Get PJ Media on your Apple

PJM Lifestyle

Will Justice Outlast the Trayvon Martin Hysteria?

If President Obama gets his way, he'll turn our lives into a game of survival horror.

by
Walter Hudson

Bio

July 25, 2013 - 7:00 am
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page
YouTube Preview Image

Outlast may be the scariest video game ever produced. IGN’s Marty Sliva passed along anecdotes last March:

Before my demo, the team at Red Barrels, which is comprised of ex-Ubisoft designers who worked on Prince of Persia: Sands of Time, told me about some of the crazy things they’d seen the brave attendees of PAX East do while playing their game. Some bolted out mid-demo, others stumbled out unhealthily pale, and one guy almost destroyed the entire booth in a fit of panic.

The game pares down the survival horror genre to a single visceral action. No other option exists in Outlast. If you see something intent upon harm, you have but one choice. Run!

The game takes place in a freakish asylum which you enter for reasons unknown. Once inside, a haunting atmosphere manifests. Lights start to flicker and die. Shadows begin to move. Voices dance at the edge of earshot. And the only way to reliably see what lies ahead is through a power-hungry night vision camera that’s always on the verge of dying. Needless to say, you soon discover that you’re neither alone nor at the top of the food chain.

I thought of Outlast after considering last week’s remarks by President Obama which he offered in response to the verdict in the George Zimmerman trial. Predictably, the president chose to amplify the narrative that the black community was somehow owed a conviction. The threat to liberty posed by our nation’s highest executive suggesting that a criminal case ought to be decided not on the facts, but to satisfy a subjective sense of racial justice, cannot be overstated. However, what specifically reminded me of Outlast was the president’s call to examine “stand your ground” statutes to determine whether they “may encourage the kinds of altercations and confrontations and tragedies that we saw in the Florida case rather than diffuse potential altercations.”

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
That was basically the law before SYG. Unfortunately even the seemingly reasonable standards you propose were enough to give prosecutors and litigous criminals leeway to screw with citizens who defended themselves.

Remember that for a normal, decent person just being charged with a crime can be life-ruining, even if you're not convicted. And if the thug you shoot is able to sue you for millions it can destroy you financially even if he never wins a judgement.

SYG is moral and proper, we shouldn't even consider surrendering it to the racists.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
My right to defend myself doesn't come from the government, and cannot be taken away by the government. All else is verbiage.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
To get a dramatic idea of how eliminating self-defense will alter society, we need only look at what's been happening in Britain for some time.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (39)
All Comments   (39)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
But they can take away your life or liberty if you do so, whether or not they have a right to.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"Where is the president’s outrage over those deaths? Which laws will he be examining to determine how his hometown’s horror might end?"
Disarmament of the citizen is the goal. Raising the "stand your ground" issue is designed to create a wedge among the electorate by falsely suggesting that it gives gun owners a license to kill. One "reasonable" step towards the progressive dream of a country solely dependent upon the government for their personal safety. Whether or not that dream government could actually guarantee that safety is irrelevant.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
A good example of where O wants to drive America is Britain. They have far many more "home invasion" burglaries than the US. Why? You are basically restricted from defending yourself, even in your own home. You had better not have a stray cricket bat or golf club in a handy location so you can grab it and defend yourself and your family. You will be arrested, and the burglar given an ASBO. Things are reversing slightly on this, but don't get caught with a knife with a locking blade of any sort over there
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
What happened to the castle doctine? We got that from Britain.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
One thing people have forgotten is that in the early days of Senator Obama's 2008 campaign there USED to be a link to a new interview in Chicago where Obama publicly stated that "No young black man should ever have to face death at the hands of an armed homeowner for merely breaking into his home and trying to steal his property". Does that answer everyone's questions?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
As president, he would probably rephrase it thusly: "for merely breaking into his home and trying to redistribute his property."
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Sorry, I'm defending myself. The rest is up to the lawyers.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"You are not entitled to resist extortion! You have no right to self-defense, especially if your attacker is a protected minority! And, since blacks are in the minority, they have the right to murder ten whites each."

-Eric Holder-
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All criminals (liberals and muslims) believe in us-versus-them, and might-makes -right; in sharia "law" (crime) for instance, you have no right to self-defense either; so the only "logical" and so, "legal" options is to Submit to extortion!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
so in the local paper for Manhattan Beach/Redondo Beach/El Segundo two crimes were reported, blacks with guns.

And I guess that would make me racist for saying that when I see a black acting strange wearing a hoodie I shouldn't be concerned. That is PC BS.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
We don't need this fight. Florida can change its law in a way which does not prevent self-defense and which puts the ball on the other side. Simply amend the SYG law to keep all of its features _except_ to say:

The use of deadly force is not permitted in self-defense if at the moment self-defense would be used ALL of the following apply: (1) The defender has the opportunity to retreat in perfect safety (2) _without_ abandoning an innocent person (e.g. a husband would not be obligated to retreat if it meant abandoning his wife to a gang of rapists), and (3) The defender's retreat can be accomplished _without_ surrendering to the attacker any property that is legally in his possession (lest the law violate the defenders right to Freedom from Unwarranted Searches and Seizures).

Now let the Left argue why a person should be obligated to submit himself to a non-safe retreat or abandon other innocents or reward a violent criminal with the fruit of the defender's labor.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
What sort of insane "law" pretends one has to accede to the criminals' timetables and plans?! "If the criminal stops attacking (for whatever reason, known only to them) then you have to immediately stop defending yourself, too!"

Say a criminal attacks you, but runs out of bullets before managing to finish you off. They then run away, intending to re-load and then return to finish the job.

Obviously, you don't know why they stopped, nor what they'll do next (but the balance of probabilities says that, since they've already chosen to attack you first, there's no reason to imagine they suddently became enlightened saints) so why shouldn't you follow them to make sure?!

They retain all their free-will rights to commit further crimes, while you are limited to their whims and timetables, like some robotic imbecile - the "law" pretends you are limited to immediate defense only, and aren't allowed to counter-attack at all!

And yet all crimes are routinely counter-attacked well after the facts, sometimes even years later, in the courts of law: by the time any criminal gets to trial, they aren't immediately endangering anyone, their crimes are in the past! So why punish them at all (as liberals might argue)?!

Because they must pay for their past crimes!

This is both how and why revenge IS justice!

But what we have now, is "liberal" criminal oriented, victim-blaming "laws" which seem to ask:

"Mr. Smith, while the gangsters were busy raping your wife and beating your daughter with chains and clubs; so why on earth did you decide to commit the crime of defensively counter-attacking them, in stead of choosing the only legal, rational, and sane action of simply running away like you should have (and like we all most certainly would have) done?!"
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
That was basically the law before SYG. Unfortunately even the seemingly reasonable standards you propose were enough to give prosecutors and litigous criminals leeway to screw with citizens who defended themselves.

Remember that for a normal, decent person just being charged with a crime can be life-ruining, even if you're not convicted. And if the thug you shoot is able to sue you for millions it can destroy you financially even if he never wins a judgement.

SYG is moral and proper, we shouldn't even consider surrendering it to the racists.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Obama's mendacious remarks are aimed at drastically reducing the value of possessing a gun for the purpose of self-defense. It is absurd to suggest that the rules of self-defense might actually encourage violent confrontations, since the issue of self defense does not even arise until after a violent confrontation has already been initiated.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
His idiotic and slanderous pretense is that if people are allowed to defend them selves, then they WILL attack innocent others first, in the hopes of later being able to claim they were only defending themselves when doing so - which, not surprisingly, is the liberals' own modus operandi: to attack innocent others first, BY slanderously asserting that if they hadn't done so, then those innocent others would have surely attacked them first, anyway!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Obamas remarks was to get more ghetto people to vote for DEMS- that is what Obamacare was in 09 it was a PUSH to get thru for the 2010 elections - vote buying for Dems
100 women are sexually assaulted-rapped ever day in the USA by black males- per year the White rape on black is less than 10 see FBI stats - 46 shootings in Chicago 2 months before Tray Tray was shot 16 dead & 1 a 6month old black baby - all black on black shootings - thanks US Media for facts
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All