The Original CZ Forum
GENERAL => Right to Keep and Bear Arms => Topic started by: DenStinett on July 13, 2013, 08:38:56 AM
-
No matter the outcome, this trial WILL become Case Law
This Case WILL be sited in EVERY seemingly justified / Self Defense Shooting from here on
No matter the circumstances, State or Jurisdiction
Our Attorney General has seen to that
Now that my Friends; IS my greatest fear with this verdict :'(
Just my observation?..
-
It depends on if it makes it to the appellate level and, even then, it depends what the reviewing court decides as to what case law would be. The district court decision isn't going to be binding authority on anyone. Not to say it won't affect other cases in other ways.
-
My greatest fear is that jurors will not rule solely based on existing laws. Emotions that may push to find "at least" some guilt may escalate to contribute to the above concerns.
I "don't like" Mr. Zimmerman; but based on what the public has been given, I find him innocent of breaking any law..
-
Regardless of the verdict it will be used for an attack on gun owners and concealed carry laws. If he is convicted look for calls for more restrictions on concealed carry. If he is acquitted the call will be for tougher laws on self defense, or as I like to call it the Predator's Bill of Rights.
-
I "don't like" Mr. Zimmerman; but based on what the public has been given, I find him innocent of breaking any law..
I've never met him, so I can't speak of like or dislike. I certainly don't have any respect for him.
As far as the law goes, I wasn't there and have not been privy to all the details those in the justice system have. However; I will say that deciding to patrol his neighborhood armed with only deadly force as a back-up to his apparently pathetic physical ability to defend himself was a recipe for disaster. He knew the consequences of his actions far better than the unarmed minor did.
-
There shouldn't be such thing as Case Law at all.
Trials should be run based on law, evidence, criminal intent etc, and never based on another case outcome.
Otherwise we may as well go back to witch hunt 'trials'.
Z was facing grievous harm actively done to him, with a possibility of losing life, so self defense was justified regardless of the means or tools used. If the person committing crime died, oh well..
-
This trial has gone back to the"witch hunt trials." It is base on race. I will hold any further comment until the verdict.
-
Verdict in moments.... reached after 16 hrs of deliberation.
-
Justice prevailed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Not Guilty!
-
I've never met him, so I can't speak of like or dislike. I certainly don't have any respect for him.
One of my eccentricities is that I can't think of anyone that I don't have any respect for that I also like.
And skipper, I think the press was gleeful that it might be a big racist headline. Unfortunately it's said that Zimmerman is of hispanic herritage, but maybe the press feels that's just an insignificant detail.
-
Not Guilty!
-
1SOW, I thought the press was went out on a limb so far as to declare Zimmerman a white Hispanic, whatever that was supposed to mean. He was a man that unfortunately paid dearly for defending himself and hopefully he can get his life back on track. The system worked as it is supposed to.
-
This cae definitely proves that this country is still full of knuckleheads that are dumber than a football bat...letting network and social media override their ability to reason. I am glad the verdict was the right one, but it doesn't boost my faith in the way things are going. I have a feeling that he might need to keep his carry permit and maybe up his home defense equipment, because there are quite a few fakebook-brainwashed idiots out there...overzealous and itching for some form of not-really-justice justice
-
There shouldn't be such thing as Case Law at all.
Trials should be run based on law, evidence, criminal intent etc, and never based on another case outcome.
Otherwise we may as well go back to witch hunt 'trials'.
Z was facing grievous harm actively done to him, with a possibility of losing life, so self defense was justified regardless of the means or tools used. If the person committing crime died, oh well..
No offense, but that's a pretty gross misunderstanding of how the law works. Case law is law. Evidence is fact. Criminal intent is a requirement of some crimes. If you think "case law" means that courts will disregard questions of law, questions of fact and elements of particular crimes... well, I don't know what you think case law is. For that matter, district court decisions don't create binding case law to begin with, so the thread as a whole is a bit of a misnomer.
Ultimately this mess started when the media felt the need to hype this sad set of circumstances up, when honestly it was a fairly textbook shades of grey self-defense shooting with very few racial implications. I'm glad to hear GZ got off and I hope he can get it together from here on out. Personally, I'm sick of hearing about this case and the misunderstandings about the law from both sides of the fence. It amazes me how people will comment so vehemently about things they really don't understand. Glad to hear it's over, and I hope all the hype will die down now.
-
t's said that Zimmerman is of hispanic herritage, but maybe the press feels that's just an insignificant detail.
Zimmerman is likely 50.0% Caucasoid, 37.5% Mongoloid (his mother is Peruvian, i.e., native American), and 12.5% Negroid (one of his mothers grandfathers was black). Ironically, GZ is definitely multi-racial and, in fact, black.
Thanks, George, for taking out the trash.
-
Same here, Boz...Fort Hood should have been and should still be the biggest case in the public eye's fury...but the media can't sell that, it would hurt their puppet masters
-
Fort Hood should have been and should still be the biggest case in the public eye's fury...but the media can't sell that, it would hurt their puppet masters
Agreed. However this case was about the biggest civil rights atrocity in decades, and Fort Hood is a simple case of "workplace violence". ::)
-
I've never met him, so I can't speak of like or dislike. I certainly don't have any respect for him.
One of my eccentricities is that I can't think of anyone that I don't have any respect for that I also like.
I can. After twenty years of active duty service, I've learned there are people who I can have great respect for, and absolutely not like at all. By the same token, there were individuals who could not be counted on, or regularly managed to make the worst choices, or were clearly out for #1. I can't give someone an honest appraisal like that and say I respected them, yet I still liked them... That doesn't mean I wanted to be in any proximity of them while bearing arms.
Now if someone wants to carry a weapon by choice, open or concealed, they have that right. But if I know my neighbor on 'neighborhood watch' is doing so while actively patrolling and don't object, I am giving silent approval for deadly force to be used, ostensibly on my neighborhood's behalf. Now if my neighbor does not tell me he's going to patrol the neighborhood armed, and actively confront people instead of simply reporting them to the police (which is strict policy for most organized neighborhood watch programs), he is denying me the opportunity to have any say so in the matter, whether it's to register an objection or simply tell him to stay away from my house.
-
There shouldn't be such thing as Case Law at all.
Trials should be run based on law, evidence, criminal intent etc, and never based on another case outcome.
Otherwise we may as well go back to witch hunt 'trials'.
Z was facing grievous harm actively done to him, with a possibility of losing life, so self defense was justified regardless of the means or tools used. If the person committing crime died, oh well..
No offense, but that's a pretty gross misunderstanding of how the law works. Case law is law. Evidence is fact. Criminal intent is a requirement of some crimes. If you think "case law" means that courts will disregard questions of law, questions of fact and elements of particular crimes... well, I don't know what you think case law is. For that matter, district court decisions don't create binding case law to begin with, so the thread as a whole is a bit of a misnomer.
Ultimately this mess started when the media felt the need to hype this sad set of circumstances up, when honestly it was a fairly textbook shades of grey self-defense shooting with very few racial implications. I'm glad to hear GZ got off and I hope he can get it together from here on out. Personally, I'm sick of hearing about this case and the misunderstandings about the law from both sides of the fence. It amazes me how people will comment so vehemently about things they really don't understand. Glad to hear it's over, and I hope all the hype will die down now.
Well stated bozwell. I was disgusted when I heard a reporter comment, with obvious disdain in his voice, that GZ was found not guilt of "shooting Trayvon Martin." Shooting TM was never in contention, GZ confessed to that, the indictments were Murder 2 or Man-Slaughter. And for those, he was found not guilty.
-
Its sad. So many folks seem to think that simply shooting someone is a crime. Its not. The intent can be though.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
-
Now if someone wants to carry a weapon by choice, open or concealed, they have that right.
Not in FL ? open carry ist verboten there.
But if I know my neighbor on 'neighborhood watch' is doing so while actively patrolling and don't object, I am giving silent approval for deadly force to be used, ostensibly on my neighborhood's behalf.
I doubt that. Members of a NW do not surrender their 2nd Amendment rights. Some NW programs require volunteers to not carry any weapons, not even tactical flashlights. The Retreat at Twin Lakes's NW program had no such requirement.
Now if my neighbor does not tell me he's going to patrol the neighborhood armed, and actively confront people instead of simply reporting them to the police (which is strict policy for most organized neighborhood watch programs), he is denying me the opportunity to have any say so in the matter, whether it's to register an objection or simply tell him to stay away from my house.
One has a right to register whatever objection one wishes to one's homeowner's association. However, your hypothetical suggests you are not acquainted with the facts of the Zimmerman case. (Do you watch NBC News per chance?)
There is no evidence that GZ pursued TM. He set out to follow from a distance in order to answer the 311 operator's question as to which way TM went. Upon being reminded by the operator that he need not follow, GZ concurred. There is no credible evidence suggesting that GZ ever ventured south of the T intersection where the assault on him began, only that he walked straight through to the east to the street he lived on with the idea of getting a townhome address to relay to the police, and expecting to see the responding police cruiser. There is also no credible evidence to indicate GZ confronting TM. To the contrary, the evidence indicates that TM approached GZ, confronted him verbally, then committed felony assault and battery by sucker punching GZ in the nose, knocking him to the ground, pinning him (thus allowing him no avenue of escape), and repeatedly pummeling his face and head.
-
Well guys?..
There have been a lot of posts here
BUT the threat of this being use against us and our Guns is still very possible and very REAL
Obama is now asking to have this incident looked into farther
To open additional dialog toward curbing Gun Violence
AKA?..Gun Control talks be re-opened
Also, he (and the NAACP) has asked the DOJ to look into whether or not charges can be brought against Zimmerman for violating Martin?s Civil Rights
(Sounding more and more like the Rodney King Trials)
They couldn?t find the COPs Criminally Liable, but convicted them on Civil Rights violations
All this is, is another move in an attempt to calm the Public out cries for ?Justice?
First they will try him for Civil Rights Violations (and Hate Crimes), and then in Civil Court for Wrongful Death
Then the outcome of those trials will be used as Case Law
Trust me my friends;
This is far from over
Here's a link Mike posted about the NAACP:
http://gma.yahoo.com/outraged-naacp-wants-feds-prosecute-george-zimmerman-044132273--abc-news-topstories.html
-
Gun lawyer Jon Gutmacher wasn't too impressed with the case...
...the Al Sharpton's of the world want to make this something it isn't. They don't want "Justice". They already had plenty of "justice" -- when their political pressure forced the trial of an innocent man, made Florida's immunity statute a joke, and resulted in an "outside" prosecutor being appointed -- because the local authorities understood the evidence wasn't there -- and refused to prosecute Zimmerman. They don't want "Justice" -- they want "Special Treatment".
Wow! Talk About Prejudice!
http://www.floridafirearmslaw.com/blog/
-
Here's a link Mike posted about the NAACP:
http://gma.yahoo.com/outraged-naacp-wants-feds-prosecute-george-zimmerman-044132273--abc-news-topstories.html
[/quote]
In the article below the video they referenced to GZ as "White and Hispanic" again. They do not have a Civil Rights case without the "White" portion of that claim. It stinks like three day old fish when Obama gets involved in a court case that is over because it did not end as he and Holder wanted. Den, you are right it isn't over yet.
-
Blatant tyranny.
*****
DOJ: Don't return gun to George Zimmerman while we're investigating
By Rene Stutzman, Orlando Sentinel 2:47 pm, July 18, 2013
Following a request from the FBI, the Sanford Police Department reported Thursday that it has halted its plan to return George Zimmerman's gun and other pieces of evidence used at his murder trial.
The move is a clear sign that the U.S. Department of Justice is moving ahead with its investigation into whether the former Neighborhood Watch volunteer violated the civil rights of Trayvon Martin, the unarmed black 17-year-old he shot in Sanford last year.
Zimmerman was acquitted Saturday by a six-member Seminole County Jury, a decision that has prompted demonstrations in Sanford, Orlando and major cities across the U.S., including violence in Oakland and Los Angeles.
Zimmerman told police he killed Trayvon in self-defense after the Miami Gardens high school junior knocked him to the ground and broke his nose with one punch then climbed on top and began pounding his head against a sidewalk.
Jurors found Zimmerman not guilty of second-degree murder or manslaughter. During their 16 hours of deliberations, they had access to all of the 250-plus pieces of evidence, including Zimmerman's gun.
The Seminole County Clerk of Courts released the evidence earlier this week to the police department.
Before returning individual items to their owners, however, department officials talked to one or more FBI agents in Orlando, according to Sanford police spokesman Capt. Jim McAuliffe.
On Thursday, the police department finalized its plan.
"The evidence is just in a hold status, pending their DOJ investigation," McAuliffe said.
It is being stored in a secure area within the police department, he said.
The items include Zimmerman's gun, Trayvon's clothes, cell phone, the bag of Skittles and beverage found in his pockets ?in short all the evidence collected by the agency as it investigated the Feb. 26, 2012, homicide.
Following the verdict, there were demands for a federal civil rights investigation, but the DOJ began its probe more than a year ago, although it has said little about its findings.
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder told members gathered for the NAACP national convention in Orlando Tuesday that his agency would thoroughly investigate all available evidence that Zimmerman had violated Trayvon's civil rights.
Records released by Special Prosecutor Angela Corey show that FBI agents last year interviewed three dozen friends and associates of Zimmerman, and each said Zimmerman did not use racial epithets or show signs of being a racist.
-
So basically, nothing new just more Bu[[ $#!+
-
(http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/4f7329f46bb3f79942000052/the-daily-texans-controversial-trayvon-martin-cartoon-blames-the-media-for-stirring-up-trouble.jpg)
(http://reddingnewsreview.com/newspages/2012newspages/musicphotos/obama_trayvon_martin_cartoon.jpg)
(http://touchfm.org/wp/wp-content/plugins/rss-poster/cache/43aca_Trayvon_Martin_Cartoon4.jpg)
(http://touchfm.org/wp/wp-content/plugins/rss-poster/cache/a13c6_Trayvon_Martin_Cartoon8.jpg)
-
Here is a local happening in NW Florida since the Zimmerman trial. What you probably have not heard is that more Blacks have used the STG law in Florida than any other race and now want to do away with the popular law. Not sure what this meeting can accomplish other than hard feelings by law abiding gun owners who are in favor of STG laws regardless of race.
http://www.nwfdailynews.com/local/meeting-scheduled-to-discuss-zimmerman-verdict-1.174504?tc=cr
-
When did the DOJ and the FBI become personal investigation arm of the NAACP ?
What are they going to charge Zimmerman with next ?
The illegal use of a Cell Phone and / or the 911 System ?
Maybe Trespassing or Driving / Parking on the wrong side of the Road ?
-
This thread is heading in the same direction as the actual Zimmerman-Marshall confrontation... everybody loses.
Think about this; if George had learned to defend himself without escalating straight to deadly force, he and Trayvon could have slugged it out and each might have lived to fight another day. Without, I might add, making national news headlines and knee-jerk over-reactions that have consequences for all of us.
Geez, am I the only person who served and was taught 'proportionate escalation of force'? If you're going to arm yourself with a gun, learn to wear it with the confidence that you can defend yourself without it. Learn how to fight, how to grapple, how to restrain. Know that if you use your gun, it won't end there. You cannot count on any regulation, law or government to have your back. Remember that everyone else will be affected by your decision.
Instead of showing Zimmerman so much unquestioning support, ask him why he couldn't fend off a skinny unarmed teen ager, that he was following with vigilant suspicion. He could have pulled a trigger on a stun gun, pepper spray or an air horn and probably ended the fight effectively. The handgun should have been his back up of last resort, not his only resort. His decisions that night are more to blame for a death, the circus that followed and the jeopardy to your 2nd Amendment rights than anyone else's. Think about that, and be sure to thank George.
-
This thread is heading in the same direction as the actual Zimmerman-Marshall confrontation... everybody loses.
You might want to familiarize yourself with the facts of the case and the law before demonstrating your lack of knowledge. The confrontation in question involved Martin (not Marshall) feloniously assaulting Zimmerman.
Think about this; if George had learned to defend himself without escalating straight to deadly force, he and Trayvon could have slugged it out and each might have lived to fight another day. Without, I might add, making national news headlines and knee-jerk over-reactions that have consequences for all of us.
Geez, am I the only person who served and was taught 'proportionate escalation of force'? If you're going to arm yourself with a gun, learn to wear it with the confidence that you can defend yourself without it. Learn how to fight, how to grapple, how to restrain. Know that if you use your gun, it won't end there. You cannot count on any regulation, law or government to have your back. Remember that everyone else will be affected by your decision.
This may be the most immoral, moronic comment I've ever read on a firearms website. Please tell me the dog wrote it, not Bob. So women, the elderly, and the disabled need to take martial arts training to the point of being able to fend off a drug-addled, street-fighting-savvy thug before they can exercise their right to carry a firearm? Way to undermine the 2nd Amendment!
Zimmerman cried out for help for more than 40 seconds. How much more of a beating would you have insisted he tolerate before exercising his natural right to self defense? Do you also blame women for being raped?
You must have missed the lengthy testimony of the defense's use-of-force expert who said Zimmerman had no choice but to draw his pistol and shoot. You probably failed to notice what the State's use-of-force expert had to say, which was nothinh ? they didn't call one. Not because of they couldn't find one; after all, they work closely with police forces who are educated and trained in use of force. The State didn't call a use-of-force expert because no credible expert would expect someone to survive more than 40 seconds of felonious assault before resorting to lethal force. It's hard to use one's last resort after one is beat unconscious or to death.
Instead of showing Zimmerman so much unquestioning support, ask him why he couldn't fend off a skinny unarmed teen ager, that he was following with vigilant suspicion. He could have pulled a trigger on a stun gun, pepper spray or an air horn and probably ended the fight effectively. The handgun should have been his back up of last resort, not his only resort. His decisions that night are more to blame for a death, the circus that followed and the jeopardy to your 2nd Amendment rights than anyone else's. Think about that, and be sure to thank George.
No one here is giving Zimmerman unquestioning support. The support is rooted in facts, evidence, the law, natural rights, and the judgment of a jury selected and agreed to by the State, the defense, and the court. You know ? all the factors which you and the rest of the lynch mo regard as irrelevant.
Both Zimmerman and Martin had the right to be where the were that night and to do what they were doing ? up until the point where Martin sucker punched Zimmerman, pushed him to the ground, then mounted and repeatedly pummeled him for more than 40 seconds. My CPL is honored in FL. If I had stumbled upon the scene of Martin feloniously assaulting Zimmerman I would have had the right to pull my pistol and shoot Martin until he stopped. Why are you so upset about Zimmerman defending himself?
-
This thread is heading in the same direction as the actual Zimmerman-Marshall confrontation... everybody loses.
Think about this; if George had learned to defend himself without escalating straight to deadly force, he and Trayvon could have slugged it out and each might have lived to fight another day. Without, I might add, making national news headlines and knee-jerk over-reactions that have consequences for all of us.
Geez, am I the only person who served and was taught 'proportionate escalation of force'? If you're going to arm yourself with a gun, learn to wear it with the confidence that you can defend yourself without it. Learn how to fight, how to grapple, how to restrain. Know that if you use your gun, it won't end there. You cannot count on any regulation, law or government to have your back. Remember that everyone else will be affected by your decision.
Instead of showing Zimmerman so much unquestioning support, ask him why he couldn't fend off a skinny unarmed teen ager, that he was following with vigilant suspicion. He could have pulled a trigger on a stun gun, pepper spray or an air horn and probably ended the fight effectively. The handgun should have been his back up of last resort, not his only resort. His decisions that night are more to blame for a death, the circus that followed and the jeopardy to your 2nd Amendment rights than anyone else's. Think about that, and be sure to thank George.
I tend to agree, at least with some of what you've said. I don't believe Zimmerman was criminally liable, but he certainly didn't handle this situation properly and I wouldn't have been surprised or altogether appalled if he was convicted of a lesser charge like manslaughter.
His decision to use lethal force was justified, but his actions leading up to that decision were moronic. Where I disagree somewhat is that, rather than saying he could fight better or resort to non-lethal force though, I tend to think he could have simply avoided this encounter altogether. I was never one to look for a fight to begin with, but I am definitely non-confrontational since deciding to carry. When GZ made the decision to pursue TM, likely knowing he (GZ) was not capable of physically defending himself, and knowing that he was armed with a lethal weapon... it's just idiotic, and you're absolutely right to say that such idiotic actions could well jeopardize the rights of other people. GZ could have stayed home, GZ could have stayed in his car, GZ could have gone the other way - given that he chose to pursue instead, I find it a bit hard to feel overly sympathetic for him. Still, I'd say the jury got it right, given the law and the facts presented at trial.
-
He could have pulled a trigger on a stun gun, pepper spray or an air horn and probably ended the fight effectively..........His (Zimmerman) decisions that night are more to blame for a death..........
An Air Horn....Really ?
You ARE joking....RIGHT ? ? ?
All of George?s screaming for help and not a single person came to his defense
NOT ONE ! ! !
Do you REALLY believe an Air Horn would have changed that fact ?
Zimmerman?s decision to blame ?
Think on this;
If Trayvon was ?so afraid? of Zimmerman, than why didn?t Trayvon just RUN HOME ?
If I concede that Zimmerman was ?Following? Trayvon
THEN....
By definition; Zimmerman was BEHIND Trayvon
Zimmerman told the 911 ?Operator? (not a COP) he had lost sight of Trayvon
SO?..
Trayvon had a sizable lead on George
Trayvon, an Athlete, a Football Player; don?t you think he would have beat George to his Father?s house, IF Zimmerman was ?chasing? him ?
OH YEAH?.his Father?..Trayvon was on the Cell with his Girlfriend?.Why didn?t he just call his Father or 911 for help, IF he was so bleeped afraid ?
OR??
Trayvon could have ran to the closest home and asked the Homeowner for help
NO??.
Trayvon made the single biggest and most fatal decision of his short life
HE chose to turn and confront Zimmerman
In turn starting the fight
Here?s a weird thought;
What if BOTH Trayvon AND Zimmerman were unarmed (no Firearm) ?
The fight goes down as it did
Trayvon on top, pummeling the crap out of George
BUT??..
Zimmerman happens to grab a ROCK (or something similar) and bashes Trayvon in the Temple, killing him instantly?..Then WHAT ? ? ?
This ordeal is a true tragedy, BUT, it wasn?t (fully) Zimmerman?s ?Fault? ! ! !
-
The other weird thought Den is that if they were both unarmed that day, would anyone have died or would GZ simply have gotten beaten up? Who knows, but what is certainly clear is that GZ could have avoided the encounter and chose not to. That doesn't make him criminally liable, but it does make him a fool in my book.
-
They BOTH failed to use common sense. If you fear for your life, STOP the threat or get away from the threat if possible. Martin and Zimmerman both suffered consequences from failing to do this. In this case, if BOTH had used an air horn, one would have had his skull crushed by a horn.
Another lengthy thread could debate who suffered the most.
-
Well Boz:
We will never know, or agree with everyone on what went right or wrong in the issue
The other weird thought Den is that if they were both unarmed that day, would anyone have died or would GZ simply have gotten beaten up?
That's why I said what if Zimmerman had killed Trayvon with a Rock, not a Gun
Would that fact alone, CHANGE the feelings in this case ?
1:
Yes, both made bad choices
But I still hold that Trayvon held the majority of control in the outcome of this issue
-
I don't think it changes anything as far as criminal charges go. As far as my own feelings about GZ, I'm not sure if pursuing someone without your concealed weapon is any more or less foolish than pursuing someone with your concealed weapon. I tend to think it's unlikely this would have been a lethal encounter though, absent GZ's firearm. Given that he decided to pursue, knowing he was armed with a lethal weapon, and knowing that any altercation was likely to turn deadly, GZ was beyond foolish that day. Just my own $0.02, but a responsible CCW holder would have avoided the encounter altogether and GZ had ample opportunities to do so.
That doesn't make him criminally liable for second degree murder - but he won't get much sympathy out of me for his idiotic actions that day.
-
..........would have avoided the encounter altogether and GZ had ample opportunities to do so.
As did Trayvon ! ! !
He held the cards, and chose to raise the bet
Sorry, I WILL NOT back-off from this fact
"Run Forrest, RUN"
-
..........would have avoided the encounter altogether and GZ had ample opportunities to do so.
As did Trayvon ! ! !
He held the cards, and chose to raise the bet
Sorry, I WILL NOT back-off from this fact
"Run Forrest, RUN"
GZ could have run too Den. GZ could have stayed in his house. GZ could have stayed in his car. He had more opportunities than GZ. I have no doubt TM said some words and likely started the fight once GZ caught up to him on foot, but it's pretty clear GZ had more opportunities to avoid the encounter than TM did. Hell, the reason the fight broke out is because GZ was following TM. It's not like they would have been at each other's throats, if they simply passed each other on the street. It was because he was following TM that TM got angry and the physical encounter started.
When the answer was avoidance and GZ had more than ample opportunities to do so, he chose to take foolish actions which started a fight.
-
"Run Forrest, RUN"
"Stupid is as stupid does."
-
GZ could have run too Den. GZ could have stayed in his house.
When the answer was avoidance and GZ had more than ample opportunities to do so, he chose to take foolish actions which started a fight.
I luv ya Boz, but you just don't get it
One; Why should Zimmerman have to stay home ?
He was on his way to the Market when he first caught sight of Trayvon, walking close to other's Homes
Zimmerman called 911, as (I would hope) most ANY observant Neighbor would do?.then everyone know how that 911 call (really) went
Will you concede that Trayvon was well ahead of Zimmerman ?
Well it's not like Zimmerman strapped on his ACME Rocket and Skates and caught-up to Trayvon
NO, Trayvon STOPPED?.TURNED?.and HE confronted Zimmerman and sucker punched him in the Face
Court Testimony and the Facts bear this out
I?m sorry Boz, but you are wrong here
You know, I was ask on another site; ?How would you ( I ) feel if Trayvon was my Son ??
My answer;
Simple?.
First off, I do not have Children, but that fact aside?.
This would NEVER have happen as it did
If I found out my Son was kicked out of School for Fighting, Drugs, etc, I would have kicked his @$$
Plus, there is no way I would allow my Son to smoke Weed in my home
AND, if I caught him smoking Weed?.
I WOULD KICK HIS @$$ ! ! !
What he does AFTER he turns 18, is ALL on him
Yes, they BOTH made bad choices....enough said
-
We don't disagree that they both made bad choices. But you're ignoring that GZ was in his car following TM, after calling 911 and reporting him in the neighborhood. I'm not saying he has to stay home, lock the door and live in fear. But instead, GZ took actions that provoked (albeit unreasonably) TM into a fight. As for getting sucker punched and all of that, all we have in court is testimony from one side of the story, because there were no witnesses to how the encounter started and TM is dead. As such, take it with a grain of salt.
All I'm saying is that GZ was in a position to avoid this encounter altogether, and chose not to. He could have simply stayed in his car and this never would have happened. He could have simply gone home or gone to the market after calling 911, and this never would have happened. Even if GZ did get sucker punched, which isn't clear on the facts, GZ put himself in a position to get punched and did so knowing he was carrying a firearm. That's irresponsible and foolish.
-
We don't disagree that they both made bad choices. As for getting sucker punched and all of that, all we have in court is testimony from one side of the story, because there were no witnesses to how the encounter started and TM is dead. As such, take it with a grain of salt. Even if GZ did get sucker punched, which isn't clear on the facts,
At the time of the encounter, Trayvon was on the Cell with his Girlfriend
And Trayvon's Girlfriend said she felt that Trayvon threw the first punch
But other than that.....I will agree (that on this issue), we will NEVER agree
STILL, I see this Administration using this Case to Ramp-Up their Anti-Gun Bu[[$#!+ AGAIN ! ! !
-
Excellent point about simply avoiding the confrontation. I did try to bring that up in my first post about a strict observe and report policy within a neighborhood watch program. Hell, many of the neighborhood watch volunteers I've known were senior citizens who managed to get situations resolved and perpetrators caught without ever putting themselves or anyone else at risk.
As far as all the vitriol goes about my ignorance regarding violent confrontation is concerned:
I have been shot at with bullets, rockets and mortars. I've even been pelted with stones by a rock throwing crowd, whipped into a frenzy by one outspoken agitator.
I have held fire while surrounded by an angry mob, some of whom were physically trying to grab me, my weapon and my gear, while others were pushing against the Humvee door to prevent me opening it to get back in. There were children among them.
I was able to peacefully disarm one of my troops who was carrying an M4 and threatening suicide.
I ordered my trigger happy gunner to cease fire when he opened up at a vehicle approaching us at a high rate of speed - it was full of our fellow servicemen.
I have saluted 23 flag draped caskets on their way home. I buried two more after returning, men who turned their guns on themselves.
BTW, I have tackled and restrained a drug addled teen, who in fact out matched me in size and reach.
Feel free to disagree with my opinion, I fought to protect your right to do so... But don't call it moronic when it's been formed by more experience with confrontation than I would wish upon anybody.
-
.....But don't call it moronic when it's been formed by more experience with confrontation than I would wish upon anybody.
Bob:
I would hope I never said or implied in any way that you are a moron
If so, I truly apologize
Everyone here has an opinion on everything
Blue or red, black, white or grey
Look at Boz and I
I am a great believer in:
This is the home of the FREE, because of the BRAVE
Thank you for what you have given and sacrificed for our way of life
I just wish our current Administration felt the same way
-
The trial is over and GZ is temporarily a free man until the NAACP has their man Holder prosecute the "crazy ass cracker". The reason I cannot go along with this is, if the whole situation was in reverse we would never heard about it because of Jackson, Sharpton, NAACP, Obama, and Holder could not get much political mileage or TV camera time with a dead "White Hispanic."
Chew on this for awhile:
http://mdjonline.com/view/full_story/23037003/article-Mableton-teens-linked-to-gang-are-accused-in-beating-death?
Have you seen this on national news? Nope.
Where are those mentioned above, this was a terrible crime? Tells me those above are not interested in crimes unless the victim is Black and they can make a buck or get camera time on national TV. It is a racial and political circus. The perfect storm for the anti gun folks and they are surely lining up to legislate.
-
I have to agree with you Skip
Check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2ce49C7ZhM
-
I don't think he was referring to you Den. :) In any event, I'm glad the trial is over, and regardless of my thoughts about his actions that day, I'm glad the jury didn't try to make an example of GZ. I suspect the civil rights charges will die down soon (as they are absurd), and this mess will finally begin to go away. If they go forward with a civil wrongful death suit, I just hope that the media will stop trying to blow this story up into more than it is (again).
And skip, I 100% agree. I wish people would hold the media more accountable for their hypocrisy and for blowing this self-defense shooting up into such an "issue". I'm pretty sure people wouldn't be nearly as agitated over this event if the media didn't hype it up the way they did.
-
I don't think he was referring to you Den. :)
Thanks for that Boz
-
Boz, no doubt it has gone on too long and too far. Most of us see all this for what it is and get frustrated over not being able to stop the press and those mention from continuously exploiting these situations and agitating their followers at every opportunity for politics and money. We can all celebrate at the range when this blows over.
-
Den, that video is right on.
-
Boz, no doubt it has gone on too long and too far. Most of us see all this for what it is and get frustrated over not being able to stop the press and those mention from continuously exploiting these situations and agitating their followers at every opportunity for politics and money. We can all celebrate at the range when this blows over.
+1
Yep.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2
-
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQm6OcDUl38lIVTlAK5585qaNpOrAHIsTULcSpLySaPayg__Q5p)
-
Thank you Den, and it wasn't directed at you.
It's Friday afternoon... Let's have a beer together in spirit and be thankful we live in a country that still allows us to voice differing opinions.
-
Thank you Den, and it wasn't directed at you.
It's Friday afternoon... Let's have a beer together in spirit and be thankful we live in a country that still allows us to voice differing opinions.
You got it Bob
I'll hoist a Cold One to you and all your Brothers and Sisters
-
Saw this on the web:
http://trayvonmartinfoundation.org/
The Trayvon Martin Foundation
I find this very interesting.....
A "non-profit organization"
Wonder how long it took for them to receive their Tax Exemption status from the IRS ? ! ? :o
I love how the Lame Stream Media has stopped reporting on what REALLY affect the public good
-
Now that you brought it up:
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/05/11/sybrina-trademark-fulton-staggering-audacity-taking-exploitation-to-new-levels-of-financial-benefit-show-me-the-money/
-
<snip>
Feel free to disagree with my opinion, I fought to protect your right to do so... But don't call it moronic when it's been formed by more experience with confrontation than I would wish upon anybody.
Thank you for what you did, and your opinion.
It is not lost on everyone. ;)
-
Bill Whittle's commentary on the players in this case.
WARNING: Some Graphic Images
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebu6Yvzs4Ls
-
GREAT VIDEO ! ! !
It's about time (some) people see this for what it is
Part of me hopes there are more trials and the REAL TRUTH about Trayvon will finally come out once and for all
Thanks for the Post
-
+1 The deliberate attempt by the press and many involved to slant the info and pics is finally coming out. You can't fool all of the people all of the time or the jury.
-
Great video Ross. Thanks!
Scary how the liberal media can manage the uneducated population in this country!
-
Well the result of this meeting was what most thought. The NAACP wants to railroad Zimmerman.
http://www.nwfdailynews.com/local/residents-share-concerns-about-zimmerman-verdict-1.175683?tc=cr
Also, did you see this on the news?
http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490926/jury-finds-roderick-scott-not-guilty/
http://www.americanmillenniumonline.com/tag/christopher-cervini/
Nothing more to say about this subject.
-
Well the result of this meeting was what most thought. The NAACP wants to railroad Zimmerman.
{......}
Nothing more to say about this subject.
This is the first I've heard of this.
It's interesting, that all those Martin protesters(Sharpton) here in Fla. say something like this could NEVER happen. I haven't heard any news bites of Jesse or Al mentioning this case.
-
And to think that the modern liberal-progressive apologists, racists, and censors claimed that the Zimmerman case had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.
*****
Stand-Your-Ground: Gun Control Zombies Exploit Grieving Black Community
Legal Insurrection
Posted by Andrew Branca
Saturday, July 20, 2013 at 12:30pm
As the racialist wing of our body politic suffers through the Kubler-Ross seven stages of grief at the ?Not Guilty? verdict in the Zimmerman trial, we find that they are currently transitioning from the ?Anger? to ?Bargaining? stage. How do we know? Because all they want, they now tell us, is to ?reform? the Stand-Your-Ground laws that currently exist in thirty-three states.
What?s Stand-Your-Ground Have to Do With It?
You may, like any normal thinking person, be wondering how the heck the conversation turned to Stand-Your-Ground in the first place. After all, the Zimmerman case had nothing whatever to do with Stand-Your-Ground (as discussed in detail here: The Marissa Alexander Case Wasn?t About ?Stand-Your-Ground? Either).
Black People Benefit Disproportionately From Stand-Your-Ground
In addition, all the evidence suggests that Stand-Your-Ground is being used properly by law-abiding people defending themselves against criminal predation?and, further, that a vastly disproportionate number of those doing so are minorities living in high crime neighborhoods. In other words, black people are availing themselves of the protective benefits of Stand-Your-Ground with much greater frequency than their percentage of the population would suggest.
(http://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/FBI-Homocide-Victims-by-Race-2009.jpg)
Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation
This, of course, follows naturally from the fact that the high rate of violent crime in poor neighborhoods is directed primarily at the other residents of those neighborhoods, resulting in the horrifyingly high rate of black-on-black crime reflected in today?s FBI crime statistics.
Stand-Your-Ground The Law In Large Majority of States
In addition, Stand-Your-Ground is hardly some aberration of Florida law. Only a minority of states ? 17 as of this writing ? impose a mandatory generalized duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense, and many of the Stand-Your-Ground states have been such for decades before Florida adopted its own Stand-Your-Ground statute in 2005.
So, if Stand-Your-Ground is neither new nor unusual, if it disproportionately helps minorities protect themselves from the violent predation of (mostly) other minorities, and if there is nothing in either of the recent high-profile ?self-defense? cases involving members of the black community, what?s the deal?
The Grief and Anger in the Black Community is Real
First, it must be acknowledged that the grief and anger in the black community is real and genuine. I?m not, of course, talking about the ring leaders who are fostering this grief and anger for their own personal benefit. I?m talking about the average black person on the streets who obtains most if not all of their information about these matters from those ring leaders and their willing enablers in the mainstream media.
The Disinformation War Waged on the Black Community
From the first days following the shooting of Trayvon Martin the black community, and the American public in general, was fed a pack of lies and disinformation about the events in question. A few that immediately come to mind off the top of my head include:
- Zimmerman ?stalked? Martin. (There is no evidence that Zimmerman ever sought to close with Martin or sought to do anything but observe from a distance.)
- Zimmerman volunteered Martin?s race to police. (No, NBC doctored the 911 recording to make that appear to be the case, the police asked and Zimmerman answered.)
- Zimmerman disobeyed police instructions to stay in his truck. (No such instruction was ever given.)
- Zimmerman disobeyed police instructions to not follow Martin. (No such instruction was ever given; when it was suggested that he not follow, he complied immediately.)
- Zimmerman has a history of convictions for acts of violence. (Simply, no.)
- Zimmerman was high on pills at the time. (No evidence of this whatever.)
- Zimmerman appointed himself head of the neighborhood watch. (No, HOA offered him that role, he accepted.)
- Zimmerman had called the police about suspicious characters dozens of times in the weeks preceding the events with Martin. (No, it was perhaps a half-dozen calls in similar number of months.)
- Zimmerman used a racial slur in reference to Martin while on the phone to police. (Never happened.)
- Zimmerman was a racist seething with anger against young black men. (No evidence of this whatever, despite thorough FBI investigation.)
- Zimmerman injuries prove he was never in danger of death or grave bodily harm. (First, no injury need be suffered before self-defense; second, blows to the head always carry a danger of hemotoma and death.)
- Zimmerman used a gun against an unarmed child. (Had the events not happened nobody would have referred to 6-foot-plus 17-year-old Martin as a child; in any event, Martin armed himself with his fists and the sidewalk.)
Anybody fully armed with the actual facts of the case understands that all of the above claims are untrue, and remain untrue no matter how many times they are propagated by racial activists, the mainstream media, the justice department, and even President Obama.
If The Lies Are Believed, Anger and Outrage Are Understandable, Inevitable
But imagine, for a moment, how you might feel if you were not armed with the actual facts of the case, and believed those lies to be true. Imagine that you believe that Zimmerman stalked Martin, that he was a seething racist, that he disobeyed police instructions, that he was a ?wannabe cop? whose overzealous actions resulted in the death of an unarmed child.
Without question, you would be outraged at Zimmerman?s not guilty verdict, as would I.
The fault with this misplaced outrage of Zimmerman?s perfectly appropriate acquittal lies not with the typical black person in the community, but rather with their racial leaders who, despite themselves being armed with the actual facts of the case, prefer to continue to lie to their supporters to foster and sustain their pain and grief. It?s despicable, really.
So How Does All This Tie Into Stand-Your-Ground Protests?
Still, even that doesn?t get us closer to understanding the Stand-Your-Ground protests. All of the above could be happening without Stand-Your-Ground ever being an issue. (For example, we see no similar protests around the self-defense principles of imminence or proportionality.) What then is driving these misled members of the black community to focus their grief and anger on Stand-Your-Ground?
Radical Gun Control Zombies Remain Mindlessly Persistent
To those of us who have spent decades in the trenches of the gun control wars, the answer is blazingly obvious?we?ve seen these tactics before. The simple truth is that the black community?s grief over their misconceived notions of Trayvon Martin?s death is being exploited by the zombie wing of the gun-control movement. This is the faction that believes that ANY means justify their goal of removing all firearms from private hands, and that each individual?s safety should be secured solely by the state. Fortunately, their track record to date is gratifyingly bad.
First, they tried to ban guns entirely. They failed at that?today there are more guns in the hands of private American citizens than at any prior time in our history.
Then, they tried to ban certain types of guns. Major fail?their primary target for elimination, so-called ?assault weapons?, have never been more popular or more widely owned.
Next, they tried to keep us from being able to carry our guns for personal protection. They catastrophically failed at that, too?twenty years ago perhaps half the states had a provision for concealed carry, today all of them do (pending IL adopting the necessary procedures).
Indeed, the most recent massive gun control campaign waged in the first half of this year succeeded in achieving . . . absolutely nothing, despite a major commitment of political capital at the highest levels of government.
Radical Gun Control Zombies? Message Crystal Clear?Aaaargh!
So, if you?re a gun control zombie, what are you to do with yourself? These Stand-Your-Ground protests, properly interpreted, reveal the newest iteration of the gun control scheme with perfect clarity:
Well, I couldn?t take your guns away. And I couldn?t keep you from carrying for personal protection. I couldn?t even exploit the grief over a mass killing of school children to fool the country into taking guns away from the law-abiding. Fine.
But now I?m going to do my best to ensure that if you ever DO use that gun to defend yourself or your family, you?ll spend the rest of your life in prison. I?ll make you so afraid to even touch that gun on your hip that you may as well not even be carrying it. When we drag you into court, with a jury sitting in a safe environment secured by armed bailiffs, we?ll point out a thousand different ways you theoretically could have ?safely retreated? from the vicious attack launched upon you.
Even if we don?t get you convicted and sentenced to decades in prison?and we hope we do?we?ll cost you everything in mounting your legal defense.
Aaaaarrrrrgh!
That?s what this is all about. The gun control zombies tried the frontal assault (banning guns outright, or at least certain types), and they failed. They tried a flanking maneuver (ban the carrying of concealed firearms), and they failed. So now they?ve transitioned into asymmetrical political warfare by exploiting the genuine (if mistaken) anger and grief of the black community to advance their gun control fantasies.
And now you know the rest of the story.
?Andrew
-
That blog (I'm assuming) boils down to "some black people are angry, and this possibly could lead to gun control of some sort." I'm pretty skeptical that the TM case will lead to much of anything in terms of the national gun debate. Newtown was a much more sympathetic situation, as those children were 100% innocent, and yet the anti's still couldn't muster the support to pass any form of new gun control legislation. The media built this mess up and it will probably die down not long after the media moves on to some other "breaking news."
-
No need to assume, boz. You could just read the post and know what it says. But, it's nice of you to admit you post while uninformed. How liberal of you.
The leftist, racist gun grabbers never give up. In fact, Zero is fanning racial tensions in the hope of salvaging something from this case ? gun control legislation that will infringe upon our rights, and continued racial tensions that he can whip up to increase turnout for next year's mid-term elections.
*****
(http://moonbattery.com/george-zimmerman_ben-ghazi.jpg)
-
What I'm assuming is the source (a blog?) of whatever you're copy/pasting this time. I read it, although there's really nothing of substance there. But thanks I suppose for another comical insult-riddled post.
-
What I'm assuming is the source (a blog?) of whatever you're copy/pasting this time. I read it, although there's really nothing of substance there. But thanks I suppose for another comical insult-riddled post.
I cited the source: a post at the blog Legal Insurrection, by the author, on the day, and at the time specified ? very easy to find if one knows how to use a search engine, but for the technically challenged or the slothful, here's a link: http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/radical-gun-control-zombies-exploit-grieving-black-community//#more. I pasted Branca's post verbatim, except for omitting several photos than were not essential and the numerous comments.
Interesting that you find the facts of the case and the relevant law to be immaterial, which explains why you consistently misrepresent them. I note that your persistent whining likely played a role in keeping readers of the CZ Forums in the dark prior to and during the trial ? good job.
By the way, Legal Insurrection is a blog run by a conservative law professor from Cornell, and many of its readers are conservative attorneys. Interestingly, a liberal legal blog, TalkLeft, arrives at the same conclusion about the Zimmerman case as does Legal Insurrection. Imagine ? conservative and liberal lawyers agreeing about the vacuous nature of the State's case and the only correct verdict being not guilty.
Here's a front end (lightly edited) of a recent Talk Left post demonstrating my point (http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/7/22/21644/9178/crimenews/Zimmerman-Good-Samaritans-and-Racial-Injustice):
Zimmerman: Good Samaritans and Racial Injustice
TalkLeft
By Jeralyn [TalkLeft founder, I believe]
Posted on Mon Jul 22, 2013 at 08:06:44 PM EST
The Seminole County Sheriff's office today released a statement confirming that last Wednesday, four days after being acquitted of murder and manslaughter, George Zimmerman helped free a family of four from a rollover accident.
After spotting the vehicle on the side of the road, George grabbed a fire extinguisher from inside his truck, thinking a fire might break out, and with another man, freed the trappedfamilybeforefirst respondersarrivedatthe scene.
The driver of the vehicle identified Zimmerman as the man who pulled him to safety. Officers spoke with Zimmerman who then left the scene.
Also today, Sanford police turned over their file on the case to the FBI. Anyone who doesn't think the outcome will be anything other than there is no case to be made is delusional. As is anyone who thinks the woefully misinformed public will believe it.
I wonder if people using social media have any idea what ignormamuses they sound like.
What's no so easily overlooked or brushed off are the number stupid tweets calling for throwing the Bill of Rights out the window because of the verdict in this case. There were calls to reduce the burden of proof in criminal cases. Calls to change the law so that the state could appeal a not guilty verdict. Calls to repeal the privilege against self-incrimination so that a defendant could be forced to testify against himself. Calls to end the requirement that a verdict be unanimous. Calls to do away with expert testimony. Calls to change the rules of evidence so that negative character evidence as to the defendant (only) could be introduced.
In my opinion, this is all happening because the public was sold a false bill of goods from the start by the media, civil lawyers for the Martin family and civil rights leaders. I think they should all hang their heads in shame. The repeated misrepresentation of this shooting as a monumental civil rights issue has polarized the public to such an extent that everyone is closing their ears to the real problems of racial injustice in the criminal justice system.
President Obama didn't help when he tied his remarks on racial profiling to Martin and Zimmerman. It was another missed opportunity to address the real cause of racial disparity. The problem is not profiling by individuals (although there's no evidence that occurred in the Zimmerman case). It's not little old ladies in elevators or people who lock their car doors. It's not those who act in self-defense. It's the Government. It's always been the Government.
?
[The post goes on to desribe some interesting history of how souther Democrats, after the Civil War, extended slavery through abuse of the criminal justice system, aided by the fact that state gun-control laws ensured freed slaves were disarmed ? but this is not essential to the point here. The post also propsrs liberal reforms to end structural and institutional racism, and none involve lynching an innocent man, or depriving anyone of his civil rights, including the Constitutional right to possess and carry arms and the natural right to defend oneself.]
-
(http://moonbattery.com/george-zimmerman_ben-ghazi.jpg)
I love it
But I just read that, that $#!+ Head Zimmerman just helped save a family of four from their over-turned SUV :o
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57594906/george-zimmerman-helps-save-family-from-overturned-suv/
Yeah, only a real @$$hole would do that ! ! !
-
Skook, if you actually read the posts in these threads, I don't think you'd find a lot of disagreement. It seems like you instead read about 4 words and then try to jump all over some minor issue (e.g., me assuming it's a blog, which it was) and fling around a bunch of insults.
It's also worth noting that the blogs you're copy/pasting still don't tie the merits of the GZ case to the 2nd amendment (probably because the blogger knows better). I don't think anyone ever disputed that there could be a general backlash or public opinion battle over this incident. But that's not a direct tie-in to the merits of the criminal charges considered during the trial, which is what people were saying in the other thread. If you listened to the trial, it's pretty clear they weren't talking about the 2nd amendment and the Constitution. All that said, if Newtown didn't result in new regulation/legislation, I'm skeptical the GZ incident will, regardless of how much the media misrepresents it and hypes it up.
-
I note that your persistent whining likely played a role in keeping readers of the CZ Forums in the dark prior to and during the trial ? good job.
I haven't read anything that resembles 'whining', nor do I see how anyone posting here can keep forum readers in the dark. All I've seen is people presenting their opinions, in a civil and respectful manner; which is what a FORUM is for. If you can't stand being disagreed with, or even questioned, start a blog where you can have complete control over what is posted and what is not - Oh wait, isn't that what you're complaining about now?
A position that must be defended with insults, name calling and cries of foul play is denied the opportunity to stand on its own merit by the very person presenting it.
-
Skookum: This is an important thread that is of interest to many of us and your sniping at other members does neither the subject or your own position any favors. Just because someone holds a different opinion to you does not make theirs any less valid.
Please refrain from doing so in the future and confine commentary to the issues contained in the actual story.
Thank you in advance for your co-operation.
-
Skookum: This is an important thread that is of interest to many of us
Then why did forum management lock two previous threads on the subject? The topic of the Zimmerman persecution has been an important one to me since March 2012.
and your sniping at other members does neither the subject or your own position any favors. Just because someone holds a different opinion to you does not make theirs any less valid.
I was unaware pointing out lies and ignorance and applying logic constituted sniping. Everyone is welcome to his own opinion, but no one is allowed in a civil society, or a civil web forum, to fabricate facts and laws.
Please refrain from doing so in the future and confine commentary to the issues contained in the actual story.
Thank you in advance for your co-operation.
I believe I have confined my discussion on all three Zimmerman case threads, including the two that were locked, to the relevant facts and laws. I would welcome a specific example where I did not ? if you can find one.
Thank you for your fairness in advance.
-
I haven't read anything that resembles 'whining', nor do I see how anyone posting here can keep forum readers in the dark.
My reference to whining was boz's repeated claims, in the last Zimmerman case thread, that the case had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. To my knowledge, neither the 2nd Amendment or racism were argued in court, but it has been obvious from the start that politically and societally, both have been issues.
It is the locking of the prior two threads that kept readers of this forum in the dark, and I assume boz's whing contributed to the lockdown. If forum management tells me otherwise, I will be happy to admit my error.
All I've seen is people presenting their opinions, in a civil and respectful manner; which is what a FORUM is for. If you can't stand being disagreed with, or even questioned, start a blog where you can have complete control over what is posted and what is not - Oh wait, isn't that what you're complaining about now?
You, for example, based an opinion rooted in lies spread by a corrupt media and race grievance industry for nearly a year and a half. I believe I corrected your false assumptions. If you need more information, I shall be happy to provide it. I don't assume anyone here is stupid, but lack of knowledge is something we all suffer from and is a condition easily remedied.
As an applied scientist I'm questioned and disagreed with constantly, something I don't run from, because it comes with the job. I also know that pointing out lies, false assumptions, and flawed logic in no way constitutes an insult, although liars, manipulators, and the illogical like to portray it that way.
A position that must be defended with insults, name calling and cries of foul play is denied the opportunity to stand on its own merit by the very person presenting it.
Because I am defending my position with facts, law, and logic your statement is irrelevant.
-
I note that your persistent whining likely played a role in keeping readers of the CZ Forums in the dark prior to and during the trial ? good job.
No need to assume, boz. You could just read the post and know what it says. But, it's nice of you to admit you post while uninformed. How liberal of you.
This may be the most immoral, moronic comment I've ever read on a firearms website. Please tell me the dog wrote it, not Bob.
I am not going to repeat myself. I would like you to refrain from making the type of comments quoted above. Your opinion on the facts is valued, your need to attack the poster, rather than the argument that disagrees with your view is not.
It's quite a simple request.
-
Skook, if you actually read the posts in these threads, I don't think you'd find a lot of disagreement. It seems like you instead read about 4 words and then try to jump all over some minor issue (e.g., me assuming it's a blog, which it was) and fling around a bunch of insults.
boz, I read before I post. The only person here that has admitted not reading before posting is you ? fact, not insult.
It's also worth noting that the blogs you're copy/pasting still don't tie the merits of the GZ case to the 2nd amendment (probably because the blogger knows better). I don't think anyone ever disputed that there could be a general backlash or public opinion battle over this incident.
My first post of the previous Zimmerman thread, started on June 3 and locked by mbott on June (http://www.czfirearms.us/index.php?topic=56383.45), I included the announcement by Prof. Jacobson of Cornell Law School, the founder and owner of Legal Insurrection, that the self-defense lawyer, Andrew Branca, would be covering the trial. In that announcement Prof. Jacobson said the following:
The Zimmerman trial is the trial of the year because it combines not only the facts of the death of a young man, but also the circus over race relations and 2nd Amendment rights created by prosecutors, the Martin family attorneys, social and traditional media, and political groups with an agenda.
You replied 37 minutes later arguing that it wasn't a 2nd Amendment case. I assume you posted without reading why Prof. Jacobson says otherwise. Feel free to take it up with him. I'm sue you would be welcomed at Legal Insurrection.
Widge doesn't seem to object to the case being discussed here, so you could take it up with him, too.
Zimmerman's lead defense attorney, Mark O'Mara saw it as a 2nd Amendment case, or he wouldn't have asked prospective jurors about their views on the subject: http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-jury-selection-day-nine-wrap-up/.
And, Al Sharpton, who also saw it as a 2nd Amendment case:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NpFZ_lhOss
But that's not a direct tie-in to the merits of the criminal charges considered during the trial, which is what people were saying in the other thread. If you listened to the trial, it's pretty clear they weren't talking about the 2nd amendment and the Constitution. All that said, if Newtown didn't result in new regulation/legislation, I'm skeptical the GZ incident will, regardless of how much the media misrepresents it and hypes it up.
[/quote]
-
Skook, typical MSNBC garbage which is the reason it is the lowest rated tv net work in the country. Al Sharpton one of the top master race baiters would be out of business and a poor man if it wasn't for the white on black situations that he could exploit and lie to his followers to create an illusion for a media circus. It would be interesting to know how much money he has made off the TM shooting while traveling around stirring up his believers while also passing the trash can for donations. He along with others have not helped race relations, but why would he and his type care for it is the way they make their living.
As we have all gotten lathered up over this media circus, I hope Boz is right, nothing will change except Sharpton's banking account.
-
My reference to whining was boz's repeated claims, in the last Zimmerman case thread, that the case had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. To my knowledge, neither the 2nd Amendment or racism were argued in court, but it has been obvious from the start that politically and societally, both have been issues.
It is the locking of the prior two threads that kept readers of this forum in the dark, and I assume boz's whing contributed to the lockdown. If forum management tells me otherwise, I will be happy to admit my error.
I suppose I should point out that, when you say trial of the year on a given legal issue, I tend to assume that you're referring to the actual legal issues relevant to the trial. As the US Constitution has nothing to do with a Florida murder trial, I took a contrary position. It's arguable that this case has civil rights implications as well, but I would take the same position if someone posted this was the "Civil Rights Case of the Year".
Now, if your point was that there could be 2nd amendment implications because the media and political figures were creating a circus out of the case, then we'd be in 100% agreement. I think it's just hard to see what your point is when your posts are simply pasting in blogs, videos and the like, and then adding some insults calling me ignorant, liberal, attacking trivial things like me assuming you're copy/pasting a blog, etc. - rather than actually explaining your position.
If you simply said the 2nd amendment wasn't a legal issue directly involved in the trial, but the case could have 2nd amendment repercussions due to the national attention the case was receiving (including certain elements of the media clearly misrepresenting certain aspects of the case) - then we would have been in complete agreement.
-
Gentlemen: Move on from the past and in future confine yourselves to the facts concerning this case. I have dealt with the Ad Hominem aspects and I do not want to see any further reference to it. I will not say this again.
-
(http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c248/Husker1911/944560_315578121911824_847216480_n_zpseceadf3e.jpg)
The racists are claiming Zimmerman's rescue was staged? How much would one have to get paid to roll one's vehicle over along a highway with one's wife and two children in it just so GZ can look good?
-
Stand Your Ground: The ?New? Self-Defense Doctrine That?s 136 Years Young
Legal Insurrection
Posted by Andrew Branca
Tuesday, July 23, 2013 at 8:00am
? http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/stand-your-ground-the-new-self-defense-doctrine-thats-136-years-young//#more
Much has been made lately of the self-defense legal doctrine of Stand-Your-Ground, mostly for political purposes unrelated to any actual legal application of the doctrine (for more on this, see here: Stand-Your-Ground: Gun Control Zombies Exploit Grieving Black Community).
Stand Your Ground Does Not Make it Legal to Just Kill on a Whim
Those denouncing Stand-Your-Ground characterize it as something ?new,? a misguided initiative adopted in recent years by state legislatures that has now been clearly demonstrated to have profoundly negative unexpected consequences. ?Why, under Stand-Your-Ground you can shoot and kill someone just because! And it?s totally legal!?
This has become the common refrain of the pro-thug crowd who now begrudgingly concedes that Zimmerman had to be acquitted based on the facts and the law of the case?but the problem, they say, is not the thug, but the law.
Justifiable Killings Spiked in Florida After SYG Adopted ? Self-Defense is Good
But are the consequences of Stand-Your-Ground either negative or unexpected? FBI data shows that there was an increase in justifiable homicides in the aftermath of Stand-Your-Ground, from an annual average of 13.2 during the period 2001-2005, to an average of 42 during 2006-2012. But isn?t that a positive and expected consequence of Stand-Your-Ground?
After all, a homicide that has been ruled justifiable is, by definition, one in which the person who killed was justified in doing so. Under American law, that means (with very rare exception) that the person they killed was reasonably perceived to be representing an imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm. That aggressor was subsequently killed by the use of defensive force.
What alternative outcome would the opponents of Stand-Your-Ground desire? That the defending victim of the aggressor be the one that was killed? Or perhaps merely maimed? Raped, Beaten down?
Highly aggressive acts of violence carry an inherent threat of death occurring to one of the participants, but the two participants are not operating on the same moral plane. The innocent defender is right in his use of defensive force, the aggressor is not. The innocent defender did not choose the initiation of violence, the aggressor did. If death must strike one of them, it is infinitely better that it strike down the thug than the law-abiding citizen.
To put it another way, it?s hard to get too worked up about an increase in the number of justifiable homicides occurring if the right people?the aggressors who initiated the deadly fight on an innocent?are doing the dying. When that?s the case, Stand-Your-Ground is working just fine, and the justified homicides will stop when criminal aggressors stop committing acts of aggravated violence on lawfully armed citizens. It?s the criminals? call.
The Venerable ?New? Doctrine of Stand-Your-Ground
What about this concept that the Stand-Your-Ground doctrine is somehow ?new.? It?s certainly true that a number of states in the last couple of decades have adopted explicit Stand-Your-Ground statutes. Florida?s was adopted in 2005, and my neighboring state of New Hampshire just adopted their version in 2011, overriding the veto of the Democratic governor, and many other states have adopted similar legislation in the intervening years.
In fact, however, Stand-Your-Ground is far older than today?s mainstream media and racial activists?but I repeat myself?would have you believe. A quick review of my own notes shows the earliest reference to the Stand-Your-Ground doctrine dates back to when the United States numbered a mere 38 states, the Indiana case of Runyon v. State, 57 Ind. 80 (1877). In that case the court noted:
The tendency of the American mind seems to be very strongly against the enforcement of any rule which requires a person to flee when assailed, to avoid chastisement or even to save a human life . . . [Therefore,] [t]he weight of modern authority . . establishes the doctrine that when a person, being without fault and in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel force by force, and if, in reasonable exercise of his right of self-defence, his assailant is killed, he is justifiable.
(As quoted in: Of the Enemy Within, The Castle Doctrine, and Self-Defense.)
Other venerable cases supporting are found strewn widely around the closing of the 19th century: People v. Lewis (a California case from 1897), Boykin v. People (a Colorado case from 1896), Ragland v. State (a Georgia case from 1900), State v. Hatch (a Kansas case from 1896), and State v. Partlow (a Missouri case from 1887).
So, it?s pretty clear that Stand-Your-Ground has been around a very long time. Indeed, it has always been the majority doctrine in the United States, with only a minority of states adopting a generalized duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense. Even today, only 17 states apply such a duty.
Why the Pendulum from SYG to Duty to Retreat, and Back to SYG?
But what about the states that have more recently gone Stand-Your-Ground, and were previously ?duty to retreat? states by either statute or court decision? Why the change? After all, the moral imperatives that argue for Stand-Your-Ground have existed in America for at least 136 years, yet these states had moved away from the Stand-Your-Ground doctrine despite these imperatives. What drove the change from Stand-Your-Ground to ?duty to retreat?? And what drove the change back again?
The shift away from Stand-Your-Ground and towards the generalized duty to retreat was predicated on the notion that all life is precious, and before a defender can take the life of an attacker he must first exhaust every other option. And sometimes they really mean every other option. You hear that sentiment expressed by the anti-Stand-Your-Ground folks today. Listen to the pro-thug faction talking about the Zimmerman case and you?ll soon hear someone lament that poor George should have exhausted his brains on the sidewalk before being justified to use deadly force to stop Martin?s vicious attack. After all, it was just an ?ass-whuppin.? Indeed, much of the State?s prosecution of Zimmerman was based on the (legally ludicrous notion) that Zimmerman?s injuries were too minor to justify his use of deadly force in self defense. (To see why this notion is ludicrous, click here: Zimmerman Update ? How Much Injury Is Required Before Self-Defense is Justified?)
So, what happened? Why the shift back?
"An Unarmed Society is an Impolite Society?
First, as is typical of liberal policies, even (especially?) when well intended, they had massive and genuinely negative unexpected consequences. A criminal who knows he can seize physical control of his immediate surroundings with no fear of death or grave bodily harm being visited upon him is emboldened to do exactly that. You get more violent aggression from the criminal element of society, not less, when you force law-abiding citizens to cede control to violent criminals. It?s Heinleins?, ?An armed society is a polite society,? turned topsy-turvy.
Duty to Retreat Greatly Facilitates the Destruction of Otherwise Solid Claims of Self-Defense
Second, the imposition of a generalized duty to retreat made defeating almost any claim of self-defense child?s play for hyper-aggressive prosecutors. In a fight for your life your attention is focused sharply on staying alive?at least, if you survived we can assume that was the case. After allocating the cognitive bandwidth to staying alive, there?s often not a whole lot left to allocate to identifying and carefully assessing the prospects for safely retreating down that particular path, or through that particular door, or behind that particular obstacle.
But in the cool, safe environs of a court room, the Prosecutor will point to ALL of these avenues of escape and demand the jury ask why not one of them were pursued?why they were not even attempted? And if he can convince them that a reasonably safe avenue of retreat existed and you failed to take advantage of it, failed to meet your generalized duty to retreat, before using deadly force, your use of that force is not justifiable under the law. Your entire claim of self-defense collapses out from under you, and instead your conduct has become an unlawful killing.
(Note: There are some duty-to-retreat states that do not entirely strip you of your right to claim self-defense if you failed to take advantage of a reasonably safe avenue of retreat. Under the doctrine of ?imperfect self-defense? they allow you to mitigate what would have been a murder conviction to manslaughter. Recall that in the Zimmerman trial George was actually facing more jail time if convicted of the ?lesser included charge? of manslaughter than if he was convicted of murder.)
States Became Fed-Up With Negative Consequences of Duty to Retreat, Switched Back to SYG
As prosecutors increasingly began to leverage this avenue of attacking self-defense claims, and society observed ever more miscarriages of justice with law-abiding defenders receiving lengthy, sometimes life-long, prison sentences because of the generalized duty to retreat, pressure gradually grew to return to the always more popular doctrine of Stand-Your-Ground.
And now you know the rest of the story.
-
Citing George Zimmerman's Acquittal As a Reason to Repeal 'Stand Your Ground' Laws Is a Non Sequitur
reason.com
Jacob Sullum | Jul. 29, 2013 4:25 pm
http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/29/citing-george-zimmermans-acquittal-as-a
Today Sybrina Fulton, Trayvon Martin's mother, said she believed Florida's "stand your ground" self -defense law "assisted the person who killed my son to get away with murder." She did not explain how, which is hardly surprising, since George Zimmerman's defense was not based on the absence of a duty to retreat for people attacked in public places. Rather, it was a classic self -defense claim that could have been successful in any state. Fulton nevertheless insists "we have to change these laws so people don't get away with murder."
It is not hard to understand why a grieving mother might want to give her son's death some meaning by tying it to a broader cause, no matter how illogical the connection. But the leaders of the National Bar Association (NBA), the African-American lawyers' group that sponsored the event in Miami at which Fulton spoke, surely know better. They nevertheless are throwing their support behind a campaign to repeal "stand your ground" laws, citing Martin's shooting as justification. "Stand your ground laws must fall," says NBA President John E. Page. "It is time to stand up?stand up against 'stand your ground' laws and stand up in the memory of Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis, and so many others whose killings were carried out by gun violence and justified by these senseless laws. We must not allow anyone to succumb to violence at the hands of vigilantes who devalue human life."
When The Miami Herald 's Marc Caputo pointed out that Zimmerman could have successfully used exactly the same defense before Florida's "stand your ground law" was enacted in 2005, Page replied. "Why do you need the law then? There is a common-law right to protect yourself." But since that common-law right was all that Zimmerman needed to be acquitted, why is Page citing his case as an example of the injustices caused by "stand your ground" laws? Page's response is tantamount to admitting that his publicity campaign is based on a lie.
The shooting of Jordan Davis, which Page also mentioned, seems like a more promising example. Davis, a black teenager, was a passenger in a Dodge Durango on which Michael David Dunn, a middle-aged white man, fired at a Jacksonville gas station last year. Dunn had asked Davis to turn down the loud music playing on the SUV's stereo, which led to an argument that ended in Davis' death. Dunn claimed he saw someone aim a shotgun at him from a window of the vehicle, although police did not find any weapons. This is a case where the absence of a duty to retreat might be important, since Dunn arguably could have left the gas station instead of drawing his gun. But it is a bit premature to say that Dunn's killing of Davis was "justified" by the "stand your ground" law, since he was charged with first-degree murder the day after the shooting and has not been tried yet.
Bizarrely, the NBA statement also mentions Hadiya Pendleton, a 15-year-old girl who was killed by gunfire at a Chicago park in January. The suspects, 18-year-old Michael Ward and 20-year-old Kenneth Williams, told police they mistook Pendleton's friends for members of a rival gang. It is true, though not widely recognized, that Illinois imposes no duty to retreat on people attacked in public places. But unless Ward and Williams plan to claim they shot Pendleton in self-defense after she attacked them, it is hard to see what "stand your ground" has to do with this case.
Enough with the phony examples. If critics of "stand your ground" laws can find cases where people really did get away with murder because of the changes made to Florida's self-defense law in 2005, they should talk about those. When they say "stand your ground" laws should be repealed to honor the memories of Trayvon Martin and Hadiya Pendleton, they are literally talking nonsense.
And yes, it is still nonsense if you cite the jury instructions or the interview with Juror B37, neither of which shows that Zimmerman's acquittal hinged on his utterly irrelevant right to stand his ground while he was pinned to it and pummeled.
-
Now, the real story is surfacing which starts with the prosecutor. This seems to be a problem in Florida.
Florida Prosecutor Indicted For Falsifying Arrest Warrant against George Zimmerman:
Florida State's Attorney Angela Corey has been indicted by a citizens' grand jury, convening in Ocala, Florida, over the falsification of the arrest warrant and complaint that lead to George Zimmerman being charged with the second degree murder of African-American teenager Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida.
The indictment of Corey, which was handed down last week (see www.citizensgrandjury.com), charges Corey with intentionally withholding photographic evidence of the injuries to George Zimmerman's head in the warrant she allegedly rushed to issue under oath, in an effort to boost her reelection prospects. At the outset of this case, black activists such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who whipped up wrath against Zimmerman, demanded that he be charged with murder, after local police had thus far declined to arrest him pending investigation.
Following Corey's criminal complaint charging Zimmerman, legal experts such as Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz condemned her for falsely signing an arrest affidavit under oath, which intentionally omitted exculpatory evidence consisting of the photographs showing the injuries Zimmerman sustained, and rushing to charge him with second degree murder under political pressure. Dershowitz called her actions unethical and themselves crimes (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/drop-george-zimmerman-murder-charge- article-1.1080161).
Larry Klayman, a former U.S. Justice Department prosecutor, a Florida lawyer since 1977, and now the "citizens' prosecutor" who presided over the Ocala grand jury said this: "The Supreme Court has confirmed that the grand jury belongs to the American people, not the three branches of government. (504 U.S. 36, 48 (1992) (quoting United States v. R. Enterprises, Inc., 498 U.S. 292, 297 (1991)). By indicting Florida State Attorney Angela Corey, the people are exercising their God given rights, recognized by our Founding Fathers, to mete out justice when the political and legal establishment subverts the rule of law. Hopefully, this indictment will serve as a warning to the political and legal establishment that they are not above the law. Ironically, Corey will now be tried and likely convicted for her alleged crimes -- which resulted in Zimmerman being charged under false pretenses, now coming home to roost during Zimmerman's on-going trial. Corruption MUST NOT be tolerated, particularly by law enforcement officers who are elected by the people to serve their ends, not the law enforcement officer's political ends."
Sources: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/02/3481286/zimmerman-prosecutor-angela-corey.html
http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/zimmerman-prosecutor-angela-corey-criminally-indicted-by-cit
http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130702-905033.html
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/conscience-realist/2013/aug/2/angela-corey-being-sued-whistleblower-she-fired/
Just shows how political and racial the charges were. Does not look good for those directly involved in the prosecution. GZ may have a solid suit against Florida.
-
Now, the real story is surfacing which starts with the prosecutor. This seems to be a problem in Florida.
Florida Prosecutor Indicted For Falsifying Arrest Warrant against George Zimmerman:
Florida State's Attorney Angela Corey has been indicted by a citizens' grand jury, convening in Ocala, Florida, over the falsification of the arrest warrant and complaint that lead to George Zimmerman being charged with the second degree murder of African-American teenager Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida.
The indictment of Corey, which was handed down last week (see www.citizensgrandjury.com), charges Corey with intentionally withholding photographic evidence of the injuries to George Zimmerman's head in the warrant she allegedly rushed to issue under oath, in an effort to boost her reelection prospects. At the outset of this case, black activists such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who whipped up wrath against Zimmerman, demanded that he be charged with murder, after local police had thus far declined to arrest him pending investigation.
Following Corey's criminal complaint charging Zimmerman, legal experts such as Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz condemned her for falsely signing an arrest affidavit under oath, which intentionally omitted exculpatory evidence consisting of the photographs showing the injuries Zimmerman sustained, and rushing to charge him with second degree murder under political pressure. Dershowitz called her actions unethical and themselves crimes (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/drop-george-zimmerman-murder-charge- article-1.1080161).
Larry Klayman, a former U.S. Justice Department prosecutor, a Florida lawyer since 1977, and now the "citizens' prosecutor" who presided over the Ocala grand jury said this: "The Supreme Court has confirmed that the grand jury belongs to the American people, not the three branches of government. (504 U.S. 36, 48 (1992) (quoting United States v. R. Enterprises, Inc., 498 U.S. 292, 297 (1991)). By indicting Florida State Attorney Angela Corey, the people are exercising their God given rights, recognized by our Founding Fathers, to mete out justice when the political and legal establishment subverts the rule of law. Hopefully, this indictment will serve as a warning to the political and legal establishment that they are not above the law. Ironically, Corey will now be tried and likely convicted for her alleged crimes -- which resulted in Zimmerman being charged under false pretenses, now coming home to roost during Zimmerman's on-going trial. Corruption MUST NOT be tolerated, particularly by law enforcement officers who are elected by the people to serve their ends, not the law enforcement officer's political ends."
Sources: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/02/3481286/zimmerman-prosecutor-angela-corey.html
http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/zimmerman-prosecutor-angela-corey-criminally-indicted-by-cit
http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130702-905033.html
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/conscience-realist/2013/aug/2/angela-corey-being-sued-whistleblower-she-fired/
Just shows how political and racial the charges were. Does not look good for those directly involved in the prosecution. GZ may have a solid suit against Florida.
Thank you for this very well put together and informative post Skipper
-
Thanks Yer, I only past it on after receiving and verifying the information because of the huge interest by us gun owners in the outcome of the Zimmerman court case. As it turns out this case was tainted early on by the "Reverends" applying political pressure and playing the race card with the help of the Florida Prosecutor. Actually this does not surprise me with the huge media coverage plus the high profile people trying to railroad GZ, which may come back to bite them.
-
Unfortunately, an indictment by a citizen grand jury has no legal weight, but it does help draw attention to an injustice.
I think Zimmerman's wife's trial for perjury is scheduled for this month ? another case where Corey overcharged, to coerce George to cop a plea. It should be interesting.
-
Unfortunately, an indictment by a citizen grand jury has no legal weight, but it does help draw attention to an injustice.
I think Zimmerman's wife's trial for perjury is scheduled for this month ? another case where Corey overcharged, to coerce George to cop a plea. It should be interesting.
Too bad the citizen grand jury has no legal weight. I have to admit there is some pleasure to see GZ suing Sharpton and others for hammering him relentlessly on national tv.
Hope he wins this one:
http://www.examiner.com/article/zimmerman-s-lawsuit-against-al-sharpton-nbc-and-the-martin-family-attorneys?cid=taboola_inbound
-
It will be sweet to see the racists at MSNBC and Crump Law settle for unspecified millions. It will be sweeter to see it go to trial.
Shellie Zimmerman's perjury trial is scheduled to start Aug 21 ? http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/next-up-florida-v-shellie-zimmerman/. It will be interesting to see if the State will let this go to trial, as they are asking for another ass kicking if they do.
-
No kidding. It is time for the "lynch mob" to pony up.
-
She will go to trial regardless
-
The first in a series of a now 13-part series presenting Massad Ayoob's autopsy of the Zimmerman trial:
http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2013/07/13/the-zimmerman-verdict-part-1/
-
Apparently the mother of the slain violent offender visited my state asking for our laws to be changed, as AZ SYG law may create a hostile working environment for thugs and violent felons. I urge her to leave the state for more receptive ears, such as in Chicago, NYC and San Francisco.
-
Traymommy has decided, at least for now, to become a race-baiting gun grabber instead of returning to work, because the Miami Public Housing Department doesn't pay out in trash cans full of cash like her new calling does
(http://i.imgur.com/BAmC6Wx.jpg).
-
Traymommy has decided, at least for now, to become a race-baiting gun grabber instead of returning to work, because the Miami Public Housing Department doesn't pay out in trash cans full of cash like her new calling does
(http://i.imgur.com/BAmC6Wx.jpg).
Well she's hooked up with Al Sheep dip so maybe she can be the next Tawana Brawley.
-
The first in a series of a now 13-part series presenting Massad Ayoob's autopsy of the Zimmerman trial:
http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2013/07/13/the-zimmerman-verdict-part-1/
Yesterday was part 14: The Judge
Great running commentary on the WHOLE case
Very well written
He brought-up some good points
I find it interesting that TM's Mother has a "Nonprofit" organization set-up....already ! ! !
Here are STILL some Tea Party Groups that are awaiting THEIR Nonprofit status from the IRS
-
Deceptive Trayvon Martin Shooting Reenactment Video Released
Legal Insurrection
Posted by Andrew Branca
Monday, August 19, 2013 at 7:53pm
Via Amanda Turkel at Huffington Post comes news that The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence has released a video "reenactment" of the shooting of Trayvon Martin in order to encourage people to oppose Stand Your Ground Laws.
The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence has released a chilling new online ad reenacting the night Travyon Martin was killed, in an effort to stop the controversial Stand Your Ground laws nationwide.
The nonprofit group uses actual audio from the 911 calls that shooter George Zimmerman and a witness made that night in Sanford, Fla. After the sound of a gunshot, people in hoodies are seen lying on the ground, and the names are displayed of the more than 20 states that have Stand Your Ground laws in place.
The group has also launched a website and a petition asking people to urge their state lawmakers to oppose this immoral legislation.
"Stand Your Ground laws have essentially legalized murder. With this PSA, we hope to add to the nationwide push to repeal these immoral laws," said CSGV Communications Director Ladd Everitt.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUKzDANF6QU
The video is highly deceptive, and nothing more than a continuation of the propaganda campaign about the case.
Had they felt any affinity for the truth, they might have mentioned Martin's emerging from the darkness to fell Zimmerman with a blow the neighborhood watch volunteer never saw coming, a blow that hit with such force that it broke Zimmerman's nose, and which he described to police that same night as feeling as if he had been hit by a brick.
Had they felt any affinity for the truth, they might have mentioned Zimmerman's many and numerous injuries about the head and face, especially those caused by Martin striking Zimmerman's head on a cement sidewalk, with any single blow capable of being the one that turned Zimmerman into a drooling vegetable or simply taking his life.
Had they felt any affinity for the truth, they might have mentioned Martin's long record of school violence, his engagement in street fighting, his apparent drug use, his apparent gun dealing, and his self-expressed desire to beat his victims until they had suffered "enough."
Had they felt any affinity for the truth, they might have mentioned Zimmerman's long history of affectionate and communal relationship with black neighbors throughout his life, from his childhood to the present day, or indeed Zimmerman's own mixed-race background.
The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence tried for decades, under various guises and name changes, to seize the guns of law-abiding citizens. They failed. They tried to limit the right of the citizenry to carry arms for personal protection, they failed.
By demanding a legal duty to retreat from a felonious attacker they weaken the position of the law-abiding armed citizen who sought no fight and strengthen the hand of the felony criminal who possessed all the power to choose when, where, and how to launch his vicious attack, robbery, or rape of his intended victim.
Here is a screenshot from the video, purporting to show that the law should protect victims.
(http://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Trayvon-Martin-Reenactment-Coalition-To-Stop-Gun-Violence-screenshot.jpg)
In fact, the law does protect victims. Victims like George Zimmerman, who didn't have to suffer brain injury or death before he could defend himself with deadly force.
?Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
-
That's some unbelievable BULL
And if they REALLY believed in their message, why are the comments blocked on UTube ? ? ?
WHY, because it's a total load of <r@p and they have no defense for it ! ! !
-
If the NRA doesn't respond to this I'm going to find it difficult to send them any more money. A factual rebuttal would suffice, a vid would be even better.
-
I'd personally rather the NRA not waste resources responding to such nonsense. I don't think it's a particularly effective video, as the public is (for the most part) aware that more was involved in that altercation. I think they've milked this trial for all they're going to get out of it, and that's not much.
It's also worth remembering that it's just a video on YouTube. There are plenty of stupid videos on YouTube, many worse than this one.
-
I hope you're right.
-
Let's all just be quiet about the lies the racist gun grabbers told about George Zimmerman and the law. The next guy that's forced to use his weapon to defend himself against a felonious assault perpetrated by a young male minority (i.e., a member of a group that is responsible for half of all violent crime) can just deal with more lies of the sort on his own.
-
I find it interesting that TM's Mother has a "Nonprofit" organization set-up....already ! ! !
Here are STILL some Tea Party Groups that are awaiting THEIR Nonprofit status from the IRS
Interesting, but not surprising, with the current administration certain groups and individuals get the special fast track treatment for whatever they need. It will also be interesting to see how her donations are spent. What do you mean, cash donations?
-
The neo-racists won't let this one go.
*****
Making Your Trayvon Martin Anger Worthwhile
The Cornell Daily Sun
August 27, 2013 By Sam Kuhn
http://www.cornellsun.com/section/opinion/content/2013/08/27/kuhn-making-your-trayvon-martin-anger-worthwhile
Times like these test the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.?s powerful pronouncement that ?the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.? Trayvon Martin?s shooting death by George Zimmerman?s gun, the difficulty with which he was brought to trial and his subsequent acquittal on all charges have justifiably generated a maelstrom of anger and confusion. These events clearly constitute a deep miscarriage of justice. What is less clear is whether this miscarriage operates only in an especially unmistakable corner of the realm of immorality, a place which is deeply unsatisfying for its formal unenforceability. The public outcry at every stage of this morbid saga has been a heartening reminder that Dr. King?s lifetime of sacrifice was not in vain ?the tradition he championed of collective civic action in the name of ameliorating injustice has clearly survived, as citizens continue to recognize that they must actively maintain whatever moral progress has been wrought in our nation?s tumultuous history.
But the moral universe is imprecisely monitored by the rigidity of the legal system. The same energetic activism which has forced this case into the national consciousness and galvanized a wide-ranging abstract discussion of morality must be turned toward more earthbound legal details. Reforming statute may lack the glamour and neat gratification of punishing a perceived bigot for his obviously evil deed. But failing to do so would mean squandering a unique opportunity to more closely align the moral and legal universes in order remove the ambiguity that ultimately sanctioned Zimmerman?s homicide. We will never know the exact sequence of events that precipitated the struggle culminating in Trayvon?s death. As the law stands, the way these events unfolded is crucial to assigning legal culpability despite Zimmerman?s own admission that he murdered the unarmed teenager. Reforming the law, then, rather than seeking to nail Zimmerman to a punishment that may not actually exist, is essential to achieving justice.
?Stand Your Ground? laws exist in various iterations in nearly half of the 50 states. Florida?s criminal code holds that ?a person ? who is attacked ? 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.? The threat this law poses to justice is twofold: First, in privileging the shoot-first mentality which escalates conflicts everywhere the law stands, and second, in requiring juries to accommodate the unbelievable ambiguity SYG laws entail. Though we may never know in our heart of hearts how racist Zimmerman is, and punishing him for this suspected prejudice is (rightly) legally impossible, we do know that gun carriers like him in SYG states are emboldened by the knowledge that they can initiate, escalate and violently terminate conflicts. Thus, their version of the events will be the only surviving one if they have a true enough shot. It?s far easier to convince a jury that you were in real danger when the only other interested party is dead.
Meanwhile, privately-held prejudices can be acted upon and embellished into legitimate sounding defenses when examined in the context of such a non-standard of justifiable violence. A recent Urban Institute study found that in states without SYG laws, black-on-white homicides were only found to be justified 1.2 percent of the time, while white-on-black homicides were justified in 11.4 percent of reviewed cases. [3] The disparity grows in SYG states, where juries are called upon to make judgments on ambiguous criteria which are more susceptible to subjectively held preconceptions: Black-on-white homicides were found justified in 1.4 percent of cases (a statistically insignificant increase),while white-on-black justified homicides jumped almost 50 percent, to 16.9 percent of reviewed cases. As before, it?s impossible to prove that the racial disparity in homicides deemed justified is the result of juror bigotry. But to rely on such a subjective standard for determining culpability (what seems a ?reasonable? threat of harm is different for different people) is to deny that consciously or subconsciously-held biases (racial, sexual, it doesn?t matter) can pervert juror perception and fill in for evidence-based review. Abolishing SYG laws would remove this ambiguity.
The dense and tragic history of American racism starkly illustrates the fact that racial prejudices are deeply personal and widely social phenomena that cannot be comprehensively addressed by the law. But it is well within the responsibility of the law to eliminate ambiguities which give these deeply personal prejudices room to operate in the realm of legal permissibility. Earlier this month, Trayvon?s parents courageously recognized this by initiating a petition on Change.org calling on the governors of every state with SYG laws to review and amend them. [4] Changing statute as controversial as SYG laws is slow work; powerful vested interests have screwed their considerable money and influence, if not their courage, to the sticking place. Adding your name to the list will be a crucial first step in bending the legal universe back toward the moral.
-
Let's all just be quiet about the lies the racist gun grabbers told about George Zimmerman and the law. The next guy that's forced to use his weapon to defend himself against a felonious assault perpetrated by a young male minority (i.e., a member of a group that is responsible for half of all violent crime) can just deal with more lies of the sort on his own.
This is absolutely right. We all know what the media drum beat would be had Delbert Belton in Spokane, Washington pulled a pistol and dispatched the 2 thugs who beat him to death.
-
Let's all just be quiet about the lies the racist gun grabbers told about George Zimmerman and the law. The next guy that's forced to use his weapon to defend himself against a felonious assault perpetrated by a young male minority (i.e., a member of a group that is responsible for half of all violent crime) can just deal with more lies of the sort on his own.
This is absolutely right. We all know what the media drum beat would be had Delbert Belton in Spokane, Washington pulled a pistol and dispatched the 2 thugs who beat him to death.
Whoa there. Unless Trayvon Marshall was posthumously charged, tried and convicted of assault, there is no 'next guy'. George Zimmerman was found not guilty, because the jury had reasonable doubt, that is all. It does not equate to some sort of legal proclamation that his account of the incident was 100% the truth. His jury, just like the O.J. Simpson jury and many others, simply found that the prosecution's case as presented was not enough to erase reasonable doubt and convict the accused, nor did they find that the victim was to blame. In fact, the only thing the jury said against Martin was that 'he also could have walked away'. That is a far cry from a "felonious assault". Saying he "Stupidly bring his fists to a gunfight", is ridiculous. Was the minor supposed to violate the law and bring a gun instead? If "a young male minority (i.e., a member of a group that is responsible for half of all violent crime)" is accurate, did Zimmerman have a history of reporting and following individuals who did not fall in that group with the same frequency? (After all, someone else is committing the other half of the violent crimes). Ultimately, all that happened is George Zimmerman got off the hook for a fatal shooting, nothing more can be read into it than that. Everybody, please note that I did not say 'got away with'. I do not know what actually happened, neither does the jury, and neither do any of you.
Are there people 'waving the bloody shirt' (in this case a hoodie) to suit their own agendas? Absolutely. But there are better ways to counter that than to make comments like "Thank you, George, for taking out the trash" which has been stated on this forum. We can use the word racists, but by ignoring comments like that, we're the ones who paint ourselves with the same brush. The bottom line is, those who use Trayvon Martin will likely win more support from the moderates in this country than those who use George Zimmerman can. America is full of people who do not own guns but do not feel strongly either way (yet) about gun control. These are the people we need to persuade to protect their own rights, and certainly can't afford to alienate. With that in mind, Mr Zimmerman is a poor choice of poster boy for the Second Amendment. Please let him quietly go away.
-
Perfectly said Bob. Glad you're on this forum.
-
My point goes to the racial bias from the media and virtually all the race baiters out there. Race was immediately brought into the TM/GZ case but they bend over backwards to state it had nothing to do with the Delbert Belton murder, BS! White baby blown away in it's stroller in Georgia, media avoids it like the plague. Australian student killed in Oklahoma, already destined to be back page news. The list goes on and on.
The GZ verdict can be read into by what ever logic one cares to use. I'd say by virtue of being found not guilty under the law based on self defense that makes TM absolutely guilty of assault. Had he survived who's to say he would not have been charged as such. No body got off the Hook for anything here. Every body has paid.
-
The bottom line is, those who use Trayvon Martin will likely win more support from the moderates in this country than those who use George Zimmerman can. America is full of people who do not own guns but do not feel strongly either way (yet) about gun control. These are the people we need to persuade to protect their own rights, and certainly can't afford to alienate. With that in mind, Mr Zimmerman is a poor choice of poster boy for the Second Amendment. Please let him quietly go away.
Absolutely! And a key word there is yet. We each have to realize this fact and conduct ourselves accordingly. Exactly why the NRA or similar pro-gun organization should publish a rebuttal. One in good taste, directly illustrating the intended attempt to instigate action by emotion.
-
bob,
That's one heck of a neo-racist argument you provided.
George Zimmerman was found not guilty, because the jury had reasonable doubt, that is all.
Zimmerman was found not guilty by reason of justifiable homicide. He freely admitted killing Martin, so the only question for the jury was whether the killing was justified, and they concluded, as they had to, that it was justified per the preponderance of the evidence ? in particular:
- that it was Zimmerman who was screaming for help for more than 40 seconds,
- that it was Zimmerman who sustained defensive injuries consistent with the threat of grave bodily harm or death,
- that an eye witness reported Martin being on top in a manner consistent with Zimmerman's claim of being pinned and pummeled, and
- except for the bullet wound, the only injuries suffered by Martin were two abrasions on his knuckle, offensive injuries.
This body of evidence points clearly to Martin having been lawfully shot and killed while in the commission of a forcible felony upon the shooter.
Many neo-racists more powerful than anyone here have tried to spin a tale in the face of the above undisputable evidence to make Zimmerman appear guilty, including some of the jurors, but none has succeeded. Take your best shot at doing so if you can do better.
It does not equate to some sort of legal proclamation that his account of the incident was 100% the truth.
No one claims that it does, but post-trial logic drives one to the conclusion that Zimmerman's story was at least substantially true. In fact, the trial supported the city police department's and county prosecutor's decisions not to file charges against Zimmerman, as there was insufficient evidence to do so. A corrupt special prosecutor was able to file charges only by side stepping a grand jury, who she knew would not indict, and by filing a perjurious charging affadavit that was accepted by a corrupt judge.
His jury, just like the O.J. Simpson jury and many others, simply found that the prosecution's case as presented was not enough to erase reasonable doubt and convict the accused, nor did they find that the victim was to blame.
Simpson was justifiably tried for murder 1. Zimmerman was, unjustifiably, tried for murder 2 and found not guilty by reason of self defense. Self defense played no role in Simpson's trial.
I believe in FL for a claim of self defense to prevail, the jury must find the claim to be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. In other words, the jury must be at least 50.1% certain that the claim is true. For the claim to be true, the accused must have been under threat of death or great bodily harm via a forcible felony or threat of a forcible felony. Thus, it logically follows that if the jury accepts the claim of self defense, they are by necessity assigning blame of a forcible felony or threat thereof to the one shot hy the accused.
While it may be possible for someone to interpret a non-threatening action as a threat and, as such, be found not guilty by reason of self defense, that is not the case here, because the evidence clearly points to Martin having had been in the commission of a felonious assault. But, feel free to spin a yarn consistent with the evidence that involves an innocent Martin. I enjoy good fiction.
In fact, the only thing the jury said against Martin was that 'he also could have walked away'. That is a far cry from a "felonious assault."
Wrong ? the jury said Zimmerman was not guilty, per the jury instructions, by reason of justifiable homicide.
Saying he "Stupidly bring his fists to a gunfight", is ridiculous. Was the minor supposed to violate the law and bring a gun instead?
Martin was stupid to start a fist fight with a citizen in a jurisdiction where one can carry concealed. That is the take-home lesson here, and the kind of crime concealed carry is meant to deter. When neo-racists look for excuses for Martin, the take-home lesson is lost and society as a whole suffers. Thugs and wanna-be thugs would do well to take the take-home lesson to heart, as should those who value our 2nd Amendment rights and our natural right to self defense.
If "a young male minority (i.e., a member of a group that is responsible for half of all violent crime)" is accurate ?
It is. See, for example:
New Century Foundation, 2005, The Color of Crime: Race, Crime and Justice in America, 2nd Ed, New Century Foundation, Oakton, VA.
Here are the Foundation's major findings:
- Police and the justice system are not biased against minorities.
Crime Rates
- Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery.
- When blacks commit crimes of violence, they are nearly three times more likely than non-blacks to use a gun, and more than twice as likely to use a knife.
- Hispanics commit violent crimes at roughly three times the white rate, and Asians commit violent crimes at about one quarter the white rate.
- The single best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic.
Interracial Crime
- Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent.
- Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are black.
- Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against
a white than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.
- Blacks are 2.25 times more likely to commit officially-designated hate crimes against whites than vice versa.
Gangs
- Only 10 percent of youth gang members are white.
- Hispanics are 19 times more likely than whites to be members of youth gangs. Blacks are 15 times more likely, and Asians are nine times more likely.
Incarceration
- Between 1980 and 2003 the US incarceration rate more than tripled, from 139 to 482 per 100,000, and the number of prisoners increased from 320,000 to 1.39 million.
- Blacks are seven times more likely to be in prison than whites. Hispanics are three times more likely.
One example of how nefarious neo-racism is can be seen right here: the fact that perhaps 3% of our population accounts for roughly 50% of our violent crime has been effectively covered up. Furthermore, neo-racist political correctness precludes pointing this fact out or doing anything effectively to solve the problem. Please forgive me for not being intimidated by neo-racist tactics or foolish enough to swallow their tales.
[D]id Zimmerman have a history of reporting and following individuals who did not fall in that group with the same frequency?
To my knowledge Zimmerman never reported anyone he suspected of a violent crime. He reported people he suspected of property crimes, specifically burglaries.
(After all, someone else is committing the other half of the violent crimes).
The incarceration rate of blacks for property crimes, per The Color of Crime, is 5-times greater than that for whites. For Hispanics it is about 1.5-times greater than that for whites. As I recall, Zimmerman's community was roughly 50% white, 30% Hispanic, and 20% black. As I recall from the trial, Zimmerman had made three prior calls to report suspicious characters, all three of whom were black. Adjusting community proportions by relative incarceration rates (assuming relative incarceration rates are the same as relative property crime rates), and one would expect a randomly selected burglar to be black a bit more than 50% of the time. In other words, you are willing to brand the multi-racial Zimmerman a racist based on the equivalent of someone flipping a coin three times and having it come up heads each time. For your information, that's hardly a rare event. One should be far more certain before whipping out the race card.
Ultimately, all that happened is George Zimmerman got off the hook for a fatal shooting, nothing more can be read into it than that. Everybody, please note that I did not say 'got away with'. I do not know what actually happened, neither does the jury, and neither do any of you.
Zimmerman was never on any legitimate hook. Seems like the city police, county prosecutor, the jury, and me all figured out that Zimmerman did not murder Martin. Playing the ignorant one in light of obvious evidence is not becoming.
Are there people 'waving the bloody shirt' (in this case a hoodie) to suit their own agendas? Absolutely. But there are better ways to counter that than to make comments like "Thank you, George, for taking out the trash" which has been stated on this forum.
Classic neo-racist accusation. I was the one who thanked George for taking out the trash, and you have not an iota of evidence justifying your play of the race card here. Those who are strangers to facts, law, and logic almost certainly don't care, but I could care less what color the trash is. Furthermore, I don't care if the trash is taken out by the criminal justice system or by an armed citizen.
We can use the word racists, but by ignoring comments like that, we're the ones who paint ourselves with the same brush. The bottom line is, those who use Trayvon Martin will likely win more support from the moderates in this country than those who use George Zimmerman can. America is full of people who do not own guns but do not feel strongly either way (yet) about gun control. These are the people we need to persuade to protect their own rights, and certainly can't afford to alienate. With that in mind, Mr Zimmerman is a poor choice of poster boy for the Second Amendment. Please let him quietly go away.
I challenge you to back up your allegation that the comment under discussion is in anyway racist. It is, however, neo-racist, which is use of unfounded allegations of racism, the fabrication of such allegations, or the willful spreading of such fabricated allegations, a tactic of last resort for the unprincipled scoundrel and the unknowledgeable.
Those who falsely claim Trayvon's innocence are the one's imperiling our society and jeopardizing our rights to be armed and to defend ourselves. Silence is typically interpreted to denote agreement. Remain silent at the risk to yourself, your family, your community, and your nation.
-
When you string together statements about the next "male minority" and "Thank you, George, for taking out the trash", it's not hard to back up an accusation that there are racial undertones in these posts. Frankly, I don't see the relevance of the race issue here. I didn't see it when the media brought it up, nor do I see any relevance of TM's minority status in Skookum's posts. For that matter, stand your ground should protect you equally whether you're a minority being assaulted by a minority, a non-minority being assault by a non-minority, or some permutation thereof. It's irrelevant to the legal analysis of this case. Dwelling on it simply begs into question whether you're attempting to imply something about a group of people, based on the merits of a case unrelated to race.
-
You're right Skookum, silence can be interpreted as agreement... That is why I posted; I disagree.
Nowhere in our justice system does one man's not guilty verdict simultaneously mean another man's conviction. Even Perry Mason couldn't pull that off in fiction. Due process still applies, and if Zimmerman is considered innocent until proven guilty, so is Martin. If we can't accept that, we are we stooping to the very level we cry foul about.
There are too many people out there who find it easy to sympathize with Martin's parent's grief. Regardless of race, many have kids of their own who they can visualize in the same situation, wearing the same clothes, and winding up just as dead. In this age of predators (the media you despise certainly publicizes that), who now raises their kids to trust adult strangers, let alone if they are followed, approached and/or confronted by them? What if they attempt to detain them? How many people think about how they might have reacted in the same situation, when they were the same age? Martin was never found to be in the process of committing a crime when he was approached, he was just there, and he reacted in a manner many people can imagine their own kids might. Now he's dead, a perceived injustice has been done, and to add insult to injury, he being called "drug addled", a "thug" and worse. This is why the case is a lost cause in the court of public opinion. We're not only hitching our Second Amendment rights wagon to a lame horse in George Zimmerman, we're letting insensitive and offensive teamsters drive it over a grave.
There is nothing to celebrate in this case, no trash was taken out; but we might as well be throwing away public support we can't afford to lose.
By the way; you've been throwing around the accusation of racist by some twisted perversion of the definition since very early on in this thread like a stuck record. I just picked it up and said enough already.
-
Lets think about wrapping this one up please gents. It's starting to disappear up its own exhaust pipe.
-
All done?
-
All done?
I started it, I guess I'll end it
It seems more than obvious to me that this Administration has no problem inserting itself into ONLY those issues that will further its own agendas
In other words, Obama could care less if three Black Kids nearly beat a White Kid to death and two Black Teen succeeds in beating to death an 80+ year old WWII Vet
Where's the USAG in these cases ?
Where's Mr Obama ?
Anyway, with that, You can shut'er down Widge