Witness the unfolding campaign to strip your rights
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.
March 23rd, 2012 at 3:15 am
Yes, let’s all mourn and pity the real “victim” in the whole Martin tragedy, the NRA. I mean without the stand your ground law how else was Zimmerman going to defend himself from an unarmed black teenager whom he outweighed by 50 pounds and who, unlike Zimmerman has no criminal past, unless he’s able to shoot him with a 9mm? I mean of course Zimmerman felt threatened, the guy was walking around HIS neighborhood all black and all. What else could he do but shoot him?
Really? You guys are going to defend the ‘stand your ground’ law? Your going to defend the right to shoot without feeling threatened, the right to committ cold blooded murder and get away with it? This is the party of law and order?
This law gives more protection to dogs then it gives to people. And it makes the victims of a fatal shooting the presumptive guilty party. If you can’t agree that this is a bad law then you have fully earned the perjorative “gun nut”. Cause this is fucking nuts.
March 23rd, 2012 at 3:17 am
I also like the way you managed to expand the definition of “rights” to not only include the right to own a gun (which is bullshit all by itself) but now you’re claiming that you should have the right to shoot and face no consequences. A right that Zimmerman would have had if it weren’t for the witnesses getting all uppity and going to the media and all.
March 23rd, 2012 at 4:17 am
Definition of INSIPID
1: lacking taste or savor : tasteless
2: lacking in qualities that interest, stimulate, or challenge : dull, flat
You are certainly living up to your name. What can we do, trolls are gonna troll.
March 23rd, 2012 at 4:54 am
I also like the way you managed to expand the definition of “rights” to not only include the right to own a gun (which is bullshit all by itself) but now you’re claiming that you should have the right to shoot and face no consequences
That’s an interesting strawman you have there…care to defend it?
March 23rd, 2012 at 5:28 am
@insipid:
Read the article I linked to below. A man has been shot in the head and killed during the filming of an amateur rap video in Philadelphia.
Are you going to start posting on rap music sites that it’s time to ban rap videos too, huh? There is no Constitutional right to rap music. Or as Blooomburg would say; It’s time to close the music video loophole. Yes, i’m making fun of you. Because you have not said anything worth taking seriously.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/22/man-killed-during-philly-rap-video-filming/?test=latestnews
For those who are capable of serious discussion on this, I would like to point out that there are more innocent people mistakenly shoot by law enforcement then by legally armed citizens. And since the Supreme Court has ruled that police officers are not obligated to actually protect people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales), I would make the argument that we need less cops and more armed citzens.
March 23rd, 2012 at 6:13 am
Insipid: So, the right to own a gun is “bullshit”, eh? That’s not what the Constitution said the last time I read it.
The rest of the drivel you posted above is so ludicrous as to be not worth addressing. All it is is another example of your penchant for “hit and run” excrement-hurling. But I must admit it’s sort of amusing at times – much the same way that watching monkeys at the zoo fling dung can be amusing.
Please go elsewhere – then expire after consuming rather than throwing fecal matter.
March 23rd, 2012 at 6:17 am
@Hondo:
No disrespect intended, but I think you were a little overly harsh. There is no call for what you said. The monkeys don’t need to be associated with insipid, what did they ever do to you?
March 23rd, 2012 at 6:18 am
More to the point, JM, if insipid had taken a few moments to actually read and comprehend the original post, there isn’t a single sentence in it that 1) defends Zimmerman, 2) advocates the wanton shooting of “scary brown people”, 3) suggests that actions don’t have consequences. The point of the post is that, once again, the left will seize this tragic opportunity to further erode Constitutionally protected rights and overturn laws designed to make average citizens bow down to their government overlords. As Rahm Emmanuel so eloquently stated, you never want a serious crisis to go to waste. A young man, full of promise is dead, and the vultures are circling before his killer can even be fully investigated. It’s disgusting.
March 23rd, 2012 at 6:21 am
That should have read: “The point of the post is that, once again, the left will seize this tragic opportunity to further erode Constitutionally protected rights and overturn laws designed to keep average citizens from having to bow down to their government overlords.”
…need coffee.
March 23rd, 2012 at 7:03 am
It’s insipid, people. Unless Dear Reader has approved and endorsed it, he’ll bitch, whine, and call us all racists for daring to even question Obumbles.
Meanwhile, more guns are turning up in Mexico….
March 23rd, 2012 at 7:21 am
And for the record, insipid–nice to see you regard the Constitution as “bullshit”. Further, I don’t know of anyone here who has defended Mr. Zimmerman’s actions. But the “duty to retreat” bullshit (and that’s exactly what it is) in your vaunted liberal paradises only serves to embolden criminals. How’s that working out for ya?
Remember, when seconds count, 911 is only minutes away–unless you live in my town, then it’s about 2 1/2 HOURS.
March 23rd, 2012 at 8:15 am
J.M. – you’re right. I formally apologize to monkeys everywhere. I shouldn’t have dragged them into this.
While their behaviors appear similar, there is a key difference. Monkeys actions are due to instinct. Insipid’s actions appear to be due to willful ignorance.
March 23rd, 2012 at 8:28 am
You know, if the troll had been paying as much attention to recent Supreme Court rulings, as he is to leftist propaganda posing as journalism, he would have known about the “Heller” case and it’s ruling.
SCOTUS affirmed that the 2nd amendment is an individual right, not a collective one.
Interestingly enough, a Federal Court recently ruled that a portion of Maryland’s restrictive CCW permit laws was unconstitutional. The courts are slowly, but surely, dismantling the draconian laws that some states still insist on clinging to.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/maryland-handgun-permit-provision-unconstitutional-federal-judge-rules/2012/03/05/gIQAq02htR_story.html
March 23rd, 2012 at 8:37 am
Um its also important to remember that as of right now it seems like Stand Your Ground has nothing to do with what happened. Stand Your Ground gives you the right to defend yourself if confronted with violence, not the right to follow someone you deem suspicious and to then confront them. This is a case of poor police work, not a bad law. But I’m sure insipid is either too ignorant to understand that or unwilling to let a tragedy pass without trying to exploit it for political purposes.
March 23rd, 2012 at 8:58 am
I’m sure insipid can see the modern equivalent of a lynch mob in Florida right now too. That’s right, a lynch mob. If Zimmerman had been black or had the victim been hispanic this would have barely registered….The circus surrounding this is what pisses me off. I certainly won’t defend Zimmerman, it sure looks like he over reacted but dayum, can we let the courts do their thing?
March 23rd, 2012 at 9:07 am
unwilling to let a tragedy pass without trying to exploit it for political purposes
And in doing so, he pulls page one out of the Rahm Emmanuel playbook, “Never let a crisis go to waste.”
Especially if it can be used to grow nanny-state government oversight.
March 23rd, 2012 at 9:14 am
The victim is Trayvon Martin.
I understand insipid wants to victimize all of Florida by stripping its citizens of the Right to Life; and insipid’s personal friends in Al “Kill-the-Jews” Sharpton, the New Black Panther Party (sponsored by Attorney General Eric Holder: ‘When f*ck you just doesn’t say enough!’) and similar braintrusts would like to ensure law-abiding Floridians and visitors are easy targets.
trolls gotta troll, and be thankful insipid doesn’t get paid by the word count.
March 23rd, 2012 at 9:18 am
Well, judging by the times of insipid’s posts, we can judge with certainty that the crack house closes at about 3 a.m.
Oh, and what Hondo said in #6.
March 23rd, 2012 at 10:02 am
Note that insipid has performed his, obligatory, Jug Headed, drive-by of 10 year old, quasi sophomoric regurgitation and has split the scene. I agree….guys like insipid have no place owning a firearm. If they are that careless with their verbiage, imagine what would happen if we gave this mental Barney Fife a bullet.
March 23rd, 2012 at 10:20 am
If you read the original article, the bozo that wrote it says Florida has been in the top 5 for violent crime for 30 years – and then blames it on a law that was passed 7 years ago.
The most notable aspect of that whole situation is that NO BODY wants to hear more than has already been told. On the surface, Zimmerman looks to be an idiot – but the cops on the scene seemd to find some merit in what he claimed. Seems to me both sides of the story should come out – if he was being attacked by a bag of Skittles, that’s one thing – the kid jumped him and slammed the edge of the tea can in his eye or whatever, that’s another kettle of fish. Point is – no one knows.
March 23rd, 2012 at 11:23 am
@ Insipid: You’re obviously very passionate in your hatred of firearms, the 2nd Amendment, those of us who own firearms and who have stood watch to protect and preserve this nation and the documents that define it.
Tell you what: I’ll send Jonn 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?
March 23rd, 2012 at 1:48 pm
Insipid, go eat a heaping bowl of dick. You don’t give a shit about the kid, his family or seeing justice done. You and your ilk have been holding on to the same tired anti self-defense bullshit for decades now. The minute you see an opening, you dive down like a starving vulture and start picking at the bones. Unfortunately for you, you aren’t even a good enough raging blowhard to make a career of it.
March 23rd, 2012 at 2:36 pm
Updated.
March 23rd, 2012 at 2:57 pm
Then there is this: “”The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, ‘Help! Help!’ and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911,” said the witness, who asked to be identified only by his first name, John”. This is from one of the 911 callers. The article goes on, “John said he locked his patio door, ran upstairs and heard at least one gun shot”.
“And then, when I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point.”.
The whole article is here, http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/seminole_news/022712-man-shot-and-killed-in-neighborhood-altercation#ixzz1phFMGCu4
And the New Black Panthers have been heard from. http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/trayvon_martin/032312-Controversial-flyer-targets-George-Zimmerman
March 23rd, 2012 at 4:30 pm
Too bad that Christian Science bullshit article doesn’t bother to research anymore into the idea that African Americans are the victims of lax gun laws. I wonder what percentage are killed by other African Americans and what percentage obtained these weapons illegally.
Of course that’s totally irrelevant to them because this isn’t about protecting anyone, its about removing a fundamental right from the vast majority of law abiding citizens because of the actions of an extremely small minority of jackasses and criminals.
March 23rd, 2012 at 7:51 pm
@15 Zimmerman is bi-racial being part hispanic.
March 23rd, 2012 at 8:10 pm
@21- Spigot “What do you say…Bitch?”
I would say, you sound like a crazy person. Really, very crazy. I did not even come close to saying anywhere in my post that i think anyone should come for your guns. I’m actually kind of agnostic on gun laws. I think guns do damage, but they mostly kill gun owners, so culling the herd as they say.
All i did was express a legal opinion that the 2nd amendment does not give everyone a carte blanche right to own guns. I believe that it only applies to the militia or, today, the National Gaurd. I have heard ALL the arguments to the contrary and none have persuaded me from this belief nor have they even come close. And i’m sure nothing i say is going to convince you against the individual right interpretation. Fine. We’ll agree to disagree.
But just because a government can make laws doesn’t mean they should. I don’t think you should pick your nose and eat it, something i’m sure you do quite often. But i’m not going to ask the state to make a law against it, enjoy your boogers as you enjoy your gun.
But simply because I stated an oppinion on guns contrary to yours you feel that justifies a post inviting us to engage in violence? Let’s assume that you can beat me up, hospitalize me, kill me, whatever. You’d really want to do all that ove?r my having an oppinion contrary to yours on the Constitution? Apparently the 2nd amendment is SO sacred to you that you’ll destroy anyones first amendment rights to have an opinion on it contrary to yours.
For whatever it’s worth, there’s not an opinion you can state on this board or anywhere else for that matter that would cause me to have the desire for violence.
You know why? I’m not a crazy man. Really, get help.
March 23rd, 2012 at 8:27 pm
Wow, insipid–you telling someone else to get help when you’re so far around the bend you’re not even visible anymore?
Projection–you’re doing it WAY too well.
March 23rd, 2012 at 8:32 pm
He doesn’t want to kick your ass because you disagree, he wants to kick your ass because you are an asshole and an ignoramus douche. Did i mention you are an asshole?
March 23rd, 2012 at 8:41 pm
Can we get rid of the rights to free speech and due process while we’re at it?
March 23rd, 2012 at 8:41 pm
Oh and if you.would read other writings by the people who.wrote the constitution it would be pretty clear to you what they meant.
March 23rd, 2012 at 8:49 pm
All i did was express a legal opinion that the 2nd amendment does not give everyone a carte blanche right to own guns. I believe that it only applies to the militia or, today, the National Gaurd.
So is it your legal opinion that all of the other references in the Constitution to “the people” also apply only to the National Guard, and not to other citizens?
March 23rd, 2012 at 9:06 pm
Insipid: it’s a free country, and you’re entitled to be a turd-throwing practitioner of ignorant drive-by drivel posing as commentary if you like. But you really should read up on the law in this area. The SCOTUS disagrees with you, and has held that firearm ownership is indeed an individual right under the 2nd Amendment. See DC v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010). The former case held that the individual right to firearms ownership on Federal enclaves is indeed guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. The latter case held that this right cannot be prohibited by state or local governments, thus extending this right to all US states and territories.
You and your liberal brethren need to simply accept the fact that you’re wrong on this issue, and STFU. The SCOTUS has interpreted the Constitution in this area, and its decisions are final. I don’t particularly care if you like that fact or not. It’s now the freaking law – everywhere in the US.
And there’s a fairly good chance that one of several cases currently working their way through the Federal court system will soon confirm that the right to concealed carry is similarly guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. If and when that happens, I certainly I would like to be in a position to see your face when you first learn that’s now the law nationwide.
March 23rd, 2012 at 9:09 pm
Here’s what I’m not getting: How is speaking out against the “stand your ground” law tantamount to an assault on the 2nd amendment?
Is it the basic contention of this board that the 2nd amendment not only gives individuals the right to keep and bear arms but also forbids the state to make any laws restricting how you use these weapons?
You really think that a law that allows someone to use lethal force because of feelings is a good law? Do you really believe that the 2nd amendment is so encompessing that not only are you allowed to own all the guns you want, but you can shoot anyone who you feel threatened by, anywhere you want? That a hella interpretation of the 2nd Amendment!
I think we should be able to agree here that the police fucked up. Here are TWO witnesses that the police say SUPPORTED Zimmerman.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cWwUAbbWnk
Does that sound like they support Zimmerman to you?
The fact is that the ONLY person who had a toxicology report done that night was Trayvon, the unarmed kid who was far smaller than the shooter. Does anyone here want to say that this seems right to them?
If Zimmerman had run over Trayvon with his car there’d certainly of been a toxicology report done on him. But because he shot Trayvon you’re all ok with him just stating that he did it because he “felt threatened?”
What this law does is encourage people to keep shooting untl the unarmed person is dead. Why? Because then the only person who can state whether or not the person was ACTUALLY threatened is the shooter.
Fine you all want to own guns. Have as many as you want. Keep one in the boot, five on each holster one in the hat whatever. But if you use one of those guns to kill an unarmed man you should have to be able to justify that killing by doing more than saying “I felt threatened”. At the very least you should have to prove that you WERE threatened. In some way. Anyway.
I mean is there anyone on this board that can state- preferably without ad hominems- how i’m being unreasonable?
Perhaps if George Zimmerman went to trial he’d be able to prove that he was threatened somehow. In which case, fine. Let him live his life. But THIS idiotic law says that he doesn’t even have to do that. That all he has to do is tell cops that he had this feeling and he gets to go home. Right now, three weeks later, he STILL hasn’t been arrested, he STILL has his gun, all because of this idiotic law.
What’s funny is that so many of you love to make fun of “bleeding hearts” wanting to take this and that from hard workers to give to poor people becaue of some “sob story”. But right now your defending George Zimmerman’s “right” to shoot an unarmed man because he “felt” scared. So legislating to give people stuff based on “feelings” is horrible, but legislating to kill people based on feelings is fine.
Again, i’m not saying that you can’t have guns, just that you have to think before you use them. Again, how is that unreasonable?
March 23rd, 2012 at 9:11 pm
Malclave, I guess that “the right of the people” only applies to what liberals tell the rest of us it applies to.
Oh, and insipid, you didn’t express a legal opinion>, you just expressed an ignorant opinion. Then you went on to confirm your ignorance.
March 23rd, 2012 at 9:16 pm
Oh, Jeez Hondo i didn’t knwo that the SCOTUS were Kings now that i’m not allowed to diasgree with. Sorry. Does that mean that the folks arguing against Roe V. Wade should STFU as well or are only “liberals” not allowed to disagree with all-holy SCOTUS?
But again, i’m not sure how you’re conflating the “stand your ground” law with the Second Amendment. Do you really believe you should have the “right” to shoot an unarmed man simply because you “feel” threatened?
March 23rd, 2012 at 9:16 pm
You really think that a law that allows someone to use lethal force because of feelings is a good law?
The only people I’ve ever heard say that are supporters of abortion.
March 23rd, 2012 at 9:19 pm
No, i didn’t express a “legal opinion”. I can if you want to but really i DON’ want to talk about the 2nd amendment. Not because i can’t but if you want to believe i “chickened out” fine go right ahead.
What i’m talking about is the “stand your ground” law. That’s it. Focus. Do you REALLY think THAT’S a good law? And do you really think an assault against that law is akin to an assault against the 2nd?
March 23rd, 2012 at 9:24 pm
Oh, and insipid, “the unarmed kid who was far smaller than the shooter”? Some reports say that Trayvon was 6’2″, Zimmerman 5’7″ or so.
And, you really ought to brush up on the law. Zimmerman, if he goes to trial, doesn’t have to prove anything. The state, in a state case, would have to prove he wasn’t threatened. Do some research on guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, why don’t you?
March 23rd, 2012 at 9:25 pm
@38
So #27 was not you?
March 23rd, 2012 at 9:26 pm
Insipid, you really are non-compos mentis. In #27, you posted, “All i did was express a legal opinion”.
March 23rd, 2012 at 9:26 pm
@37- If Trayvon Martin were attached to George Zimmerman for life support i would argue that George Zimmerman would have the right to disconnect Trayvon. That would be more analogous to Abortion.
This is someone killing an unarmed man and- thus far- facing no consequences for it. No grand jury, no questioning, no trial. All because of this law. Do you honestly think that’s right?
March 23rd, 2012 at 9:35 pm
@#42, please catch up on the news. The case will be referred to a grand jury. Also, he was transported to the police department the night of the shooting, and questioned.
March 23rd, 2012 at 9:37 pm
Yes, Up North. You got me. Rejoice at your conquering of the liberal. I probably should of used the term legal argument. Either way my point remains. I can trot out Miller and a whole bunch of other cases prior to Heller and McDonald and you can shout at the rooftops about the singular importance of the word Person and i can shout just as loudly about the overwhelming importance of the word militia and at the end of the day we’d be right back to where we started. You and i disagreeing. I will stipulate that right now the SC agrees more with you. I think they’re wrong. That’s life.
But can’t we at least agree that repealing the “hold your ground” law is 1. not really applicable to the 2nd amenmdment in that it doesn’t infringe on the right to OWN a gun just effects what you do with it and 2. The law- or the way the police applied the law in this case- is dumb?
March 23rd, 2012 at 9:43 pm
And, perhaps you’d like to peruse the police reports of the incident. Pay particular attention to page 7 and page 8. The injuries to Zimmerman are noted in the report. It kind of blows your statement, “Right now, three weeks later, he STILL hasn’t been arrested, he STILL has his gun, all because of this idiotic law”. Seems the gun is in the custody of the Sanford PD.
For your info, http://cnninsession.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/martinpolicreport.pdf
March 23rd, 2012 at 9:46 pm
I believe that it only applies to the militia or, today, the National Gaurd. I have heard ALL the arguments to the contrary and none have persuaded me from this belief nor have they even come close
Then you’re a fucking retard. To believe this, you have to completely divorce yourself from the unalterable fact that all 10 amendments in the Bill Of Rights are individual freedoms. You’d have to read the entirety of the BOR, and conveniently skip past the 2A as a guaranteed right of the citizen, and believe it was invested in the Federal government to dispense when it called up the militia. If that is your view, then you need to mix up a batch of Jim Jones koolaid and take a big swig.
March 23rd, 2012 at 9:55 pm
Insipid: you’re not only an idiot, but you’re also a liar. a You specifically said above, in comment 2, that the right to own a gun was “bullshit all by itself”. Those are your exact freaking words, referring specifically to the right of an individual to own a firearm. Now that numerous persons have pointed out to you that you’re legally 100% in error on that point, in post 38 you’re trying to claim you weren’t really talking about the legality of firearms ownership, but only about the “stand your ground” law.
There’s a good reason you don’t want to talk about legal opinions here. It’s called “Oops – they caught me, so I’d better change the subject fast!”
Don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining, son. I’m damn well old enough to tell the difference between the two.
March 23rd, 2012 at 9:55 pm
This is someone killing an unarmed man and- thus far- facing no consequences for it. No grand jury, no questioning, no trial. All because of this law.
You have yet to demonstrate that.
March 23rd, 2012 at 10:03 pm
Hey insipid! Do you want to know why the majority of freedom loving American’s support conceal carry and gun rights? Simple actually, because a cop is too damn heavy to carry….
March 23rd, 2012 at 10:17 pm
@43- But the only reason why ANY of that is happening is because of witneeses coming forward and public outrage. If it weren’t for that George Zimmerman would be free to buy another gun and he’s still free to “neighborhood watch.”
Here’s some incontovertible facts 1. We know that Trayvon had no criminal record and was, in fact committing NO CRIME at the time he was killed. 2. We know that Trayvon was followed by this man for several blocks. 3. We know that Trayvon was on the phone with his girlfriend almost the entire time. 4. We know that George Zimmerman was at one time arrested for assaulting a police officer. 5. We know that Trayvon was never arrested in his life. 6. We know that the cops did not act on the testimony of several witnesses 7. We know that George Zimmerman was significantly larger than Trayvon 8. We know that Trayvon was given a toxicology test and not Geoerge. 9. And we also know that George Zimmerman was injured somehow in the incident.
Now i know that no case is open and shut. And maybe if i were sitting on the jury and i heard ALL the evidence I’d say that George Zimmerman should go free. But you CAN’T tell me that this case should not of- at the very least- gone to a grand jury. And yes, i do recognize that it is FINALLY now going to trial. But you can’t tell me that it’s right that a public outcry was necessary in this case.
And you can’t tell me that a law that states that legal force is ok based on a “feeling” is ok. I’m sorry, as much as you want to make this a 2nd amendment fight it isn’t one. This law is just a dumb law.
March 23rd, 2012 at 10:18 pm
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.
March 23rd, 2012 at 10:36 pm
@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.
March 23rd, 2012 at 10:38 pm
@#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.
March 23rd, 2012 at 10:40 pm
@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.
March 23rd, 2012 at 10:52 pm
@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.
March 23rd, 2012 at 10:57 pm
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.
March 23rd, 2012 at 11:05 pm
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.
March 23rd, 2012 at 11:06 pm
@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.
March 23rd, 2012 at 11:17 pm
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.
March 23rd, 2012 at 11:19 pm
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?
March 23rd, 2012 at 11:24 pm
@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?
March 23rd, 2012 at 11:39 pm
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?
March 23rd, 2012 at 11:41 pm
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.
March 23rd, 2012 at 11:43 pm
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.
March 23rd, 2012 at 11:50 pm
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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bJJk-p3R8M
March 23rd, 2012 at 11:53 pm
“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.
March 23rd, 2012 at 11:57 pm
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.
March 23rd, 2012 at 11:57 pm
“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
March 24th, 2012 at 12:02 am
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.
March 24th, 2012 at 12:15 am
@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.
March 24th, 2012 at 12:16 am
Anyway, i’m tired and am going to bed. Good night my right wing homies!
March 24th, 2012 at 12:37 am
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.
March 24th, 2012 at 3:08 am
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.
March 24th, 2012 at 7:58 am
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.
March 24th, 2012 at 8:41 am
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.
March 24th, 2012 at 9:17 am
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”.
March 24th, 2012 at 10:25 am
@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.
March 24th, 2012 at 12:41 pm
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.
March 24th, 2012 at 1:10 pm
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?
March 24th, 2012 at 2:14 pm
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?
March 24th, 2012 at 3:14 pm
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.
March 24th, 2012 at 3:52 pm
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”.
March 24th, 2012 at 5:48 pm
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.
March 24th, 2012 at 5:57 pm
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.
March 24th, 2012 at 6:05 pm
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.
March 24th, 2012 at 6:44 pm
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.
March 24th, 2012 at 6:54 pm
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.
March 24th, 2012 at 7:16 pm
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.
March 24th, 2012 at 7:26 pm
@ 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.
March 24th, 2012 at 7:28 pm
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.
March 24th, 2012 at 7:30 pm
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?
March 24th, 2012 at 7:43 pm
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?
March 24th, 2012 at 7:44 pm
#92 was me.
March 24th, 2012 at 7:48 pm
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.
March 24th, 2012 at 7:50 pm
“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.
March 24th, 2012 at 7:54 pm
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.
March 24th, 2012 at 8:01 pm
@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…”
March 24th, 2012 at 8:03 pm
@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.
March 24th, 2012 at 8:06 pm
Furthermore Adam SOME facts indicate the guy is not a racist, some do. That’s why we have juries.
March 24th, 2012 at 8:13 pm
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.
March 24th, 2012 at 8:13 pm
So, Zimmerman should be charged with a crime, any crime, because this “doesn’t sit well” with insipid? Wow, now that’s a standard that all 50 states should adhere to.
March 24th, 2012 at 8:14 pm
Well, Insipid; I’m still waiting.
March 24th, 2012 at 8:19 pm
I really wanted to wait till Tuesday to get into the full gun-debate. But you’re right you have been civil, so i’ll give the short answer. I believe that it is provisional amendment that gives people the right to bear arms providing the people are part of the militia. I don’t believe that the militia part being in there is an afterthought, i believe it is a necessary part of the amendment as much as the NRA and some on this board would like to pretend its in there.
Furthermore, the idea that the militia was not a military organization ignores the history of the time and the other three mentions of militia in the constitution that clearly referst to the militia as a military organization and even lays out who should fund it and who supplies the officers.
March 24th, 2012 at 8:20 pm
Furthermore Adam SOME facts indicate the guy is not a racist, some do. That’s why we have juries.
Really…perhaps you should send that sentiment to Rev. Al, Rev. Jesse, the Black Panthers and Luis Farrakhan. I’m certain they would be glad to hear your ideas of moderation and support for the legal system.
March 24th, 2012 at 8:20 pm
I mean, “pretend it’s not in there,” at the end of the first paragraph.
March 24th, 2012 at 8:22 pm
If any of them were on the jury, i’d say that precise thing, Claymore. In the meantime they have the right to free speech. Damn it.
March 24th, 2012 at 8:23 pm
After reading the police reports, I don’t see this falling to level of “poor police work”. Based on what was presented in the reports, the fact that Zimmerman was injured, his clothing showed signs that he’d been in a “struggle” or fight, and the statement of a witness who saw the fight, Martin on top of Zimmerman, and said that Zimmerman was the one calling for help, Zimmerman was handcuffed, transported, his weapon taken for evidence, interviewed and released, he could have been held or released. In this case, he was released, much to the outrage of the Justice Bruthas, the NBBP, and assorted others.
This will end up before a grand jury.
Imagine the outcry if they’d arrested him that night, and the grand jury refused to indict him because the case had been rushed, or a judge had dismissed the charges at arraignment.
March 24th, 2012 at 8:24 pm
I believe that it is provisional amendment that gives people the right to bear arms providing the people are part of the militia.
Even if you had the support of Supreme Court jurisprudence on your side (which you do not), the vast majority of State Constitutions dictate that by simply being a citizen of your state of residence, and fall between a certain range of age (it varied between states) you are a member of the state’s unorganized militia. In many Southern states, the law goes even further and mandates that militia members maintain a “service” quality weapon with sufficient ammunition which they are commanded to bring with them when called by the state’s governor.
March 24th, 2012 at 8:25 pm
Nice to see you ignore and deflect the rest of my statement, insipid. But then again, I expected nothing less. Or more.
Oh, and while disgusting, last time I checked, being a racist wasn’t a crime. Nor was being a douchebag, lucky you.
And what happens if Zimmerman isn’t charged with a crime? Or if a jury of his peers finds him not guilty if in fact he is tried (for what remains to be seen?) You gonna riot? Burn down your fucking neighborhood?
March 24th, 2012 at 8:27 pm
I say that UpNorth because he admits on the 911 call that he was following the guy, so that would negate his claim that he was standing his ground.
March 24th, 2012 at 8:27 pm
@106; yes, they do have the right to free speech…they do NOT have to right to incite vigilantism.
March 24th, 2012 at 8:33 pm
I don’t see anything that Sharpton has said that has incited vigillantism. Far from it, he actually told a group to act civily in his speech. There was a noxious tweet from Farakkhan, but that’s still well within legal bounds.
My main complaint of this bill is that it seems to incite vigilantism, as evidenced by the number of justifiable homicides going up 2.5 times from 2005 till 2009, the last time they took data.
March 24th, 2012 at 8:34 pm
Ah,, seems there are serious lapses of information in the MSM storyline, and why did they cherry pick a picture from the victim’s youth?
Still no word on why he was in THAT neighborhood that night, but he was on 10 day suspension from school: http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/03/24/deconstructing-huffpos-insufferable-propaganda-reporting-on-trayvon-martin/#more-36230
March 24th, 2012 at 8:37 pm
insipid–your comments in 103 show just how lacking your knowledge of the military in general and military history specifically truly are.
Tell me, how did one raise a militia in colonial America? Who was eligible or required to serve? When were they not? What was their status vis-a-vis recall or duty when not actively involved in military campaigns? I eagerly await your reply.
March 24th, 2012 at 8:39 pm
@112: The Black Panthers have been putting up “Dead or Alive” posters…a “black militia” group has been putting out press saying they are “ready”…ready for what, I wonder?
My main complaint of this bill is that it seems to incite vigilantism, as evidenced by the number of justifiable homicides going up 2.5 times from 2005 till 2009, the last time they took data.
Where you see vigilantism, I see would-be victims dispensing justice on their attackers. Or maybe you would have liked it better of rapists and potential murderers were allowed to ply their trade and when caught, hope they didn’t get Jose Perez as their lawyer?
March 24th, 2012 at 8:39 pm
Well, last i checked he’s under no obligation to explain why he was in a particular neighborhood. But to answer your question, he was staying at his Dad’s girl-friends place.
And obviously his being suspended from school is good reason for him to be stalked, shot, and killed.
March 24th, 2012 at 8:39 pm
Yeah the New Black Panthers putting up Wanted Dead or Alive posters of Zimmerman isn’t inciting vigiliantism at all.
March 24th, 2012 at 8:40 pm
My main complaint of this bill is that it seems to incite vigilantism, as evidenced by the number of justifiable homicides going up 2.5 times from 2005 till 2009, the last time they took data.
And what was the murder rate in Florida during that period, insipid?
Sucks that some fuckers are just slow to catch on, but that also could be considered Darwinism in action.
March 24th, 2012 at 8:41 pm
And obviously his being suspended from school is good reason for him to be stalked, shot, and killed.
Nope–but it sure does fuck up the, “But he was such a GOOD boy!” talking point.
March 24th, 2012 at 8:41 pm
@115- but in this case it was Trayvon that was the one stalked. Under your view of “justice” Trayvon’s main fault was that he didn’t have a gun too. That instead of defending himself with his fists he should of fired away.
March 24th, 2012 at 8:44 pm
I don’t see anything that Sharpton has said that has incited vigillantism.
Maybe not this time. Guess he might have learned his lesson after the Brawley case? Nah…cause last time I checked, he didn’t pay up what the court ordered him to pay.
March 24th, 2012 at 8:44 pm
Again you ignore the point and take the comment out of context.
March 24th, 2012 at 8:45 pm
NH Sparky- it’s hard to argue that the murder rate is going down when you start classifying things that used to be homicides as self-defense.
Since i answered your question I’ll ask one, don’t you think a person who shoots an unarmed man should be made to prove self defense if that’s what he is claiming?
March 24th, 2012 at 8:46 pm
insipid, what are you going to do if this kid’s “story” is picked apart and Zimmerman isn’t charged? How are you going to handle it then?
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.
March 24th, 2012 at 8:46 pm
Agreed, Adam. There are as many opinions on whether this is a “stand your ground” case, or self-defense, as there posters here. See the article in the Miami Herald, I won’t cherry-pick comments, if anyone is interested, they can read it. http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/19/2702685/floridas-controversial-self-defense.html
March 24th, 2012 at 8:49 pm
123–not necessarily. What if I, armed with a weapon, come upon a crime where the perpetrator is committing a violent crime on a third party? I shoot the perp, yet under many state laws, I cannot be charged because I prevented great bodily harm to said third party.
Whoops. Try again.
And if someone has what APPEARS to be a weapon, or attacks me, even if “unarmed”, I have every right to defend myself with whatever means necessary to neutralize the threat. So if Zimmerman was in fact attacked and assaulted, your whole case turns to warm runny shit.
March 24th, 2012 at 8:50 pm
@119- you don’t know what he was suspended for- it could of been smoking. My brother misbehaved frequently in school today he’s a father of two and a businessman and, i hate to say it, a Republican.
March 24th, 2012 at 8:52 pm
@#116, “i checked he’s under no obligation to explain why he was in a particular neighborhood”. But, apparently, Zimmerman is required to?
Yet again? “don’t you think a person who shoots an unarmed man should be made to prove self defense if that’s what he is claiming”? A defendant doesn’t have to “prove” anything. He can raise a defense, through his attorney. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.
March 24th, 2012 at 8:52 pm
Under your view of “justice” Trayvon’s main fault was that he didn’t have a gun too. That instead of defending himself with his fists he should of fired away.
While I’m not convinced that Zimmerman is innocent, let me answer this way; if some asshole attacks me, yeah…they’re getting a chest full of 180 grain jacketed hollowpoints. I’m not going to stop and ask if he’s got a weapon of his own. I’m sort of strange that way.
March 24th, 2012 at 8:55 pm
http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/content/getdoc/6728cc3e-438c-40e4-8161-b72b3c31e813/FSAC-Home.aspx
So your claim that murders are going down solely because “justifiable homicides” are taken out is once again exposed as histrionic bullshit.
Next.
March 24th, 2012 at 8:55 pm
@126- Your first example is not even remotely applicable. In fact in EVERY stste that would be a defense. But you’d still have to make that defense.
As far as your second point, Trayvon was attacked by someone holding a weapon. It sounds like you’re defending Trayvon, not Zimmerman.
Whoops, try again.
As far as an earlier point you made, you’ve got it backwards. If a black man had shot a white man they’d of arrested that black man that night and given him a toxicology test and have had him in jail ever since. There’s no way that black person would be walking free tonight.
March 24th, 2012 at 9:00 pm
In fact in EVERY stste that would be a defense. But you’d still have to make that defense.
Actually, no it wouldn’t. In states like MA, NY, and CA, you have a DUTY to retreat. You cannot stop a violent crime in progress on a third party or on yourself, even on your property. In some states, you are not even allowed to shoot a perp in your home or on your property. You are LEGALLY required to retreat.
March 24th, 2012 at 9:00 pm
Florida law, 776.013, states in regards to stand your ground, “A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony”.
776.012 states, “Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1)?He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2)?Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
March 24th, 2012 at 9:02 pm
As far as your second point, Trayvon was attacked by someone holding a weapon. It sounds like you’re defending Trayvon, not Zimmerman.
You don’t know that.
If a black man had shot a white man they’d of arrested that black man that night and given him a toxicology test and have had him in jail ever since. There’s no way that black person would be walking free tonight.
Who’s the racist now, dipshit?
March 24th, 2012 at 9:02 pm
@128 up north- I never said Zimmerman is required to explain why he’s in the neighborhood. Someone else questioned why Trayvon was there. Again, self defense in most states is an affimrative defense. You actually have to show, in some way that you were defending yourself. There doesn’t have to be 100% proof positive but you have to give some evidence. Right now the bulk of the evidence points to Trayvon being the one who was on the defensive. Even Claymore seems to be saying that Trayvon would of been justified to blow Zimmerman away if he too had a gun.
March 24th, 2012 at 9:04 pm
@134- Who’s the racist now, dipshit?
Pointing out a racist system is not racist. The reality is that if Zimmerman were a black man he’d of been given a toxicology test and there would not be this presumption of innocence that Zimmerman was given.
March 24th, 2012 at 9:04 pm
@#131, please show how Zimmerman was the aggressor. Unless you were there, you have absolutely no way of knowing that.
March 24th, 2012 at 9:04 pm
And because it detracts from your agenda, you choose to disregard any evidence which would clear Zimmerman.
Man, you’d be a shitty lawyer, bud.
March 24th, 2012 at 9:05 pm
Even Claymore seems to be saying that Trayvon would of been justified to blow Zimmerman away if he too had a gun.
That’s an interesting extrapolation, but I suppose if this hypothetical were reversed and Zimmerman were the attacker and the kid had an illegal weapon (seeing as how 17 year olds generally aren’t allowed to carry concealed weapons, much less purchase handguns until 21), then yeah, he’d be justified in protecting his life. Am I convinced this is even remotely the situation? Nope.
March 24th, 2012 at 9:08 pm
@#135, go back and read the applicable Florida statutes. If Zimmerman said that during his interrogation, that’s all he had to say.
And, now, you seem to have done away with the presumption of innocence? Hell, why bother with trials, lets just throw those people we disagree with in prison. Oh, wait………..
March 24th, 2012 at 9:08 pm
Pointing out a racist system is not racist.
Oh, I get it–the system is racist because you don’t get the results you like.
You mean racist like AG Holder saying he wasn’t going to prosecute “his people”? That kind of racist?
The reality is that if Zimmerman were a black man he’d of been given a toxicology test and there would not be this presumption of innocence that Zimmerman was given.
Are you saying Zimmerman wasn’t? Are you saying that because Zimmerman is of mixed race we should assume he’s guilty? Or do we instead base our assumptions on the KNOWN FACTS AT HAND, of which you have perilously few, yet are willing to play lynch mob?
Yeah, I went there, I said it. Lynch mob. That’s what you fuckers want. Blood. And you won’t be happy until someone’s is spilled.
March 24th, 2012 at 9:09 pm
I have been reluctant to weigh into this but…
1. The stand your ground law is completely irrelevant here. The stand your ground law only applies if you are attacked. Even Zimmerman’s lawyer admits that it is not relevant.
2. I am not an expert on criminal law in Florida (or anywhere else for that matter) other than the core classes in law school, but if memory serves, self-defense is an affirmative defense. Generally, the defense has the burden of production (i.e. producing sufficient evidence to make self-defense a possibility), but once that burden is met, the burden of persuasion is on the state. I could be wrong.
3. Zimmerman is clearly a world class self-important IDIOT. He called the police because he saw a stranger walking in his neighborhood – that is what Neighborhood Watch does. The 911 dispatcher told him explicitly NOT TO FOLLOW the guy. Once you have called the police and given them a general position, BACK OFF. If Zimmerman had done as he was told, there would be no problem today. What Zimmerman did was reckless.
4. Generally, neighborhood watch or not, following someone in the dark who is simply walking on a public thoroughfare is STUPID. If Zimmerman approached him in the dark, Trayvon had the right of self-defense and could have used force.
5. I have seen no evidence of what transpired immediately upon the two meeting up, or who confronted whom. However, Trayvon was walking back from the convenience store to his dad’s fiancée’s house. Maybe he was a bit lost or maybe he just wanted time to talk to his girlfriend in private. Regardless, he did nothing wrong.
This is not about the 2nd Amendment. Those making a stand your ground argument are being disingenuous. However, while gun ownership is a right guaranteed by the Constitution, it comes with responsibilities. Zimmerman did not act responsibly, leaving the question of whether he would have done as he was told if he was not armed. Zimmerman has the right to be reckless and endanger his own life; but when his reckless conduct results in someone else’s death, there are questions that have to be answered. If the police properly processed the scene, hopefully those answers will come out in the grand jury. If they didn’t, then they are as foolish as Zimmerman because even a blind man could see where the shooting of an unarmed African American teen by a person who was not African American was going.
March 24th, 2012 at 9:13 pm
Zimmerman’s hispanic though, he is a minority, so how does that fit into a racist system? And please don’t say he looks white, because he doesn’t
March 24th, 2012 at 9:14 pm
No, Susan–what the left is going to try to do (as DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has already called for today) is to repeal “stand your ground” laws, and make us all cower in fear when threatened.
If Zimmerman was wrong, he’s going to pay. Hell, he could be 100 percent in the right but because of all the hype and publicity he’s going to be hounded for the rest of his life.
No, the real victims here besides Trayvon are going to be those unable to fend for themselves because criminals aren’t going to give a flying fuck about the law and inflict mayhem upon innocent citizens who had the bad luck of being in the way of the criminals.
Fuck that. I’m not going to be a victim.
March 24th, 2012 at 9:15 pm
Actually, i am saying that Zimmerman wasn’t given a toxicology test- Trayvon was.
March 24th, 2012 at 9:16 pm
@142- Susan. VERY well said.
March 24th, 2012 at 9:16 pm
Oh so the system is racist against one minority and not the other, I (not really) understand.
March 24th, 2012 at 9:17 pm
NH Sparky. States that don’t have that law aren’t filled with “victims” Just people that know they have to think before they shoot.
March 24th, 2012 at 9:18 pm
Haha Susan calls you disingenuous and you reply with well said. Lmao.
March 24th, 2012 at 9:19 pm
Really? Been to NY state lately? How about MA? How’s the crime rates in those states?
I’d say they’re chock fucking full of victims. Oh, but DC is a paradise of Skittle-shitting unicorns where never is heard a discouraging word…on second thought, not so much.
March 24th, 2012 at 9:20 pm
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.
March 24th, 2012 at 9:24 pm
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.
March 24th, 2012 at 9:27 pm
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.
March 24th, 2012 at 9:27 pm
The police reports are on this page. Do you see where a toxicology or breathalyzer test was given?
March 24th, 2012 at 9:27 pm
I took it as she was saying it about both sides, she’ll have to clear that one up.
March 24th, 2012 at 9:27 pm
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.”
March 24th, 2012 at 9:27 pm
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.
March 24th, 2012 at 9:32 pm
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.
March 24th, 2012 at 9:32 pm
Susan, see the response I quoted from the Miami Herald. Just one defense lawyer’s opinion. There are others, I’m sure.
March 24th, 2012 at 9:32 pm
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.
March 24th, 2012 at 9:34 pm
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”.
March 24th, 2012 at 9:37 pm
“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.
March 24th, 2012 at 9:37 pm
I’m confused, UpNorth, so you’re saying that Zimmerman’s actions fell within the statute, but trayvon’s didn’t?
March 24th, 2012 at 9:40 pm
UpNorth was quoting a lawyer’s opinion, someone who knows more about this shit than we do.
March 24th, 2012 at 9:41 pm
@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?
March 24th, 2012 at 9:42 pm
@164- which is exactly why i’m back to questioning this law. it sounds crazy.
March 24th, 2012 at 9:43 pm
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.
March 24th, 2012 at 9:45 pm
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.
March 24th, 2012 at 9:45 pm
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.
March 24th, 2012 at 9:47 pm
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!
March 24th, 2012 at 9:52 pm
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.
March 24th, 2012 at 9:57 pm
@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.
March 24th, 2012 at 10:00 pm
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.
March 24th, 2012 at 10:01 pm
“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”.
March 24th, 2012 at 10:17 pm
http://patdollard.com/2012/03/trayvon-martin-shooter-george-zimmerman-is-hispanic-member-of-blackhispanic-family/
March 24th, 2012 at 10:19 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEDBqvEauYU&feature=youtube_gdata_player
March 24th, 2012 at 10:25 pm
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.
March 24th, 2012 at 10:33 pm
Yeah, it should have been “Trayvon” in comment 177 vice “Traynor”. There are also several other typos. Mea culpa. It’s late.
March 24th, 2012 at 10:48 pm
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.
March 25th, 2012 at 3:16 am
@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.
March 25th, 2012 at 3:17 am
*fries, dammit.
March 25th, 2012 at 7:23 am
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.
March 25th, 2012 at 7:40 am
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.
March 25th, 2012 at 7:48 am
@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).
March 25th, 2012 at 8:51 am
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.
March 25th, 2012 at 9:08 am
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.
March 25th, 2012 at 9:18 am
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.
March 25th, 2012 at 9:35 am
I agree, Hondo, that they base a lot of their conclusions on shoddy research and emotion.
March 25th, 2012 at 10:05 am
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.
March 25th, 2012 at 10:13 am
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.
March 25th, 2012 at 10:28 am
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)
March 25th, 2012 at 11:55 am
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.
March 25th, 2012 at 1:02 pm
Wonder what our “friend” insipid will say when he reads your comments above, WOTN?
March 25th, 2012 at 3:47 pm
Crime & Politics…
A segment of society is up in arms over the death of a teenager in Florida. A militant group has put a $10,000 bounty on the head of a man who is not charged with a crime, “dead or alive.” Journalists are asking why the case has not already resulted….
March 25th, 2012 at 4:21 pm
He’s been pretty quiet since the numbers were published Hondo.
March 25th, 2012 at 8:39 pm
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
March 26th, 2012 at 9:26 am
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?
March 26th, 2012 at 10:47 am
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 .
March 26th, 2012 at 11:16 am
@Ann
And where do you think the trail should be held? May I suggest Oregon?
March 26th, 2012 at 11:17 am
199 is me. Work comp.
Now wait for it……
March 26th, 2012 at 11:29 am
@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.
March 26th, 2012 at 11:36 am
ANN: I don’t know about taking the “trail” out of Sanford, but I’m pretty sure one can take a road and go elsewhere.
And I “twink” you need to work on your written English a bit before you comment here again.
March 26th, 2012 at 11:45 am
Ann – I am goign to assume you actually speak English in answering this…
The trial can be taken out of the county that is the situs of the incident on a change of venue motion. However, because the trial would be the peopel of the State of Florida v. Zimmerman, it cannot be taken out of the state. That is just the way crimminal procedure works.
There is really no evidence yet of what the police did or did not do. If they took Zimmerman in, then they would have photographed him, if for no other reason than to protect against police brutality claims. I would suggest that we wait until the police and the grand jury have completed their investigation before we get all indignant. For all we know, the police did their job then and are continuing to do their job now and fully investigating.
Finally, the police would have needed a warrant to do a tox screen on Zimmerman unless his behaviour gave them substantial cause. If they were smart, they would have asked a judge who likely would not have signed-off on a tox screen. However, a tox screen is always done in an autopsy; it is just part of the deal.
March 28th, 2012 at 6:08 am
Ya know, I swear I remember insipid saying he’d be back Tuesday (yesterday) to discuss the 2nd Amendment (comment 78 above). I guess he changed his mind.
March 29th, 2012 at 10:56 am
Still no insipid? Yeah, he must have changed his mind about defending his position on the 2nd Amendment.