We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Monday, July 15. 2013
Owning a Home Isn’t Always a Virtue
What if your gluten intolerance is all in your head?
Yes, the middle-class has been disappearing, but they haven’t fallen into the lower-class, they’ve risen into the upper-class
Obamacare Will Make the Primary Care Doctor Shortage Even Worse
The Economic Blunders Behind the Arab Revolutions
Obama Using the EPA as His Weapon of Choice
Zimmerman was No True Hispanic
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Mark J. Perry: Yes, the middle-class has been disappearing, but they haven’t fallen into the lower-class, they’ve risen into the upper-class
Thought middle income was $250,000 per year.
xposted to Carpe Diem
Quote from link: "No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less," Romney responded.
mudbug: Quote from link: "No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less,"
Romney middle income < 250k
Chart's upper income > 75k
That means incomes from 75k to 250k are both middle and upper incomes, depending on the definition.
Well, let's see, one was put forward by politicians arguing over whom to fleece.
The other was a division of the totality of incomes then using constant dollars to demonstrate that the percentage of individuals in the lower-income has declined, as has the percentage of individuals in the middle-income while the percentage of the population in what was higher-income in 1967 has doubled.
So, now this is a word problem, if the percentage in lower-income has gone down and the percentage of the middle-income has gone down, but the percentage of those with higher-income has gone up, where did those who left the middle-income bracket go to? Take your time, use your math.
What is not shown in the graph is what the new normalized "middle-income" would be. To determine that we would have to seek out at what income did only 25% of the population have a higher level, or 16.3% if we wish to return to the starting percentage. The middle-income category would then come to encompass wither 14% or 23% more of the populace.
Zimmerman is classic hispanic.
Hispanic chauvenism walks around like cockerel puffed up above moral law.
They think they are the law.
Leag: Zimmerman is classic hispanic.
Yall'ed need to live with hispanics, clutch of cockerels to understand properly.
But that is a fate i'd only wish upon muhammadans.
Learn to speak English and write it and come back in a couple of years, angel.
Learn to speak English and write it
And an aspiring comedian to boot!
Obviously, feather your backside, yankee.
Command has it's rewards but yall would have acquired so honestly act ignorant.
In the aftermath of the crash, a friend of mine who happens to be a lawyer and a mortgage broker, was discussing homeownership.
She owns two homes. She believes in ownership as an important part of long term savings and capital growth, as well as a means of improving and exhibiting maturity and responsibility. I agreed with her 100%.
She then stated home ownership is not for everybody. Again, I agreed. She has had several people come to her in the course of purchasing, and she has on occasion recommended they use another lawyer. When they ask why, she replies "you really are not prepared to buy a home. I will work with you if you'd like, but you have to understand the nature of what homeownership means, and your behaviors are indicating you are better suited to renting."
Usually, they will leave. Several stuck with her. All of them eventually went bankrupt because they'd overstepped their abilities. In some cases, she noticed couples who were buying a home to solidify their relationship. She points out this is the worst idea a couple can ever have. In each case, these couples eventually split and many times the house caused more pain and imposed great costs.
That said, renting is no bed of roses. From an economic point of view, a nation of renters is an uncomfortable and disjointed one. As a landlord, and a good one at that, I can point out that you will always have your fair share of nightmare tenants. And those tenants will hate you and cause you all kinds of problems because they don't respect that which isn't theirs.
I've only had one in 20 years of renting. It was horrendous, and she did significant damage. But my friends who also rent out their properties have had more than their fair share. My brother had 2 sets of these tenants in 20 years, and one was so bad they had to call animal control to remove ferrets which had chewed through the walls and were reproducing inside the apartment's walls.
It's not unusual in the US to hear claims of 'abusive' landlords. And I'm sure they exist. But most of these claims are BS. My one particular tenant was so bad I dragged her down to the police station for passing bad checks. She claimed I was the problem. Until she learned passing a bad check from a bank in another state was a federal crime. Then she quickly paid up in cash and decamped.
But not before removing big sections of the shower.
No, home ownership is not for everybody. But renting should be discouraged, too. At the very least we need better laws which prevent the kind of nonsense landlords have to deal with.
Yes, I make money from my apartment. But it's my property and I take care of it. When I have to spend more to fix it because of a lousy tenant, it makes me question the value of being a landlord. Or when I get a call at 11pm (as I have) to "please change the lightbulb". Or a complaint that "this apartment doesn't have a washing machine or dryer". No, it doesn't. You live across the street from a laundromat and we told you there wasn't one when you looked at it.
By and large, most tenants are pretty good. But even good ones have problems. Like the mechanical engineer who didn't know how to turn on the water heater. Or the smoker of weed whose burning seeds put burn marks in my hardwood floors, and covered it with a rug so I didn't notice until he was gone.
Ownership carries responsibility, and a nation of renters is going to be a nation of people who like to defer most of that responsibilty to others, and will seek protections for their 'rights' from the state, while ignoring their own responsibilities.
Better to have a good mix, as we do here in the US. But no reason to encourage everyone to own.
I hear you my brother. We had three two family homes on the same street in Danielson, CT (all right next to each other by the way - long story) for about 12 years. We used a management company to vet the tenants and for the most part, we had some really good ones - long term ones too.
The amazing part of renting, to me at least, is the incompetence of your average tenant when it comes to doing something simple like not putting the coffee maker, microwave and toaster on the same circuit so the breaker blows constantly. Or changing a light bulb. Or plunging a toilet. How hard is this stuff?
But overall, it was a pleasant enough experience, we were very lucky we didn't get a "horror" tenant over the period of time we owned the buildings and in fact lucked out with one tenant who was a professional painter - all I had to do was buy him the paint and he did all the wall repairs and paint work outside and in. I'd give him a month's free rent and he was perfectly happy with that.
I'm a homeowner because I like to manipulate my surroundings - a little paint here and a new closet there - add AC, trade an oilburner for a gas furnace, pull up the veener flooring find wide pine flooring underneath, put a porch on the back, take a porch off the side... lay a patio in back and develop a rose garden. I'm hoping we can live here till we die, tho the stairs are a problem/project.
We have neighbors who don't care for their house or yard - pigeons roosting in the roof - difficulty getting the trash out every week. Ancient (and once cared for) privet hedge with giant shrubby weeds growing in it. They're the folks who should have an apartment.
Zimmerman was No True Hispanic
So if I understand this correctly, because Zimmerman is of half Caucasian/half Hispanic heritage only the Caucasian part of the heritage is guilty of White Supremacy? Somebody help me out here because this kind of logic loop is dangerous.
I mean think about it - your average "African American" in the US is no more "African" than I am. Over the years a mixture of races has thinned the "African" out producing brown men and women with white facial features or white men and women with "African" facial features. This is just a simple statement of fact - nothing racial about it.
And thus the question - are only the parts of one's heritage that are not uniquely "African" (or in this case Hispanic) guilty of some sort of supremacy or racial bias or profiling? When one "black" shoots another "black" in Chicago (or anywhere else), is only the part that is not "African" guilty of the crime? Does this mean that only racially "pure" ethnic background has any validity - that somehow others are mongrels and unfit for the social "norms" that only a pure ethnic background can provide?
This is the kind of tortured logic that people like Toure' from MSNBC use when explaining their reasoning for Zimmerman being guilty. I saw it happen this morning - I had the NBC morning show on waiting for local weather and this Toure' clown was making that exact point which apparently he shares with other brain dead commentators.
If there is one thing the Internet has demonstrated since the great explosion of the WWW, there are a lot of idiots in the world and they all have a platform.
I heard Bill Richardson say this morning that black youths have every good reason to question the justice system in the US today.
Seriously, after OJ, I didn't question the justice system, just the prosecution which I think did a ham-handed job with the case. But just because I didn't like the verdict didn't mean I questioned the justice system. Was OJ guilty? I have no clue. I like to think he probably was.
Was Zimmerman guilty? Depends on what you think he's guilty of. Being stupid and a bit of a screw up? Yeah, I'd say he's guilty of that. But when was stupidity a crime?
Zimmerman admits shooting Martin, but the circumstances of that death are no more clearly a murder than they are a tragic accident.
Reasonable doubt rules whether you're black, Asian, white, Hispanic or Martian.
I don't necessarily "like" the outcome of the case, though I agree with the verdict. And when you consider how far the judge went to make this as rigged as possible to get him into an orange jumpsuit, you have to respect the job the defense did.
Originally, they looked like a bunch of bozos. But in getting Zimmerman the not guilty verdict, they proved the prosecution had no case because they did about as poor a job for Zimmerman as I can imagine, and STILL won!
And for all the people claiming "Stand Your Ground" must go - I'd point out the prosecution never invoked it, and even went so far as to say "Stand Your Ground" wasn't even the issue.
Did Zimmerman kill someone? Tragically, yes.
Did Zimmerman commit murder? I have no idea, and that means there's reasonable doubt.
It looks like the prosecution's problem was bringing the wrong charge. But then again, the judge even allowed the jury to consider manslaughter....
Read the jury instructions; which do mention deadly force justification.
Zipperhead had no justification to stalk and kill the boy nor to ignore lawful directions to cease his pursuit.
Read them. You have to make a leap of faith to assume anything with that.
Did he "stalk and kill"? No
Did he "stalk"? Questionable. He was following because he suspected a crime, and having put other thieves in jail with his testimony, I suspect he felt was doing right (though he wasn't).
Did he "kill"? Yes, he admits this, though his version of events imply an attack. I doubt, really really doubt, if the gun was pulled, that Martin would have attacked him. So that seems unlikely.
Did Martin attack him? More than likely. Doesn't seem logical that Zimmerman attacked Martin.
Did Zimmerman follow a "lawful direction" to stop following Marting? This is a weird one. He didn't follow that command immediately, though it seems that he did eventually. What's really important, though, is whether or not it's illegal to not follow that command - and it's not illegal at all. That "lawful direction" is really just a recommendation. After all, if you suspect your neighbor's house was broken into are you likely to follow the suspected felon? Probably. Would you stop following him even if the police told you shouldn't? Probably. HUGE leap of faith to assume not continuing to follow Martin was illegal in any sense of the word. And "lawful direction" in this case is really just a made up term to sound as if it's a legal justification for putting Zimmerman behind bars.
Just like "White Hispanic" is a made up term to make certain Hispanics be 'white' (and therefore evil) as opposed to 'black' (and completely innocent).
As I say regularly, reasonable doubt is important. In this case, there is more reasonable doubt than there is evidence one way or the other. One thing is absolutely certain - Zimmerman may have set out to have Martin stopped by the police, but he did not set out to KILL Martin. That, unfortunately, is the tragic part of all this.
A series of missed opportunities to de-escalate and avoid trouble led to mistaken assumptions which led to a death. It doesn't matter who started the escalation, because at some point one person's physical attack stepped over the line.
You may happen to think Zimmerman was the first to engage physical contact. The evidence seems to indicate otherwise. I will say I don't know, but I do know that, emotionally, if you feel one way or the other strongly (and I do not), then you are really just letting your emotions overwhelm your sense of rational thought and acceptance of the rule of law.
Jurors, chicklettes read them too but obviously didn't understsnd, either.
If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand hisground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or prevent commission of a frceable felony.
Did he "stalk and kill"? Yes
Did he "stalk"? Yes loaded weapon
Did he "kill"? Yes,
Did Martin attack him? Yes in self defense
Did Zimmerman follow a "lawful direction" to stop following Martinn? NO.
Facts are Zipperhead aggressively stalked with a loaded weapon a boy walking home and killed him when boy defended himself.
That's definitely manslaughter if not murder.
Yall yankers are all hung up on color.
Chicklettes need to learn how to read but they didn't.
Founding Father's had much better sense of female weakness and never allowed them vote on jury or otherwise
Trayvon Martin was the architect of his own demise. He was a "wannabe gangbanger punk".
Want to know what's really going on...? Let me introduce you to the Jr. Senator BHO...and the REAL INJUSTICE about this whole case.
TC (The Canuck)
Try to grip reality while yall get a grip on yall's mind, son..
Yall fantasize so well yall and JKB might find time to marry.
When you, at least learn the Queens English, I might stop skipping over your crap. Pitiful.
Buddy, did yall see that incriminating photo the Canuck shared that looks just like yall signing yall's IQ before yall rehabilitated and took up parachutes.
You can cease your lies about the "stalking" now:
"Zimmerman was never told to stay in his car and was never asked to return to it!
"No evidence at all is ever produced that Zimmerman followed Martin after the above exchange with the dispatcher. In fact, towards the end of the call, Zimmerman tells the dispatcher that he has lost sight of Martin. Clearly Zimmerman could not follow Martin if he couldn't see him. Further evidence of this is that Rachel Jaentel's testimony indicates that Martin had likewise lost sight of Zimmerman until shortly before the start of the confrontation. In other words, after telling the dispatcher "ok", Zimmerman did not follow Martin nor did Martin perceive he was being followed.
"The claim that Zimmerman was at fault because he pursued Martin after being told not to has absolutely no basis in fact. It is a made up assumption that has been repeated so many times by the media that people actually believe that is what happened."
Sweetheart, yall are correct and right as rain, if in fact, police dispatcher didn't ask Zipperhead, “Are you following him?”
Dispatcher: “OK, we don’t need you to do that.”http://www.orlandosentinel.com/videogallery/68871920/News/George-Zimmerman-911-call-reporting-Trayvon-Martin
It's also supported by Jeantel's testimony that Martin said he was being followed.
And, we can stipulate that Jeantel is at least as credible as those climatologists that keep popping up.
BillH: And, we can stipulate that Jeantel is at least as credible as those climatologists that keep popping up.
She's the last person to talk to Martin before he was shot dead by Zimmerman, so her testimony was certainly important.
Had Zipperhead, the liar who's bond was revoked could have kept his second passport acquired two weeks after he shot and killed the boy, he might have escaped to Peru.
Instead of promoting renting how about we promote the idea that a mortage is a necessary evil that should be paid off ASAP and your home is not an ATM?
That governments fall when the people are hungry and idle should be no big surprise. That the various fundamentalist factions failed to prepare for this (food kitchens, health clinics etc) should be the surprise. Could be they valued ideology over practical politics.
A Republican sweep in 2017? They seem determined to keep stepping on their dangly bits in the belief it will stretch them.
I believe there are 2 reasons that the White House flips back and forth between parties.
First, there is the 'tired' factor, mentioned by the author. People are definitely tiring of the same nonsense repeated over and over again. But going along with the 'tired' factor is the scandal issue. Almost every second term president has run into significant scandal issues which tarnish their reputation and the reputation of their party. The easiest solution, when you're tired of hearing the same platitudes over and over, and you're tired of the corruption, is to want somebody new.
Second, there is the issue of name recognition. When you're in office for 8 years, you are the face, the voice, and the name of the party. Sure, there are others (like Hillary) who have name recognition and have appeal, but by and large you've dominated the party. Anyone behind you is an asterisk. Gore? People barely cared about him for 7 years, and then when he ran for president he had to avoid Clinton like the plague. This isn't uncommon when running to succeed someone from your own party. George HW Bush was lucky enough to ride a decent economy into the WH, and if he hadn't been so demotivated after 4 years, likely would have won a second term (one of the least inspiring campaigns I've ever seen). At any rate, a same party politician faces difficult headwinds.
BTW, Hillary isn't doing herself any favors. My wife, who was partial to Hillary because "she's a woman" (ahem), has begun to really question her judgement, particularly as Hillary's crown jewel, the Mid East, begins to fall apart. And oh, that work with the Eurozone? Yeah, that's going to end well.
I sure wish my significant other would see the light.
Every time I criticize Hildebeast I get the same reply. "Hillary Clinton is awesome and I love her."
How can you argue with that?
I believe there are millions who assess HRC the same way.
I have 3 HRC stories, all unconnected and from 3 very different sources, and all second hand, which are funny as hell.
My wife hates when I tell these stories, because I wasn't there at any of the 3 events. But my good friends were, and I trust them.
These stories are not flattering, and give great insight into who she is and what her character is. Basically, she is a shrill, nasty being who has certain preferences which are not standard and often questionable. She will use her name and position to get things for herself that ordinary people can never get, and feels it is her birthright.
These are general statements most people who dislike her agree on, usually without backing. I have the stories to back it up, though.
The people who like her, oddly enough, turn a blind eye for one reason. She's a woman, and "She's Awesome!"
One story I can tell is Whitewater. My wife used to work with a large Arkansas firm, and they invited her down for a visit. The firm was heavily Republican, but big Clinton supporters (Arkansas...what can I say?).
She asked about Whitewater, and the commodities trades Hillary made. They all laughed and said (more or less) "honey, you're in Arkansas, OF COURSE that happened, but it's normal here. If you're in New York, you have a million people to work with and get money and information from and it's not easy to track. Here, there's only about 100 people you can work with, so you don't have many choices. You just have to accept it."
Yes. I have read those same things about her and that she is also very abusive to underlings, but my significant other insists she is, "a good, and a warm and caring person."
I think you are definitely right that HRC being a woman looms large in the equation of why people like her. My significant other's daughter met HRC in a public setting and was charmed by her. This weighs in for her as well.
My siginificant other can usually look at things fairly objectively and has mostly conservative personal values, but two huge blindspots in her judgement include the Clintons and a biased media (she says there is no bias, it is all in the imagination of the wingnuts)
I have to confess I don't understand the blindspots and why her mind works that way. Maybe she just doesn't want to admit being wrong?
My sister (a bleeding heart liberal to the core) met Bill once. Her heart was set aflutter. It began when he entered the room to speak, and saw an infirm woman in the corner, standing. He walked over to her, said something quietly, and found her a chair to sit in.
Sounds like snake oil to me, a set up to win hearts and minds. But my sister swallowed it hook, line and sinker. "Oh what a caring and wonderful man!"
Meanwhile, I know from a former job of mine that when he was attending an event, he was having a conversation with my old boss. Bill suddenly looks up and makes a lacivious statement about a woman who just happened to be the wife of another man standing in the conversation. I recounted that story to my sister, and she said "Oh...boys will be boys."
I said "How would you feel about me if I did that?"
"You'd be a disgusting pig!"
"I see....that's an interesting double standard you have working there."
And that's what it is. A double standard. If you like them, you'll make excuses for them.
Me? I don't like many politicians at all and I won't make excuses for them. I can't stand George W Bush, but I did hear a nice story about him once. A very good friend of mine used to work the Blair House as a kitchen server. Her job was to stand behind the guests and serve them.
One night, W arrived early and was sitting at the table and it slowly filled up. His wife Laura arrived last. When she arrived, he was the only one to stand up as she sat, and when she sat, he gently said "You are always the most beautiful woman in the room."
My sister was unimpressed, saying it was all for show. But Billy boy - he's genuine!
And the crux of the matter is that it will not change. We have "journalists" who have no concept of what reality is except in as "intellectual" exercise. They claim "special" status in being able to evaluate the real world because of their "observer" status and sheer intelligence to see the "real" world from outside.
They all live in this enormous echo chamber where their views of reality bounce around, heterodyne, create harmonics and produce all kinds of noise which buries the signal which then loses all meaning.
Speaking of G.W.Bush, I had a unique experience with him back when he was principle owner of the Rangers. My SIL is a big shot in the homeless community in Boston and every once in a while gets really good Red Sox tickets. As it happened, the tickets she had that night were in the owners box and sitting right next to me was W. I had a great time - one of them most genuine personalities I've ever met. Bought my two boys a hot dog and Coke - it's was just a fun time. Of course years later he's Governor of Texas and then President.
But then politicians surprise you from time-to-time. I was never a fan of Ted Kennedy, but I had a different view of him eventually. It was at the start of the Afghan war. I attended funerals of those who fell as a matter of respect in my state and neighboring states. As it happened, a Southbridge born Marine lost his life so I attended the burial. It was raining hard when he was buried just to set the scene. I was off to the side as was my practice when I noticed this black Town Car pull up, park and this gentleman stepped out, took an offered umbrella from his driver and walked over to stand quietly at the periphery of the group, didn't say anything, just stood quietly and respectfully. The service was over, he quietly left - I don't think anybody knew he was there. It was Ted Kennedy. And I heard later that was exactly what he did to every service man killed in the Iraq/Afghan war if they were form Massachusetts. Hard to hate a guy who acts like that.
I think cognitive psychology reveals some of the smoke and mirrors built into the thought process. The human mind evolved to utilize shortcuts in cognition, and once a shortcut is used to stake out a position it tends to hold that ground and justify it with rationalizations. It appears our minds are bias factories, and though we're not very good at seeing our own, but we quickly see the bias in the thinking of others.
I like this quote from Stephen Jay Gould: “Objectivity cannot be equated with mental blankness; rather, objectivity resides in recognizing your preferences and then subjecting them to especially harsh scrutiny — and also in a willingness to revise or abandon your theories when the tests fail (as they usually do).”
And this one by Richard P. Feynman: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."
Daniel Kahneman's Thinking Fast and Slow is a good, applicable read. Fast thinking is rife with cognitive shortcuts whereas slow thinking is labor intensive. We default to fast thinking. This at least somewhat explains how people over simplify issues and draw questionable conclusions, which they'll defend to the death it seems. And interestingly, we excel at rationalizing those conclusions. Politics, religion and yes, the Zimmerman case are all the sort of murky affairs where fast thinking abounds and rationalizations rule the day.
I appreciated your breakdown of the Zimmerman case.
In a bit of irony, the Zimmerman-Martin case reminds me of the book and movie "To Kill a Mockingbird," except the colors of the protagonists are reversed. Zimmerman becomes Tom Robinson, the falsely accused black rapist who is eventually killed by the police authority that's supposed to protect him, the Martin family and the complicit race hustlers Al Sharpton & Co. become the white mob that threatens to hang the accused man before he gets to trial, while Mark O'Mara is Atticus Finch, the brave lawyer in the small southern town who takes on the unenviable task of defending the accused man in court. The parallel is, I admit, a stretched like a rubber band---for dramatic effect, I could say---if Zimmerman is, as I understand it, 1/4 black by virtue of having a black grandmother (which would in reality make the just concluded trial an instance of black-on-black violence).
I admit it's a stretch because, as we all know, TKAM is a coming of age story. In our current time of "troubles" the ones I feel most sorry for are the young black kids who are being indoctrinated into race hatred, pretty much like Palestinian children. As the intractable problems of the Middle East show, this makes reconciliation all the more difficult. In certain respects the country is farther apart now than it was 50 years ago. The positions of different sides have hardened, while the goal posts for civil rights have been moved by some people so far away they are not even on the field any more.
I admit it's a stretch...
I consider it an analogy of the times. No stretch there.
TC (The Canuck)
the Sterling Professor makes some good observations.
Us shouldn't be subsidizing housing.
Most folks who take mortgages on houses never own a home.
Some own a house when the mortgage is payed off, but still ain't got a home.
Zimmerman was the victim of a political lynching because of his race be it white or hispanic. Had Trayvon beat up a black man and gotten shot for his mistake 99.99% of Americans would never have heard about it or know either name. In my opinion the state DA and the DA that tried the case should be disbarred because they lied, they covered up facts and promoted perjury AND worst of all they knew from the outset that Zimmerman acted in self defense and charged an innocent man for political reasons. I hope Zimmerman and his lawyers sue these two dispicable "lawyers" and sues the state and the media who slandered him. I suspect Zimmerman simply wants to get out of the spotlight and will not do it but for the sake of all Americans these racist race panderers should pay for their crimes. If this racist political lynching is allowed to stand without thew lynchers being punished then it will happen again in YOUR community.
I think we all know why the Zimmerman case was brought:
1) to get blacks to the polls in 2012 to vote for Democrats, especially Obama, who would save them from the evil white people
2) to provide another bite at the gun control agenda apple - hence the emphasis on Stand Your Ground when it was clearly not involved in the case
The selection of this case was made in Alexandria, Va. and made too quickly, without determining the basic facts about the putative "killer" - the sort of Jewish last name and "not black" being the major criteria. That did put a kink in the narrative that both media and the administration are bending themselves into logic pretzels to deny.
The really interesting thing for me revealed by this case are the number of white people who apparently believe that any violence by non-police in protection of self or others is punishable by law. It is a very British attitude.. Luckily for the black man in this case: http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490926/jury-finds-roderick-scott-not-guilty/
the jury of his peers didn't share that attitude.