My thoughts on the Zimmerman verdict: Anybody consider the gender angle?

The Zimmerman verdict has simultaneously provoked outrage and elation from an infantile public alienated from reality. I admit I’m no legal expert and legal jargon sends me scrambling to Wikipedia, but I think I know enough about the issue now to express a (semi)coherent opinion on the matter. A commenter called Aakash makes an interesting comment on Robert Lindsay’s blog. He writes:

 “George Zimmerman is guilty of involuntary manslaughter at the very least. Even though at the very moment that he shot the punk ass kid he might have been acting out of self defense (if his narrative is to be believed), there was no reason to pursue the black thug in the first place. “

Lots of people have been saying this and the argument has its merits. Zimmerman had no reason to follow Martin and was explicitly advised against it. His vigilante game tragically resulted in the death of a child when the entire debacle could have been avoided if he simply hadn’t done anything. The option of doing nothing is generally the most overlooked and yet arguably the one alternative that should be considered first; take it from the Tao Te Ching. There is no doubt that Zimmerman should have been charged with involuntary manslaughter as it was he who set in motion the chain of events and thus it should have been he who was taken to task for it. Some of our readers will no doubt object to this position and argue that it is unbecoming of a pro-white blog. Nevertheless just because we are pro-white doesn’t mean we have to surrender our capacity to bifurcate moral right from wrong. Martin was certainly an unruly miscreant but he certainly didn’t deserve to die. I have discussed this issue with Bay Area Guy and we have both come to this same conclusion. Sadly, the US intelligentsia is invested in destructive identity politics, white bashing, and race baiting. But we will leave that for another post.

Now that the obvious stuff is out of the way, lets move on to another comment on that same page, by a commenter called Tulio, who writes:”

 We can’t set a precedent that it’s okay to murder someone because you are losing a fight. We’re talking about a one on on fight. Martin had no weapon, he was 30lbs lighter. If you need to pull out a gun and kill someone who you outweigh by that margin you are fucking pathetic. And so what if his head was slammed into the ground. I saw the photos, I saw some cuts and blood, but nothing that indicated a life-threatened injury, no deep head-splitting gashes

This begs the most obvious question: why wasn’t he charged with manslaughter when this was a textbook case of the offense? I think the key to this puzzle lies with the all female jury. I’ll lay long odds that if a simulation of this trial were presented before a separate host of male and females jurors, that the males would reach a verdict of guilty 90% of the time while the females would reach the opposite verdict 90% of the time. To most sane and rational men, Tulio’s position up there rings true. However, to most women born and bred on rape culture paranoia, Zimmerman’s actions were morally justifiable, or atleast to a point where they did not elicit a guilty verdict. Since the entire setting occurred at night, in isolation, with one party dominating the other, the female jury quite possibly perceived it as a ”rape analogy” (to borrow a phrase from a friend). Those that have spent time at University would be adequately familiar with female paranoia.

Western women are paranoid, schizophrenic, and possess an inflated victim-hood complex. A few months ago Joe Salazar got into trouble for remarking that women on campus should not be allowed to carry concealed firearms as they were likely to act on their paranoia and shoot an innocent passerby. The feminist thought police were all over him, predictably so, and the man had to issue an apology for stating the obvious. Between the bogus rape culture and the inflated victim-hood, it seems unlikely that western women are capable of thinking rationally. Their moral particularism and solipsism casts additional doubt on their capacity to reason with a clear mind. Sadly, the high cost of political correctness must be borne as Zimmerman walks free while American society has yet to bear the burden of another mockery of justice.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Cultural Marxism, Feminism and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to My thoughts on the Zimmerman verdict: Anybody consider the gender angle?

  1. Aakash says:

    Dota

    You are on to something there. I think that more than the all-female jury, it might have just been the zeal with which murder charges were brought forward that might have ultimately saved Zimmerman. And surprise surprise, the prosecutor was a WOMAN named Angela Corey. Here is an outstanding paragraph of what went wrong and where:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/07/14/alan_dershowitz_zimmerman_special_prosecutor_angela_corey_should_be_disbarred.html

    Even though this guy sided with Zimmerman based on reasonable doubt, the following (if true) that he had to say is astonishing. Zimmerman was acting out in self defense AT THAT MOMENT and there was no fucking way any reasonable person would charge him for murder. Read this:

    “She’s (Prosecutor Angela Corey) known for overcharging, she’s known for being highly political. And in this case, of course she overcharged. Halfway through the trial she realized she wasn’t going to get a second degree murder verdict, so she asked for a compromised verdict, for manslaughter. And then, she went even further and said that she was going to charge him with child abuse and felony murder”

    Now thats a good reason why Zimmerman walked. The prosecution overcooked their shit. Led by a woman.

    • Dota says:

      Something worthwhile from Dershowitz, never thought I’d see the day. Senseless female zeal + senseless female paranoia.

      • Bay Area Guy says:

        Something worthwhile from Dershowitz, never thought I’d see the day.

        Haha!

        And now, time for him to go back to defending Israeli torture and collective punishment.

  2. Eren Jäger says:

    What about age? If a 13 year old White boy had reported a suspicious adult Black male to the police, followed him, and was assaulted by the Black guy, being forced to defend himself, the White kid pulls out a pocket knife his parents gave him for Christmas, and stabs the thug to death. Would there be a national outcry over that, or would Blacks just say, “Damn, dat Whyte boii be crazy, bra!”

    • Eren Jäger says:

      I also doubt if a White female adult had been in the shoes of George Zimmerman, that there would be a national outcry. In fact, from what I know about collective Black mentality; many Blacks would be congradulating the lady for euthanising another dangerous thug in the making. It had to be a White male that was the “perpetrator” in order for the outcry to happen. Zimmerman’s not even a pureblood anyways, he carries the Amerindian/Hispanic phenotype of his mother. As a 13 year old White male, I hate to grow up in a country that my forefathers built through blood and sweat, where the males of my race are hated and looked on as oppressors, and the only way we can be accepted is as a PC, anti-White, sumbissive “progressive” hyperliberal dog. Maybe I should be looking into a career in politics; I still have a lot of time to get ready.

  3. Pingback: Selective Outrage and Leftist Pet Causes: My Thoughts on the George Zimmerman Fallout | occidentinvicta.com

  4. Shawn says:

    Do you think someone should wait until they’re almost dead before he/she should use deadly force? Zimmerman, at least to me, did not look very athletic, and it was clear that Martin was clearly getting the best of him. When a stranger,, at night, is beating on you and your head is hitting the concrete you could die at any time, or worse, suffer severe brain damage. To me this seems like a classic case of self-defense.

    • Dota says:

      Perhaps, but it was Zimmerman who initiated the conflict against explicit advice. I don’t care much for Martin either, but he didn’t deserve to die.

      • Shawn says:

        How do we know that ZImmerman initiated the physical altercation? We don’t. We know he followed Martin. In hindsight, he should not have followed Martin. He should have said in his vehicle. Following someone is not illegal. I don’t think that Martin deserved to die but Zimmerman did not deserve to die either (or worse risk suffering severe brain damage).

      • Dota says:

        I don’t think either of them deserved to die and I think both of them were idiots. But Zimmerman was advised against pursuing any action and he disobeyed.

  5. Shawn says:

    Just to clarify, Zimmerman made some obvious mistakes and I am not exactly a fan of his. I just don’t see where it can be proven that he broke the law…

  6. Shawn says:

    “But Zimmerman was advised against pursuing any action and he disobeyed.”

    Really? Did you read the transcript or listen to the 911 call? The operator said “we don’t need you to do that” in response to Zimmerman saying he was following Martin. The operative word is need. But even if he was told not to follow Martin, doing so wasn’t illegal, just stupid.

Leave a Reply

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 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s