is well within his rights to follow and observe.

I am a brown person and actually look darker than most people. If someone followed me, I will fully establish identification with that party. Once each of us understand and establish identification any violations after that can be dealt with in a clear manner.

basically agree.. But.. GZ

basically agree..

But.. GZ was certainly profiling. He identified TM as a "punk" of variety that "always get away with it".. without ever physically/vocally engaging with him. That indicates that he profiled TM..plainly.

We can all agree the confrontation..however it began (sucker-punch theory is just that)was unnecessary. As someone pushing for a voluntary society.. I certainly would hope that the impulse in a free society wouldn't be to physically assault someone unless a more clear/certain expectation of necessity of defense had been reached..

TM did not establish

TM never established any necessity for his defense. From what Rachel Janteal (TM's friend) said, TM wanted to teach a lesson to someone who he thought was a H s*x*l.

Like I said, if that community has a board displaying a watch program... GZ is fully justified to do whatever he did. TM should have at the very least established normal communication, which most likely would have resulted in a happy outcome.

You're right.. Jeantel did

You're right.. Jeantel did insinuate that TM may have feared he was being stalked by a "homosexual" who might have wished to rape TM.. I found her testimony to be..less than credible.

Your statement that "TM never established any necessity for his defense" is your opinion. Can't be known to us at this point.

As for GZ being "fully justified to do whatever he did".. that's your opinion. We don't know everything that transpired. We don't know if GZ identified himself as the watchman.. or if TM tried to identify himself.. We just don't know.

I really like the part where

I really like the part where "libertarians" pretend that being followed at night isn't creepy..cause for concern.. and quite possibly..at some point..maybe.. a reason to believe you might have to defend yourself.

Nope.. in 2013 DailyPaul world..being followed by a man..at night..is just "legal."

But..but.. it's not against teh law!!

Whatever we do let's NEVER put being physically trailed into the NAP consideration box.

Thank goodness for teh laws!

So you're making the argument...

...that following someone for a few yards, within a gated community, is an initiation of force? And that such an act of "aggression" warrants a beat down lasting a minute despite cries of help?

Sorry, you lose.

no, bud.. I'm pushing back

no, bud..

I'm pushing back against the onslaught of "libertarians" falling back on "the law"...

Wasn't merely referencing THIS PARTICULAR instance of "following"... was asking a larger question..

Really nice try at "winning"..

Oh, I see...

...when you clearly suggested, above, that Zimmerman violated the NAP, you didn't really mean it.

That seems to be your MO...you don't really mean what you write.

Carry on.

oh.. so you just don't

oh.. so you just don't understand the definition of "merely"..?

That's it?

Merely is INCLUSIVE.. it includes the instance I referenced...AND all that I didn't that could fit into the situation I drew.

I asked a broad question.. could being followed..for an indeterminate amount of time..ever...EVER call into question the NAP? If someone followed you around for 3 hours..would you consider that action aggressive? How about 4 hours? How about 38 hours? How about 3 weeks? How about 6 months?

But.. it's "legal"..

I stand by ALL that I've written. As for your "MO".. quote me. Quote me one instance where I don't stand by what I've written.

Carry on, Daily Zimmerman guy.

Oh, so then you *do* think that...

...Zimmerman violated the NAP when following Martin for a few yards, and that Martin was justified in therefore beating his defenseless brains in. Well, I think that's absurd, and I'd bet 99%+ of libertarians would agree with me.

I couldn't care less about your "broader" question, but I'll indulge you: being followed for ANY amount of time MAY be an annoyance (like speech, it depends on how it's received), but it should at most be met with a warning, not a beating.

As far as your MO, you've dropped loaded terms like 'racial profiling', 'pursuing', 'was told to stop following', 'candy and soda', and more, only to then state: "I went out of my way to distance myself from appearing to come down on either side of the Zimmerman/Martin case.."

..and then I learned what I

..and then I learned what I was up against..

Try this on.. It's a BROAD question. I don't know if Zimmerman violated the NAP. Neither do you. That's the beauty of this. Purpose of question was to challenge the bizarrely reflexive "libertarian" notion that whatever the law says is what goes. I guess in your haste to "win" an argument.. you missed the point. Go figure.

Here's the kicker. re: MO.. the loaded terms of which you speak. the term "racial profiling" was used in my article in the context of PRESIDENT OBAMA speaking about it during his 40 minute speech. George Zimmerman..by his own admission on 9/11 audio recording was "pursuing" Trayvon Martin..and was "told to stop" by the 9/11 operator. FACT. I mentioned candy and "tea" only because it's factual. Trayvon Martin had purchased and was carrying candy and iced tea. NEVER backed away from any of those factual statements. In fact..I'm doubling down..right here..right now.

Remember when the paparazzi pursued Princess Diana..and she died in a horrific car accident? That's the kind of stuff that needs to be put through our NAP filter. This stuff isn't cut/dry. Sure..as evidenced by the inane comments on my article her at the Daily Zimmerman, you'll find "libertarians" who agree with you without pushing this issue any further. If ,as you say, it's 99%..God help this country.

You're being obtuse.

There is no "libertarian notion" that whatever the law says is what goes, and you know it. You're purposely taking that out of context. Any libertarian citing "the law" in support is only doing so when it is consistent with libertarian principles.

Zimmerman never used the term "pursuing". YOU did.

Zimmerman was never "told to stop". You just keep repeating the same lie told by the MSM.

You mentioned candy and tea for the same reason the media does - it evokes emotion in support of Martin (he was a mere "child", don't you know?), even though it's no more relevant than the keys he was carrying.

To compare an auto accident with the on-foot, self-defense Florida shooting is idiocy, and pointless.

are you new to club

are you new to club libertarian? Imagine that.. hyperbole meeting hyperbole. I'm sure "99%" of libertarians would agree with you..


9/11 operator: "Are you FOLLOWING him?"

George Zimmerman: "Yeah"


As for the candy and tea.. It is relevant. TM wasn't carrying a gun and knife.. or burglar tools.. or a rock.. or broken glass.. or a stick. He was carrying skittles and iced tea.

As for the PRINCIPLE which I tried to address..which you're eager to avoid..for obvious reasons.. There's not much to say. You either understand that there is a spectrum..a point where unsolicited pursuit becomes aggressive.. or..sadly..you don't.

Funny how you used the word "idiocy."

I'm still waiting for you to produce...

...evidence of Zimmerman "pursuing" Martin, and of the cops telling him to "stop".

That's because you can't. You can only distort what happened and, like the liberal media, appeal to emotion instead of reason.

9/11 operator: "Are you

9/11 operator: "Are you FOLLOWING him?"

George Zimmerman: "Yeah"


as for your liberal media comment... I've made a dozen YouTube vids exposing the "liberal media." You've probably watched some of them. You're barkin' up the wrong tree, bud.

Still waiting...

...while you're still lying/distorting, just like, ironically, the liberal media.


wow.. you're dense.


Exact quotes..

Deal with reality.

We're done here.

Still waiting...

As anyone with a brain can plainly see, he did not pursue Martin, and he was never told to stop following him.

Please provide your evidence that Zimmerman "pursued" Martin, or said that he did. Also, please provide proof that the cops told Zimmerman to stop following Martin.

Alternatively, why don't you apply to MSNBC for work?

lol.. you're deranged.

lol.. you're deranged. Scary. Best of luck to you.

At this point...

...I'm ready to assume you're in 3rd grade (my apologies to astute 3rd grade onlookers), and provide you a clue to the obvious:

There is a significant difference between "following" someone and "pursuing" someone.

When you've digested that, take it to Sharpton and share it.