Zimmerman Riots?

[PB the Deplorable]

No argument here. He's the poster boy for Country Club Republicanism.

And for the Bush family.

What are his genus credentials - that under his guidance Bush II lost the popular vote to a wooden Al Gore during the height of Clinton fatigue (2000), and that Bush II as a sitting president beat the loathsome John Kerry (2004), and that he managed to guide the Rs into losing the House and Senate during those years (2006).   How about 2008, 2010, 2012...

Is this really the makings of a genius.

[Marc.Knight]

If Rove is such a genius how is it the D's have the Senate and Presidency?   He needs to retire and disappear

Anyone who stood next to George W. looked like a genius in comparison, even if they weren't.

[onan]

Actually there may be some basis to the second amendment and racism. In the early 1700's some southern states had slave patrols. They were regulated by the same state. Those states required all plantation owners and their white employees to be members of an armed state militia. The militia inspected all slave residences for any and all offensive weapons. They also were required to apprehend any slave not on plantation land and punish the slave with lashings. These were well regulated militias.


James Monroe and George Mason, both of whom owned more than 300 slaves, were worried that without specific instruction, ratification of the constitution would authorize the federal government the ability to strip the state of its power to regulate their own militia.


That is why the second amendment has the wording: being necessary to the security of a free State.

[lonevoice]

These riots have nothing to do with the shooting. Sure, the rioters want you to think they are supporting that dead kid by raiding a Walmart, but they are all just criminals who were looking for any excuse to go act like animals. The only reason this story has to do with racism is because thats the way the media wanted it.

Dear Optimists and Pessimists,

While you were busy arguing over the glass of water, I drank it.

Sincerely,

The Opportunist

[Sardondi]

Actually there may be some basis to the second amendment and racism. In the early 1700's some southern states had slave patrols. They were regulated by the same state. Those states required all plantation owners and their white employees to be members of an armed state militia. The militia inspected all slave residences for any and all offensive weapons. They also were required to apprehend any slave not on plantation land and punish the slave with lashings. These were well regulated militias.

James Monroe and George Mason, both of whom owned more than 300 slaves, were worried that without specific instruction, ratification of the constitution would authorize the federal government the ability to strip the state of its power to regulate their own militia.


That is why the second amendment has the wording: being necessary to the security of a free State.

Let's accept for the sake of argument alone each and every factual assertion you make: why is there therefore "some basis to the second amendment and racism" (by which I presume you to mean a racist basis for the Second Amendment)?

But otherwise this is an old, old argument which is a favorite of some of the most rabidly leftist sources out there, such as the Communist Party USA http://peoplesworld.org/the-second-amendment-and-racism/; Mother Jones. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/03/whitewashing-second-amendment;  and Michael Moore, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/newtown-gun-control_b_2866126.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003.

Also I think you're playing awfully fast and loose with facts and causation. Indeed, I don't see how a racist could possibly support the Second Amendment, since it guarantees blacks the right to protect themselves from racist attack by means of possession and ownership of firearms. Every terrified black family should have remembered that, even in a police jurisdiction of well-meaning and racism-free law enforcement, the only realisitc means of protection all too often is a firearm. Remember....

"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."â,,¢

[PB the Deplorable]

Just another day in Oakland.  The good news is the police came out of hiding to clear the Freeway, and the mayor woke up to... well to make a speech.

[attachimg=1]

[onan]

Let's accept for the sake of argument alone each and every factual assertion you make: why is there therefore "some basis to the second amendment and racism" (by which I presume you to mean a racist basis for the Second Amendment)?

But otherwise this is an old, old argument which is a favorite of some of the most rabidly leftist sources out there, such as the Communist Party USA http://peoplesworld.org/the-second-amendment-and-racism/; Mother Jones. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/03/whitewashing-second-amendment;  and Michael Moore, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/newtown-gun-control_b_2866126.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003.

Also I think you're playing awfully fast and loose with facts and causation. Indeed, I don't see how a racist could possibly support the Second Amendment, since it guarantees blacks the right to protect themselves from racist attack by means of possession and ownership of firearms. Every terrified black family should have remembered that, even in a police jurisdiction of well-meaning and racism-free law enforcement, the only realisitc means of protection all too often is a firearm. Remember....

"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."â,,¢

I think historical perspective is interesting. Perhaps important. I didn't suggest the second amendment should be weakened in any way. But understanding how and why our rights are what they are, to me is, intriguing.


And for christ's sake if anyone understands causation, they would consider what is now, is different than what occurred over 250 years ago. We both have danced with the weakness and vagary of the second amendment.


And if one wants to argue that racists wouldn't support the second amendment due to blacks owning guns. Are you also saying racists wouldn't support blacks having the right to vote?


And the only thing I played fast and loose with was editing the historical timeline and cast of characters by leaving out Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and many more.


sorry this offended you... it was merely a point in discussion.

[Jackpine Savage]

I think historical perspective is interesting. Perhaps important. I didn't suggest the second amendment should be weakened in any way. But understanding how and why our rights are what they are, to me is, intriguing.

Of course it's valid that the 2nd had some of its roots in the fear southerners had of repercussions resulting from millions of suddenly freed black slaves. This fear is well documented, and even Abe Lincoln voiced his concerns. He wanted to compensate the slave owners for their slaves and liberate them back to africa. And after watching what has happened to Detroit, Birmingham, Atlanta, Memphis, Oakland, Chicago, Milwaukee... Mogadishu, who is to say these fears were not well founded?

[onan]

Of course it's valid that the 2nd had some of its roots in the fear southerners had of repercussions resulting from millions of suddenly freed black slaves. This fear is well documented, and even Abe Lincoln voiced his concerns. He wanted to compensate the slave owners for their slaves and liberate them back to africa. And after watching what has happened to Detroit, Birmingham, Atlanta, Memphis, Oakland, Chicago, Milwaukee... Mogadishu, who is to say these fears were not well founded?

Just like the second amendment those issues are complicated too. If someone had enslaved my grandfather, I would probably wreak some havoc myself. But your point is very valid. When we are afraid we have been known to do some pretty stupid things... the patriot act comes to mind.

[Tray von Gutenberg]

Actually there may be some basis to the second amendment and racism. In the early 1700's some southern states had slave patrols. They were regulated by the same state. Those states required all plantation owners and their white employees to be members of an armed state militia. The militia inspected all slave residences for any and all offensive weapons. They also were required to apprehend any slave not on plantation land and punish the slave with lashings. These were well regulated militias.

James Monroe and George Mason, both of whom owned more than 300 slaves, were worried that without specific instruction, ratification of the constitution would authorize the federal government the ability to strip the state of its power to regulate their own militia.

That is why the second amendment has the wording: being necessary to the security of a free State.

I think historical perspective is interesting. Perhaps important. I didn't suggest the second amendment should be weakened in any way. But understanding how and why our rights are what they are, to me is, intriguing.

The notion of "states" in your quote above (emphasis added) is completely foreign to my recollection of known history. Perhaps you were just paraphrasing from a left-leaning website.

In the early 1700s, the Thirteen Colonies were British to be sure. In fact most of the delegates to the First Continental Congress (1774) were not quite ready to break free from Britain - they wanted the King and Parliament to act more fairly. So I have no idea where your notion of early 1700s states and some imaginary connection to the Second Amendment and "security of a free State" come from. States were not even part of the vernacular of the early 1700s - not until the First Continental Congress and the Declaration of Independence were "states" commonly referred to as such - in fact, it was a convention of delegates from the First Continental Congress called together from the Thirteen Colonies that became the governing body of the United States during the American Revolution.

In fact, a very well written and reasoned article on "NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE" as published in the Notre Dame Law Review states:

(I edited only for format to comport with forums, however, any emphasis was added by me)

==================================================


“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” the Second Amendment says, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” But what did the Framing generation understand “free State” to mean?

Some say it meant a “state of the union, free from federal oppression.” As one D.C. Circuit judge put it, “The Amendment was drafted in response to the perceived threat to the ‘free[dom]’ of the ‘States’ posed by a national standing army controlled by the federal government.”

Or as a lawyer for one leading pro-gun-control group wrote, “Presumably, the term ‘free State’ is a reference to the states as entities of governmental authority. Moreover, the reference to the ‘security’ of a free State must have some- thing to do with the need to defend the state as an entity of government.”

This reading would tend to support the states’ rights view, and is probably among the strongest intuitive foundations for the viewâ€"after all, “State” appears right there in the text, seemingly referring to each state’s needs and interests. The reading would suggest the right might cover only those whom each state explicitly chose as its defensive force, perhaps a state-selected National Guard.

And it would suggest the Amendment doesn’t apply outside states, for instance in the District of Columbia: “‘the District of Columbia is not a state within the meaning of the Second Amendment and therefore the Second Amendment’s reach does not extend to it.’”

But if “free State” was understood to mean “free country, free of despotism,” that would tend to support the individual rights view of the Amendment. “[T]he right of the people” would then more easily be read as referring to a right of the people as free individuals, even if a right justified partly by public interests, much as “the right of the people” is understood in the First and Fourth Amendments. The right would cover people regardless of whether they were selected for a state-chosen defensive force, since the right would not be focused on preserving the states’ independence. And it would apply to all Americans, in states or in D.C.

We see a similar controversy about the change from James Madison’s original proposal, which spoke of “security of a free country,” to the final “security of a free State.” Some assume the change was a deliberate substantive shift towards a states’ rights provision, and point in support to the Constitution’s general use of “state” to mean state of the union (except where “foreign State” is used to mean “foreign country”). Others assume the change was purely stylistic, and thus did not reflect a shift to a states’ rights view; they sometimes point for evidence to the absence of recorded controversy about the change.

This Article makes a simple claim: there’s no need to assume. There is ample evidence about the original meaning of the term “free state.” “Free state” was used often in Framing-era and pre-Framing writings, especially those writings that are known to have influenced the Framers: Blackstone’s Commentaries, Montesquieu’s Spirit of Laws, Hume’s essays, Trenchard and Gordon’s Cato’s Letters, and works by over half the authors on Donald Lutz’s list of thirty-six authors most cited by American political writers from 1760 to 1805.

It was also used by many leading American writers, including John Adams in 1787, James Madison in 1785, and the Continental Congress in 1774.

Those sources, which surprisingly have not been canvassed by the Second Amendment literature, give us a clear sense of what the phrase “free state” meant at the time. In eighteenth-century political discourse, “free state” was a commonly used political term of art, meaning “free country,” which is to say the opposite of a despotism. Political theory of the era often divided the world into despotisms and free states (either republics or constitutional monarchies). Free states had certain properties as a result of their being free, and were susceptible to certain threats of reverting to despotism. To remain a free state, the free state had to take these threats into account, and to structure its institutions in a particular way.

“State” simply meant country; and “free” almost always meant free from despotism, rather than from some other country, and never from some larger entity in a federal structure. That is how the phrase was used in the sources that the Framers read. And there is no reason to think that the Framers departed from this well-established meaning, and used the phrase to mean something different from what it meant to Blackstone, Montesquieu, the Continental Congress, Madison, Adams, or others. Even given this finding, of course, many important arguments about the Second Amendment remain. But when we consider those arguments, we should recognize that the phrase “a free State” was not understood as having to do with states’ rights as such. Rather, it referred to preserving the liberty of the new country that the Constitution was establishing.   

[Juan]

Back to Trayvon - his girlfriend was interviewed by Piers Morgan.  She was on the telephone with Trayvon, and told him that the creepy ass cracka might be a gay rapist.  She told him that if he, Trayvon, was not gay himself, he'd do something about Zimmerman.  It would appear, from her statement, that she is a homophobe and talked Trayvon into gay bashing.  So homophopbia, not racism, was the motive.  Will Eric Holder investigate that?

[Yorkshire pud]

Back to Trayvon - his girlfriend was interviewed by Piers Morgan.  She was on the telephone with Trayvon, and told him that the creepy ass cracka might be a gay rapist.  She told him that if he, Trayvon, was not gay himself, he'd do something about Zimmerman.  It would appear, from her statement, that she is a homophobe and talked Trayvon into gay bashing.  So homophopbia, not racism, was the motive.  Will Eric Holder investigate that?

Am I the only one who thinks homophobe(ia) is a misnomer? Phobia is an irrational fear of something isn't it? Or isn't it? Dunno..


But anyway, post trial, the telephone conversation is now moot isn't it, unless it was presented as evidence?

[Jackpine Savage]

Just like the second amendment those issues are complicated too. If someone had enslaved my grandfather, I would probably wreak some havoc myself. But your point is very valid. When we are afraid we have been known to do some pretty stupid things... the patriot act comes to mind.

I don't think the southerners feared the results of generational dispossession; they had no idea at the time how the descendants of freed slaves would behave. Rather, I believe they knew the character of their charges more thoroughly than either of us might care to understand.

[PB the Deplorable]

Back to Trayvon - his girlfriend was interviewed by Piers Morgan.  She was on the telephone with Trayvon, and told him that the creepy ass cracka might be a gay rapist.  She told him that if he, Trayvon, was not gay himself, he'd do something about Zimmerman.  It would appear, from her statement, that she is a homophobe and talked Trayvon into gay bashing.  So homophopbia, not racism, was the motive.  Will Eric Holder investigate that?

She was a horrible witness for the prosecution.  The spin to try to salvage public opinion regarding her testimony is that anyone who thought she was a poor witness did so because they focused on her inconsistent testimony, size, looks, demeanor, and - worst of all - don't recognize 'black' English as equally valid to the English that most of the country speaks - that it's on us if we don't accept the grammar and vocabulary as co-equivalent. 

In other words, we are just supposed to take her word for everything no matter how bad her performance was.  And anyone that doesn't, well, you know...

Anything to keep the story alive.  Anything to divide.

[Yorkshire pud]

I don't think the southerners feared the results of generational dispossession; they had no idea at the time how the descendants of freed slaves would behave. Rather, I believe they knew the character of their charges more thoroughly than either of us might care to understand.

As opposed to the character of those who did the enslaving? Because let's face it, the slaves all volunteered to be chained into ships with the prospect of death before they reached the promised land where they'd be in abject misery for as long as they lived-often not long. Charges? It makes it seem as if they ran a kindergarten. As for understanding them; I don't doubt it, I bet if we'd been in slavery and had an opportunity to escape it, we'd make damn sure no-one was under no misunderstanding of how pissed we were.

[FightTheFuture]

Back to Trayvon - his girlfriend was interviewed by Piers Morgan.  She was on the telephone with Trayvon, and told him that the creepy ass cracka might be a gay rapist.  She told him that if he, Trayvon, was not gay himself, he'd do something about Zimmerman.  It would appear, from her statement, that she is a homophobe and talked Trayvon into gay bashing.  So homophopbia, not racism, was the motive.  Will Eric Holder investigate that?

Regardless of what anybody thinks about Holder, there is no question about his motives, nor his mastery of the Potomac 2-step. The guy is a snake in the grass. If he senses heat, he'll slither away.

Holder's political future would be severely compromised by any further legal action aimed at GZ on
Behalf of the DOJ.

[coaster]

Am I the only one who thinks homophobe(ia) is a misnomer? Phobia is an irrational fear of something isn't it? Or isn't it? Dunno..

Its a label that makes absolutely no sense to me. Anyone who does not agree with the "gay lifestyle" is either afraid of gays or secretly wants to be one. I have nothing against gays, but I'm tired of people saying someone is a homophobe because they don't understand gays or have the desire to be gay themselves. I'm also tired of the media pushing the gay agenda on everyone, making it look like they are victims. The whole situation is absurd to me. God forbid I tell a gay person they are afraid of straight people. Thats a lawsuit.

[PB the Deplorable]

As opposed to the character of those who did the enslaving? ...

The other black Africans from enemy tribes that caught them and sold them to the slavers?  Who re-sold them all over the world?

The narrative is that slavery was invented by the United States, that after a long hard struggle the Left ended it, they and they alone are still fighting racism, and that because of that history the country is inherently evil and should be destroyed.  This is the Left's philosophy regarding the US in a nutshell.  This is what the rage of Occupy, the other violent 'protest' groups, and people like Obama and his cronies is about.  It's why they hate us.  That we are a successful wealthy influential country just further enrages them.

The real story is the slavery of Africans was widespread, it had a long tradition going back at least as far as Rome, and the colonies inherited it from jolly old England.  English planters made fortunes from the tobacco and cotton plantations using this free labor.  It was alive and well in the other English colonies, as well as the rest of Africa, Arabia, other European colonies, etc.  It was a new party called the Republicans - created specifically for the purpose of abolition - that ended it in the US (meanwhile it continued on in other places).

If was a legacy left to the new Republic, something we got rid of when we got the chance. 

It would be nice if we had a media and historians that were proud of our country and told the truth about it. 

[onan]

The notion of "states" in your quote above (emphasis added) is completely foreign to my recollection of known history. Perhaps you were just paraphrasing from a left-leaning website...

... Rather, it referred to preserving the liberty of the new country that the Constitution was establishing.   

A great deal of time and energy was spent determining state authority versus federal authority writing the constitution. And the people that wrote the constitution were sticklers for the words they used.




And your biggest contention is my use of the word state? Georgia was the colony I was referring to. I did paraphrase. Left leaning... bleh. You're unhappy with a presentation that does no criticism other than explain some of the origins of the second amendment. And for the only reason I can see is racism... and if that historically bothers you then don't worry about my reading list worry about yours.

[onan]

I don't think the southerners feared the results of generational dispossession; they had no idea at the time how the descendants of freed slaves would behave. Rather, I believe they knew the character of their charges more thoroughly than either of us might care to understand.

Human nature is pretty consistent. An eye for an eye is at least 5000 years old. But my point was only about how the second amendment originated and the meaning of the right.

[onan]

Its a label that makes absolutely no sense to me. Anyone who does not agree with the "gay lifestyle" is either afraid of gays or secretly wants to be one. I have nothing against gays, but I'm tired of people saying someone is a homophobe because they don't understand gays or have the desire to be gay themselves. I'm also tired of the media pushing the gay agenda on everyone, making it look like they are victims. The whole situation is absurd to me. God forbid I tell a gay person they are afraid of straight people. Thats a lawsuit.

Oh I am gonna take some shit for this...


Homophobia has been conjectured to be a personality disorder. But the term itself isn't in the DSM IV, and I don't think it is in the V either.


But homophobia usually comes down to internalized or a social phobia. If I understand it, (other than to realize it is a form of bigotry) internalized has more to do with the internalized fear that one may harbor attraction for the same sex. That behavior is considered a reaction formation type of coping skill.


It makes sense to me. I can't fathom why some become enraged and violent about another's sexual attractions except for some very irrational fear.

[PB the Deplorable]

Anybody else remember when Obama was going to bring us all together?

[PB the Deplorable]

Holder in 2016!

[Cynnie]

Eh, if it wasn't the race thing, we'd be prejudiced about something else ..like yaller hair ..or moles ..we're assholes by nature 

[Yorkshire pud]

The other black Africans from enemy tribes that caught them and sold them to the slavers?  Who re-sold them all over the world?

Yeah, I know that..learned it at school. Wilberforce and all that jazz. I know the origain, I also know that Bristol was a stopping off point for the triangular trade.

The narrative is that slavery was invented by the United States, that after a long hard struggle the Left ended it, they and they alone are still fighting racism, and that because of that history the country is inherently evil and should be destroyed.  This is the Left's philosophy regarding the US in a nutshell.  This is what the rage of Occupy, the other violent 'protest' groups, and people like Obama and his cronies is about.  It's why they hate us.  That we are a successful wealthy influential country just further enrages them.

Oh get off the left/right bollox..It isn't big, clever, true or helpful.

The real story is the slavery of Africans was widespread, it had a long tradition going back at least as far as Rome, and the colonies inherited it from jolly old England.  English planters made fortunes from the tobacco and cotton plantations using this free labor.  It was alive and well in the other English colonies, as well as the rest of Africa, Arabia, other European colonies, etc.  It was a new party called the Republicans - created specifically for the purpose of abolition - that ended it in the US (meanwhile it continued on in other places).

If was a legacy left to the new Republic, something we got rid of when we got the chance. 

It would be nice if we had a media and historians that were proud of our country and told the truth about it.

Did I say it wasn't the above? I was pointing out the veiled accusation that the slave's reactions after being freed was known by the politicians of the time overlooks the reason they were there in the first place.

[PB the Deplorable]

... Oh get off the left/right bollox..It isn't big, clever, true or helpful...

How on earth could you possibly know what drives the run of the mill Leftist here where I live - half way around the world from you in a different country?  Oh, right, you don't. 

I hear it fucking first hand often enough.  The Leftist pukes around here - from the Occupy rabble to the ones holding office - are not different and don't think differently than the other ones in the other big cities around the US - like Chicago - when it comes to this stuff.  They sure don't sound any different.  When Mrs. Obama says something like 'this is the first time in my adult life I've been proud of my country', or when Obama himself says he 'wants to fundamentally transform the country', what do you think they are talking about? 

When we constantly hear from the 'Progressives' how racist we are - individually and as a country, what do you think that's about?  What do you think they mean?

Actually, I'd like to hear your explanation of what you think drives these people.  They are clearly perpetually angry and hate the US and at minimum don't respect anyone not out marching with them.  Why all the violence and anger all the time, why the flag burning. property destruction, attacking the police, blocking bridges and freeway?  If it's not Treyvon it's something else.  It sure seems beyond extreme - they seem very motivated.  I'd really like you to tell me, since you know so much about it.

[Yorkshire pud]

How on earth could you possibly know what drives the run of the mill Leftist here where I live?  Oh, right, you don't. 

I hear it fucking first hand often enough.  The Leftist pukes around here - from the Occupy rabble to the ones holding office - are not different and don't think differently than the other ones in the other big cities - like Chicago - around the US when it comes to this stuff.  When Mrs. Obama says something like 'this is the first time in my adult life I've been proud of my country', or when Obama himself says he 'wants to fundamentally transform the country', what do you think they are talking about? 

Actually, I'd like to hear your explanation of what you think drives these people.

Jeeeze... It isn't LEFT! Some of those who stick the badge on saying 'left' just mean they're anti anything that tells them what to do. Anti 'da man' or whatever.


They have no interest in having control of their workplace, sustainability, neighbourhood, resources and an equitable society, and being autonomous of oppressive authority; THAT'S left.


Far right on the other hand is a dictatorship. No equality, only an autonomous 'elite' who answer to no-one but hold sway over the peasants. telling them when to shit, eat, sleep, work and shit again.


The rioters are thugs, trouble makers and opportunists, it isn't a political faction. Left or right. We had such riots in the UK two years ago, started in various places in London when a black guy was shot dead by the police (last week it was adjudged the police had no justification in doing so, but that wasn't known then)..A protest ensued (peaceful at first), the blokes family went on TV pleading for no riots or trouble; but in the age of blackberry's and Twatter, the news got out..And within hours, youths were looting shops..


In Croydon a furniture shop that had been there decades (The island it stood on was named after it-Reeves corner) was razed to the ground, destroying not just the shop, but putting all it's employees out of work. . One millionaire's daughter was later arrested and I think went to a prison for using her car to ferry a gang of looters all over London. It hit Manchester too. Salford to be precise as well as the city centre. The average age of those arrested was around 18 years old. One old boy was killed as he tried to put out the fire in his bin outside his flat. This wasn't anything to do with left/right; these were little shits who didn't know right from wrong, and used the guy's death as an excuse to go robbing shops and anyone who got in their way.

[Sardondi]

...The rioters are thugs, trouble makers and opportunists, it isn't a political faction. Left or right.

Yes, another instance of Republicans rioting again....

[Yorkshire pud]

Yes, another instance of Republicans rioting again....

Don't be silly; they don't do things such as rioting on the home turf; much bigger fish to fry half way across the world.

[PB the Deplorable]

Jeeeze... It isn't LEFT! Some of those who stick the badge on saying 'left' just mean they're anti anything that tells them what to do. Anti 'da man' or whatever.


They have no interest in having control of their workplace, sustainability, neighbourhood, resources and an equitable society, and being autonomous of oppressive authority; THAT'S left.


Far right on the other hand is a dictatorship. No equality, only an autonomous 'elite' who answer to no-one but hold sway over the peasants. telling them when to shit, eat, sleep, work and shit again.


The rioters are thugs, trouble makers and opportunists, it isn't a political faction. Left or right. We had such riots in the UK two years ago, started in various places in London when a black guy was shot dead by the police (last week it was adjudged the police had no justification in doing so, but that wasn't known then)..A protest ensued (peaceful at first), the blokes family went on TV pleading for no riots or trouble; but in the age of blackberry's and Twatter, the news got out..And within hours, youths were looting shops...

Ok, I'm giving up trying to educate you on right vs left.  I mean if someone can actually post that Stalin and Mao and Obama are really right wingers, there isn't really much to say.

As far as your example, that just does not compare to the poisoned environment we have here setting the stage, and the people coming out to protest in those instances in no way compare to those we have here perpetually looking for reasons to come out as a show of force.  These people are dedicated to the cause - they are marching under the banner of Occupy.  Citizens angry about a specific incident like your example are very different.

We do have spontaneous demonstrations from time to time that are not the usual rent-a-mob gang, but they are peaceful, have their say, and fizzle out after a few hours and are done with.  Not comparable to what typically goes on around here or the motivation for it.  In any way.

I will say the Left is always trying to grow their ranks and co-opt causes.  There have been and will be normal people out gathering and listening to speeches who are angry about the verdict.  They will be easy to spot, they aren't the regular thugs.