Witness the unfolding campaign to strip your rights

| March 23, 2012 | 204 Comments

There’s a new angle in the campaign to strip you of your rights to defend your self with the Constitutional tools afforded to you. In the wake of the Martin shooting in Florida comes a recent op-ed piece by Tom Brown for Reuters masquerading as reporting the “case” being built for the deconstruction of so called “stand your ground” laws.

On June 5, 2006, not long after Florida enacted the first “Stand Your Ground” law in the United States, unarmed Jason Rosenbloom was shot in the stomach and chest by his next-door neighbor after a shouting match over trash.

Exactly what happened that day in Clearwater, Florida, is still open to dispute. Kenneth Allen, a retired police officer, said he shot Rosenbloom because he was trying to storm into his house.

Rosenbloom told Reuters in a telephone interview this week he never tried to enter the house and was in Allen’s yard, about 10 feet (3 meters) from his front door, when he was shot moments after he put his hands up.

Now living in Hawaii, Rosenbloom said he had been unaware of the growing outrage over last month’s shooting in Sanford, Florida, of an unarmed black teenager by a neighborhood watch captain.

The language in the rest of the article only grows more grotesque. Then again this is the same agency which employs “journalists” to “embed” with insurgents in Iraq then has the audacity to complain when they’re caught in the cross fire.

UPDATE:

This morning the Christian Science Monitor ran an Op-Ed by NYU professor Jonathan Zimmerman, titled Where’s the Trayvon Martin petition about gun control?. It pretty clearly lays out, what I think will be, the strategy they’ll use going forward, race card and all.

…we need to ask whether any private citizen should be carrying a concealed weapon, and whether “Stand Your Ground” measures make people trigger-happy. And most of all, we need to think about the most common victims of our lax gun laws: African Americans.

Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists, Media

Loading Facebook Comments ...

Comments (205)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

Sites That Link to this Post

  1. Hondo says:

    One final comment, insipid. No, the members of the SCOTUS aren’t “kings”. But they do have the authority to determine how the US Constitution is to be interpreted, and their word is final. Here, they have done exactly that. And their interpretation is that there is indeed an individual right to firearms ownership guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution.

    Don’t like that? Fine. There’s a means to change that. It’s called amending the Constitution. Work on doing that if you disagree with their interpretation. But it’s now time to STFU about whether the right of an individual to own a firearm is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. Per the SCOTUS, IT IS. Period. Nationwide. And until the Constitution is amended to change that fact, or the SCOTUS chooses to overrule their decisions in DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, their word on the matter is both definitive and final.

  2. insipid says:

    @47- There’s a difference between not wanting to fight about something and not being capable of fighting about something. I do NOT believe that the “right to bear arms” applies to anything other than the militia. But again, right now me and the SC disagree.

    The emotional investment you guys seem to have in me agreeing with you is hysterical. So far one person has said they’d like to fight me simply because i disagree, another person has called me a “retard” you have called me an idiot and a liar and basically said that i should STFU and just because the SC word is final and someone else stated that i should kill myself over my having an opinion contrary to the board zeitgeist.

    Believe me, if you all were arguing that the earth was flat with THIS kind of vehmence. I wouldn’t want to argue that point. You think i’m going to try and argue with someone who’s invited me to “come to his house” or drink poison kool aid? Would you? If the guy wants to believe the earth is flat that bad, let him.

    Right now, it looks like George Zimmerman is going to trial and i’m happy about that. But it would be nice if someone- anyone- could agree that 1. this case up until now hasn’t been handled well 2. When one unarmed person is dead and the armed person is alive there should AT LEAST be as much of an investigation as they would for a vehicular killing.

    Finally- listen to the third tape here:

    http://www.randirhodes.com/pages/rrnews.html?feed=393046&article=9924394

    Tell me that sounds like an adult screaming. And tell me that the screaming doesn’t stop immediately after the shot.

  3. UpNorth says:

    @#50. For your info, insipid, you don’t know that Trayvon had never been arrested, or that he had no criminal record. Under Fl law, he was a minor, his records would be sealed.
    As to #1 and #9, kindly explain the injuries to Zimmerman, did he injure himself? #7, I do believe, if you were to perform a little diligence, Martin was taller than Zimmerman by more than an inch or two.
    So, no, you haven’t posted any “incontrovertible” facts.
    And, do you have any idea what the courts usually call witnesses who come forward 2 or 3 weeks after the fact? Unreliable is a polite description, not usually entirely accurate, most times they’re liars.

  4. insipid says:

    @51 I agree with you that this is their opinion, Hondo. I disagree that this obligates me to STFU about it. I think even this court would agree that the 2nd amendment doesn’t obliterate my 1st amendment right to talk about it or disagree with the SC interpretation of it.

  5. insipid says:

    @53- The New York Times already stated he has no criminal record. Martin weighed 140 pounds, Zimmerman 240 pounds:

    http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/sfl-trayvon-martin-family-20120315,0,3161920.story

    Martin had no criminal record:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/us/911-tapes-released-in-killing-of-florida-teenager.html?_r=1

    Also the initial police report said nothing about Zimmerman being bloodied. That was added later to justify a lack of arrest.

    http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/21/2706876_p2/sanford-commission-votes-no-confidence.html#storylink=cpy

    But if you don’t want to believe the “liberal media” fine. Can’t you believe your own ears?

    Listen to the third tape and tell me that 1. it doesn’t sound like a black teen screaming for help and 2. the screaming doesn’t stop as soon as the shot is fired.

  6. insipid says:

    By the way, the mother identified the voice screaming as that of her son. Listen to the tape here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bJJk-p3R8M

    Again, i’m willing to concede i haven’t heard all the facts. But it certainly doesn’t sound like Tryvon was the one being aggressive here. It sounded like he was screaming for help until a gunshot silenced him forever.

  7. UpNorth says:

    Well, your first two links don’t mention whether Martin had a record or not. So, until you post something that actually says that the FDLE says he had no record, you’re just typing what you want the narrative to be. Then there’s this quote from your first link from a “witness”, one who didn’t see anything but claims to have heard it, ““To me what happened here is that a grown man got whooped by a 17-year-old, and he was not afraid, but angry,” said the woman who heard from inside her house.” Sounds like Zimmerman was assaulted, doesn’t it? And, his noted injuries seem to back up her version, no?
    And, those reports I linked to were the initial reports, please link to whatever you found that verifies that the info was added later.

  8. malclave says:

    @50
    And you can’t tell me that a law that states that legal force is ok based on a “feeling” is ok.

    Just curious here, what law states that is okay? I searched the Florida law (http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/Chapter0776/All) for the word “feeling” and didn’t get a hit. I do see references to “reasonably belief”. Is there another section of Florida law I should be looking at?

    Personally, I think any shooting resulting in a person’s death should be investigated. If that investigation indicates then the shooter should be charged with a crime, then charges should be filed.

    But, as far as I can tell, you are misrepresenting the law in your little crusade here.

  9. UpNorth says:

    OH, and insipid, there’s this for you, http://www.examiner.com/charleston-conservative-in-charleston-sc/zimmerman-was-on-the-ground-being-punched-when-he-shot-trayvon-martin
    And, point #4 in the story, before the father apparently changed his mind, and his story, says that the father said the voice screaming on the tape was not Trayvon.

  10. insipid says:

    Yeah, Malclave can can you tell me where the “death tax” exists? I can point to an estate tax, but no death tax. Fine, I’ll use the laws language and state that i think that there should be more than a “reasonable” belief. But even if we went by that standard, i don’t think the bulk of the evidence points to him having a “reasonable belief” especially since George approached Trayvon and he considerably outweighed Trayvon. Either way i think it’s a dumb law because it allows police to be this lazy. “He had a reasonable belief only two people there, case closed.”

    I think this law- even though an argument can be made that it was misinterpreted here- is a bad law. Repealing it has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. Again, listen to the tape and tell me that doesn’t sound like a kid and that the calls for help don’t stop with the shooting.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bJJk-p3R8M

    I’m sure some of you have sons. Even stipulating George’s injury, if one of them were shot with this fact pattern you wouldn’t find it hinky?

  11. malclave says:

    @60

    Okay, just so I’m clear…

    1. When you say you’re expressing a legal opinion, it doesn’t mean you’re expressing a legal opinion.
    2. When you say a law “states” something that you put in quotes, it doesn’t mean that the law states what you put into quotes.

    Is that about it?

  12. UpNorth says:

    Won’t address the point in the story that dad said it wasn’t his son, then changed his story that it was his son?
    What more than a “reasonable belief” would you like? Belief beyond a reasonable doubt? Or, will anyone who acts under the law have to be accompanied by a member of the NAACP, or his minister, imam, priest or rabbi?

  13. insipid says:

    There’s two types of opinions, there’s a legal opinion that sites cases and evidence and law etc. and there’s the opinion that’s used in the lay sense. I have an opinion that i could argue with law and the constitution if i so desired. It would give me carpal t and accomplish nothing. If you truly believe that my refusing to really get into the nitty and the gritty is a great victory on your part. Fine, i’m glad i filled your life with a little bit of joy. This victory and 2 bucks will get you bus fare.

  14. WOTN says:

    The “Stand your ground” law does not apply to Zimmerman’s “defense.” If anything, it would have applied to the victim’s defense, had he been legally carrying a firearm.

    The law does not afford a person a right to pursue someone legally walking through a neighborhood. The law does afford a person legally walking through a neighborhood (but not one trespassing private property) a right to defend themselves if attacked.

    Zimmerman was acting legally as a member of the Neighborhood Watch, and it has not been clarified if the victim was a part of that neighborhood. He may very well have appeared suspicious to the people that did. Clearly Zimmerman called the police, but in the edited version played on the MSM, we don’t hear all of the reasons he believed him suspicious, then it cuts, to the physical description of the “suspicious individual.

    As a member of the Neighborhood Watch, Zimmerman did not have a right to arrest the victim, nor physically confront him. As a member of the neighborhood, he certainly had a right to ask him what he was doing there, but not a right to force an answer. He did have a right to continue to observe an individual acting suspiciously. That’s sorta of why the police endorse setting up Neighborhood Watch’s.

    None of any of that alters the 2nd Amendment or the Stand Your Ground law.

    “The right of THE PEOPLE to keep and BEAR ARMS, shall NOT be infringed.” 2nd Amendment, US CONSTITUTION, the Supreme Law of the Land, superceding ALL other laws, including treaties and acts of Congress.

  15. insipid says:

    The mother said that’s her son. It sure sounds like a teen to me and you can clearly hear the screaming stop when the shooting stops. So far the only witnesses that have actually come forward are not favoring zimmerman OR the police. Maybe when it goes to trial he’ll be found not-guilty.

    But- the fact is all the kid was guilty of was going out for an iced tea and skittles. That George followed him and approuched him contrary to what the 911 dispatcher told him and neighborhood watch protocol. The kid was stalked and approached by a man with a gun. Trayvon had reason to use force- not George.

    Plus, i’m no forensic expert but how is a man that is shot while leaning over someone punching them wind up lying on his stomach?

    Again, listen for yourself and tell me that this 1. doesn’t sound like a kid and 2. doesn’t stop when the shooting happens:

  16. UpNorth says:

    “If you truly believe that my refusing to really get into the nitty and the gritty is a great victory on your part. Fine, i’m glad i filled your life with a little bit of joy”. So, you actually have nothing, right? Thanks for finally admitting it. Back and forth with you is a lot like a root canal, but not nearly as enjoyable.

  17. insipid says:

    If you LURVE the Amendment so much why can’t you state the ENTIRE amendment: A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    That being said WOTN. Thank you for agreeing with my major point. That this law has nothing to do with the 2nd amendmment and changing it or repealing it in no way violates your rights.

  18. UpNorth says:

    “So far the only witnesses that have actually come forward are not favoring zimmerman OR the police”. Really? You don’t think the witnesses “favor” Zimmerman, or the police? Pay particular attention to the description of the “guy on the bottom”, because the witness is NOT describing Trayvon. http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/seminole_news/022712-man-shot-and-killed-in-neighborhood-altercation#ixzz1phFMGCu4

  19. insipid says:

    NO, I’m saying i disagree with you and i don’t want to fight about it, UpNorth. Jeez, your worse than a chick. And this is a gay man saying that!

    Clearly you don’t want to defend the stand your ground law so you’re trying to fight about the 2nd.

  20. insipid says:

    @68 Good point UpNorth. The witnesses favoring Trayvon have come forward more publicly.

    To me the forensic evidence certainly favors trayvon and so does the majority of the witnesses that have come forward. If there is an injury then that would favor George. But they should of given George a toxicology test, like they did Trayvon and they should not of ignored the witnesses that came forward. I do not think the law was applied properly here and think this should go to trial. I’m glad that’s happening now, but i’m sorry it took public outrage for it to happen.

  21. insipid says:

    Anyway, i’m tired and am going to bed. Good night my right wing homies!

  22. WOTN says:

    You seem to be having a difficult understanding English, insipid. Perhaps, sleep will help that.

    The CASE has NOTHING to do with the “Stand Your Ground” Law.

    The 2nd Amendment fully supports the FL Law. The Founders clearly and plainly wrote: The Right of THE PEOPLE to BEAR (that means carry) arms (no restrictions/no loopholes) shall NOT be infringed.

    Yes, I’m fully aware of the justification they wrote in the 2nd Amendment. Then again, had they wanted to say what you want to pretend they said, they would have wrote: “The right of the people that join the Militia shall not be infringed.”

    And if that was their intent, the National Guard would be storing and cleaning Apaches & M1′s at their homes.

  23. AW1 Tim says:

    For those who might have missed it, the reference in the wording of the 2nd amendment to “a well regulated militia” has nothing to do with state control, organization, or any such nonsense. In this case, context and language is everything.

    In the 17th and 18th century, the term “regulations” referred to a manual of arms, and to teaching the troops how to take care of and maintain the weapons, and how to employ them effectively. What the amendment is referring to is having the citizens of the country not only armed, but well-trained in the care and feeding of those same arms and their employment when required.

    And as to the whole “hunting” idea, that’s BS. The arms referred to were martial arms, like the Brown Bess or Charleville, the “assault weapons” of their day. They had a socket bayonet, and the “Regulations” taught how to use that same bayonet effectively. They also taught the men how to make, when needed, their own paper cartridges and bundle them for safe keeping.

    The classic example of these “Regulations” is Von Steuben’s, which he wrote at Valley Forge for Washington’s troops, so as to have a consistent program for ALL the troops in the army.

    Thus, what the 2nd amendment appears to actually say is that the citizens should be armed, and well-trained in the use and care of their arms, for whatever event may require their employment.

  24. Hondo says:

    We don’t quote the entire 2nd Amendment, insipid, because it’s publicly available. And when we quote something, we do so accurately. For once, in quoting the 2nd Amendment above, you almost seem to have been generally accurate in quoting something. Although you missed the mark a bit even here; according to the definitive source – the transcript of the Bill of Rights maintained by the US National Archives and publicly available at http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html – the word “free” in the clause “free State” isn’t capitalized in the original.

    Now, please read the following carefully since you seem to be repeatedly missing the point. You might also want to have someone explain it to you for that same reason.

    I have no problem with you expressing your opinion about what the law SHOULD day. I have a big problem with you outright lying about what the law DOES say.

    I am NOT telling you to STFU concerning your opinion. You have every right to your opinion about what the law should say, even if that opinion is foolish and naive (as yours is here). Rather, I am telling you to quit lying about what the law does say. I have every right to tell a liar to quit lying – or, in less polite terms, to STFU regarding his or her lies. That’s what I’ve done here. Anyone with 3 or more working brain cells can discern the difference.

    You keep claiming that the 2nd Amendment does not contain an individual right of firearms ownership. Both the plain text of the 2nd Amendment itself and the SCOTUS say otherwise. So yes – when you claim, flatly and without qualifying it as opinion, that the right of individual firearms ownership isn’t guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, I WILL tell you to STFU – because you’re lying. I won’t tell you to STFU if and when you say you believe the law should be different, provided you clearly identify that as your opinion vice what the law currently says. And if you feel strongly enough about the issue, be my guest to try and change the law – though in this case, that will take a Constitutional Amendment. Good luck with that.

    I also find it interesting that you want to talk about every word in the 2nd Amendment except one: that pesky little word “keep”. If all the 2nd Amendment was designed to do was to allow citizens to serve in the militia during time of emergency – e.g., to receive weapons from the government when called to duty and turn them in at the conclusion of duty – the word “keep” would NOT be necessary. To accomplish that aim, the 2nd Amendment could read “bear arms” vice “keep and bear arms” and accomplish the same end. It doesn’t read that way, however. It clearly says “keep and bear arms”. It does so for a reason.

    The founding fathers were not fools, nor were they fans of meaningless oratory or obfuscation. The Constitution says precisely what it intends to say, nothing more and nothing less; it is a model of legal terseness. Ergo, the word “keep” is in the 2nd Amendment for a reason. The only plausible reason for the word is to allow lawful private possession of firearms. And since the term “militia” in the late 1700s referred to the citizenry as a whole – e.g., every able-bodied free male between the ages of approximately 18 and approximately 60 or so – that right was a right possessed by the public at large vice a small or select group.

  25. NHSparky says:

    Amen, Tim. What the dipshit anti-gunners don’t realize is that the FF’s intent was not to have guns for hunting or target practice, but for defense against a foreign invader or a government which had grown too tyrannical.

    Ask any mushy lib what that means. I asked my FORMER (thank God) Congresswoman, Carol Shea-Porter, when I wrote her a couple of years back to ask her to not support AB1022, which would have reinstated the AWB. The letter I got back, was, to put it mildly, fucking retarded. While it was probably written by some 22-year old hippie intern, it still shows her sentiments. The money line was, “I support people who have guns for home defense or hunting, but not a rocket launcher or a car bomb.”

    I wish I could make that up. I still have the hard copy of the e-mail somewhere in my office.

    Look at the murder stats in any urban area, such as LA, Chicago, New York, or Boston. How many are committed with guns? How many of those guns were obtained or owned legally? Yeah, that’s what I thought. Duty to retreat just means you’ll allow the bad guy to corner your ass and make his killing you that much easier.

  26. Hondo says:

    AW1 Tim: Agree mostly with your #73 above, but have one minor quibble.

    The arms referred to by the 2nd Amendment were not exclusively military arms. Generally, they were privately owned by individualls. The sole exceptions were those who were poor enough to be unable to afford them.

    Militia members of the 1700s were expected to own their own weapons, and to bring them with them when called. If I recall previous research correctly, they were also expected to bring what we’d today call a “basic load” of cartridge and ball with them as well.

    The fact that most of the weapons were Brown Bess or other designs also used by government forces (or were kept in armories for use by those militia members not having arms) was more due to the limited variety of firearms that were readily available, not grand design.

    Other than that, I agree. People today equate “militia” and “National Guard/Reserves”. That was NOT the meaning of the term when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written. At that time, the meaning of “militia” was “all able-bodied free males between 18 and 60 (approx) years of age”.

  27. Old Trooper says:

    @75: Sparky the money line really is “I support people who have guns for home defense or hunting, but not a rocket launcher or a car bomb.”

    It shows exactly how retarded the anti-gun types are. A “rocket launcher” isn’t an “arm”; it is an explosive device, same as a car bomb is. The problem with the anti-gun types is they want to lump everything into the “arms” argument in order to attempt to either win or shut down the logical debate, because they confuse their emotion with logic and mix them together. My favorite is “so; you think that people should be able to own artillery”? My answer is always the same “does an artillery shell, when used as it is designed, take out the immediate threat, or everything around it as well? Which makes it an explosive device or weapon of mass destruction, not an “arm for individual use”. Plus, a person can’t carry a cannon around on their person, it is a specialized weapon that is designed for proper operation by more than one person. The other favorite argument posed by the emotionally driven anti-gun crowd is “so; you’re saying that people should be able to own nukes”? See explanation above.

  28. insipid says:

    Fine, look, i work 40 hours a week plus i go to school. I have two tests Monday so I’m NOT going to spend the weekend in a mmmm gun fight? But if you want to engage, I will answer these arguments – all of which i’ve heard many times before and found unconvincing- on Tuesday.

    But my one condition is that it be a debate. Not an oportunity to throw vitriole at the liberal. So no telling me to STFU, no inviting me to your home for a beat down, no calling on me to drink poisoned kool aide, suck dicks, fucking retarted or whatever. If your position is really THAT strong then you ought to be able to “win” without that kind of talk.

    At the end of the day- if you’re able to abide by that reasonable request- i’m still going to be unconvinced that it is an individual right and you’re going to be unconvinced as to my position. But I guess i shouldn’t be surprised at the eagerness to wax on about the 2nd amendment on this site.

    I’ve heard on this board a few times that Conservatives are more civil then liberals. Time to prove it.

  29. Old Trooper says:

    Ok, Insipid; Is the 1st Amendment an individual right? How about the 3rd through 10th? If you were to remember how the Constitution is broken down, then you would know that the first 10 Amendments have to do with the individual (yes, that includes the 2nd).

    Hows that for a logical based debate without name calling?

  30. UpNorth says:

    OT, I’d guess that the response will be that “the right of people”, in the first amendment means everyone, but the same phrase, “the right of the people” in the second, or any other amendment, means whatever it is liberals think it should mean?

  31. PowerPoint Ranger says:

    Insipid, I must say that I got a laugh at the pure chutzpah it takes to make a dramatic call for civility after you come here and fling shit in every direction, knowing good and damn well what kind of reaction you would get. I have no problem carrying on a civil discussion with someone I don’t agree with, as long as that is a two way street. I see no indication that you really want to do anything different from what we have already seen.

    If you want a civil discussion, fine. Just don’t delude yourself into thinking that anyone is falling all over themselves to receive what you pass off as wisdom.

  32. insipid says:

    I said ONE thing that could be considered an insult (the bugger eating joke i directed at Spigot) and THAT was because the guy invited me to his home to get beat on. This to you is “flinging shit in every direction”? Or is disagreeing with you- even if it’s being done politely- the same thing as “flinging shit”?

    I don’t really care if you guys are civil, i’m merely stating that i won’t take part in the debate if you aren’t. Hardly “dramatic”.

  33. NHSparky says:

    Simple question for ya, insipid: Exactly who the fuck are you to come here and dictate shit to anyone here?

    You think people shouldn’t have the right to own weapons and/or the means to defend themselves from intruders be they individuals or a tyrannical state. Yet at the same time you and your ilk think that having birth control (including abortion) paid for on someone else’s dime somehow is a right?

    Pardon me if I lack a certain nuance when I tell you how fucking full of shit you are, scooter. You may run along, now.

  34. Adam_S says:

    Well jackass in the very first comment in this thread you said Zimmerman shot the kid because he was walking around being black. Zimmerman comes from a racially mixed family that according to his father includes whites, hispanics, and blacks. I would call writing about things of which you obviously don’t know all the facts as “flinging shit”. But of course, if the facts don’t fit your narrative, then ignore them. Liberalism 101.

  35. Adam_S says:

    Oh and the orlando sentinel interviewed several of Zimmerman’s (black) neighbors and they said the racial issue is bullshit, that he was one of the nicest people to them in the neighborhood, and a couple of them said he was the first person in the neighborhood to welcome them when they first arrived. But like I said, just ignore the facts and continue to shout racism from the rooftops.

  36. J.M. says:

    I go away for a few days and miss so much entertaining posts.

    Insipid, I really hope you’re paying your own way through school. I would hate to have my tax dollars or your parents savings being used for a liberal arts degree. Unless your college has ‘fast food fryer 101′ as part of your curriculum, you’re better off switching to clown college.

  37. insipid says:

    Well, that’s great if you want to ignore all the other evidence, like him saying the words “fucking coons” on the 911 tapes and the fact that he called 911 49 times in two months every single time he saw a black teenager showing the temerity of walking the sidewalks in his neighborhood.

    You are aware that the only “crime” the kid committed was walking to the convenience store to get candy and iced tea, aren’t you? Why would that be “suspicious behavior” unless if Mr. Zimmerman felt that being a teenager walking in his neighborhoo is “suspicious”.

    That and the whole fact that he stalked this kid for two blocks then shot and killed him. But maybe the kid fought back so of course he should of been killed. I guess stand your ground laws only apply to someone with a gun.

    Your insistance that there’s nothing to see here seems desperate. Perhaps Mr. Zimmerman is not guilty, all i’m saying is that if you’re claiming self defense you should have to prove it, especially if the person you’re defending yourself against was unarmed. In 23 self defense is an affirmative defense, meaning if you raise it you should have to prove it. It should be the law in all 50 states.

  38. insipid says:

    Yes, you’re so right J.M. I truly lack the intellectual capacity of the conservative mind. Let’s take a look at some of the stunning “debate” exhibited in this very thread:

    NH Sparky: Pardon me if I lack a certain nuance when I tell you how fucking full of shit you are, scooter. You may run along, now.

    Hondo: “Insipid: you’re not only an idiot, but you’re also a liar”
    Claymore: Then you’re a fucking retard….If that is your view, then you need to mix up a batch of Jim Jones koolaid and take a big swig.

    Hondo: You and your liberal brethren need to simply accept the fact that you’re wrong on this issue, and STFU.

    Spigot: Tell you what: I’ll send John my home address, and give him permission to pass it to you. Then, you just need to reach down, check your ball sack, and then come to my house, and take my firearms away from me. Yes…physically remove them from my house…all of them, and all my ammunition. And don’t worry, I’ll have them all locked up in my gun safe…IOW, I won’t shoot your sorry, Bitch ass, because I know I won’t need to.

    I’ll just kick your sorry Bitch ass all over my front yard, for the neighborhood’s (and my) amusement.

    What do you say…Bitch?

    *************************************************************

    My meager intelligence is no match for the great intellectual capacity of Conservatives. By the way, I pay taxes too and yes, i pay my own way.

  39. Spigot says:

    @ Insipid…you’re a pole smoker…OK…that explains EVERYTHING. As I wrote before…go fuck yourself. But that said, I’ll still be happy to kick your faggot ass.

    And here you go…I now really understand your unwillingness to go to hands…you’re not a Bitch…you’re a CUNT.

    Fuck you, you dick sucking faggot.

    And for the record, I consider Zimmerman to be a fucking idiot…he’s as much to blame in this goat fuck as the “victim”. Now, Insipid…pass that on to you dick sucking friends at DU…

    I’m so over at being “reasonable” or “polite” with Progressives…you are, and remain, my Mortal Enemies.

  40. Hondo says:

    insipid: Regarding your comment 87 – uh, no. That’s not the way our legal system works.

    And I don’t think you actually realize what you’ve just advocated. Specifically, you have just advocated the abandonment of the principle of “innocent until proven guilty”, and transferred burden of proof of guilt or innocence from state to defendant. Do you really want to go there – Inquisition-style trials where the defendant is presumed guilty and has to prove to the court’s satisfaction his or her innocence to avoid prison or death?

    Let me summarize the high points for you. In the US legal system, the state conducts and investigation and alleges a crime has been committed. The state then has the burden of proving that alleged crime has actually been committed at trial. They have to do so by convincing the jury, beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant is in fact guilty of the alleged crime.

    The defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The defendant doesn’t have to prove squat; 100% of the burden of proof lies on the state. If the state cannot prove it’s claims to the satisfaction of the jury, beyond reasonable doubt, the defendant is acquitted. If the state
    proves its case to that standard of proof, the defendant is convicted.

    Occasionally, a case is unproven either way due to a split in the jury’s opinion beyond allowable limits (not all jurisdictions require a unanimous verdict in all criminal trials). In that case, it’s called a “hung jury” and the case may be retried unless the charges are dismissed “with prejudice” by the presiding judge. In that case, retrial on those charges is typically barred permanently.

    You really should brush up on how our legal system actually works before opening your mouth regarding same and exposing your abject ignorance. For all it’s faults, it’s only the best and fairest legal system in the world today.

    You also might learn something in the process.

  41. Hondo says:

    insipid: OK, so you’ve proven in comment 88 that you can “cherry pick” and quote people out of context. That and a dollar or three will get you a cup of coffee.

    Now, do you have anything constructive to say?

  42. Anonymous says:

    Insipid; I’m still waiting for you to answer my questions in #79. I have been civil, yet you haven’t addressed the questions posed to you by me and instead, have chosen to engage in uncivil tones with others. Now; do you want to answer the questions, or not?

  43. Old Trooper says:

    #92 was me.

  44. insipid says:

    I actually know something about the process, Hondo, and i can assure you with complete certainy that in the majority of States, self defense IS an affirmative defense. Meaning if you are going to make that defense you actually have to prove that you were, indeed threatened. You can’t simply make the assertion, you have reason to lie. You have to present the case and convince 12 jurors that you had fear. Also the prosecution has to convince 12 jurors-beyond a reasonable doubt that he had reason to fear.

    But just because the state has the burden of proof doesn’t mean the defense has no burden to raise a defense. In this case- an unarmed man who was stalked for blocks, shot and killed, the claim of self defense is not self-evident.

    You seem to be basically saying that if there are only two people involved and one of them is dead, the person alive, if he is claiming self defense, is presumed to have been attacked as a matter of law. That there is a presumption that the dead person- even if he is unarmed- is in fact the instigator. That is insane.

    Up North and others have presented some evidence in Zimmerman’s defense. But without a trial Trayvon is the presumed agressor here. That doesn’t sit well with me, i’m sorry.

  45. insipid says:

    “I’m so over at being “reasonable” or “polite” with Progressives…you are, and remain, my Mortal Enemies.”

    For some strange reason i get the impression that you didn’t give it all that much effort in the first place. :-)

  46. Adam_S says:

    Insipid, all the 911 calls were not about black people, don’t know where you heard that but its not true. I also never said there’s nothing to see here, just that the facts don’t indicate that this guy is racist. Just continue to ignore anything that contradicts your view point. Also go back and read #14 again jackass and understand why the Stand Your Ground law has nothing to do with this case.

  47. insipid says:

    @91 Honda: insipid: OK, so you’ve proven in comment 88 that you can “cherry pick” and quote people out of context. That and a dollar or three will get you a cup of coffee.

    Now, do you have anything constructive to say?”

    Just out of curiosity, Honda. In what context does “What do you say bitch?”, “You’re a cunt,” “Fuck you, you dick sucking faggot?”, “Fucking retarted,” and “mix up a batch of Jim Jones koolaid and take a big swig” qualify as reasoned debate? Cause as far as i can tell the only way i can take any of those statements out of context is if immediately preceeding these comments the commentor said “I’d sound crazy if i said…”

  48. insipid says:

    @96- I agree with you that it does seem as if the police improperly applied the “stand your ground law”. But it’s also unfair to say that it has “nothing to do with this case”. The Stand your ground law WAS the reason they gave for not making an arrest.

  49. insipid says:

    Furthermore Adam SOME facts indicate the guy is not a racist, some do. That’s why we have juries.

  50. Adam_S says:

    You can’t blame a law for poor police work, and I’m sorry if based on what people who actually know and live around him say holds more value to me than a piss poor audio quality 911 call where he might have said coons.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *