George Zimmerman Found Not Guilty: Why the “State” is dangerous

In spite of the “State’s” attempt at virtually every opportunity to prosecute George Zimmerman for the tragic shooting death of Trevon Martin in Samford, Florida the jury found him not guilty of murder on all accounts.  I first wrote about this back when the event happened, and my comments can be reviewed by CLICKING HERE.   Even the judge in the case seemed desperately to want a prosecution of Zimmerman based on her behavior during the trial and President Obama personally injected himself into the tragedy at the very beginning.  My statements about progressive groups using the Martin death as a power grab were accurate and thousands of commentators in the days to come will reiterate what I said a year ago now that Zimmerman is a free man and hindsight can be viewed so clearly.

For my own concern on the case, which I never thought should have been brought to trial as it is hypocritical at best given the amount of black on black crime that goes on in America,  the aggressive prosecution of Zimmerman in the first place reflects what I say here at Overmanwarrior’s Wisdom often, and that is the power of “the state” is too great and is focused on collectivism, and not individual rights which makes it a predatory entity.  The State of Florida pressed charges against Zimmerman after the Justice Department backed radical activists like Jessie Jackson and many other political heavy weights to protest the Samford legal system into taking on the case to avoid the anti-concept name calling of “racism.”  When the authorities prosecuted Zimmerman they essentially did so to appease the mob of democracy which had been hijacked by emotionally driven power grabbers who wanted to use tragedy to gain power for a demographic sector of human beings not based on individual merit, but collective identification.

The prosecution, the judge, the President of The United States, virtually everyone who collects a paycheck from the tax payers wanted to throw Zimmerman to the wolves not following any rule of law, or even the principles of logic, but to keep the mob from becoming unruly.  The law is not supposed to be shaped by gangs of influence builders who use force as a way to achieve their tactical objectives.  Law is supposed to be built on the philosophy of justice.  In the case of the Zimmerman trial, the jury system worked as the evidence was able to come to the surface and the prosecution’s case fell apart under scrutiny, as it had only been built off emotional principles to begin with.

The behavior of those prosecuting Zimmerman in Florida was disgusting, and was simply proof that if the state must pick between individual well-being, and statist protection of the system of which they benefit, they will pick openly sacrificing individuals to the jaws of an unruly mob every time.  When Jessie Jackson attempted to organize the “Million Hoodie March” in Samford he was not interested in the facts of the case, he simply wanted to use racism’s force to impose his will upon the “state” with a show of democratic strength that would make emotional decisions instead of logical ones.  It didn’t matter to Eric Holder’s Justice Department what the rules of Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law was under the Tenth Amendment.  The White House wanted to capitalize on the Martin death as much as anybody to remove guns from society and attack the idea of Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” premise.  The individual represented by Zimmerman was to be sacrificed for the good of the collective, as the protestors assimilated Trevon Martin into their hive of collectivism.  The death of Martin was an attack on their hive, the way they were portraying it, and the individual responsible had to pay, even if the law was on his side.  The masses were intent to change the law by force of will and the state was willing to play along out of self-preservation.

The case of George Zimmerman should alarm all American citizens to the dangers of collectivism.  Americans do not live in tribes or gangs of thugs who can march around and impose emotional whims on justice—at least the ideal of America refutes such a notion.  When such a thing happens it must be rejected from the outset.  George Zimmerman should have never been prosecuted.  He did what he was allowed to do under Florida law, and no gang from The White House, from any Rainbow Collation of Civil Rights wannabes, or lobby group has the right to change a law that they do not have a right to vote on.  Florida’s laws are not federal law, yet the federal government attempted to apply its influence through collective identification to achieve political party goals that are not good for any individual, but for the good of machine politics only.   In Samford, Florida two people struggled in a street fight.  One of them had a gun.  The one with the gun had control of the fight’s outcome, and that is the end of the story.

Entire generations who have been taught the “statist” approach to justice and believe that just because a person has a skin color, or a particular gender that their assimilation into a collective identification allows them to say and do whatever they want so long as the masses have their back, and this is not the spirit of any kind of rule of law in America.  Such behavior might be seen in some third-world dump where collectivism rules over individual merit, but not in America.  Yet out of kindness, Americans have put up with the introduction of anti-concepts by the political establishments who wish to grab power on the backs of every tragedy, and over time, the impositions have mounted.  And those anti-concepts where values are replaced with emotional judgments came crashing down in the George Zimmerman trial.

All appeared to be working in favor of the prosecution in the Zimmerman trial until they called their star witness Rachel Jeantel.  The world was tuned in to the Zimmerman trial and saw firsthand the reality of modern America guided by the hand of progressive politics when she spoke.  Jeantel was the product of Jesse Jackson’s collectivism and a public education system that has been shaped by illogical sensitivity and fear, instead of wisdom, performance, and common sense.  When she started speaking the reality behind the mob was seen by all, and a new direction needed to be pursued.  It was obvious that the prosecution was hoping that an emotional case presented by them would trump any facts, and once their star witness blew that strategy, they had nothing left to present to justify malicious murder by Zimmerman.  Any person of logic would fear the ignorance of a society that functions from such primal motivations, and even though Martin was a youth carrying a box of Skittles mainstream America got a glimpse into how Travon Martin saw the world outside of black America with Jeantel’s testimony of what was said over the phone calling Zimmerman, a “creepy-ass cracker.”

All across the nation black communities have been enslaved by politics to continue living in poverty by beholding ideologies that are destructive to their well-being.  Young people have been led to believe that they can think such things about other races as calling them names like “cracker” and other derogatory terms without feeling the teeth of ramifications.  They believe such things because campaigns like Jesse Jackson’s protests have been successful in the past of excusing bad behavior behind the mask of collectivism, and they assume that it will always be the case.  So they ignore the rules of gated communities, of private property, of private rights, and impose themselves at will upon a population that has been paralyzed by fear of the anti-concept of racism.  But if there is a lesson to the case of George Zimmerman it is that laws do, or are supposed to overcome emotional testimony, so long as a jury is wise and uses the rule of law constructed by good philosophy to trump mob like imposition.  And that the laws of a state such as Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” rule cannot be manipulated by federal influence even with a gang of emotional zealots sent to Samford to change public perception with mass consensus in a direct attempt to override logic into a stew of collectivism that is destructive to the idea of American independence.

Rich Hoffman

“Justice Comes with the Crack of a Whip!”