(courtesy najaag.co)
Our Question of the Day comes from National African American Gun Association:

I am going to try to talk about something that typically we don’t hear about unless we are with close friends or at home with family.  The issue is the open carry of firearms for African Americans. I want to start off by saying this is not a discussion to determine the legality of open carry. That has been determined already by federal and local state courts. African Americans can open barry just like the rest of the public. That is not the issue. The real question is should you with all the issues that might happen because you have a gun on your hip in full public view . . .

There are two basic schools of thought or comments that you hear (I will tell you which side I fall on in just a bit). One school of thought is that you are entitled to the full rights as the rest of society. If you want to carry then it is within your rights to do so without persecution or harassment. As a friend told me on one occasion, “I can do what I want and I am not going to stop doing something because someone else may not like it or they feel uncomfortable.” Ok I got it. It is your right and the 2nd Amendment guarantees that right. No argument here, bro.

The second school of thought is that if you open carry you put yourself in harm’s way with the public as a African American because you have a gun and it can be a big problem for some local law enforcement and the general public. It isn’t fair or right, but that is the reality today. Why put yourself in that type of problem when you can avoid it all together?

I personally mix it up.  If I am in the city, I will always conceal Carry, but if I’m out hiking or in a really rural location, I will open carry.  Sometimes just the sight of a gun in the wilderness is enough. I understand the social realities that exist in 2016 and I adjust my attire as needed.

What are your thoughts on this issue?

Recommended For You

134 Responses to Question of the Day: Is Open Carry Too Dangerous For African Americans?

  1. Don’t dress like a hobo and have the gun sticking out of your waistband. Basically the same rules that apply to anybody else open carrying. Nobody in their right mind will mistake a well dressed person with a gun in a quality holster for a thug, regardless of their skin color.

    • Except that the police attack and profile well dressed black people also. What you are referring to is “respectability Politics”

        • “Given that all the videos I see involve people who behave or dress like thugs… Even one would do.”

          In what way was James Blake behaving or dressing like a “thug”?

        • So… Cops acting on a good faith ID from a cooperating witness tackled somebody and detained them for 15 minutes. Then they let him go and apologized. Sorry bro, while unfortunate, I’m going to file this under “shit happens”…

          Face it, if Blake had been white, the cops wouldn’t have even had a slap on the wrist.

        • “Face it, if Blake had been white, the cops wouldn’t have even had a slap on the wrist.”

          That is because white people accept police malfeasance without complaint. White people are statist shills.

        • “no harm”

          Right, because being slammed to the ground by cops who are too stupid to know any better is totally safe. Blake got lucky. Many other people aren’t so lucky.

        • [IT DOESN’T HAPPEN TO MY WHITE ASS THEREFORE IT DOESN’T HAPPEN TO BLACK PEOPLE EVER]

      • No citation needed. I have lived life as a black man for 30 years. I have been profiled and my friends, family, and associates have been attacked in front of me.

        How many youtube videos do you need to see of police profiling and/or attacking non-white people do you need to see for the idea to resonate?

        • As whom did you live life outside of those 30 years? 🙂

          Seriously though, sorry to hear of the profiling experiences you’ve lived with.

        • Given that all the videos I see involve people who behave or dress like thugs… Even one would do.

          I’m a large, tattooed, and bald white man. There are things I don’t wear because they give people wrong impressions of me. (Leather jackets, biker boots, spiked gloves, etc…) It’s unfortunate, but if I let my beard out, dress like a 1%er and act like a toolbag, I get (expectedly) more negative attention than if I dress in more reasonable clothes and act like a normal human being.

          The reality is that while some minor stuff still happens, major incidents always involve people doing stupid things and dressing like thugs. You’re going to have to work fairly hard to convince me that there is serious institutional racism in the US these days. I don’t have the inborn hypersensitivity to this BS that American natives do and I have a very low tolerance for whiny SJW garbage.

        • There was a video on YOUTUBE where one black man dressed in business casual would “accidentally” drop a fake real looking pistol in front of different races of people, and ask them to pick up the gun to give it back to him; (white, black,hispanic etc). Most of those people simply reached down and handed the pistol back to him without a thought. Another black man dressed like your typical thug gangbanger, (saggy pants, sideways turned hat,etc.) dropped the pistol and most people walked away or ran away, many black people actually ran the fastest.

          When I was delivering pizza in the “War Zone”,various human predators would check me out for a possible mugging. White, black and hispanic. What I found was that almost without fail, the ones that dressed like thugs/gangbangers, of what ever race, were the ones that were the predators.

          Not every person dressed like a thug was a real thug, but almost every person that turned out to be a human predator, dressed like a thug/gangbanger.

    • Your rights should not depend on how you are dressed. A hobo has just as much right to keep and bear arms as you. I don’t know about blacks, but I’ve never been stopped due to how I was dressed.

      • Welcome to the wonderful world of reasonable suspicion. If you act like a criminal, dress like a criminal, and carry like a criminal, don’t be surprised to be treated like a criminal until you have given reason to believe otherwise.

        • Now you’re moving the goalposts. At first you were talking all about appearance. Of course, if you act like a criminal you will get stopped. What “acting like a criminal” means to you is not quite clear. Acting like a criminal to me, means doing criminal activity. Nobody is saying that people shouldn’t get stopped for that. The problem is that the police are quite happy to stop someone because they are of the wrong race for the area or just because they want to go on a fishing expedition and find it easy to push minorities around.

          There’s no reasonable suspicion to go after someone just because they lack fashion sense.

        • “don’t be surprised to be treated like a criminal until you have given reason to believe otherwise.”

          Anyone else have a problem with that idea? Guilty unless proven innocent? If you’re not caught in the act of doing something criminal, you should not be accosted. The contemporary abuse of reasonable suspicion and the failure of government employees to behave, by default, Constitutionally, sets us up for tryanny.

          What does it mean to act, dress or carry like a criminal if you are not in the process of committing a crime? What standard of bearing, clothing or carry should be uniformly imposed to define those acts as not criminal?

        • So if I tool around on a Harley with a Hell’s Angels jacket and generally act like a douche, I get to be offended when the cops treat me in a manner justified by the persona I’m portraying? Common sense much?

        • You fail to realize that I don’t have to wear a Hell’s Angels jacket or tattoo or ride a motorcycle. My skin tone is enough to be presumed guilty until proven otherwise. That is the problem. I am not a social justice warrior. I am a person that makes well into the six figures as an engineer and still gets treated as a criminal.

        • I can’t argue with anecdotal evidence. However, the idea that this is somehow common is just not supported by the evidence. In fact, statistics would tend to indicate that the opposite is true.

  2. Yes it is. I am a black man and would never open carry due to the racism that still exists in this country.

    • I guess it depends on the locale. I live in the Phoenix valley and I see minorities (usually hispanics but some blacks) open carry at least as much as whites.

      I am about to make an extreme suggestion, and one that is not without risk but would be invaluable to society. Please make a video of you open carrying. Just a handgun on your hip and phone in your front shirt pocket set to record. As a white person I genuinely have a hard time believing that in the 21st century we still have such a race problem that a law abiding black man cannot do what I do everyday for fear of reprisal. I want desperately to believe that is not the case, but I know it is a possibility. I have to see it for myself. If you can get it on video, not only would those directly responsible be held accountable but society as a whole can witness the injustice and take steps to remedy it. Like I said before, I know my suggestion is asking a lot, but it would mean very much to myself and the world if we could see it firsthand.

      My girlfriend is black and I have asked her to open carry but she will not for the same reasons stated here. I constantly tell her she is overly paranoid but maybe I am the delusional one. I need an answer for this. We need an answer for this.

      • Recording a video of myself for “proof” for the internet simply isn’t worth the risk. What do I get out of being profiled and /or shot just to have it documented on the internet? I will still to concealed carry as I have been for the last 5 years. The only time I open carry is at the range.

        • You get the power to change the world for the better. If that’s not enough for you then so be it, but if I had the option I would take it.

      • >> s a white person I genuinely have a hard time believing that in the 21st century we still have such a race problem that a law abiding black man cannot do what I do everyday for fear of reprisal.

        I don’t think there is a fear of reprisal at play here. Rather, it is the fear of being “misinterpreted” by police.

        There were numerous controlled studies showing that to an average American (curiously, regardless of their own race), showing a black face makes them subconsciously identify it with crime and violence more, and is perceived as inherently more dangerous, than a white face. So any encounter between someone OC’ing and the police will inevitably be colored by that perception. And there are enough cops wary of OC as it is, that subconscious racial bias on top of that can easily cause the cop to reframe the entire situation.

        Not directly related to OC, but have a look at this video, and the reactions of passers-by in it:
        http://www.buzzfeed.com/norbertobriceno/watch-the-difference-between-a-white-guy-and-a-black-guy-com#.iikEY3qD4

        And this is where it starts:

    • As a white guy, I would have to agree that racism generally still exists. This is highly dependent on the location and local population makeup. Also, local crime stats affect how the local police respond, even in uber progressive and PC california.

    • This is a regional thing. And by regional I don’t mean the “racist south”, because in my experience the north is far more racist. I live in South Georgia and people both black and white open and conceal carry at their will, with almost no issues. Now, why I say its regional, is because it’s so common the police are quite comfortable around it, and I should note where I live the police force is actually majority black. But I work with police here on a daily basis and I have yet to come across the jumpy, nervous, white racist, gun hating cop stereotype, that is commonly protrayed here. Again, this is likley because of my locale.

  3. Dangerous for black people? No. Dangerous for thugs and thug-wannabes, regardless of skin color? Possibly.

    But in reality, if you aren’t in stupid places doing stupid things with stupid people (or criminals acting criminally with other criminals), then open carry isn’t dangerous at all.

    • I am a black man. A black man that isn’t a “thug” and doesn’t dress like one. I am profiled in nice neighborhoods. I am profiled by store owners in nice stores. I avoid stupid places and frequent areas that cost a lot of money to be in and yet still treated as an other.

      • All I can say is: I and most others here would gladly stand next to you, and support your exercise of your rights.

        Also: being treated as an “other”, while inherently wrong, and certainly uncomfortable, is not dangerous, per se.

        • I appreciate you standing by my side. Most of the gun owners I have met have been great. For me, it is simple risk vs. reward. The reward for open carry isn’t big enough for me to attempt it, knowing the potential repercussions.

      • As a black man, I beg to differ. I open carry regularly throughout the southeast in neighborhoods covering every conceivable ethnic and economic demographic, and I never had a cop react to my firearm or even so much as bat an eye. “Fear is the mind killer.”

    • Apparently cops can read minds and can deduce intent.

      Or maybe you’re just shilling for selective rights based on your conformist standards on dress and association, plus neighborhood stereotypes.

      • “Apparently cops can read minds and can deduce intent.”

        Many of the inbred retards from southern Illinois who let NRA rat Todd Vandermyde put Duty to Inform in the 2013 Illinois carry bill secretly want to be cops so they can beat up a few black people with baggy pants. Just look at the comments on here.

        That’s why the hicks put up with Duty to Inform: they are stupid enough to think that they are “on the same side” as the cops. They don’t want Constitutional rights, they want a piece of plastic in their wallets proving they are “one of the good guys.” Yee-haw!

  4. Yep. I’m with you serge. Illegal in Illinois but legal a scant mile away in Indiana. I really can’t advise the brothers other than don’t appear to be a gangster. The same advise I give my sons who are half black…

  5. Each person has to consider their own situation and the potential for problems where they are and where they are going. There is no “one size fits all” answer, no matter who you are.

    I really hope some black folks will enter this discussion.

  6. never hurts to have a token white guy with you.
    what… it’s gotten my friend out of dubious “tickets” before, with me being in his car. hell you can even see on their face the paradigm shift without using a clutch when they see me sitting there.

    • Dave Chappelle did a number of bits on that topic. Always good to have a white guy with you, in case you need to talk to police.

  7. Even concealed carry may be much too dangerous for African Americans in Illinois. After attorney Alan Gura and SAF took Chicago black man Otis McDonald to the Supreme Court in 2010, NRA lobbyist for Illinois Todd Vandermyde put Duty to Inform w/ criminal penalties in Rep. Brandon Phelps HB183 “NRA backed” carry bill in 2013. The anti-gun police unions wanted Duty to Inform so they can shoot down armed citizens with legal cover. DTI will only affect blacks in Chicago and Cook County anyway, so who cares? Most NRA members are racist hicks from southern IL who never leave their trailers.

    Carrying while black in Illinois? Your life is for sale, thanks to NRA’s pet rat Todd Vandermyde. Send in your life membership!

    • You should maybe read the actual statute before ranting on about it like someone who gets his “news” from facebook.

      The words “duty to inform” do not exist in the statute. We are only required to answer truthfully to the LEO question of whether we are carrying a firearm.

      • Curtis- demo boy is a troll. I think Todd owes him $. Pearson too was a voice crying in the wilderness for years. He sure hates anyone south of I-80…

      • Thanks for showing everyone in America the I.Q. level of Illinois NRA members. Maybe you should read the statute, especially the part about criminal penalties. EVERY violation of the Illinois HB183 concealed carry act is punishable by 6 MONTHS or 1 YEAR in jail. That includes hundreds of gun-free zones, not just Duty to Inform.

        “At the request of the officer” means if the cop asks, you have to answer or be arrested, which means the cop has the excuse to use force, which means the cop has the excuse to use lethal force since you are armed. Who’s a cop? Nothing in the act says the cop has to be in uniform, on duty, or within proper jurisdiction.

        When your old lady get abducted, disarmed and raped by a serial killer like John Gacy, call up Chris Cox & Chuck Cunningham at NRA-ILA and tell them to give Vandermyde a bonus.

  8. If wishes were fishes we’d all be eating sushi. Off duty non white cops get harassed , non white judges get pulled over, Chris Rock has stories galore. And there’s that guy in Florida. Open carry would probably best done in large group as a political statement rather than one guy on the street.

    I’m sorry. It’s wrong. But you have to live in the world that is until you can create the world you want.

  9. No.

    Open Carry “best practices” apply here as always:

    – Keep your gun holstered, and your hands off your gun
    – Don’t act nervous
    – Dress well
    – Be extra friendly, and smile

    Basically, look and act non-threatening and professional, and you won’t have any major problems.

  10. Nice scripted production. Maybe I’ll start watching sitcoms next, like maybe tonight I’ll watch Two Broke Girls. Heck, I haven’t puked in a long time.

  11. I’m black with darker skin…mid-forties with glasses and gray hair. I dress in jeans or khakis with a polo or button down when I can, carry myself like an average american, polite to everyone, smile when greeting someone, etc., am often with my wife and children…and I’d have no problem (I think) open carrying in this part of VA.

    I’ve carried concealed for several years. I don’t open carry yet because I don’t want the attention, not because I’m black. Having said that, I do think dress, demeanor, and location make a difference.

    My $.02

    • Don’t forget age. If I was 22 yo black male, regardless of dress I think it could be quite dangerous for the simple reason that anytime a gun is handled unnecessarily it is dangerous. I am not even talking about anything egregious like the Tamir Rice shooting. How about this scenario: pearl clutcher calls in “black man with gun” police come around to investigate, in the course of the contact with the lawfully armed citizen they decide to “disarm him for officer safety” as the SC has held they can do. Because police are not always the best trained at gun handling and have poor trigger and muzzle discipline (just ask Sal Culosi) the gun “accidentally goes off” as they are removing it from the holster.

  12. Used to be presenting as openly armed was how they kept cops from hosing, beating or sending the dogs for them.

    A bunch of bipartisan bigots cried foul and stopped that. Now the brainwashing is so complete the black population honestly belives disarming themselves will free them.

    Whats with oppressed people worldwide repeatedly embracing their oppression? Even after liberation they consistently revert back to a chained status.

    • “A bunch of bipartisan bigots cried foul and stopped that. Now the brainwashing is so complete the black population honestly belives disarming themselves will free them.”

      Indeed.

      “Whats with oppressed people worldwide repeatedly embracing their oppression? Even after liberation they consistently revert back to a chained status.”

      I blame the YouTube comment section.

  13. Why would it be an issue. The real issue is everybody thinks a black person is basicly bad. The proper thing is to see everybody the way you want to be seen. The other thing is why open carry. All that will do is put everybody on the defence. As far as carring in the woods if you are hunting then what ever dictates the situation would be normal. I hunt deer with a handgun but I carry conceled as the hoster that works is a shoulder hoster under the left arm.

  14. The question is too complex for a yay or nay.

    What does the OCer look like? What is their background and verbal community? What is OCer wearing? What are their views? What are they doing while OCing? Who is with them? Where are they OCing? Who sees them OCing? Did the person who saw the OCing report a disturbance to the police? What did they tell police? If confronted by police and questioned, how will the OCer react? Who is officer/s responding? What is the responding officer/s’ back ground and verbal community? What are offcier/s’ views?

    There are too many factors to say, well this person should or this person should not. It’s a complex question, in a complex world. Hence why I choose to CC – out of sight, out of mind.

    I’m not against OC, I just want to avoid as much nonsense as possible whilst going about my day.

  15. A number of blacks OC in Michigan. In OC walks around Detroit I’ve seen blacks who don’t carry say they think they will be targeted I’d they do.

  16. I hope not. I mean it SHOULD only be dangerous if you are making it so. Alas reality is not always so kind. :/

  17. I’d be curious as to what would happen if a well dressed African American OC’ed in a liberal part of Virginia, like where I live. I think plenty of people would be caught between their dislike or hatred of gun owners and not wanting to appear racist. I would love to watch that play out. All of the officers I’ve met in my area were calm and professional, and we have almost no crime, so I don’t forsee it getting out of hand that easily.

  18. It’s simple, use a holster and refrain from acting like a thug and you’ll have no issues on the other hand if you stick yo gat in yo wayst ban ors b waybin itz roun lyke a phlagg uze guna habe a problum.

    I’m not going to go into detail but there’s a reason thugs are always grabbing at their crotches, it’s not because they have crabs, it’s the deucy-deuce, quarter, .380 or 9mm they’ve got stuffed alongside their rod is shifting in their briefs. Oh yeah those exposed boxer shorts, the ones visible when their pants are down around their knees, yeah they’re just for show, a fashion statement, they wear briefs under them and use the briefs as a holster. The aforementioned is why “Stop, Question & Frisk” is so successful in taking guns and drugs off the streets, it’s also what got NYPD Officer Brian Moore killed last year when he and his partner spotted a dude repeatedly grabbing his nuts while walking down the street.

  19. Open carry would save a lot of AA’s lives. Cops & criminals- don’t bully and murder people who can defend themselves. They always target the weak.

  20. Well dressed black men get harassed by the police. There is a bias, conscious and or unconscious. We will all do better if we accept that. I heard a professor/counselor say, “the most racist people in America are liberals. They think they aren’t racist so they never address it in themselves.”

    It simple to deal with.
    We maintain situational awareness.
    We check out thoughts those narratives that go on in our heads. “Oh he’s black he’s dangerous.” Then ask yourself, true or not true. Am I just repeating something I heard growing up?
    Do I need to be cautious or not? It would be a shame to miss that bad guy who’s white because some black kids are standing around.
    The way the media paints PoG as dangerous is the same for blacks. All blacks aren’t gang bangers. Some are. Are white kids wearing gangster clothes dangerous? Do you give them a pass?
    Couple weeks listening to your thoughts you can root out any you don’t need anymore. Thoughts that don’t serve you.

  21. Please, let me digress for a moment: African American is not a race, per se.

    I have a friend who was born in South Africa and moved to America – he has blonde hair, blue eyes, and lilly white skin. Is he an African American? Also, what if the person isn’t American? What if the person lives in Japan. Would said person be an East Asian African? Or what if the person is from Egypt? Is an Egyptian, also, an African American? What if the Egyptian lives in Egypt. If so, how does the American part play into it? Or would they just be an African?

    It seems like a confusing term, to me.

    • “African American” is simply today’s term, accepted by the bleeding heart liberals who are self-appointed to decide what is offensive and what isn’t.

      Yesterday is was “black.”

      The day before that it was “colored.”
      (Guess what NAACP stands for.)

      The day before that it was “negro.”

      Tomorrow, it will be something else.

    • Ah grasshopper/Rock on-it’s simple. I’m married to a stunningly beautiful black woman. Never ever(in 32 years) has she used the term”african american” that I know of. Hasn’t our fearless leader RF stated he is AM? Made up BS term-like referring to me as “European-American”. I think Jesse Jackson(not former congressman/felon Jesse Jr.) coined the term. No need to participate-I never have…simple PC BS.

  22. Why would you even ask such an over-broad, generalized question? As a demographic, It gets you absolutely nowhere. Which African Americans, and where, and in what contexts? It causes more questions than answers.

    This fixation on race will be the death of us all.

  23. Mostly, I would think to avoid whatever looks out of place to avoid raising alarm regardless of skin color. OCing while hiking or in rural areas won’t raise an eyebrow. A black guy OCing in a white neighborhood may get some attention…just like a white guy OCing in a black neighborhood may get some attention. Anyone OCing while loitering outside a suburban town will likely get the same attention.

    OCing in my neighborhood is out of place, so I don’t do it.

  24. The greatest crime, in progressive climate, is to be black and conservative.

    I know this well. I, too, am a black man, from a conservative family , (FNM party Bahamas), and to educate to American black people that black conservatives exist, seems to shock them quite often.

    And I love guns and carry daily .

  25. The only way a black man can carry openly without getting harassed or arrested is if he’s a cop. Otherwise the scared white folk are going to call the police and report “a suspicious black man carrying a gun”.

  26. Well I’m a white guy who spent the first several years of his career patrolling a predominantly black area in southeast va. Open carry was not uncommon, but not something you saw everyday either(if that makes sense). I now work in a very rural area that is predominantly white. Here’s what goes through my head when I see someone OC in either area:
    -cool that person is ocing
    -hmm wonder what they’re packing
    -do they actually have it loaded or are they one of those guys who walks around with no mag in
    -if they’ve got something cool might roll down the window and say nice piece man
    -what kinda holster they got
    -sip the coffee, nibble on the doughnut, wave, and clear no report if someone called about them

  27. This is clearly a sign that we are still living in a world that stereotypes people. Even worse is that a lot of it is coming from our law enforcement.

    This video says it all:

    • Some questions would have to be answered before anyone could say what is racially motivated or not.

      Like were did the two videos take place? Were both the videos filmed in same area? If not, we’re both areas “gun friendly?” What is the crime rate in the area/s? What are the police chief/sheriff’s and officers’ views on gun ownership and OC, as a whole?

      I think one could reasonable say police reaction to OC, on the whole, in Cali (pre-OC ban, of course) or Washington vs Arizona or New Mexico would be different. Or in a major city with high crime rates, vs a small town or suburb, with low crime rates.

      There are two many factors in life to just say “Yep, see these video, it’s always race related.”

      The OC Texas founder was locked up for OCing a long gun, legally, in Texas – he is a white man.

      You can always find something to prove an anecdotal point, when only looking at things subjectively.

    • real stupid reaction by the police here, had i been present probably would have drawn on that first cop.

    • The rifles were carried in different positions . The corn rows guy had it slung at his side within easy reach vs. on his back where the white dude had his.

      I doubt this was by accident. The film crew obviously had a narrative they wanted to support.

  28. First I’m 64, plus I am BLACK. You are a Black Male, you need to be very careful what you do and where you go. The truth is, United States of America is a big racist country. I served in the US Army from 12/12/68 – 07/30/81, and things that saw while I was in or experienced more than half what witnessed had the tone of racism. After getting out of US Army, I experienced the same things in civilian life. Being raised in Southern California (Compton, CA), racism did not exist. I started carrying concealed in 1995, I’m not a fan of open carry, I don’t want anyone to know I’m armed. The people in law enforcement are very good people, but you have rotten apples with the good apples that is the way it is in our country. From my time in the Army to the USPS, to Dept. of Corrections, I’ve seen it all what we people will do to one another. And, I may add, I do a lot of shooting! Finally, wearing a $500 suit, does not matter!

    • Indeed. Lol,My dad, told a strorie of (this is true) a black man came on the construction sight wearing a suit.The boss told him he could have the job but they needed him right now, ( the boss was fckn with him) Dad said he took off his suit an had work clothes on underneath. Dad got a kick outta how he suckerd that boss

  29. I agree with the author on how he open carries; I think it’s the best way to carry when outside doing outdoor activities like hiking or working. Open carrying in a town or city is not only dumb, it’s dangerous. Much more can go wrong open carrying in a populated area than concealed carrying.

    As for black people open carrying, I understand that some may feel they have a right to do it, but when you think about the prospect of how other people whether they are White, Asian, Latino, etc. would view a black person open carrying… hey, you are right you have your rights, but do you want to be right or do you want to be smart?

    Being right and being smart doesn’t just apply to black open carry, it applies to everyone open carrying.

  30. Being biracial (not black), I can tell you, gives you a truly unique view of racism…

    Every race/group has racism, every single one of them. It goes in every direction, towards every other race, even turning inward, within the same race and culture.

    It’s this big underlying, grotesque elephant in the room. And everyone only wants to talk about the other guy’s elephant, not their own.

    It’s an interest facet to human existence. Once which, in the caveman/tribal since, probabaly was the difference between life and death – being able to quickly identify friend from foe. And it just seemed to carry on into the “modern, civilize” era.

    I don’t know. It’s a crazy world, to say the least.

  31. I live in a southern state where guns are respected and the right to carry them is revered. I have seen whites and A/A open carrying and I am probably staring more than the average person because I am just admiring what they are carrying and the holster. I think a white guy dressed like Jax Teller with gun tucked in back of pants, or a A/A man dressed like a thug and gun tucked in pants is going to make people nervous… actually most are nervous seeing the examples even if they don’t see a gun. I would bet most of the episodes referenced were in states that are not as traditionally gun friendly and the general population is conditioned to be afraid of guns period. Being in a liberal state does not equate to A/A being viewed as equal, since the liberal mindset actually views others as inferior and needing to be protected by them which is a subtle and silent form racism. Just because they pander for votes does not mean they view you as equal.

  32. first thing everyone need to understand is that every circumstance is different. Yes there are documented accounts of someone dressed as a “thug”(what ever the hell that means) and get profiled and proceeding to act like an idot. Yes there are examples of some one dressing “casual” and no one thinking anything of it, but there is no way for a black man or any other man for that matter, to walk out his door openly carrying a gun and predict how civilians or police will react. I could go the entire day openly carrying and not have an issue, but all it takes is one person to freak out and either make a scene or call the cops to ruin my good day. In general most people don’t openly display their prejudices so we don’t know who is scared of guns, we don’t know who is racist, we don’t know who’s an asshole but as soon as that 1 person that is willing to put those prejudices on display any situation can quickly go bad. Personally I don’t need another reason to be profiled, i do everything in my power to keep my gun from printing, open carrying isnt even a consideration

  33. No it is not safe for a black person to open barry, barrys guts will spill out and the black person will be charged with murder.

  34. I remember when I was young growing up in a suburban Michigan town. This was 30 years ago mind you, there would be a group of young’ens walking around the neighborhood carrying BB guns and pellet guns open and on full display. We would shoot tree squirrels and birds all day long while walking down the alleys and infrequently we had to cross the streets. We acted like a bunch of normal semi-hoodlum boys having fun with our guns. I recall getting stopped by the police one time while doing this and since the cops all.basically came from our neighborhood they only talked to us sternly about how what we were doing was illegal, but they knew we would do it anyway so to avoid certain people’s homes and don’t shoot at anyone or their pets. They treated us as though we were normal semi-hoodlum boys having fun quite our new BB guns and it went no further. We were all black and of the 3 or 4 cops, half were white but knew of some of us from around the neighborhood, those kids got pulled aside incidentally. The people in the neighborhoods, for the oat part didn’t over react about is. There were a couple neighbors who yelled at us though. I believe that there is a time and place for everything, reasonable suspicion aside, Nirmal people will act normally. Why carry OC if I don’t have to? Political statements are for a specific arena and should stay there. I do believe that we still have to deal with racism but, the cops will probably go after the white guy in a group for the opposite reason (not appear racist), vs the black guy. I try to always keep a token white guy with me when I go shooting….just sayin. I won’t take the idiot white guy though, he’ll get me shot.

  35. Open carriers of all races better have a camera crew following them. Consider this story:

    http://www.wvgazettemail.com/news/20160301/woman-free-after-stand-between-trooper-dog

    – A woman stood between a pig and her dog and prevented the chained and restrained dog from being killed
    – She was charged with ‘obstruction of justice’, which demonstrates the farcical nature of ‘justice’ in this nation
    – The pig then assaulted her and entered her home with no warrant to confiscate electronics and tamper with evidence
    – The pig’s boss then colluded with her wife (the public defender) to convince the woman to plead guilty to a case that took a jury half an hour to toss out
    – Only the cellphone video taken by her husband which miraculously escaped confiscation saved her from a conviction
    – The pig perjured himself in testimony, lying about the woman being armed and belligerent and the dog being unrestrained. Naturally, the pig is not facing any kind of punishment for this additional felony.

    Lesson of the day: a cop can shoot an open carrier in cold blood and only hard video evidence will save you from serving jail time for the crime of assaulting police bullets with your body. But that will probably not result in punishment for the cops.

  36. Realistically speaking, a black person OC’ing is likely to result in more calls about “armed guy up to something bad” to the police from the observers, especially in urban locations. And the police is more likely to treat these calls as evidence of actual crime (and thus arrive to the scene pumped and ready to shoot).

    Even if you’re doing nothing wrong, it’s likely that they’ll try to detain you. Worst case, they shout something to you, you can’t hear it or just don’t react fast enough, and you get shot. Later, the cop will claim that they had a “reasonable expectation” that you’re a criminal on account of you carrying a gun and “making aggressive moves” or some such (there won’t be anything to corroborate that later claim, but an officer’s word is usually enough for the grand jury). The fact that there is an actual gun would make it a shut case – I mean, we’ve seen officers acquitted when they claimed that a cellphone looked like a gun, and there was no gun found afterwards…

    No amount of talk about legality, constitutional rights, “we stand with you” etc is going to change that. Yes, you can legally do it. And they can legally kill you and get away with it. We’ve seen it many times already.

  37. Like others here, I feel obligated to come out strongly against open barry. We’ve had nearly eight years of open barry. We can’t take much more.

  38. Oh geez, our high speed low drag tactical military operators pee their panties over OFWG farmers in OshKosh B’gosh overalls carrying a double barrel shotgun. Imagine a 25 year old black male displaying a Glock?

  39. I was taking my dogs for a walk and passed a crew of landscapers who were working on a yard. They all happened to be black. The guy in charge was dressed in camo shirt and pants with a Vietnam-era “jungle hat” on. He had a Ruger SP101 in a holster on his belt. I thought, cool, nice gun. I almost went up and asked him about it.

    But I get that if he walked into the supermarket just up the road like that, especially at night, the cops would probably get called and if he made a bad move, he might get shot. It’s stupid too. I don’t think gang-bangers and stick-up men OC. They probably conceal illegally. OC’ing at least says, “Hey, here’s my gun! I’ve got nothing to hide.” But the situation is not rational.

    • Maybe that’s because whites significantly outnumber blacks, therefore statistical analysis should not look at absolute numbers.

      Of course that begs the question: why do white people blandly accept police criminality against all races?

      • In Ilinois the white racist baby boomers from all-white small towns south of Joliet accepted Duty to Inform from NRA lobbyist Todd Vandermyde in Rep. Brando Phelps 2013 carry bill because they don’t believe in the law they babble about, they believe in Klan law.

        That is the law won’t be applied to them, because they are one of the good old boys. Yes Illinois NRA & ISRA members really are that stupid. Studies show that consumption of moonshine in southern IL causes lowered I.Q.

      • The article is much more in depth than absolute numbers. Give it a read. For example:

        “Adjusted to take into account the racial breakdown of the U.S. population, he said black men are 3.5 times more likely to be killed by police than white men. But also adjusted to take into account the racial breakdown in violent crime, the data actually show that police are less likely to kill black suspects than white ones.

        ==

        Mr. Moskos listed two possible reasons for the racial disparity. The first is that police assigned to largely black neighborhoods face “more political fallout when they shoot, and thus receive better training and are less inclined to shoot.”

        The second is that police assigned to black communities with high crime rates are more accustomed to dangerous situations and thus are more likely to be able to resolve them without resort to lethal force.”

        • “the data actually show that police are less likely to kill black suspects than white ones.”

          The fatal flaw in that adjustment is that somehow being a suspect in a violent crime (as opposed to being convicted of violent crime) justifies the kill. It doesn’t.

  40. As an African American, I’m too scared to open carry. I honestly don’t expect Caucasians to understand what we go through, but I’ve used coming up to bat and only getting 2 strikes instead of the regular three as an example. Police have been terrorizing our communities long before the Travon Martin case, and it does not have to do with age, education, or carrying ourselves like a thug ( new term for nigger)

    Anything I can do to stay off the radar of law enforcement officers just makes my life a little easier.

    • MEH…Travon(Obama’s son) attacked a “white hispanic” in the dark. And bashed his head in. A punk move. Try harder oh put upon “african american”. I’ll go with the big guy choked for selling loosies in NYC. I’ve never apologized for being Caucasian-especially to my black wife and caramel sons…a thug is a thug is a thug.

      • I can guarantee your caramel kids will go through things you never did. As I said, I wouldn’t expect everyone to understand

        Zimmerman shoulda stayed away as instructed, he got man handled by a kid he shouldn’t have approached and he’s the victim? That’s another topic

        • Zimmerman shoulda stayed away as instructed…

          Your ignorance of the facts of the case, after so long, is stunning.

          …he got man handled…

          So, felony assault is now merely getting “manhandled”?

          …by a kid…

          Trayvon Martin was a fully grown, 17-year-old, well-muscled street fighter – not a “kid”.

          …he shouldn’t have approached…

          Zimmerman never approached Martin. Martin approached, verbally accosted, and physically assaulted Zimmerman.

          …and he’s the victim?

          Yes, according to the facts of the case.

    • …Police have been terrorizing our communities long before the Travon Martin case…

      What do these two things (police terrorizing communities, and Trayvon Martin) have to do with each other?

      • The related context is that bootlickers have been using the Zimmerman/Martin case, a single case with grossly disproportionate media attention, and one which isn’t nearly as clear cut as they think it is, as justification for cops to harass anyone with dark skin and gun them down on the flimsiest of manufactured excuses.

        Your omission (deliberate or otherwise) of a key fact of the Zimmerman/Martin case, specifically, that of Zimmerman admitting to the dispatcher that he was profiling and following Martin in spite of the dispatcher telling him not to do so, is required to turn a dubious shooting into a ‘good shoot’. This allows the bootlicker to indulge in the sheepdog fantasy of relishing his turn to “put a thug down”. Much like Zimmerman, the deliberate instigation leading up to this fantasy gets whitewashed, literally.

        • Here, read this: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/12/us/13shooter-document.html

          This document states that Zimmerman chased and confronted Martin after being told by the dispatcher not to do so.

          Note that this is an affidavit of probable cause which only describes proven facts as provided by investigators, and under the penalty of perjury. During the trial the defense did not even attempt to dispute these preceding events, only focusing on the fact that Martin was the initial aggressor once Martin caught up to him and confronted him.

          You obviously have no clue about the facts of the case, in typical bootlicker style. There was no “felony assault” (Martin is dead, use of stand-your-ground does not infer being the victim of felonious assault) and he most definitely could have stayed away. Your claim that it was Martin who stalked and attacked Zimmerman is ludicrous.

        • I’ve probably forgotten more about that case than you ever knew.

          No evidence was ever presented at trial that Zimmerman “chased” Martin, nor that Zimmerman confronted Martin. (In fact, the State’s star witness claimed that Martin, having reached Green’s condo, circled back and confronted Zimmerman.)

          Zimmerman was never told not to do anything, and such instructions from a dispatcher would not have been legally binding even if given. Zimmerman was looking to see where Martin went. The dispatcher told Zimmerman that they didn’t need him to do that, at which point Zimmerman stopped.

          It was while Zimmerman was walking on his way back to his truck that Martin confronted him.

          Regardless, none of Zimmerman’s known or even unproved/disproved alleged actions were unlawful, and none prevented him from lawfully using deadly force in self defense.

          Martin unlawfully assaulted Zimmerman, and Zimmerman lawfully used deadly force in self-defense.

        • So either the investigators and prosecutors listed on that document are liars (and open to be persecuted for perjury), or you are a fantasist and/or liar who revised the facts to fit a bootlicker, sheepdog fantasy narrative.

          Let’s address each point:
          – The state’s witness recollection was challenged by the defense, which is a valid defense. At no point did she totally recant and state the opposite (i.e. Martin chased and confronted Zimmerman).
          – “Zimmerman was never told not to do anything” – this is demonstrably false. The police dispatcher call was recorded and on tape. That it was not legally binding is irrelevant, the conversation proves Zimmerman was indeed seeking/chasing Martin.
          – “It was while Zimmerman was walking on his way back to his truck that Martin confronted him.” – That is Zimmerman’s claimed alibi, and he had no witnesses to prove it. It was his word against the prosecution’s witness.

          “Martin unlawfully assaulted Zimmerman, and Zimmerman lawfully used deadly force in self-defense.”

          This is the biggest howler. The prosecution went after Zimmerman on murder due to political pressure, which requires demonstration of intent along the entire timeline (up and including the confrontation). They could have easily gone after a manslaughter charge and won. Moreover, the trial’s result does not infer the legality of Martin’s reaction, whatever it might have been. All it proves is the jury believed Martin did not deliberately initiate an assault that killed Martin. In fact, even a mutual confrontation (which is distinctly different from your claim) would have resulted in an acquittal.

        • So either the investigators and prosecutors listed on that document are liars (and open to be persecuted for perjury), or you are a fantasist and/or liar who revised the facts to fit a bootlicker, sheepdog fantasy narrative.

          The PCA was laughable. It was a sham. It will wind up in textbooks one day as an example of what a probable cause affidavit isn’t. Most importantly, the PCA includes no actual evidence, particularly for the assertion that “Zimmerman confronted Martin”.

          Let’s address each point:
          – The state’s witness recollection was challenged by the defense, which is a valid defense. At no point did she totally recant and state the opposite (i.e. Martin chased and confronted Zimmerman).

          Wrong. Her testimony was that Martin had reached Green’s condo (some 400 feet away from the location of the eventual altercation), and decided not to go inside, but rather to go confront Zimmerman.

          Zimmerman was never anywhere near Green’s condo. He had no time to be anywhere near Green’s condo. The evidence markers corroborate Zimmerman’s explanation for where he walked (and where he didn’t walk – i.e. anywhere near Green’s condo).

          – “Zimmerman was never told not to do anything” – this is demonstrably false. The police dispatcher call was recorded and on tape. That it was not legally binding is irrelevant, the conversation proves Zimmerman was indeed seeking/chasing Martin.

          Wrong again. The NEN dispatcher said, “we don’t need you to do that.” Such statement is not a directive or an instruction. So, Zimmerman was never told to do or not to do anything. Further, Zimmerman stopped walking when the NEN dispatcher said, “we don’t need you to do that” – as evidenced by the cessation of wind noise on the recorded phone call.

          And even if Zimmerman had been chasing Martin, it doesn’t matter. Such chasing is not unlawful, and would not justify Martin’s use of force against Zimmerman.

          – “It was while Zimmerman was walking on his way back to his truck that Martin confronted him.” – That is Zimmerman’s claimed alibi, and he had no witnesses to prove it. It was his word against the prosecution’s witness.

          The prosecution produced no witnesses to dispute Zimmerman’s account. The location of evidence corroborated Zimmerman’s account.

          “Martin unlawfully assaulted Zimmerman, and Zimmerman lawfully used deadly force in self-defense.”

          This is the biggest howler.

          To the contrary, all evidence corroborates the statement. There is no evidence that Zimmerman assaulted Martin, or in any other way justified the documented use of force committed by Martin against Zimmerman. All available evidence – as presented by the State, no less corroborates an unlawful assault of Zimmerman by Martin, and a lawful use of deadly force in self defense by Zimmerman.

          The prosecution went after Zimmerman on murder due to political pressure, which requires demonstration of intent along the entire timeline (up and including the confrontation). They could have easily gone after a manslaughter charge and won. Moreover, the trial’s result does not infer the legality of Martin’s reaction, whatever it might have been. All it proves is the jury believed Martin did not deliberately initiate an assault that killed Martin. In fact, even a mutual confrontation (which is distinctly different from your claim) would have resulted in an acquittal.

          And yet, there is still the evidence, 100% in favor of Zimmerman, and 0% in favor of Martin.

        • “The PCA was laughable.”

          Are you a lawyer? Do you understand what lying or even conjecture passed off as evidence while under oath entails? As opposed to your internet lies, which carry no consequences.

          “but rather to go confront Zimmerman.”

          That is your conjecture which is not supported by actual evidence. The available evidence shows that Martin was in fact attempting to evade Zimmerman, whom he correctly believed was stalking him.

          “Wrong again. The NEN dispatcher said, “we don’t need you to do that.” Such statement is not a directive or an instruction”

          It was a request. Moreover, in the immediately preceding conversation, Zimmerman admitted to seeking out Martin for “acting suspicious”. You simply choose to ignore that clear statement.

          “And even if Zimmerman had been chasing Martin, it doesn’t matter. Such chasing is not unlawful, and would not justify Martin’s use of force against Zimmerman.”

          You are obviously not a lawyer. That is not what is being tried, and as such, they are pure conjecture from an untrained layman.

          “The prosecution produced no witnesses to dispute Zimmerman’s account. The location of evidence corroborated Zimmerman’s account.”

          Actually they did, the defense simply introduced doubt into it. On the other hand, Zimmerman’s account does not match his stated actions in the earlier phone conversation. Of course, none of this is all that relevant in the context of a second-degree murder trial, something you obviously fail to understand.

          “To the contrary, all evidence corroborates the statement.”

          Firstly, Martin is dead. Secondly, there were no eyewitnesses to the actual altercation. Therefore your ‘evidence’ consists of Zimmmerman’s account, which is highly suspicious for already mentioned reasons. You simply choose to believe Zimmerman because his actions fit your own delusional sheepdog fantasy.

        • Are you a lawyer?

          Appeal to authority, much?

          Do you understand what lying or even conjecture passed off as evidence while under oath entails?

          The Zimmerman PCA is garbage. It makes allegations, but provides no evidence to support those allegations – the single thing a PCA is supposed to do.

          No need to take my word for it. Here’s just a sampling:

          https://www.emptywheel.net/2012/04/14/zimmerman-anatomy-of-an-deficient-probable-cause-affidavit/
          http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/04/problems_with_the_zimmerman_affidavit.html
          https://popehat.com/2012/04/13/how-not-to-draft-a-probable-cause-affidavit/
          http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002564109

          As opposed to your internet lies, which carry no consequences.

          You have accused me of lying. Put up or shut up: cite one lie I have told.

          That is your conjecture which is not supported by actual evidence. The available evidence shows that Martin was in fact attempting to evade Zimmerman, whom he correctly believed was stalking him.

          Wrong, as corroborated by the evidence presented at trial.

          1. Martin successfully evaded visual contact by Zimmerman, as corroborated by both Zimmerman and Jeantel.
          2. Martin reached Green’s condo (Jeantel), some 400 feet south of the sidewalk “T” (map)
          3. Martin, of his own volition, did not enter Green’s condo (Jeantel)
          4. Zimmerman never left the vicinity of the sidewalk “T”. He crossed to the far side of the row of condos, but never turned south. (As evidenced by the phone call, and the timeline.)
          5. As of the end of the NEN call, Zimmerman had no idea where Martin was (as evidenced by the phone call)
          6. The altercation took place at the sidewalk “T” (as evidenced by the fight debris, including the location of Zimmerman’s keychain/flashlight, the witnessed location of the assault, and the final location of Martin’s body)

          The evidence clearly indicates that it was Martin who circled back 400 feet north, to accost Zimmerman.

          It was a request. Moreover, in the immediately preceding conversation, Zimmerman admitted to seeking out Martin for “acting suspicious”. You simply choose to ignore that clear statement.

          Quit moving the goalposts. You said that Zimmerman was instructed not do follow Martin. That statement is untrue.

          The reality is:

          1. Martin took off running and evaded Zimmerman’s visual contact before Zimmerman ever got out of his truck
          2. The NEN operator said “Just let me know if he does anything”; “just let me know if he does anything else”; and “he’s running? Which way is he running”.
          3. Those statements and questions would lead a reasonable person to do exactly as Zimmerman did: get out of his truck to try to ascertain where Martin went.
          4. When Zimmerman got out of his truck, he didn’t know where Martin was or where he went. He merely walked along the route he saw Martin running, in an attempt to try to see where he went.
          5. There is no evidence, at all, that Zimmerman “chased” Martin or attempted to catch up to or “catch” him.
          6. When the NEN operator said, “we don’t need you to do that”, Zimmerman stopped walking.

          You are obviously not a lawyer. That is not what is being tried, and as such, they are pure conjecture from an untrained layman.

          And you are apparently ignorant of the relevant Florida statutes regarding the use of deadly force in self-defense. Those statutes negate a self-defense claim if the person who used deadly force is engaged in unlawful activity that leads to/results in the use of deadly force. So, that Zimmerman’s actions were not unlawful is a paramount matter in any attempt to convict him.

          Actually they did, the defense simply introduced doubt into it.

          Wrong. There were no witnesses who placed Zimmerman anywhere near Green’s condo, or anywhere other than in the vicinity of the sidewalk “T” where the assault took place.

          On the other hand, Zimmerman’s account does not match his stated actions in the earlier phone conversation.

          Please cite a material discrepancy in Zimmerman’s account.

          Of course, none of this is all that relevant in the context of a second-degree murder trial, something you obviously fail to understand.

          No, I’ve been quite clear on the issue:

          1. Zimmerman was doing nothing unlawful
          2. Martin assaulted Zimmerman in a manner that justified the use of deadly force in self-defense
          3. Zimmerman lawfully used deadly force in self-defense

          There is no case to dispute the self-defense claim. There never was.

          Firstly, Martin is dead.

          That often happens when one places another in mortal fear, causing one’s victim lawfully to use deadly force in self-defense.

          Secondly, there were no eyewitnesses to the actual altercation.

          John Goode.

          Therefore your ‘evidence’ consists of Zimmmerman’s account, which is highly suspicious for already mentioned reasons.

          Wrong. The evidence includes (non-exhaustinve):

          Multiple eye-witness accounts, physical injuries to Zimmerman, lack of physical injuries to Martin, the location of fight debris, the location of Martin’s body, the location of Brandi Green’s condo, the NEN call, the Jeantel call, and the timeline.

          You simply choose to believe Zimmerman because his actions fit your own delusional sheepdog fantasy.

          Wrong. You simply delude yourself in order to parrot a completely discredited Narrative regarding what happened that night.

        • “Appeal to authority, much?”

          Hardly. You said the document is a joke, but did not originally elaborate on why, nor do you seem to understand the concept of sworn testimony. You have subsequently posted some links to try to prove your statement. And as I read them, it is obvious that you are regurgitating those articles, which are in turn filled with weak reasoning.

          For example, “There is nothing offered by way of proof that anyone “profiled” Martin.”. Apparently Zimmerman saying that “these assholes, they always get away” is not profiling. Or when they dispute the statement “Martin is not committing a crime”. Which he was not, and it is not even a relevant point in the trial, but hey, you don’t understand that.

          And as I said, attempting to prosecute on a 2nd degree murder was political overreach, but that legal point is far beyond your understanding.

          >Martin successfully evaded visual contact by Zimmerman, as corroborated by both Zimmerman and Jeantel.

          And yet you dispute my claim that Martin was attempting to evade Zimmerman. You literally contradicted yourself there.

          Now, as for the claim that he circled back to confront Zimmerman, how would you know? Martin is dead, he never gave any testimony. Moreover, he was travelling in his own neighborhood (where he is free to go as he pleases), whereas Zimmerman was a stranger living out a sheepdog fantasy in someone else’s neighborhood.

          >Quit moving the goalposts. You said that Zimmerman was instructed not do follow Martin. That statement is untrue.

          If you can read, that claim was made by a poster named “Brian”, not me. I merely posted what the dispatcher said. Of course, one hardly needs to be requested or instructed not to stalk people, and yet you defend Zimmerman’s idiotic behavior. Your desire to live vicariously through Zimmerman is obvious.

          >Those statements and questions would lead a reasonable person to do exactly as Zimmerman did: get out of his truck to try to ascertain where Martin went.

          Again, you contradict yourself on the claim that Zimmerman did not follow Martin. And how is it reasonable to be following people as a self-anointed patrolman?

          >He merely walked along the route he saw Martin running, in an attempt to try to see where he went… There is no evidence, at all, that Zimmerman “chased” Martin or attempted to catch up to or “catch” him.

          More contradictions. Somehow Zimmerman exiting his vehicle to try to ascertain Martin’s whereabouts, then walking along the path that he thought Martin went, constitutes neither “following” nor “chasing”.

          >And you are apparently ignorant of the relevant Florida statutes regarding the use of deadly force in self-defense.

          And you obviously don’t understand the level of proof required for a murder conviction. The prosecution would have to prove via circumstantial evidence, since no one witnessed the initial physical encounter, that Zimmerman initiated the altercation. It is a tall order, and the prosecution’s failure does not infer the opposite happened.

          >Please cite a material discrepancy in Zimmerman’s account.

          Easy. Him (and you) admitted to stalking Martin, then in his own testimony, he said something different. Obviously Zimmerman (and your) veracity is highly dubious.

          >There is no case to dispute the self-defense claim. There never was.

          The fact that the judge twice dismissed the defense’s claim to dismiss the case outright as self-defense contradicts your statement.

          >That often happens when one places another in mortal fear, causing one’s victim lawfully to use deadly force in self-defense.

          One can say the same about Martin who was recorded to have said that he was being stalked by a freak, but naturally you disregard Martin’s fear because it does not fit your narrative.

          >John Goode

          The initial altercation, genius. No one witnessed that. John Goode saw the fight in progress. Do you even understand that the initiation is the defining moment of the entire case? No, because you simply choose to believe Zimmerman entirely on those crucial moments, and you constructed your own vicarious fantasy on top of that.

          >Multiple eye-witness accounts, physical injuries to Zimmerman, lack of physical injuries to Martin, the location of fight debris, the location of Martin’s body, the location of Brandi Green’s condo, the NEN call, the Jeantel call, and the timeline.

          Again, the actual fight and shooting can be constructed with forensics. The initiation is the key and that is where Zimmerman’s claims fall apart, and those key moments cannot be reconstructed.

          You attribute motive to a dead person who cannot defend himself, you completely ignore Zimmerman’s stalking of Martin (going as far to say that he wasn’t even following Martin even though he is a self-appointed patrolman and told the dispatcher that Martin was his target), then you dictate the events of the encounter (as you fantasize) as if it were fact, when there is absolutely no evidence to back up your scenario.

          Like I said, the prosecution could have easily bagged Zimmerman on manslaughter, but you obviously do not understand the legal distinction between murder and manslaughter, so I won’t disturb your vicarious fantasy. I do want to know when you plan on patrolling neighborhoods and stalking people.

        • This demonstrates how little you know of the actual facts and evidence:

          Moreover, he was travelling in his own neighborhood (where he is free to go as he pleases), whereas Zimmerman was a stranger living out a sheepdog fantasy in someone else’s neighborhood.

          Zimmerman lived at the Retreat at Twin Lakes; Martin did not. Martin was cooling his heels at his dad’s side piece’s condo, while serving a 10-day suspension from school for possessing drug paraphernalia.

          Your desire to live vicariously through Zimmerman is obvious.

          Project much?

          Again, you contradict yourself on the claim that Zimmerman did not follow Martin. And how is it reasonable to be following people as a self-anointed patrolman?

          How can you follow someone if you don’t know where that person is, or where he went?

          Following a suspicious person through your own neighborhood, to keep an eye on him while you wait for requested police to arrive, is perfectly reasonable.

          More contradictions. Somehow Zimmerman exiting his vehicle to try to ascertain Martin’s whereabouts, then walking along the path that he thought Martin went, constitutes neither “following” nor “chasing”.

          Words have meanings. How can you follow someone you can’t see? It is plainly obvious from the NEN call that Zimmerman was following the route he saw Martin take, and was not following Martin himself.

          And you obviously don’t understand the level of proof required for a murder conviction. The prosecution would have to prove via circumstantial evidence, since no one witnessed the initial physical encounter, that Zimmerman initiated the altercation. It is a tall order, and the prosecution’s failure does not infer the opposite happened.

          Certainly it doesn’t; rather, it demonstrates why no charges should have ever been brought, and bringing charges violated Zimmerman’s rights.

          Easy. Him (and you) admitted to stalking Martin…

          Stalking also has a specific definition – and one that has absolutely no bearing on what happened that night. You’re merely projecting delusional fantasies based on the Narrative.

          The fact that the judge twice dismissed the defense’s claim to dismiss the case outright as self-defense contradicts your statement.

          Little Debbie has no business holding a gavel.

          One can say the same about Martin who was recorded to have said that he was being stalked by a freak…

          No, he wasn’t. Martin’s voice wasn’t recorded at all. Do you even have the first clue what you’re talking about?

          The rest of your inane babbling is nothing more than parroting of a wholly discredited Narrative. You might as well be Sonny Hostin herself, still fighting the good fight for The Narrative. The State disproved its own case, during the trial, by proving that Zimmerman acted lawfully in self-defense.

        • >Zimmerman lived at the Retreat at Twin Lakes; Martin did not. Martin was cooling his heels at his dad’s side piece’s condo.

          Neighborhood. Not community. The location of the altercation was far closer to Martin’s abode than Zimmerman. Also it is hardly surprising that you bring up his suspension. Bootlickers always support the drug war and the prosecution of drug non-crimes.

          >Project much?

          Says the guy defending a self-appointed patrolman who took it upon himself to harass people and got someone killed as a result. No, you are the bootlicker here.

          >How can you follow someone if you don’t know where that person is, or where he went?

          By guessing where they went, then following the guessed path. This, you already admitted as much. Your refusal to admit this is a bad attempt at semantics.

          >Following a suspicious person through your own neighborhood, to keep an eye on him while you wait for requested police to arrive, is perfectly reasonable.

          So was he profiling or not? What is Zimmerman’s justification of suspicion? Is it not reasonable for Martin to believe that a person with no uniform stalking from an unmarked vehicle has hostile intentions?

          Also this failed cop and delusional sheepdog’s patrolling is hardly reasonable. Your belief that it is again demonstrates your vicarious defense.

          >Words have meanings.

          Indeed they do. Follow. Stalk. Delusional sheepdog. These are words that you need to understand.

          >it demonstrates why no charges should have ever been brought, and bringing charges violated Zimmerman’s rights.

          As usual you demonstrate your legal ignorance. Failure of the prosecution to make a murder charge stick does not prove Martin attacked Zimmerman. Nor does he have a “right” not to be charged, the judge decided there was enough evidence to proceed with the prosecution. You literally have no idea what you are talking about.

          >Stalking also has a specific definition

          There is the legal definition (which I never cited), and there is verbal use. Verbally, it means pursuing or harassing. Zimmerman is guilty of both.

          >Little Debbie has no business holding a gavel.

          Again, what are your legal credentials?

          >No, he wasn’t. Martin’s voice wasn’t recorded at all. Do you even have the first clue what you’re talking about?

          Jeantel testified that Martin told her he was followed by a “creepy-ass cracker” during his last phone call. Phone records proved the call was made. You can choose not to believe her (because it doesn’t fit your sheepdog fanstasy narrative), but that is the recorded testimony, and it fits the timeline.

          >The State disproved its own case, during the trial, by proving that Zimmerman acted lawfully in self-defense.

          As always, your ignorance is plain for all to see. This has been mentioned countless times: failure to convict a murder charge does not prove his actions were legal, it merely says the state failed to prove he committed murder. There is a huge chasm between “not murder” and “legal self-defense” and you obviously don’t understand any of it.

          Not to mention your continued defense of all of Zimmerman’s other actions leading up to the altercation is ludicrous, but that is expected from someone so utterly ignorant of legal details.

  41. I’m surprised by some of the responses in comments given the vitriol and rabidity to which many who post to defend those who troll-through-open-carry of rifles and tacticool gear; “They should wear whatever they want! Optics don’t mater at all!

    And in the comments above, you have people bemoaning how certain people (of a certain skin color) shouldn’t wear saggy pants, jerseys, and Timberlands because it may lead to circumstances where people and police rely on the cliche of the “thug”/”gangbanger”.

    To be consistent, either you need to support wearing “whatever you want”… to include the trolls going out in tacticool gear in order to “test” (provoke) responses AND those who want to wear ill-fitting jeans and shirts…

    …or you can support a winning strategy of “optics matter” and call for those who want to open/concealed carry to do so in a manner that endears themselves with “middle America”.

    The more important issue isn’t “What are they wearing?”, the real issue, and the focus of our efforts and energy should be “How do we break the mindset among minorities that ‘guns are bad’?”… and you aren’t going to do that by setting a different standard for people based on their skin color; either dressing poorly or like a troll are both bad… or both are good.

  42. _____ – (hyphenated) Americans should be able to open/concealed carry ANYTIME they are residing within _______ place of identity/origin.

    When they decide to become normal (not hyphenated) Americans perhaps I’ll be interested (NOT) in their special interest identity whining.

  43. Black Americans are just Americans, and they deserve all rights and responsibilities thereunto pertaining. Any cop who profiles an American who happens to be black deserves to have their career shitcanned. Now, profiling a douchewaffle gangbanging thug who happens to be black? Rock on.

    Profiling needs to focus on behaviors, not physical characteristics.

    Not too much to ask. If you’re too dumb, get the fuck out of the police force.

  44. So, the only way to fix the issue is to normalize open carry and normalize open carry by minorities. For now, if it is as dangerous as some (many/most?) minorities believe (and it very well may be that dangerous or worse), then the best bet would be to open carry in mixed groups. Obviously this means open carry as a form of demonstration, as opposed to in every day life, but the fact is it won’t become “normal” if it never happens and the only assuredly safe way to do it until it has reached a certain level of normality would be to do so as a clear demonstration. If you’re a minority and you feel like it would not be safe to legally open carry where you are, get a couple white people to open carry with you on the weekend.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *