What White People Don't Understand About Rachel Jeantel

I do not know who Rachel Samara is and this is the first thing I have ever read that she has written, can't find out anything about her with a Web search, the Global Grind claims to present The World According to Hip-Pop.  I have pasted her entire article below her words will be in black, mine will be in red.  

What White People Don't Understand About Rachel Jeantel

Posted June 26, 2013 by Rachel Samara for Global Grind Staff

A predominantly white jury is not going to like Rachel Jeantel. Let's just be real here.

The 19-year-old Miami native is an easy target for obvious, yet shallow reasons. But let's not forget why she's actually on the stand in George Zimmerman's second degree murder trial. Rachel was the last person to speak to a living, breathing Trayvon Martin. The guilt, shame and sorrow she must feel is something most of us will never be able to comprehend. You could hear it in her voice, see it in her jittery body language. She is feeling the wrath of this highly publicized case.

Rachel was thrown head first into this murder story, unwillingly. And although she had repeatedly said she did not want to be a witness, did not even want to believe she was the last person Trayvon spoke to, Rachel took the stand for all the right reasons. She was asked to by the family of her deceased friend and feeling part of the burden for his death, she wanted to help.

This unwilling witness' affidavit is what the prosecutor based his probable cause on to obtain an arrest warrant for Zimmerman on.  She was more than willing to accuse as long as she did not have to face the one she was accusing.

Rachel was raw, emotional, aggressive and hostile, and she was unapologetically herself.

The raw part I will agree with, but for a few outburst she seemed much more reticent than aggressive to me.  It was her speaking so very low with her near baritone voice that made it so difficult for her to be understood.  Her most aggressive moment was at the end of her first day testimony and she discovered that she was going to have to return for at least two more hours of the defense's questioning.

And if the 5 white jurors (excluding the 1 Latina) are like most white people I know, they are unfortunately not going to like Rachel. They won't understand her, especially not her defensive nature, and this will unfortunately work against her. Even though it shouldn't.

And just why shouldn't her nature, defensive or otherwise, work for her or against us, it does for the rest of us.

I can imagine George Zimmerman's defense is just hoping some of those 5 white jurors have some prejudices (as most people do), or hell, are even racist, because if they are, their tactic to make Rachel out to be less intelligent, rather than less credible than she actually is, might actually work.

She sure did not come across as the sharpest tool in the shed, and just why should anyone find anybody credible had to admit on the stand to at least three lies that she has told in her sworn deposition.  Sever time on the stand she claimed to have written a letter to Trayvon mother but when she was asked to read it she could not read it!  Then, and only then, claimed that she had dictated it to a friend who had written it for her.

Less intelligent and more confused.

Less intelligent because of the "language barrier" and more confused because of the lawyers' failure to understand who Rachel is, where she comes from, what kind of life she lives.

Language barrier my goodness, what language barrier?  She admitted to having spoken English her whole life, went through 11 years of school speaking Fnglish, There was no language barrier, just an excuse.  There is absolutely no necessity for anyone to understand who someone is, where they come from, what kind of life they live to expect them to relate truthfully their testimony.  They just have to tell the truth regardless.

It seems the middle-aged white men on both sides of this case are totally unaware of what Rachel's life is like - a 19-year-old high school student of Haitian descent who knows nothing more than the few block radius she has grown up in. The cultural differences here are exponential.

And just what does this understanding or lack of it have with her ability to tell the truth?  I take it the poor girl never watches TV or goes to the movies for that is the only way she knows nothing about nothing but the few blocks radius she has grown up in.

"The cultural differences here are exponential."  Does this in any way change what is right and what is wrong?  

But if the lawyers, and especially the jurors, were really listening, they would see that although she comes off aggressive, Rachel was consistent. Yes, the defense proved she had lied in the past, but she didn't deny it. On the contrary. She was very honest about it, and even led us to sympathize with her reasoning for it - she did not want to see Trayvon's body, she did not want to face Trayvon's mother and she wanted to wipe her hands of the situation because of the emotion and trauma. She was the last person Trayvon spoke to and she wanted everyone to understand what that means. This is in no way easy for her.

Rachel was consistent, yes she was a consistent liar.  Lied to the mother, lied ton her  deposition to both sides, and lied on the stand.  At least the lying part seemed easy to her if nothing else.

Rachel is the prosecution's key witness, but I am going to call her the misunderstood witness. She holds vital information that both the defense and prosecution need, but these middle-aged white men questioning her do not get it. Sadly both the prosecution and the defense [but more so the defense] have an extreme disconnect from her reality, like I said. The constant text messaging between her and Trayvon is normal for two high school kids who may like each other, the nonchalant use of Racial slurs like "cracks" and "n*gga" are slang (as Rachel put it) and that doesn't mean it comes from a racist place.

Why are racial  slurs "cracka" and "n*gga" slang for them and not for Paula Deen who was fired Food network, and having her book publication cancelled by the Amazon inspite of the prizes being higher than any other book on line?  Paula's sin?  She used to use 'nigger' in her conversations back in her past when use of the word was common in her culture.

If this is Rachel reality, then reality needs to change, Rachel needs to be held to the same standard that Paula is being held to, or Paula held to the same standard as Rachel. I thought that the whole idea of a double standard was condemned by blacks and whites alike.  It seems that the attitude among some black ice, "I can offend you all the hell I want, but if you dare call me by a name I don't like you are a racist pig".

Trayvon was just 17, his life consisted of text messaging, high school, PS3, girls and not much else. He had a lot of growing up to do, a lot of experiences to take in, so much more to learn, but sadly, he will never get a chance to do any of those things.

If he had been left to grow up the way he was going, expelled from school because of marihuana, in possession of stolen property (which the police had filed away as found property), fighting for fun he would have been either in prison or dead in short order.  It has emerged that Trayvon Martin had been suspended from high school three times for possessing drugs and a marijuana pipe, for truancy, and for graffiti.  During the most recent incident, he was caught with a bag full of women's jewelry and a "burglary tool."  In the police report this was hidden under a found property report.

 

Rachel on the other hand will get to, but with her immaturity displayed on the stand for the whole world to see, she quickly became a joke. Maybe we were picturing Trayvon's alleged girlfriend to be a bit different, but nevertheless, Rachel still is the last person, aside from George Zimmerman, that Trayvon had any contact with while he was alive on this earth. Rachel's mumbling, hostility and that reference to the show First 48, among other things, threw us for a loophole, but let's remember, she is just a teen. This is what she knows. This is far from a Lifetime movie, this is her life. In the flesh, but still on our TVs.

I thought that she did not know anything outside her few blocks radius she has grown up in?  Now this is one thing that I agree with Rachel pn, the cops sure as hell should have called the last person he was talking to when he died to find out what whomever it was knew about the death.

I cried when she described the feeling of realizing she was the last person Trayvon spoke to, cringed at her blatant honesty, laughed when she spoke back to the attorneys and even had to turn my volume down throughout different phases of her testimony because of sheer discomfort.

She cried, I took it as an act put on because Trayvon did not like her as much as she would have liked.  The truth is we just cannot know what made her so uncomforable, we can just know how she behaved.

Rachel was authentic, nervous and extremely herself. She did, after all, hear her friend, a minor, get killed in cold blood. And her involvement, from what we can tell, became dragged out beyond anything she ever wanted.

I will agree that she was nervous, but as far as being herself I would have to know her outside the courtroom to appertain that.

Her hostility is making more sense now.  

Maybe to the writer, but not to me.

Rachel's collision with Zimmerman's attorney Don West was uncomfortable to watch. They didn't get each other. I even thought at one point they were going to call in some type of translator. Yes, she mumbled, but the amount of times she was asked to repeat herself, speak up and slow down proved that they were indeed speaking different languages. But let's be honest. Rachel Jeantel's attitude is exactly what I would expect from someone from the hood who has no media training and who is fully entrenched in a hostile environment.

It was not his job to get to know her, his job was to get her to tell the truth, and in doing so helped his client out immensely.

There's nothing wrong with it.

I care not a whit for her attitude one way or the other as long as she tells the truth.

A few different times while watching this trial I've gotten caught up in the entertainment of it all, like a movie I don't want to miss the ending to. But this isn't a movie, and although Don West did kick off his opening argument with a "Knock-Knock" joke, it's not meant to be entertainment. And definitely not funny.

No, it was not meant to be funny, it was to clear the mind of the jurors as he started his opening.  A cognate resets if you will.

This is truly a life and death situation. Rachel was on the phone with Trayvon moments before he got murdered while walking home from a 7-11, back to "his Daddy's house," as Rachel so eloquently put it. Aside from George Zimmerman, Rachel was Trayvon's last communication on this earth.

Murder is the unlawful taking of a life, and that is still to be determined.  Trayvon could have easy been looking for something to steal, his background which the defense will not be able to put into evidence, shows that he has the propenstenicy to do.

This is real. Let's not forget that.

I reckon that I have justified Rachel Samara opinion that I, as a white guy, cannot understand Rachel Jeantel in her mind, but the truth is it is not incumbent upon me to understand her any more that it is upon her to understand me, I will assure you of one thing, and that is I am much more capable of understand her than she is of understanding me.  Besides that, I understand the difference between lying and telling the truth.

Can Rachel help prove that Trayvon was attacked by George Zimmerman? What are your thoughts? Tweet with me. @RachelSamara

My thoughts are that this writer, and many other black believe that if Zimmerman is aquited it will not be that Zimmerman was acting in self defense, rather that the five white women, and the Hispanic cannot see the world correctly because they are not black, and only blacks should sit in judgment of blacks.  No, not all blacks see the world this way but Consider these tweets:

If Zimmerman win, I’m gonna go kill a white a kid by mistake

— ……. (@BE4L_Pervis) June 27, 2013

If #Zimmerman get off ima shoot the first #hispanic/white i see

— Vonni Versace (@Dat_Nigga_Vonni) June 27, 2013

fuuuuuuuck Don West. fuck George Zimmerman . I’ll kill both them niggas.

— LOE Lys . (@HotTopicLys) June 27, 2013

I’ll kill him. “@_lolaluuv: George Zimmerman goin walk.”

— Lindsey Franco  (@GLAMLindsey) June 27, 2013

These threats come just a day after the prosecutions key witness, Trayvon’s girlfriend Rachel Jeantel, was forced to admit she could not read a letter she supposedly wrote and that she lied about writing it as well as other lies, under oath and not, were exposed.

This Zimmerman shit so AGGY just lock his ass up cause if they don’t imma kill a white person and they better let me go

— FREE BROGOD CAM ❤ (@carlise_) June 27, 2013

If they don’t kill Zimmerman Ima kill me a cracka

— ザック·スレーターエクストラオーディナリ (@ZackSlaterExe) June 26, 2013

Read the rest over at Twitchy.

 For Rachel Jeantel article go here:

The Stealth Enacting Of Agenda 21 In America

Forced are building to force the UN’s Agenda 21 of nudged mass migration from the suburbs to the inner cities.  The Vehicle Mileage Tax is one method they hope to nudge people to move into the cities.  Road pricing for the VMT would be implemented to force drivers out their cars. This will impact all drivers except for the Obama inspired exemption of low income drivers.  The VMT is designed to give favored status to certain groups. These groups represent organizations that want to transfer wealth through the heavy hand of regional government interfering in the housing, transportation and land use market place.

Why do you thing the big push is for all the trollies and light rail in which mostly go empty?  The plan is to force us to use them.  The Government Nudge is when the government uses its power not only to spur innovation and reshape the economy, but where and how we will live, as well as how transport ourselves to and fro.  If you have not heard about the UN’s Agenda 21, get yourself educated.  Below is a video clip from Fox News that spells it out in part:

Building One America Link, is one face of the move to Suburban Depopulation The secretive agenda of Building One America has been mostly achieved by Obama’s appointment of like-minded community activists to his staff for the stealth implement

        WHAT IS UNITED NATIONS AGENDA 21?

UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is the action plan implemented worldwide to inventory and control all land, all water, all minerals, all plants, all animals, all construction, all means of production, all energy, all education, all information, and all human beings in the world.  INVENTORY AND CONTROL.

Click on this link to read more:

WHAT IS UNITED NATIONS AGENDA 21?

The Farm Bill Bit The Dust

“The defeat of the farm bill — after both parties were privately bullish it would pass with large margins — shows, once again, how massively dysfunctional the House and its leadership has become. And it plainly reveals that a bipartisan rewrite of the nation’s complex and politically charged immigration laws are a pipe dream in the House, at least for now. Preventing a government shutdown and debt limit fight are not far behind.”  Westcott/POLITICO 6/21/13

The bill, which includes billions in direct farm subsidies, would have cost $100 billion per year for five years if made into law. Approximately 80% of that cost is related to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), e.g., food stamps.  The food stamp program has gone from spending $18 billion in 2000 to $78 billion in 2011 – including a growth of $40 billion between 2007 and 2011.

Praise God for a dysfunctional congress!  The farm bill is little more than a giant agriculture welfare program, I say giant because it is the Big Ag companies that get most of the subsides, but why all the fuss this time?

The adoption of Florida GOP Rep. Steve Southerland’s amendment to institute work requirements for recipients of food stamps is why!  62 Republicans (RINOs) joined 172 Democrats to vote against the bill. Republicans had 171 of their members voting ‘yes,’ and Democrats had 24 in favor. 

“…how massively dysfunctional the House and its leadership has become.”  I don’t know about you, but when I vote for a representative he does not get my vote because I thing he is going to adhere to the House’s leadership will, rather it is the will of those who elected him for whom he should cast his vote yea or nay on any bill before him.

So the bill bit the dust because 234 of our representative thank it is demeaning to ask those who accept food stamps to work for it, I guess for then it is to stay free but not for the tax payer.  Not to worry though I am sure that the farm bill’s ghost will be resurrected and enacted for Big Ag needs its fix.

The Crusades

The way the story is told today the Crusades was all about the evil Christians jumping on the peaceful Muslims, a brutal and unprovoked attacks against a sophisticated and tolerant Muslim world, who were minding their own business in their own lands.  Well here is how it actually happened, shortly after Mohammed's death the Muslim took over the lands of Palestine, Syria, and Egypt, and converted all the Christians to Islam, made them slaves, or killed them. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian lands in North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The Eastern Roman Empire first ruled by Constantine and had converted when he saw a Cross in the sky before the Battle at Milvian Bridge on October of 312AD, now known as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, it was the emperor in Constantinople who sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.

That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades was that act of defense.  At the Council of Clermont in 1095, the response was tremendous. Many thousands of Knight and men-at-arms took the vow of the cross and prepared for war, Kings pledge their life and wealth to Why did they do it?

There are four main reasons why people in the medieval ages went on the crusades: Some went  because they wanted to take back Jerusalem for they reasoned that it was rightfully Christian since it is there where Jesus died. Some did it for honor, revenge or love. And there were those who wanted their sins to be forgiven, to go to heaven or to take back goods from the Holy Lands, or because they had committed a crime and were forced by the church to go on a Crusade. And some people, just in our military today, just went on for fun.  The answer to the why question has been badly misunderstood. 

In the wake of the Enlightenment, it was usually asserted that Crusaders were merely lacklands and ne'er-do-wells who took advantage of an opportunity to rob and pillage in a faraway land.  The reasons they said they were doing it for was only a front for darker designs.  Knights, however, were generally wealthy men with plenty of their own land in Europe history has shown, and even  the wealthiest could easily impoverish themselves and their families by joining a Crusade.  Some Christians also went on Crusades because they wanted to go to heaven or wanted to shorten their time in Purgatory. There were those who went to be forgiven their sins. Some people went because they knew that if they killed a Muslim they would be allowed to take all he had, but the truth was that the Crusades were notoriously bad for plunder while a few got rich the vast majority of them returned home with nothing. Some were forced to go on crusades by the church because they had committed a crime. This from an English trial in 1291 which said, “You have been found guilty of hitting a priest with your sword. For this outrage you must join a crusade or pay a suitable soldier to go instead.”  But none of them went to force Muslims to become Christians.  In fact the Muslims who lived in Crusader-won territories through out these wars were allowed to retain their property and livelihood, and always their religion. And throughout the history of the Crusader in the Kingdom of Jerusalem, Muslim inhabitants far outnumbered the Catholics.  It is true that in the 13th century the Franciscans began trying conversion efforts among Muslims, but these were mostly unsuccessful and finally abandoned. These efforts were by peaceful persuasion, not by the threat of violence or the force of taxation.

For centuries, Christian pilgrims traveled from Europe to Jerusalem. In the 11th century, however, the Seljuk Turks, who were Muslim, began to interfere with these pilgrimages. In 1071, the Seljuk Turks fought against the Byzantine Empire at the Battle of Manzikert. The Byzantines, who were Christian, lost. The Byzantine emperor asked the Christians in Europe to help protect his empire from the Turks. In 1095, Pope Urban II called for a crusade against the Muslims to regain control of Jerusalem.

Pope Urban II called for a crusade against the Muslims to regain control of Jerusalem. To all crusaders, he gave this promise:

All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the [Muslims], shall have immediate [forgiveness] of sins.

-Pope Urban II, 1095

Latter Pope Innocent III, l wrote:

How does a man love according to divine precept his neighbor as himself when, knowing that his Christian brothers in faith and in name are held by the perfidious Muslims in strict confinement and weighed down by the yoke of heaviest servitude, he does not devote himself to the task of freeing them? ...Is it by chance that you do not know that many thousands of Christians are bound in slavery and imprisoned by the Muslims, tortured with innumerable torments?

 The Crusade by the Christians of the time was seen as an errand of mercy to right a terrible wrong. As Pope Innocent III wrote to the Knights Templar, "You carry out in deeds the words of the Gospel, no Greater love than this hath no man, that he lay down his life for his friends.'"  

I am not saying that some Christians did not do some terrible things in the two hundred years of the Crusades, for indeed some of the Crusaders killed not only Muslims, but Jews and other Christians as well.  In April 1204, the Crusaders of Western Europe invaded and sacked the Christian city of Constantinople, what I am saying is that they had just cause to go and defend Christendom. 

By the way, Crusade is a modern word not coined until 1706, respelling of croisade (1570s), from Middle French croisade (16c.), Spanish cruzada, both from Medieval Latin cruciata, past participle of cruciare "to mark with a cross," from Latin crux (genitive crucis) "cross." Other Middle English forms werecroiserie, creiserie. Figurative sense of "campaign against a public evil" is from 1786.  The ones who fought in what we call the Crusades called themselves Pilgrims.

Two Marines Stand Their Ground

Everybody Should Read General John Kelly's Speech About Two Marines In The Path Of A Truck Bomb:

Five years ago, in 2008, two Marines from two different walks of life who had literally just met were told to stand guard in front of their outpost's entry control point.
Minutes later, they were staring down a big blue truck packed with explosives. With this particular shred of hell bearing down on them, they stood their ground.
I had heard the story many times, personally. But until today I had never heard Marine Lt. Gen. John Kelly's telling of it to a packed house in 2010. Just four days following the death of his own son in combat, Kelly eulogized two other sons in an unforgettable manner.

From Kelly's speech:
Two years ago when I was the Commander of all U.S. and Iraqi forces, in fact, the 22nd of April 2008, two Marine infantry battalions, 1/9 “The Walking Dead,” and 2/8 were switching out in Ramadi. One battalion in the closing days of their deployment going home very soon, the other just starting its seven-month combat tour.
Two Marines, Corporal Jonathan Yale and Lance Corporal Jordan Haerter, 22 and 20 years old respectively, one from each battalion, were assuming the watch together at the entrance gate of an outpost that contained a makeshift barracks housing 50 Marines.

The same broken down ramshackle building was also home to 100 Iraqi police, also my men and our allies in the fight against the terrorists in Ramadi, a city until recently the most dangerous city on earth and owned by Al Qaeda. Yale was a dirt poor mixed-race kid from Virginia with a wife and daughter, and a mother and sister who lived with him and he supported as well. He did this on a yearly salary of less than $23,000. Haerter, on the other hand, was a middle class white kid from Long Island.
They were from two completely different worlds. Had they not joined the Marines they would never have met each other, or understood that multiple America’s exist simultaneously depending on one’s race, education level, economic status, and where you might have been born. But they were Marines, combat Marines, forged in the same crucible of Marine training, and because of this bond they were brothers as close, or closer, than if they were born of the same woman.

The mission orders they received from the sergeant squad leader I am sure went
something like: “Okay you two clowns, stand this post and let no unauthorized
personnel or vehicles pass.” “You clear?” I am also sure Yale and Haerter then rolled their eyes and said in unison something like: “Yes Sergeant,” with just enough attitude that made the point without saying the words, “No kidding sweetheart, we know what we’re doing.” They then relieved two other Marines on watch and took up their post at the entry control point of Joint Security Station Nasser, in the Sophia section of Ramadi, al Anbar, Iraq.

A few minutes later a large blue truck turned down the alley way—perhaps 60-70
yards in length—and sped its way through the serpentine of concrete jersey walls. The truck stopped just short of where the two were posted and detonated, killing them both catastrophically. Twenty-four brick masonry houses were damaged or destroyed. A mosque 100 yards away collapsed. The truck’s engine came to rest two hundred yards away knocking most of a house down before it stopped.

Our explosive experts reckoned the blast was made of 2,000 pounds of explosives. Two died, and because these two young infantrymen didn’t have it in their DNA to run from danger, they saved 150 of their Iraqi and American brothers-in-arms.
When I read the situation report about the incident a few hours after it happened I
called the regimental commander for details as something about this struck me as
different. Marines dying or being seriously wounded is commonplace in combat. We expect Marines regardless of rank or MOS to stand their ground and do their duty, and even die in the process, if that is what the mission takes. But this just seemed different.

The regimental commander had just returned from the site and he agreed, but reported that there were no American witnesses to the event—just Iraqi police. I figured if there was any chance of finding out what actually happened and then to decorate the two Marines to acknowledge their bravery, I’d have to do it as a combat award that requires two eye-witnesses and we figured the bureaucrats back in Washington would never buy Iraqi statements. If it had any chance at all, it had to come under the signature of a general officer.

I traveled to Ramadi the next day and spoke individually to a half-dozen Iraqi
police all of whom told the same story. The blue truck turned down into the alley and immediately sped up as it made its way through the serpentine. They all said, “We knew immediately what was going on as soon as the two Marines began firing.” The Iraqi police then related that some of them also fired, and then to a man, ran for safety just prior to the explosion.

All survived. Many were injured … some seriously. One of the Iraqis elaborated and with tears welling up said, “They’d run like any normal man would to save his life.”
What he didn’t know until then, he said, and what he learned that very instant, was that Marines are not normal. Choking past the emotion he said, “Sir, in the name of God no sane man would have stood there and done what they did.”
“No sane man.”
“They saved us all.”

What we didn’t know at the time, and only learned a couple of days later after I
wrote a summary and submitted both Yale and Haerter for posthumous Navy Crosses, was that one of our security cameras, damaged initially in the blast, recorded some of the suicide attack. It happened exactly as the Iraqis had described it. It took exactly six seconds from when the truck entered the alley until it detonated.

You can watch the last six seconds of their young lives. Putting myself in their
heads I supposed it took about a second for the two Marines to separately come to the same conclusion about what was going on once the truck came into their view at the far end of the alley. Exactly no time to talk it over, or call the sergeant to ask what they should do. Only enough time to take half an instant and think about what the sergeant told them to do only a few minutes before: “… let no unauthorized personnel or vehicles pass.”

The two Marines had about five seconds left to live. It took maybe another two seconds for them to present their weapons, take aim, and open up. By this time the truck was half-way through the barriers and gaining speed the whole time. Here, the recording shows a number of Iraqi police, some of whom had fired their AKs, now scattering like the normal and rational men they were—some running right past the Marines. They had three seconds left to live.

For about two seconds more, the recording shows the Marines’ weapons firing
non-stop…the truck’s windshield exploding into shards of glass as their rounds take it apart and tore in to the body of the son-of-a-bitch who is trying to get past them to kill their brothers—American and Iraqi—bedded down in the barracks totally unaware of the fact that their lives at that moment depended entirely on two Marines standing their ground. If they had been aware, they would have know they were safe…because two Marines stood between them and a crazed suicide bomber.

The recording shows the truck careening to a stop immediately in front of the two Marines. In all of the instantaneous violence Yale and Haerter never hesitated. By all reports and by the recording, they never stepped back. They never even started to step aside. They never even shifted their weight. With their feet spread should width apart, they leaned into the danger, firing as fast as they could work their weapons. They had only one second left to live.

The truck explodes. The camera goes blank. Two young men go to their God.
Six seconds. Not enough time to think about their families, their country, their flag, or about their lives or their deaths, but more than enough time for two very brave young men to do their duty…into eternity. That is the kind of people who are on watch all over the world tonight—for you.