While Jesse Jackson tries to figure out who on his staff needs to be disciplined for failing to notify him of the events in Sanford, thus allowing Al Sharpton to get a few day head start on the self-aggrandizing exploitation.  And while the special state prosecutor appointed by Governor Rick Scott works on finding the actual truth as to what happened that night between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.  Let’s take some time to look at the rumors, charges and outright absurdities that have been happening around this story for the last 48 hours. 

New Black Panthers scream for blood and offer a reward

Most people who have been paying attention have seen the videos of this goon representing the New Black Panther Party talking about $10,000 rewards for the “capture” of George Zimmerman.  Some Black Panther thugs have even been talking about having their own trial and administering their own punishment.

Two reminders here:  The racist (an actual proper use of the word) rantings of David Duke and the hateful rants aimed at our soldiers and at gays by Fred Phelps, the (quite possibly gay) leader of the Westboro Baptist Church.  These gangsters in the New Black Panther movement have no more traction and respect in the black community than David Duke has among white people and Fred Phelps has among Baptists.  When whites and Baptists hear of the outrageous actions and statements of Duke and Phelps they shake their heads, walk away, and pray that the public won’t somehow associate those two idiots with them.  Precisely the same thing happens in the black community when these Black Panther Fools engage in their diatribes about captures, trials and punishment. 

These Black Panther idiots are simply trying to make a name for themselves – seeking their 15 minutes of fame – by piggy-backing on the Trayvon Martin story.  Let them wallow in their own ignorance and just walk away shaking your heads.

Trayvon’s mom files for a trademark of her son’s name.

It seems that Trayvon Martin’s mother has filed for trademark protection for her son’s name.  Lord knows how many angry Tweets I received about this yesterday … and I can’t help but think that if people knew the real story here, they wouldn’t be outraged at all.

As soon as the Trayvon case gained national attention opportunists across the country started printing t-shirts, signs and other little goodies with Trayvon’s name on them.  Some simply said “I am Trayvon.”  Some t-shirts were vile – with pictures of Trayvon over printed racial insults.  One “entrepreneur” announced plans for a collection of Trayvon hoodies. 

Now put yourself in the place of Trayvon’s mother.  She sees people across the country using her dead child’s name to make money and deliver messages, some of which she may not necessarily agree with.  What does she do?  She says something about it to her lawyer.  Her lawyer tells her that she can protect her son’s name by filing for trademark protection.  So she does.  Is there a problem with this?  If so --- please tell me what that problem is.  If I had been her lawyer I would have given her the same advice. 

Oh!  You say that she also trademarked “I am Trayvon” and “Justice for Trayvon?”  So?  It was her son.  Now she feels she has a cause.  Perfectly understandable.  Are you going to tell her that she cannot use her son’s name in promoting her cause? 

The left wants to use this to take down the “Stand Your Ground” law

Leftists, for some reason, really just hate the idea of private citizens owning guns and using those guns for self-defense.  Perhaps it has something to do with the left’s antipathy toward the concept of individualism.  Liberals are collectivists, not individualists.  The act of self-defense is the ultimate act of individualism.  Also, to a leftist government is there to provide all that we need – including protection.  Never mind that the Supreme Court has explicitly ruled that police have no duty to protect private citizens … to a liberal protection is the role of government, and for a person to act to protect and defend themselves is “taking the law into your own hands.”  A liberal believes the law belongs to government, not the people. 

For whatever reason, liberals absolutely HATE the Stand Your Ground (SYG) law the concept that if your are accosted or attacked by another person you have no duty to turn and run; you can stand your ground and defend yourself.  Progs see in the Trayvon Martin case the opportunity to repeal SYG laws across the nation and further disarm the American people.  Plus .. there’s this:  The more effective you are at disarming the people the safer your plans for more and more government are.

As for the SYG law and the Trayvon Martin case, I haven’t seen anyone else bring this up, but both Trayvon and Zimmerman had the SYG law on their side under the three possible operating scenarios here:

1. George Zimmerman.  If Zimmerman was attacked by Trayvon, as he claims, he had the legal authority to use deadly force to repel the attack.  BUT .. and this is a big but here .. if he was pursuing Trayvon, as he said he was, the SYG law would not protect him from prosecution.  Zimmerman wasn’t standing his ground.  He was in pursuit.  I see no reason for repeal of SYG here because the law will not stand as a defense for what Zimmerman did.  By the way …. I heard Juan Williams on Fox News Channel say – not once, but several times --- that George Zimmerman had been told by the police to stop his pursuit of Trayvon.  First of all, there is no evidence that the 911 dispatcher Zimmerman was talking to was was a police officer. Secondly, the dispatcher didn’t say “Don’t do that.”  The dispatcher said “You don’t need to be doing that.”  Telling someone that they don’t need to be doing something is quite different from telling someone NOT to do something.  Williams should understand this.
2. Trayvon Martin:  How would the SYG law stand to protect Trayvon?  If Trayvon had noticed he was being followed, and if he elected to flee his pursuer he would have every right to do so.  He would also have every right to turn and to confront his pursuer.  That would be “standing your ground.”  So the rumored testimony of this eyewitness who said he saw Zimmerman on the ground with Trayvon pummeling him does not necessarily implicate Trayvon.  If he was standing his ground he was acting within the law.
3. Now here’s where it could get complicated.  What if Zimmerman had ceased his pursuit of Trayvon and retreated to his car.  What if Trayvon then pursued Zimmerman to his car and attacked him.  Trayvon would then lose his protection under SYG, just as Zimmerman did when he initiated a pursuit.  But if Zimmerman than became the pursued instead of the pursuer, does he then have the SYG law to rely on?   That’s an interesting question, and one that I think would have to be put in front of a jury. 

As for those pictures of Trayvon Martin in gang-type attire

I started getting those pictures over the weekend … and refused to post any of them here or to ReTweet any of them to my followers.  Come on, folks.  Don’t you know how easy it is for people to falsify pictures like this?  Take all of this with a block of salt.