Sunday, June 30, 2013

In Reply: Staying Away From Unknown, Suspicious Individuals Is Smart...and Lessens the Possibility of Confrontation and Subsequent Need for Self-Defense

In reply to the following comment at the post, Open Thread Friday | NewsBusters:

I appreciate you taking the time to address me on this- I read your piece as recommended by Jer, and found it to be better than the other one, by far, but you're still off base. I'm guessing you don't spend a lot of time around today's urban youth. You've made suppositions based on emotion, or feelings, or initial biased reporting, or whatever causes you to believe that Zimmerman was "creepy" and that Martin was provoked into committing aggravated battery. Fine. You've got a soft spot for what you think is idyllic youth. But it's misguided and unrealistic.

I'm not sure which neighborhood watch guidelines you're suggesting he didn't follow, but the Sanford guidelines are here: ttp:// Maybe you can be more specific.

The very purpose of the neighborhood watch program is to observe and report. One of the suspicious activities noted in the guidelines is running. So tell me, if you're driving a vehicle through your neighborhood, and you observe a person dressed like several others who've been involved in a spate of recent crime in your neighborhood, AND while trying to drive by for a better look, said suspicious person moves in between houses AND you are unable to continue follow due to the lack of roadway AND you lose site of that suspicious person AND you have completed or are involved in on-going training as a neighborhood watch component, would you not exit your vehicle to try and ascertain where the person was going as you're on the phone with police trying to give them a description of said suspicious person? ("Uh sorry, he took off. Nope. No clue where he went. In a house? Maybe. I don't know. What was he wearing? Uh, could be a sweatjacket, maybe one of those hoodies. Not sure. Lost him as I was dialing.") Well, some might not, but others surely would. I would. Following and confronting, however, are two very different things.

The Zimmerman call to police has been thoroughly dissected from a time and location standpoint. Maybe you're not privy to some of that. Here is a pretty detailed summation:

For some reason, you're giving all of the benefit of the doubt to the 17 year old over the 28 year old. You're suggesting that Zimmerman provoked confrontation without a shred of evidence to indicate that. Zimmerman got out of his vehicle a considerable distance from where he reported Martin's location, and the actual confrontation took place at a location that required Martin to turn back toward Zimmerman. A scared kid wouldn't have done that. A kid who thought the big bad -potentially armed- wolf who was out to harm him, wouldn't have done that. He was closer to the front door of his temporary residence than he was either Zimmerman or the location of the altercation. Martin came back looking to confront Zimmerman. Remember, Martin is no stranger to fighting. And now we know he was on top of Zimmerman, beating him in what was described as MMA-style "ground and pound". Zimmerman had very obvious injuries of this type of beating while Martin only had one gunshot wound. This kid wasn't scared, he was the aggressor.

Throwing a punch at someone is an assault. Connecting with it is battery. You do not have the right to assault and batter someone that is asking you questions. You do not have the right to batter someone whom you fear. And there is no indication that Zimmerman initiated any physical contact. I would challenge your assertions as to morality.

Zimmerman may ultimately be convicted for his actions that night, but the well is so severely poisoned at this point -with threats of violence quite prevalent if he's acquitted ( that jurors feeling some sense of self-preservation might end up influencing their decisions. But everything that has been entered into testimony to this point has backed up Zimmerman's claims from the outset.


You missed the "h" in http on your first link, and even searching the site, I can't find the Sanford Neighborhood Watch Handbook (it's also been removed from the site that most bloggers referencing it linked to initially), but I'd be very surprised if Sanford's handbook doesn't match what most most say: Do not follow a suspect, do not confront a suspect, and do not patrol while armed. (one example: Neighborhood Watch 101: How to patrol - St. Louis Crime |

Even trained, armed police officers seldom go after a suspect individual without back-up. George reported the suspicious activity--including the fact that the suspicious person ran out of sight...and the dispatcher told him that they didn't need for him to follow the suspicious individual. So, while some might, and you say you would, it's awful foolish and against neighborhood watch policy and police department want or need for a civilian to follow an unknown suspect into a dark area on part because "following" can very easily lead to "confrontation," even if the latter is not intended.

The evidence that Zimmerman followed Martin is clear, and not in dispute, even by Zimmerman. One can assume that Martin might've doubled back on Zimmerman, but there's no actual evidence or testimony to that effect... (I don't know where the guy at the wagist link is getting his info, but not even he backs up his claim that Martin went up to his step mom's house & doubled back with anything other than his own words.)

I contend that a scared individual (kid or otherwise) would--and would be smart to--stay away from unknown suspicious individuals. Martin did that for the majority of the timeline. Zimmerman did not. Sure, it is possible that Martin chose fight when flight didn't work for him--Zimmerman kept coming--and that he is responsible for the first punch, and for being the better fighter overall, too... And yes, if Martin threw the first punch--even if he believed it was the only way to get this creep to stop following him--Martin was guilty of assault. But if Zimmerman had followed neighborhood watch guidelines, police suggestions, or even just good old common sense, neither would've thrown any punches or fired any shots.

On edit: My point isn't that I think Zimmerman (or Martin) actually were creepy, but that each painted a false picture of the other as creepy and up to no good, and behaved as though those images were accurate. On one hand, it's probably safer to be suspicious of strangers behaving unusually, these days (whether it's following you, looking in windows, loitering, etc), but it sure would've helped if either had just approached and asked for the time or offered to help, or something...

Posted Sunday, June 30, 2013, 2:00 AM

Previously: In Reply: "Over a year later...I still believe George Zimmerman's actions make him morally responsible for the death of Trayvon Martin"

Saturday, June 29, 2013

In Reply: "Over a year later...I still believe George Zimmerman's actions make him morally responsible for the death of Trayvon Martin"

In reply to the following comment at the post: Open Thread Friday | NewsBusters:

The Sanchez piece can't be taken seriously. Every supposition the guy makes is based on his belief that the entire incident was predicated entirely on Zimmerman's perceived hatred for blacks. In it, Martin has done nothing wrong - victim from the outset.

The other one tries to put the race element on the back burner, but then has the nerve to posit this little gem:

(I have to say, I suspect that of the two scenarios, Trayvon hitting Zimmerman first, in an effort to avoid imminently getting robbed, kidnapped, or raped seems more plausible to me... ...and that makes me very sad to imagine this kid scared, fighting for his life--and ultimately losing it--over the bad judgement of Zimmerman, and there will be no justice for his family, besides...)
Let me tell you something- the 6'-1" teenager was not in anyway concerned that he was going to be "kidnapped" or "raped" (are you freakin kidding me?) by the 5'-8" "heavyset" stranger.

I broke this whole thing down last year. Martin was a punk-assed kid who acted toward a "white" authority figure exactly the way he was taught in the environment he was raised. Zimmerman shot him in an effort to save his own life. Thug attacks wannabe cop, wannabe cop shoots thug. End of story.
- bkeyser: Friday, June 28, 2013, 7:22 PM

bkeyser: I'm the guy who wrote the latter post. I don't know exactly what specific crimes Trayvon might/might not've been worried about--perhaps you're right that kidnap or rape were not among them, though I don't see either as being quite so far-fetched as you seem to believe they are--but the fact that he was larger and stronger in no way proves he was not worried that the creep following him was "up to no good" illegality of one sort or another... particularly a creep that might be--and as it turns out, was--armed. Whatever their relative sizes and weights, the person being followed is often going to imagine the worst of the stranger pursuing them.

Over a year later and I still don't know if there's any criminality here...but I still believe George Zimmerman's actions make him morally responsible for the death of Trayvon Martin. Had George listened to the police dispatcher who suggested he not follow the stranger, or paid attention to Neighborhood Watch guidelines about confronting "suspect" persons (or about being armed while acting in a neighborhood watch capacity at all--while I'm not sure I agree, those are their guidelines), or even gun owner common sense about looking for trouble unnecessarily, both Trayvon and George would've lived through that night unharmed. Trayvon spent most of the time during this incident trying to get away from the suspicious creep following him. George spent most of that same time moving closer to the guy he thought was suspicious and up to no good. Whether he meant to or not--and I still suspect not--I believe George Zimmerman made the situation worse and provoked the confrontation that ultimately took place. Even if Trayvon did throw the first punch and was winning the fight up until George shot him, his actions defending himself from what he thought was a creepy stranger following him seem far more morally understandable to me than George's, going after and confronting a suspicious stranger who he believed might be on drugs and up to no good, especially knowing the police were already on their way... YMMV...

Posted Saturday, June 29, 2013, 5:46 PM

Wingnuts and Moonbats: Trayvon Martin: My Hypothesis As To What Happened

Trayvon Martin: The death that united America to oppose prosecutorial inaction - New York Public Policy |

Wednesday, June 19, 2013

X-Post: Methinks Creepy-Clown Stalker Donald Kent Douglas Doth Protest Too Much...

American Power: Bwahaha!! Poor Widdle Wepsac3 Whines Hilariously: 'I'm the Victim! It's Me, I'm the Victim!'

"BWAHAHAHA!! Time to bet back to school, loser. Math is hard!"
So is spelling, apparently... (Muphry's Law is a mean ol' bitch, and catches Dr. Douglas every. damned. time.)

Sadly, no... I am aware of only two blogs where my comments have been moderated away before the fact; Donald's blog, and Zilla's. (And, in a comment she posted on her blog at the time that was lost when she changed blogging platforms--which I cited here at the time, but unfortunately did not screencap or quote--Zilla stated that she blocked me primarily because Donald was her friend, and she didn't want him to be uncomfortable when visiting her blog. It wasn't about anything I ever said there; it was about protecting Donald's fee-fees.)

UPDATE: Lookie what I found:

(For the record, I have no recollection of whatever Dishonest Don is claiming happened with Tania Gail. I think she posted a link to a youtube video on a blog (hers, or in comments somewhere else), and I probably followed the link to youtube and joined the commentary there rather than at that blog. But this happened back in 2006 or 2007. Like I was saying yesterday, Donald is r-e-a-l-l-y r-e-a-c-h-i-n-g into the past, and generally finding a whole lotta shit to get all worked up about that no one else even cares about, anymore... And finally, protecting Tania's reputation as much as my own, I am aware of no time where Tania Gail ever threatened any sort of violence against me or anyone else. While she and I disagreed pretty vehemently, she always behaved like a lady. Whatever Dishonest Don believes, it simply didn't happen.)

So yeah... Dishonest Don is actually...bragging?...proud?...that I missed a pair of tweets from June 5th where he also lashed out at me. I stand corrected, Dr Douglas... You are indeed two tweets more obsessive and pathetically creepy than I thought you were...

Here are those tweets a little larger, and linked:



(And, perhaps because I'm just a bad victim, or perhaps because McCain's mistaken, I have no recollection of having "attacked him during the Kimberlin stuff." While I'm no fan of lipless McCain and the rest, I seem to recall standing with them during that whole thing. YMMV...)

The bottom line on all this is, the facts are quoted, linked, cited, and screencapped in a whole lotta places here at American Nihilist. Concerning the specious allegations in Dishonest Donald Douglas' screed here, primarily in these two posts: BTDT FAQ Files - Workplace Harassment and Obsessed much, Dr. Douglas?. Those who read what each of us have written (or don't) and nevertheless choose to believe Dr. Douglas' verbal anecdotes and shoulda, coulda, woulda's are welcome to do so. One can only lead an ass to water, after all...

An American Nihilist x-post


Dishonest Donald is among McCain and the rest of them, but he's not one of them. We know it, they know it, and worst of all for Dr. Douglas, he knows it too.

So much of this game he's playing is "Look!! I have a guy harassing me just like you guys do...," but it's obvious to EVERYONE --even Donald himself, though he's loathe to admit it-- that he's carrying on about shit that happened years ago, and never rose to the level that he's claiming it did. Whether they'll ever publically admit it or not, they see right through him. (Which is why for the most part, they so seldom comment on his crazy victimization posts or defend him in any way... They know what he's up to...)

No matter how much Donald may wish it were otherwise, there is no state in America where submitting 35-40 comments to the comment section of a moderated blog over the course of two years is illegal. Not even if the blogger in question asks you not to... (That's why almost all (if not all) blogging platforms have moderation tools.)

Donald made a bunch of accusations and threats of legal action, but when push came to shove, he didn't have the goods, and everybody saw how limp his little dick really was... And obviously, that really upsets him, so he continues to periodically lash out, hoping to somehow clutch victory from the jaws of his epic defeat. I feel bad for the guy, but it really is over...
-- June 18, 2013 at 10:33 PM

Tuesday, June 18, 2013

X-Post: Yes, Our Obsessed Creepy-Clown Stalker Dishonest Donald Douglas Is Back To His Old Tricks... the tune of five posts in under 48 hours--(four of them unprovoked by anything aside the voices in his head and the fervent desire to be perceived as a victim by his contemporaries)--but then, what else is new? He can only resist for so long, and the forty-three thirty-three* days he managed to avoid lashing out was probably darn near the longest he's ever gone... [*Dishonest Donald Douglas himself went to great pains to point out that I had missed two tweets he posted on June 5th, making him ten days and two posts more obsessed and creepy than I originally thought. He seems awful proud of it, too.]

For those curious: American Power: Disgusting Troll Rights Harassment Blogger Continues Lying About Years-Long Campaign of Intimidation

To anyone who's read more than a few posts at American Nihilist, it's 99% classic Donald Kent Douglas boilerplate paranoid ranting, offering "facts" that have been debunked over and over again on the pages of this blog, most thoroughly here: BTDT FAQ Files - Workplace Harassment and here: Obsessed much, Dr. Douglas?. And aside these two comments posted to an American Power post less than a minute apart back in March, everything I said in this post back in January is still true. Dr. Douglas is still whining and shrieking and gnashing his teeth about shit that happened years ago and that seemingly everyone except him has long since gotten over and largely forgotten about. I mean Tiny Tim on a taco, this is my first AmNi post since April--the last time Dr. Douglas lashed out at me.... For reasons I leave to the readers to deduce for themselves--because I have no fucking idea--Donald Kent Douglas insists on perpetuating these years old conflicts. Obviously I'm biased...but this whole obsession with me and things that happened back in 2009-2012 makes ol' Don look awful pathetic and desperate for attention. YMMV...

As for that final 1%, I'm all but certain that no "henchmen" here have at any time been "exposed as homosexuals, perverts, and criminal harassers," and that this is just another example of Dr. Douglas' famous ad hom in lieu of an actual argument (not to mention his nasty habit of using homosexuality as though it's some kind of slur.) If any henchmen past or present have anything to confess in this regard, however, we're all ears...

An American Nihilist x-post

Additional commentary from American Nihilist post:

No Carl... Pretty much all I hear about Donald Douglas these days comes from Donald Douglas. While I'm sure--or at least, sure he'd claim-- his many followers and fans are sending him supportive e-mails and direct tweets in private, it looks to me like no one is talking much about Donald Douglas, for or against, anymore...

I know he's alienated some who profess to support the same political side he does, but for the most part even that's old news.

He's got his little circle--and like I said, he seems to be using me to help cement his "I've been a victim of liberal harassment too,"--but I suspect that even most of them see right through his claims and know he doesn't actually have the goods, because unlike them, he doesn't provide links, quotes, citations, official records, etc.--but for the most part, no one cares, anymore.

So no... I haven't heard anything...but the idea that people (political enemies, political friends, the sane) are pissed off at Dishonest Don doesn't surprise me at all. He ain't all that endearing... - June 18, 2013 at 4:04 PM

Sunday, June 16, 2013

In Reply: Donald Kent Douglas is Obsessed with Perpetuating This Conflict

In reply to the following comments at the American Nihilist Post Complicated? It Certainly Must Be!:
Oh Happy Day! Donald still loves and remembers us. I was afraid he'd fallen and had some kind of brain injury (beyond his obvious mental problems, that is). Just curious. Is this actually true or is it just some of the bullshit that he spouts unconsciously?
Stalkers have no right to directly address you after they have been warned to cease and desist.
Not sure what's a greater sign of his insanity the Tourette's-like whining over workplace harrassment or the blatting about "you tried to comment on my blog." Wahhhh! - Kevin Robbins, June 16, 2013 at 3:39 PM

I don't typically follow any of the internet grievances of the day. But I did at least put in a search for Bill Schmalfeldt and if half of what he is reported to have done is true then he's a total asshole. And if Donald thinks that is comparable to leaving a few comments at a blogsite then he is a total asshole. But then, we already knew that. - Kevin Robbins, June 16, 2013 at 3:48 PM

And yes, I realize that Lee Stranahan and possible even yours truly may also be total assholes. - Kevin Robbins, June 16, 2013 at 3:51 PM

The Schmalfeldt situation is current, whereas--aside these two comments I made at an AmPow post at the end of March in a moment of weakness--none of us have even attempted to comment at Dishonest Donald's blog in well over a year.

At no time has anyone sent repeated comments, tweets, e-mails, or any other directed communication to Dr. Douglas, or threatened him or "anyone he ever knew, loved, touched, stood next to, heard of, smelt, felt, dreamed about." Not one time, ever.

While Donald is claiming his "poor me, pity me" victimhood, the fact is that he's the one repeatedly and regularly seeking me out and posting about me...not the other way around. While he's legally welcome to do so, it blows his claims of "harassment" and "stalking" victimhood out of the water...and presents a pretty strong argument that it is Donald Kent Douglas who is obsessed with perpetuating this conflict, as well...

Folks--including folks on his ideological side--have already called him out for becoming the same kind of harassment troll he claims to rail against. Even now, he's playing the "@ symbol separated from twitter name isn't a directed mention" argument made famous by Schmalfeldt and TeamKimberlin...which is not the least bit surprising to anyone who knows Donald...

Posted June 16, 2013 at 7:11 PM

Monday, June 10, 2013

In Reply: The Partisanship Hidden in the "Independent" Numbers

In reply to the No More Mister Nice Blog post MOSTLY SAY "HOORAY FOR OUR SIDE"

I also suspect that a significant amount of the right's mirror image is hidden in the Pew poll's independent numbers. A good number of "republicans" prefer to see themselves as "independent" tea party supporters, conservatives, or libertarians.

It would be interesting to see how those independent numbers would break if Pew, were to seperate the Nader / Green party independents from the Ron Paul / Tea party independents... Or even just clarify how their pool of independents self-identified when the earlier polls were taken.

("Independents" have no set political philosophy as a group, and I suspect that the balance of their in-group political leanings shifts depending on the party currently in power and the availability and viability of other ideological options. Including independents in a poll without identifying the leanings of the respondents is pretty meaningless.)

Posted Monday, June 10, 2013, 10:22 PM

Nerd Score (Do nerds score?)