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. NHSparky says:

    Will you be so kind as to show where Zimmerman was not given a toxicology test, insipid? Thanks.

    Oh, and toxicology is SOP in any autopsy.

  2. insipid says:

    I don’t think she was calling me disingenuous. I think she was calling the cops disinginuous who were ready to let him walk because of the stand your ground law.

  3. NHSparky says:

    Face it, insipid–you’ve twisted yourself into a pretzel trying to justify your insanity. You really need to shut down the Internet Explorer and hit the books, and pray none of this is on your test Monday, because if it is, you’re going to get your ass handed to you again.

  4. insipid says:

    The police reports are on this page. Do you see where a toxicology or breathalyzer test was given?

  5. Adam_S says:

    I took it as she was saying it about both sides, she’ll have to clear that one up.

  6. UpNorth says:

    What one defense attorney said in the Miami Herald article, ““I think absolutely this is a case that squarely falls within the Stand Your Ground immunity statute,” said defense attorney Bill Matthewman. “Even if he shouldn’t have been following [Martin] he’s not committing a crime and he can stand his ground.”

  7. Susan says:

    No, insipid, I was calling anyone who blames this on the stand your ground law disingenuous. As I said clearly, this has NOTHING to do with the stand your ground law because Zimmerman was following Trayvon, not the other way around.

  8. insipid says:

    Face it, NH sparky you say that EVERY time we get into a debate on anything. The fact of his not being given a toxicology test has been on the news. If he had been it would of been refuted a long time ago. There was no toxicology test given. It would have been had Zimmerman been a white man or if his victim had been a white kid.

  9. UpNorth says:

    Susan, see the response I quoted from the Miami Herald. Just one defense lawyer’s opinion. There are others, I’m sure.

  10. NHSparky says:

    Again, insipid–absent of a statement saying there WASN’T one performed for whatever stated reason, SOP is to conduct one. There are plenty of cops who post here who will likely verify that statement.

  11. insipid says:

    Well, respectfully, it does to the extent that the police did not charge the man or give him a breath test or due a very complete investigation. The reason they’ve been giving for all this has been the stand your ground law. So it’s not fair to say it has “nothing” to do with it. Justification, even an improper justification, doesn’t constitute “nothing”.

  12. UpNorth says:

    “It would have been had Zimmerman been a white man or if his victim had been a white kid”. You have absolutely no way of knowing that, none.

  13. insipid says:

    I’m confused, UpNorth, so you’re saying that Zimmerman’s actions fell within the statute, but trayvon’s didn’t?

  14. Adam_S says:

    UpNorth was quoting a lawyer’s opinion, someone who knows more about this shit than we do.

  15. insipid says:

    @162 You’re right. I have no way of knowing that. But I made that assertion in regards to this assertion by NHSparky:

    And seriously, if this had been a black man shooting a Hispanic kid, would the brigade of self-righteous outrage be anywhere near this case? Be honest, now.

    He has no way of knowing that either. Yet only one of those assertions bother you. Why?

  16. insipid says:

    @164- which is exactly why i’m back to questioning this law. it sounds crazy.

  17. Susan says:

    Up North, that is one guy’s opinion. There may be a way to make that stick, but if Zimmerman confronted Trayvon in the dark, he incited the incident and should not be able to rely on a stand your ground defense. The only way that is going to work is if there is proof that Zimmerman (a) did not confront Trayvon; or (b) had disengaged from the initial confrontation when Trayvon attacked him.

    We have to be very careful here that our support of legal gun ownership and the right to self-defense does not cause us to defend someone who makes all gun owners look like irresponsible cowboys.

  18. Adam_S says:

    In that article, which I’m sure you were too lazy to actually read, a former prosecutor said the law has no application to this case. That’s just one person’s opinion, and you have to remember, he is a defense lawyer talking about a possible future client.

  19. UpNorth says:

    And, a “breath test” is given for DUI arrests, there is no reason for Zimmerman to take one, and I don’t know if Florida law would even allow the Police to offer one. If the police thought that he’d been drinking, they could have gotten a search warrant, if they could articulate probable cause for one and found a judge who would have signed a warrant. He shot someone is not enough probable cause, by itself, to get a search warrant, in most cases.
    And, you have no idea what kind of an investigation the police conducted. The only reports I’ve seen released were from the officers on the scene. I have yet to see any of the reports of Zimmerman’s interrogation, and I doubt that will come out until the grand jury meets, or after that.

  20. insipid says:

    Again, well said Susan. You seem like a very good lawyer. But NHSparky was right about one thing, i really do need to be studying.

    Good night everyone!

  21. Susan says:

    Insipid – the stand your ground law is not crazy. What is crazy is laws that say you have to try and run away, putting yourself in more danger. For instance, lets say I am trying to get into my house when a very bad guy attempts to grab me. Should I have to keep trying to get in my house, risking that either I will fail and then not have the chance to protect myself or that I will be getting into my house when I am overpowered?

    Stand your ground says that you don’t have to try and run, though if it is possible it is always the best idea because the paperwork on self-defense, whether lethal or not is a bitch. Some of us are older and slower than we use to be; running would likely be futile and result in more harm to me.

    That said, stand your ground laws do not allow you to start an incident and use lethal force when you get in over your head. If, say, the evidence proves that Zimmerman confronted Trayvon, who reasonably felt threatened and responded, then Zimmerman cannot use the stand your ground law as a defense.

    Defense lawyers will be arguing that the law is applicable because that is what they do. That they say so, doesn’t make it so.

  22. Old Trooper says:

    @103: Thank you for that, however, I asked if you feel the 1st Amendment is an individual right, along with the first 10 Amendments being rights of the individual. There is no provisional Amendment that I’m aware of, though, that you are citing. If you don’t believe that they are, then free speech is not up to the individual, but to the government to decide what gets said and what gets printed. As I was taught in school oh those many years ago, the first 10 Amendments deal with individual freedoms and rights that cannot be granted or taken away by the government. Are there limits on speech? Sure there are, when it comes to safety as in the old saw of shouting fire in a theater, however, it has become ever more apparent that free speech is under attack by the same people that profess that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution doesn’t deal with individual freedoms. They call it “hate speech” and make laws to limit what an individual can say in order to not hurt someone’s feelings or “offend” them. Yet, those same people will scream that their 1st Amendment rights are being violated if they aren’t allowed to pee on the sidewalk or “occupy” a park.

  23. Adam_S says:

    Susan, he’d expect you to lay there and take it. Like that DC council member said, its better to be a victim than to escalate the situation further(?). The whole “I’d rather live on my knees than die on my feet” viewpoint.

  24. UpNorth says:

    “It would have been had Zimmerman been a white man or if his victim had been a white kid”. You have absolutely no way of knowing that, none.
    Also, the chief, who I would think was privy to the interrogation, said, “Zimmerman’s responsibility to stay in his truck and keep out of it was a “moral responsibility,” Lee said. Zimmerman told police that he was headed back to his truck when Martin jumped him from behind, Lee said”.

  25. streetsweeper says:

  26. Hondo says:

    Insipid: Again, you’re cherry picking in comment 97 – after being called on it previously. I’ll give you Spigot’s comments; I found them over-the-top and a bit out-of-line myself. But aside from that, how about the remainder of the selectively-quoted, out-of-context items you quoted in comment 88? The other “quotes” there are prime examples of both selective quotation and deliberate omission of relevant context. And even’s Spigot’s comments can be considered cherry-picking, as they’re one or two examples out of approx 100.

    Now, to your point about self-defense: I had a relatively long comment on that, but Susan – who is in fact a lawyer, in case you didn’t know that – has already covered why you are wrong. Suffice it to reiterate that using an affirmative defense does not move the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense in any way. The prosecution still must prove the defendant legally guilty beyond reasonable doubt; the defense must prove nothing – though in cases like this, it would seem to be a damn good idea to try strenuously to prove the defendant was actually acting in self defense vice merely offering that as a theory). If the prosecution cannot do prove the defendant legally guilty beyond reasonable doubt, the jury is required to find the defendant not guilty. Period.

    However, regardless of whether or not Zimmerman is convicted of murder I don’t think that he’ll end up going scot-free here. While it may be difficult for the state to prove murder, I suspect it won’t be that difficult to prove unlawful detention (Zimmerman wasn’t a cop, so if he forcibly restrained Martin he’s toast on that one), simple assault (if there is a witness to him grabbing Martin at any time), possibly aggravated assault (if he pointed a gun at Martin at any time prior to their altercation turning physical), and probably half a dozen other related counts. And even if Zimmerman’s acquitted of murder and all other criminal charges, I’d give pretty long odds that he’ll be facing a wrongful death suit at some point in the future. (The Goldman’s took OJ to the cleaners in civil court after he was acquitted of his wife’s murder in criminal court.) And as Susan said: here, Zimmerman was truly acting like a manifest idiot.

    Bottom line: this is hardly an “open and shut case”. And unless you were there, at this point neither you nor I know with certainty what happened – and thus whether Zimmerman is in fact guilty or innocent. It is up to the police to investigate the matter, and (if deemed warranted) the courts to decide Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence. Until that happens, we can speculate all we want, but we simply don’t know the truth.

    By the way: you need to read and/or watch your typing a bit more carefully. It’s Hondo, not “Honda”. The former is a name (or nickname) for a person or place; the latter is a Japanese car. I’d think a “well educated” person such as yourself would be able to tell the difference.

    And you should also can it with the “Traynor” and Zimmerman thing. That’s an transparently obvious attempt to draw attention to Martin’s age in order to garner sympathy and slant the discussion in your favor. Yeah, we all know Martin was 17. So are any number of gang members and drug dealers (and no, I’m not suggesting that Martin was either of those). Martin’s age is freaking irrelevant here. You really should be consistent – either “Traynor” and “George” or Martin and Zimmerman.

  27. Hondo says:

    Yeah, it should have been “Trayvon” in comment 177 vice “Traynor”. There are also several other typos. Mea culpa. It’s late.

  28. insipid says:

    Hondo- What you call “cherry picking” i call gathering evidence. My point is that people were engaging in vitriolic attacks, so i “cherry picked” the vitriolic attacks. I can do that if my point is that people are engaged in vitriolic attacks. Perhaps you may argue that i was wrong in taking them out of context because they were responding to a vitriolic attack that i made. In which case you’re more than welcome to post all the vitriolic attacks i made. About the only one that i can think of that comes close is the comment i made to spigot, and that was after he invited me to his house to get assaulted. So my response was pretty tame.

    Did you think i re-read all 100 posts to pull those? That was from a brief scan.

    As far as susan’s analysis goes, i don’t see it as being inconsistent with mine in regards to self defense being an affirmative defense. In fact both of us used the term affirmative defense. That’s why i thanked her for her analysis afterwards.

    I appologize for misspelling your name.

    I’ve used the term George more than once in these posts. I just used whatever name i felt like. No propogandizing.

  29. J.M. says:

    @88:
    Sorry, different time-zone, so I don’t reply quickly.

    If you think we are hostile, try posting a conservative remark in a DU post and you’ll see real hostile.

    @123:
    Having to prove your innocence, in any matter, has been ruled unconstitutional. Our justice system is built around the theory that it’s better to let a guilty man go free, then to convict an innocent man. Sometimes it’s not right, but IMO it’s the best justice system in the world.

    You have seized on one questionable (and probably non-justified) stand your ground shooting and ignoring dozens of justified shootings in the past year. The intent of the law was that innocent civilians should not EVER have to retreat from criminals.

    There have been hundreds of cases where armed citizens have saved themselves, other innocents and even police officers.

    Have you even read any of the legitimate studies on crime statistics vs local guns laws? The truth is that cities with the most restrictive gun laws have to most gun murders.

    http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011/may/crimes_052311/crime_052311
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg

    And for anyone that wants to throw the race card, may I suggest http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_06.html

    And yes, we have been making ad hominem attacks against you. Why? First of all, you come in here and start insulting us in your first post by saying if we support a law, we’re nuts. And second, you deserve it a bit. And we’re pretty sure we won’t change your mind, just as you won’t change ours. We just wish you’d use more then one shooting to base your entire ‘legal opinion’ on.

    And stop over cooking my fires, dammit.

  30. J.M. says:

    *fries, dammit.

  31. Hondo says:

    insipid: If that’s what you call “research”, you’re sadly deluded, youngster. And you’re in for a rude awakening if you end up in any career that requires actual research.

    Like many, you’ve confused supporting a preconceived conclusion with research. The two are not synonymous. Research seeks to find the truth, generally through experimentation and/or analysis of data. Supporting a preconceived conclusion merely finds “data” (the quotes in this second use of the term are intentional) to support that conclusion while ignoring information that is neutral or contradictory.

    Real research concerning this group of comments would have required you to (1) determine categories for the comments and criteria for same, (2) you to re-read each comment, (3) do a first-cut characterization of each, (4) do a second pass through the comments to identify/account/correct for potentially skewing factors for each data point (e.g., consider context), (5) state your thesis as a testable statistical proposition, (6) prepare the statistics – and (7) find a defensible control group against which to compare them, if your thesis involved comparing the rate of ad hominem attacks here with those elsewhere.

    You’ve admitted here that you did none of that, but merely did a quick look through the data to find data points that agreed with a preconceived notion. That, youngster, is called by those who actually do or have done data analysis “cherry picking”. And that’s precisely what you’ve done here. You found data that supported a predetermined conclusion while disregarding contrary data, and made no attempt to determine whether those data points supporting your conclusion were skewed due to factors unrelated to your theory.

    And yes – I have indeed worked professionally in test and evaluation in the past, for over a decade. So I do actually know more than a “bit” about the subject.

  32. Old Trooper says:

    Ok, Insipid; since you won’t answer my questions, I will answer them for you, concerning the Constitution. Here’s a common thread in many of the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution:

    1st Amendment: “or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    2nd: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    3rd: “without the consent of the Owner”

    4th: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated”

    5th: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia”

    6th: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed”

    9th: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

    10th: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    What’s the common thread, you ask? The two words seen most throughout the first 10 Amendments is “the people”, which implies the individual.

    It’s funny, but the 2nd Amendment spells it out rather clearly, yet when it comes to abortion, the Amendment that the pro-abortion crowd turns to is the 4th and I don’t see it written anywhere in the 4th about that subject. IOW: Progressives ignore actual written proof of the right of the individual in regards to gun ownership in the Constitution, yet magically find the right to abortion in the Constitution where it is never mentioned. They notice the right of the individual to freedom of speech (when it suits them), but bend twist and explain away the same thing written in the very next Amendment when it comes to guns. How can that be rationalized in a logical way? The easy answer is; it can’t, because the gun ownership/carry issue is based on emotion alone. A statement I hear all the time from anti-gun types is that they want to feel safe. No where in the Constitution is it written that you have the right to “feel safe”. Of course, I’m not counting any “provisional Amendments” in my examples, but I would be glad to entertain a discussion of them if you would be so kind as to provide them.

  33. Old Trooper says:

    @182: Go easy on Insipid. I doubt he has taken any Basic or intermediate statistics classes, yet, or even knows what design for 6 sigma is, or gauge R&R, process validation, test method validation, etc (yeah, I work in engineering and do testing and data analysis on a daily basis).

  34. Hondo says:

    Old Trooper: I agree he appears rather clueless regarding research methodology. But I don’t see why ignorance should get him a pass for misrepresenting advocacy as research. And it’s entirely possible he knows the difference and is intentionally dissembling. If that’s the case, he deserves no slack whatsoever.

    I’ll reconsider if we get a mea culpa from him on the subject.

  35. Old Trooper says:

    Hondo: I was being somewhat sarcastic in my reply to you. Those on the progressive side will use the “cherry pick” method when it benefits them and then wave it around as though they just discovered a cure for cancer. One need look no further than the whole AGW “climate change” hoax. If I were to use their data gathering and analysis methodology at my work, I would be fired. Academia can get away with it, because they rely on their reputation as a center of higher learning to cover for them, but in the real world, not so much.

  36. Hondo says:

    Old Trooper: OK – ya got me. I missed the sarcasm in your comment 184. Mea culpa. (smile)

    I also completely agree with your points above about AGW, academia, and the overwhelming penchant progressives have regarding using the “cherry pick” method of “research” vice actually studying issues objectively. Yes, some on the conservative side do the same – but IMO it’s nowhere near as high a proportion, and generally isn’t as blatant.

  37. Old Trooper says:

    I agree, Hondo, that they base a lot of their conclusions on shoddy research and emotion.

  38. WOTN says:

    Crime in Florida:
    Firearms involved
    .0013427 (2010) .0015174 (2003) (Rate down)
    Armed Robbery
    .0005916 (2010) .0007198 (2003) (Rate down)
    Robbery
    .0013890 (2010) .0018459 (2003) (Rate down
    Forcible Sex
    .0005266 (2010) .0007472 (2003) (Rate down)
    Murder
    .0000526 (2010) .0000541 (2003) (Rate down)

    Source: State of Florida Crime Statistics, from link provided in earlier comments. The Population of Florida has grown by 1.7 Million between 2003 and 2010.

  39. WOTN says:

    Total crimes involving a firearm is down 700 from 2003 to 2010, from 25,904 to 25,204 while population is up from 17,071,508 to 18,771,768.

    Forcible Sex Offenses is down to 9885 in 2010 from 12,756 in 2003.

  40. WOTN says:

    Of those 987 murders in FL in 2010, 318 did not involve a firearm, but I seriously doubt the families of the victims are relieved by that.

    So, why is this victim so much more important than those 987 victims?

    When those victims were confronted with a criminal, were the Police able to get there in time to save their lives? No!

    And those 2,871 fewer women who did not experience a forcible sexual encounter (rape), they are unaware of it, but live a happier life nonetheless. (PS: only 136 of the 9885 forcible sex offenses involved a firearm)

  41. WOTN says:

    Contrast: Chicago, with a population of 2,833,649 in 2010 had 432 murders and non-negligent homicides, FBI statistics. The population of Chicago is 15% of the size of the population of Florida. Chicago has some of the least gun-friendly laws in the nation.

    Comparitively, the Chicago rate would be 1,388 murders/non-negligent homicides, based on the populations and numbers reported by the FBI. (Florida population reported by cities 9,106,904, with 542 reported murders/non-negligent manslaughter in the same report.)

    Interestingly, the FBI does not report the number of forcible rapes in Chicago, because Chicago does not conform to their reporting standards.

    Washington DC, with a reported population of 601,723 and another city of strict anti-gun laws had 132 murders/non-negligent manslaughters in 2010. With (FBI reported) population of 6.6% of Florida, this is the equivalent of 1,998 murders/non-negligent manslaughter cases.

  42. Hondo says:

    Wonder what our “friend” insipid will say when he reads your comments above, WOTN?

  43. WOTN says:

    He’s been pretty quiet since the numbers were published Hondo.

  44. Hondo says:

    Yeah, he has – at least on this thread, if not generally. And I wonder how he’s going to react to reading this:

    http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/state/witness-martin-attacked-zimmerman-03232012

  45. WOTN says:

    Wonder what he thinks about the 23% reduction in forcible sexual crimes in FL since the implementation of the “Stand Your Ground” law?

    Is it because the rapists have been killed off by gun-wielding “victims?” Or because the rapists are afraid to get their junk shot off?

  46. ANN says:

    I twink the trail should betaken out of Sanford Fl. IT is to many bill lee /father is a retire judge.What was GZ alcohol level and drug level that night , what was the tone and ATTITUDE when he approached THE boy and they started exchange words , and remeber martin dd not drag him out of the car . where is he police reports an medical reports backing up the nasal frature .THE SANFORD POLICE DID NOT DO THEI JO THAT NIGHT REGUARDELESS OF THIS TRAIL OUT CoME . He animus through out the 911 tapes and this is the tone which he approche a stranger with. Where was his id was it out where martin could see it .

  47. Anonymous says:

    @Ann

    And where do you think the trail should be held? May I suggest Oregon?

  48. J.M. says:

    199 is me. Work comp.

    Now wait for it……

  49. Old Trooper says:

    @198: Do you know any of the answers to the questions you are asking? It’s still an ongoing investigation, so those questions will be answered in due course. That information will be made public at the time of the trial, if there is one, not before. That’s what so many people are missing in this. They make assumptions based on their own bias, not on fact, and that is where it gets dangerous, because we still have the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law. Unfortunately, too many are concentrating on the court of public opinion without having the evidence.

Leave a Reply

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