Going wild on the Wednesday OPEN thread
Shot by Dan Monday in Annapolis
“The good news is that Jesus is coming back. The bad news is that he’s really pissed off.”
Bob Hope
April 11, 2012 - 10:26 AM
- Contact us |
- Customer care |
- Subscribe |
- Advertise |
- Submit news |
- Sign in
Don't Miss
Enter your photo in the Ultimate Fan contest by midnight to win a suite night at a Salem Red Sox game and a chance at a trip to Fenway Park.
April 11, 2012 - 10:26 AM
Join the conversation [ADD A COMMENT]
View our commenting policy and standards | Commenting FAQ | Report a problem
307 COMMENTS
Error submitting comment
Name is required
A valid email is required (test@test.com)
Comment is required
Add a comment
Your email address will not be published.
All fields are required to comment.
Thursday, May 23, 2013
THE ROANOKE TIMES
Another GOP chant bites the dust – http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-04-11/why-gasoline-isnt-4-per-gallon-nationally
#1 “A flurry of East Coast refinery shutdowns of late has squeezed supply chains and could continue to add to the price of gasoline this summer, particularly in the Northeast.”
Obviously Obama’s fault.
The Republicans just keep on distinguishing themselves.
Today Allen (the McCarthyite) West proclaims that at least 80 democratic members of Congress are card carrying members of the Communist Party.
I’m not sure what he’s smoking, but it must be some weird stuff.
And Newt Gingrich, the champion of small businesses, turns out to be their champion only when he doesn’t have to pay them. His capaign is stiffing dozens of small businesses by not paying their bills promptly and leaving those businessses hanging with overhead and employee costs that they are struggling to pay. Meanwhile, Newt and Calista keep on selling those books and videos and adding to their personal fortunes.
As usual, more Republican hypocrisy.
Its been a while since a oil tanker has wrecked ….. that might happen for some odd unexplainable reason.
Average Gas price when Obama took office $1.85 the average today is $3.90. I blame Bush for $1.85 gas when Obama took office. How dare he leave such a low price!! I demand an investigation!
Wow Maloof I’ve seen that exact line in a couple of places. Not hard to tell what the daily RW batsignal says.
It is also warmer in 2012 that in the year GWB left office. Next, Maloof will be blaming that on Obama, and denying manmade global warming in the same breath.
Uhhh…Dan. It’s 39 right now. Wait until Saturday for the global warming chant when it will be in the 70′s.
Newt’s check to Utah for the filing fee to be on their ballot, bounced.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/04/newt-gingrich-bounced-check-utah-primary-/1
Wow, Kristen these are the governments numbers not mine see the link and see for your self. The “RW batsignal” that’s cute. Hey Batman is a billionaire probably a republican.
http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/
Dan the debt has gone up 5 trillion under Obama. Unemployment is up (the real U6 number)The number of people on food stamps and welfare is up to. That didn’t happen under W. As for Global Warming it’s a serious problem! I blame it on the press and all the hot air the blew up the country’s behind telling us how great obama is.
#8 Guess Henry sort of missed the record-setting average temps across the nation for March. I wonder why he wasn’t making idiotic comments about shoveling a foot of global warming.
Maloof @5 – Question: What was the highest gas price under President George W Bush?
Answer: During July 2008 gas prices reached $4.11 for Regular, based on the U.S. National Average.
In fact, George W. Bush’s administration experienced a 179.6% spike in gasoline prices during two weeks of his presidency. A regular gallon of gas peaked at $4.11 on July 7, 2008, which was 14 cents higher than the most expensive week in Obama’s first term.
http://www.pressandguide.com/articles/2012/02/26/opinion/doc4f4a5dae6b4fc345371490.txt
And did you complain in 2008? Or just under the Obama administration? Hypocrite or not?
Sigh… Henry, daily weather is not climate.
Maloof, what did Obama do to make gas prices rise?
5. Maloof – What were the ave gas prices when GWB took office and what were they in July 2008? We know why they were $1.85 when he left – no one had anywhere to go.
Hey Maloof,
While i know its convenient to pick one day out of 8 years to pick a price of gas that fits your needs… Two can play that game… Can you tell us who was president when average gas prices were at their all time high?
Thoughts?
http://tinyurl.com/ck5hvmf
**
Nuclear Proliferation: Only deterrent
By: Times-Dispatch Staff | Times-Dispatch
Published: April 11, 2012
The Bush administration announced a breakthrough regarding efforts to restrain North Korea’s nuclear ambitions. Nothing changed. The communists played the U.S. for chumps.
Not long ago the Obama administration announced a breakthrough regarding efforts to restrain North Korea’s nuclear ambitions. Nothing changed. The communists played the U.S. for chumps.
SNIP
Israeli airstrikes took out nuclear sites in Iraq and Syria. Military might may be the only way to enforce non-proliferation. Countries that resort to nuclear brinkmanship primarily to secure diplomatic or economic advantages might respond to sanctions and other devices. But regimes determined to deploy their own nuclear arsenals probably can be stopped only by violence.
**
Backed into a corner by Repub wingnuts, Romney will be facing this sort of thing more and more often. In an effort to woo the female vote, Romney’s minions say he has no design on reversing the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Not what the misogynist right wing males want to hear.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/the-war-over-the-war-on-women/2012/04/11/gIQAbf4iAT_blog.html#.T4XIIVpcVFk.facebook
I see that Zimmerman is going to be charged. I guess it’s safe now that he’s disappeared.
Jesus come Jesus go,..
There was no tailgate party going away .
How is it we know what team to pull for
as about the pigskin,
coach had little to say.
And about the boys of summer..
Never count us down and out.
Will Jesus give us all 9 innings,
round third with a gasping, righteous shout?
Good read: http://tinyurl.com/d3cno69
**
Romney still faces challenges rallying the right
By Dana Bash and Alan Silverleib, CNN
updated 3:28 PM EDT, Wed April 11, 2012
Washington (CNN) — Typically when a presidential candidate wraps up his party’s nomination after months of reaching out to base voters in the primaries, the question becomes whether he can appeal to the political center for the general election.
Not for Mitt Romney.
Rick Santorum had barely left the stage when a different question loomed. Can the former Massachusetts governor — who famously shifted his position on abortion and other hot button issues — rally skeptical social conservatives in his own party?
The answer to that question — which will have major ramifications in November — appears uncertain.
SNIP
**
Maldoof. It seems gas prices went up more under Bush if you want to link the president to gas prices. http://inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Gasoline_inflation_chart.htm
It also seems worldwide prices mirror what happens in the US, or maybe the US mirrors world prices. Perhaps the UN is involved and ICLEI is setting prices.
The Quote of the Decade:
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America ‘s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America ‘s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, “the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”
~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006
funny how he can predict the future
Maloof, it didn’t happen under GWB, it happened because of the shape GWB left this country in when he left office. Obama was supposed to magically fix the mess he was given.
My 401k was losing money every month during GWB’s last year in office, I’ve regained it all up plus more since Obama’s been in office.
Courtesy of a The Blaze blog poster – How true: Sounds like a LOT of people on this blog:
I’m a liberal because:
- I believe that if people don‘t succeed it’s always someone else’s fault.
- I believe I am entitled to success even if I do nothing to achieve it.
- I know nothing of history and I refuse to learn from the mistakes of the present.
- when something SOUNDS good it must BE good.
- I‘m entitled to the money you earned but you’re not.
- I believe class warfare will lead to a better society.
- I want what you have but I don’t want to do what you had to do to get it.
- anyone who is suffering is automatically a saint.
- anyone who is poor is automatically a victim.
- I believe everyone must sink to the lowest common denominator so that we are all equal.
- I hate myself and my country for reasons I don‘t understand and can’t explain.
- it’s much easier to say things that make me feel good than it is to do things that make me feel good.
- “tolerance” means you must tolerate me but I will never tolerate you.
- I believe in freedom of speech… except for if you disagree with me.
- I have never had to fend for myself or earn what I have.
- it feels cool to yell slogans and pretend I know what’s going on.
- it makes me feel enlightened to vote for someone because of their skin color instead of their experience or ability to lead.
- I believe more rules and more government will always solve our problems.
- other people should be forced to live the way I tell them to live and think the things I want them to think.
Not so much as you Pammala..
Given you see this as the quote of the decade..
barely 2 years in,
Unless you are gettin’ us good with feckless cotton jabs
before the Mayans come looking for their Etch-A-Sketch
calendars.
Have any of you seen “texts for Hillary”? They are hilarious (pun intended)
pammala,
I don’t expect you to understand this, but here goes a try:
When Obama uttered those words, this nation had had 5 years of GOP in control of the federal government and the national debt had ballooned as a result of their policies.
That was 5 years AFTER the budget was balanced and there were projected surpluses that would have allowed this country to pay down the national debt. The GOP decided that using surpluses to pay down the national debt was IMMORAL. So they cut taxes to give the surpluses (mostly) to the rich. Then 911 happened and we started two very costly (in terms of lives, casualties, and dollars) wars that we never should have started. The launch of one of those wars was based on actual lies told to and by officials in our government. And meanwhile, the Fed kept interest rates artificially low, which created a speculative bubble in real estate that was worsened by Wall Street’s securitization of mortgage backed bonds.
All this precipitated a crash of historic proportions that left the federal government with no choice but to borrow and spend like the dickens, and bail out Wall Street and GM and AIG and the big banks to avert a major depression. And we are not even at Obama’s presidency yet.
He continued those policies. They were the best of a bunch of bad choices that could be made. If there’s a crime here, it’s that we had to make them at all, rather than the fact that Obama continued them.
Because in 2000, we were on a path toward PAYING DOWN THE NATIONAL DEBT. And that would have meant increased economic security for this country, rather than where were are today.
Viewed in that light, Obama’s remarks are not at all hypocritical. Blame him all you want for not being able to see into the future. But if you do, keep in mind that there’s plenty of blame to spread around for that one.
Maybe the definition of “decade” needs to be explained.
Dan@4:40
That was a complete waste of blogspace and keyboard effort. pammalala will never get past the mentality of libbiecom and LMAO. Anything else is past her lower middle school capacity.
“Bill Perdue says:
Have any of you seen “texts for Hillary”? They are hilarious (pun intended)
Posted on April 11th, 2012″
I was checking some of them out this morning. Great stuff!
Gee, pammala and Matt Herring, were you part of this study?
“Low-Effort Thought Promotes Political Conservatism”
http://psp.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/03/16/0146167212439213.abstract?rss=1
Courtesy of me:
You’re a conservative because:
- You believe that if people don‘t succeed it’s their fault.
- You believe I am entitled to judge others.
- You know nothing of history and I refuse to learn from the mistakes of the past or present.
- If something SOUNDS true it must BE true.
- You believe you are entitled to the money you earn but others should work for less.
- You do not believe there is anything wrong with unequal treatment.
- Even if you did not work hard for what you have, others should.
- Anyone who is suffering is automatically a sinner.
- Anyone who is poor automatically deserves it.
- You believe everyone who disagrees with you is an elitist.
- You love yourself and believe your country can do no wrong.
- It’s much more important to preach about things you believe than to examine their value.
- “tolerance” means they should tolerate you but you will never tolerate any of “them”.
- You believe in freedom of speech… as long as it is yours.
- You have never had to fend for yourself but assure everyone you have.
- It feels cool to yell slogans and pretend you know what’s going on.
- It makes you feel “post racial” to vote against someone because of their skin color.
- You believe in less rules for you and and more government on others.
- Other people should be forced to live the way you tell them to live and think the things you want them to think, or else.
Pammala, Obama was right then and he is right now. I appreciate that simple minds think only one person can make the nation work, but if Obama was the greatest leader this nation had ever known, the TP/GOP dedication to his destruction would still have led us to this point. Name the compromise the TP/GOP has made since he took office. Name the bipartisan effort they have expended. Name the comprehensive plans they offer that is not balanced on the backs of the middle and working class. Name them.
Re: #18
Check out: http://tinyurl.com/cq3jzsg
As expected: http://tinyurl.com/7lnvc3p
**
April 11, 2012
Murder charge in Trayvon Martin case
George Zimmerman has been arrested and faces a charge of second-degree murder
By Brendan Farrington
Associated Press
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman has been arrested and faces a charge of second-degree murder in the shooting of Trayvon Martin, a law enforcement official told The Associated Press Wednesday.
The official with knowledge of the case says that the charge against George Zimmerman will be announced at a news conference by special prosecutor Angela Corey at 6 p.m. Wednesday. The official says the 28-year-old Sanford man is in custody in Florida but wouldn’t say where.
SNIP
**
Dave Hicks, I just saw that there’re saying he’s in custody, but I have to wonder how his attorneys didn’t know he was turning himself in? Or whatever happened. Perhaps he’s retained some big guns.
hey, casey, i thought you were on vacation. figured you and oberman would be in consultation for a new show called the “TWO LEFT NUTS” by now and would be pushing MSNBC and the NEW YORK TIMES for a replay
I think they’re pushing it with a murder charge under the circumstances with the evidence they seem to have. If this case isn’t strong enough to convict (like many that are tried) and Zimmerman is aquitted, there will be race riots! Wonder why there weren’t riots after the Casey Anthony verdict?
I’ve said for a long time this is a no-win situation for ANYONE. We know of one murder for sure, the media’s murder of due process.
Also, Dan this is for you, but all are encouraged to read it. It is quite an astute observation! Here’s a “Journalist’s Guide to Reporting Gun Violence Coverage.” It was featured in a recent VA-ALERT. Enjoy.
http://www.gunlaws.com/HowGunSpinIsDone.htm
@Kristen: “I see that Zimmerman is going to be charged. I guess it’s safe now that he’s disappeared.”
If by “disappeared” you mean “in jail” then you’re right, he has disappeared.
Re: #36
I believe you are talking about his ex-attorneys — characterized on a number of sites as media hounds.
His new attorney, Mark O’Mara, (a very experience defense attorny) has been quoted as saying: “I’m expecting a lot of work and hopefully justice in the end.”
His original attorneys withdrew from the case yesterday, Kristen.
Very original Sandi – typical Liberal mind set – does the word opposites mean anything to you? You are definitely Roseanne Barr on steroids – I pity your poor husband….
I believe his new attorney, Mark O’Mara, used to be a prosecutor.
Debbie, I read that yesterday….they claimed they’d lost contact with him. According to another post here he’s retained new counsel.
Dave Hicks, I tend to think that lawyers looking for press or to make a name are attracted to highly visible cases.
JohnW, if they hadn’t buried it for so long there wouldn’t have been time for the the case to be tried in the media as you accuse. Give the media credit for getting and keeping the story in the public eye and finally generating some law enforcement response.
“37.I think they’re pushing it with a murder charge under the circumstances with the evidence they seem to have.”
“Seem to have” being the operative words. We really don’t know what evidence they do have.
#41. “…Sandi…you are definitely Roseanne Barr on steroids”
Comment by Matt Herring — April 11, 2012 @ 7:54 pm
Matt Herring, you are definitely Marcus Bachmann without steroids…
@32 sounds about right to me. Well said.
#37, “If this case isn’t strong enough to convict (like many that are tried) and Zimmerman is aquitted, there will be race riots!”
John, we’d be interested to hear about your knowledge of race riots; it might shed some light on your fondness for dire scenarios.
My husband doesn’t disrespect my beliefs, lie or insult me, I have no reason to give him grief.
I wonder if this is one of those cases where the prosecutors charge 2nd degree and hope for a manslaughter conviction.
“John, we’d be interested to hear about your knowledge of race riots; it might shed some light on your fondness for dire scenarios.”
Warren, let’s just watch, what happens. Guilty or not, it’s Zimmerman’s head on a platter or rioting. I don’t want this! I feel bad for the innocent people hurt and business owners who’s stores are trashed and looted and for what? We’ve seen this before (recently with the Rodney King case) and I think this case is being built up for another.
50.”I wonder if this is one of those cases where the prosecutors charge 2nd degree and hope for a manslaughter conviction.”
My thoughts exactly. It doesn’t appear that there’s enough for a murder conviction. Unfortunately, the minimum conviction or sentence in this case might not be decided by precedent, facts, or evidence, but by the fear of what will happen if the “special interests” are not satisfied.
One thing bothers me, if Trayvon were on top of Zimmerman when he fired, as has been claimed, where was the blood on his shirt? Did the cops let him go home an clean up before they arrested him?
Dan,
You might want to check a 4 letter word in CnP’s post at 9:01.
Just tossing that out there
John,
I completely agree with what you are saying, but I also believe that had Zimmerman been charged with even the most minimum charge that night (to be upgraded if necessary) that most of the hubbub we’ve seen would have been dialed down quite a bit.
Just in general, people find the use of deadly force (via firearm, in this instance) unnecessary when the deceased “assaulter” was completely unarmed.
“Recently with the Rodney King case”? What’s our definition of “recently” here? Rodney King was 20 years ago and pretty weak sauce to use as justification for this “race riots” comment.
As for “special interests” being mollified, I’d say the gun lobby should feel sufficiently kowtowed to by now.
This whole thing is really sad, and no matter what happens a 17 year old kid is dead and will never come back. I’m upset with both sides for rushing to judgment. Let the system do its job. All the political figures should have stayed out of it. I will reframe from making any comments until all the facts are known, but I say again innocent or guilty a 17 year old kid is dead and that is truly sad.
Even Al Sharpton is warning against violence, saying it will “tarnish” Trayvon Martin’s name.
It is possible that people just want some answers and to feel like unarmed young people will not be shot for walking in a community without someone being called to account.
Romney has lost any credibility he ever had if he had any:
“There’s been some talk about the war on women,” he said, referring to claims by Democratic leaders that the Republican Party is hostile toward women with its positions on issues like abortion and health care. “The real war on women has been waged by the Obama administration’s failure on the economy.”
He repeatedly cited the figure of 92.3 percent, which he said was women’s share of all the jobs lost since the president’s inauguration in January 2009.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/10/romney-turns-attention-to-obama-focusing-on-womens-job-losses/
How can a national candidate tell such hogwash with a straight face. What a bunch of bull manure.
“THE FACTS: The deep recession that began 13 months before Republican George W. Bush left the White House hit men harder than women at the beginning. Recessions often do that because male-dominated enterprises such as construction and manufacturing tend to be the first to tumble in a downturn. Eventually, sectors with more women in the work force follow suit, and that happened mostly after Obama took office.
In the recession that began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009 with high unemployment lingering to this day the crisis in the financial sector and bursting of the housing bubble accentuated the damage to jobs held primarily by men. “The initial losses were even more male-dominated than normal because of the nature of the recession,” Swonk said.
Women were more heavily represented in jobs that suffered in the recession’s later months and beyond, as revenue-strapped state and local governments laid off teachers and cut other public-sector workers.
Romney’s claim is based on statistics showing the number of unemployed women grew by 858,000 since January 2009, Obama’s inauguration month. But it ignores the disproportionate hit on men the year before Obama became president and their greater job losses overall.
Some 3.4 million men and 1.8 million women have lost jobs since the recession started, according to the government.”
http://www.timesleader.com/stories/FACT-CHECK-Romneys-skewed-case-on-womens-jobs,137755
The man is a chameleon, a liar and and tax cheater. God help us if he fools ANYBODY to vote for him. The Republic will be lost if this is our next president.
“Rodney King was 20 years ago and pretty weak sauce to use as justification for this “race riots” comment.”
BS. The example would have been fine with you if one of the antis pulled it out. Things haven’t evolved THAT much that we are certain there won’t be a race riot over this if Zimmerman does not get what the riot instagators decide he should. Jackson and Sharpton have already been there weeks ago to plant the seeds for it. What on earth legitimate business did they have going there?
Time will tell. This should be interesting. I only hope it can manage to be fair.
Re: #52
Art Hill,
That is just one of the many unaddressed details that bother me.
First the Get-Zimmerman press reported that no forensic evidence was collected — such as the clothes Zimmerman was wearing.
Then the PD “leaked” that they had his clothes.
So far, I have seen no creditable reports of if they do or of when the PD took them.
Guess we’ll need to wait until the trail. But then that’s the way it should be, IMHO.
I have really been bugged by all this armchair CSI “experts”, the press’s assurance of their infinitely wise omniscience as to what actually happened, and those capitalizing on this event to further their long-standing person agenda (on both sides), etc.
Maybe now due-process can result in justice (whatever that actually is) being done.
I hope so.
Let’s remember it was weeks before the new media picked up the Trayvon Martin story. He was shot and killed of Febuary 26th. The family felt compelled to ask for help from the likes of Sharpton and Jackson to bring to light the fact that the Sanford Fla police department wanted to do nothing towards charging Zimmerman.
Zimmerman is were he belongs and he will get his day in court.
“Let the system do its job.”
A rare point of agreement.
Dave Hicks,
What news reports have you read that suggest “the press’s assurance of their infinitely wise omniscience as to what actually happened” ?
There’s a legitimate beef in NBC New’s boning of the editing of the 911 tape. That was a bad error which someboy already has paid for with his job. I have not seen an “infinitely wise omniscience” in news reports. (I’m not counting anonymous blog comments, or accurately quoted opinions of public figures, or people connected to the case.).
Dave, I’m not defending Zimmerman. There’s a lot here that doesn’t add up. I applaud the special prosecutor for doing her job in a hostile environment, may justice be served.
The photo and caption remind me of my two favorite Jesus bumper stickers:
Jesus loves you. Everyone else thinks you’re a jerk.
If Jesus is your co-pilot, please pull over and let Him drive.
John W, good on Sharpton and Jackson for pressuring Sanford “law enforcement” into doing it’s job. And shame on what passes for “law enforcement” there for needing that pressure to finally do what they should have done 2 months ago.
So Zimmerman’s going to be “tried by 12″ instead of “carried by 6″ ( I can’t laugh at that little blurb enough FYI) which I’ve been assured here is the better option. John you seem affronted at the idea of any gun owner, anywhere, being held accountable. Tough luck. Let them FINALLY don their jobs’ and maybe word wukk go out that in the future kids like Travon Martin won’t be shoved under the rug like garbage.
The republic will not be lost if he is the next President. It wasn’t lost under Clinton, Bush, Obama or any others. The sky is not falling, god forbid Romney gets in on political semantics and makes Team Obama work a little. Enjoy the ride, this is just starting. And I still believe we’re in a recession with no President ever serving more than four years. Look what happened last time we had an 8 year President.
The press is always all over any sensational, egregious or inflammatory news, why that is such a mystery is laughable. It sells.
You are also selling them short. The moment the case comes to trial and evidence is presented they will ignore Sharpton et al and they will become advocates for the system. That is just how they role.
Sharpton has no credibility when questioning the court system and by the time the press is finished with this story, the narrative will, as usual, not be in his hands.
Expecting people to keep quiet, not speculate, not discuss and not have an opinion is silly. An unarmed teen is dead and people have a right to know what happened to the best extent the system will allow.
Even a lot of gun advocates, self defense maestros and non-liberal people said: “Stand your Ground” does not apply and yet that is precisely why he is pleading not guilty. If he is convicted it will be on the evidence and if he is acquitted it will be on the evidence. There will not be “race riots” and there is no longer any need for “riot instagators”, as the justice they have been seeking is about to be served.
I will note that it is funny that no one should guess on the guilt but many have insisted on racially charged guessing. “riot instagators”? Really?
Spot On Cold #62! Totally ignoring the fact that the Sanford Police Department was going with “Stand your Ground” and letting this go is very telling. If the Martin family had not called in help and raised a ruckus, there would be no process, “due” or otherwise.
@Debbie: ““Seem to have” being the operative words. We really don’t know what evidence they do have.”
I would assume that they have the evidence to support such a charge. My assumption is based on a couple of things.
1) It is unethical for a prosecutor to file a charge that they don’t believe that they can convict on based on the evidence they have;
2) The prosecutor refused to speak with George Zimmerman when he called her. This, I believe, speaks directly to her ethics.
Has anyone asked themselves why Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson aren’t speaking out about this…
http://goo.gl/3nsMj
Aaron: “Just in general, people find the use of deadly force (via firearm, in this instance) unnecessary when the deceased “assaulter” was completely unarmed.”
Under Florida (and Virginia) law, a person need not be armed at all for you to use deadly force against them, even with a gun.
So, if the police honestly didn’t have a reason to believe it wasn’t self defense, they shouldn’t charge even something minor.
In fact, in Florida, the charge would have been illegal in and of itself if there weren’t evidence to directly contradict the claim of self-defense.
#66…How about “Jesus loves you but I’m his favorite!”
Gawd typoes…”will” not “wukk”.
“The family felt compelled to ask for help from the likes of Sharpton and Jackson to bring to light the fact that the Sanford Fla police department wanted to do nothing towards charging Zimmerman.”
But they felt compelled for the same reason injured (or not really injured) people call the ambulance-chaser lawyers. Jackson and Sharpton are professional racial tension profiteers, the “ghost busters” of all things racial. They are race pimps who are all too happy to help build a an angle of racial injustice whether one existed or not. That in itself is awful to inflict on a community (and now nation), a deterrent to having a fair trial, and is done for personal gain. That’s my problem with those two.
“John you seem affronted at the idea of any gun owner, anywhere, being held accountable.”
No, I have a problem with media trials, race pimps, and lefty bloggers who feel that they are fully qualified to be judge, jury, and executioner from the comfort of their living room.
“There will not be “race riots” and there is no longer any need for “riot instagators”, as the justice they have been seeking is about to be served.”
Nope, there won’t. Just as long as there is a long, heavy sentence with NO regard to what the evidence does or does not support. After all of this, there will always be a cloud over the verdict either way and that is unfortunate. I want true justice in this case too, but feel it’s getting harder and harder to have any faith in.
72.”Has anyone asked themselves why Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson aren’t speaking out about this…”
It doesn’t mesh with their “brand.”
Of course the criminals are bolder in Baltimore since the lawful are disarmed there.
#72 I don’t know, Jack, is there any indication that the police aren’t doing their best to find out what happened and arrest the people involved, as seemed to happen in Florida?
What’s really pitiful (other than the horrendous attack itself) are some of the comments at the site claiming that “blacks” in America “get away” with stuff like this all the time. Yeah? Tell that to the HUGELY disproportionate percentage of African Americans in prison.
@Kristen: “So Zimmerman’s going to be “tried by 12″…”
Not necessarily. If the defense can present enough evidence at pre-trial to support a claim of self-defense it could be dismissed by a judge before it even goes to trial.
In Florida, you can raise self-defense claims at two stages in the prosecution. The first is pre-trial. If the judge believes that it was self-defense, he can dismiss.
If he does not dismiss, it goes to trial and you can still raise a self-defense claim with the jury.
Could go different directions at this point.
Additionally, proving second degree murder over manslaughter is going to be a very difficult task for the prosecution.
“No, I have a problem with media trials, race pimps, and lefty bloggers who feel that they are fully qualified to be judge, jury, and executioner from the comfort of their living room.”
Fair enough. John Wilburn is entitled to his opinion.
I have problem with a guy who brings a handgun to a Skittles and iced tea fight, who feels that he is fully qualified to be cop, judge, jury and executioner — and I’m not talking about a figurative one, either.
JohnW, so Zimmerman should walk because of the incompetence of FLA law enforcement and the resulting pressure put on them by the press, and thank goodness for it? Sorry, doesn’t work that way. Whatever “stress” Zimmerman is going through, per his new defense attorney, beats the heck out of the “stress” of being gunned down in cold blood simply for being black and walking around with Skittles.
He killed that boy in self defense? Good. Let him prove it.
“I have problem with a guy who brings a handgun to a Skittles and iced tea fight, who feels that he is fully qualified to be cop, judge, jury and executioner — and I’m not talking about a figurative one, either.”
The second part of that I agree with and hope the court can fairly discern if that’s the case. As for bringing a gun to a Skittles and iced tea fight, in gereral, it is NOT the responsibility to discern EXACTLY what a threat is armed with. That can cost you your life. What if Trayvon had pointed the Skittles or tea through a jacket pocket and said “I’m going to shoot you!” That changes everything and since this is all so premature and stirred with speculation, we don’t know if any of that did or didn’t happen.
It’s not the difference in firepower that concerns me. It’s whether or not Zimmerman exhausted all of his other remedies before shooting. It appears that this case may be about whether or not the death is excusable rather that justifiable. We’ll see.
“How about “Jesus loves you but I’m his favorite!””
Hahahaha. Love it. I’ve never seen that one.
83.”JohnW, so Zimmerman should walk because of the incompetence of FLA law enforcement and the resulting pressure put on them by the press, and thank goodness for it? Sorry, doesn’t work that way…..He killed that boy in self defense? Good. Let him prove it.”
No, I’m not deciding he should walk. Most of you have already decided he should spend the rest of his life in prison.
“Sorry, doesn’t work that way…..He killed that boy in self defense? Good. Let him prove it.”"
Sorry, Kristen, it doesn’t work that way either! He is not guilty until proven innocent. The prosecution must prove he is guilty of murder, and that I don’t think they can do with what evidence I’ve heard of. Manslaughter might have been a more appropriate charge. This goof by the prosecution may be key in the mess that will follow if he walks. Of course, even if he does, the family will still try to bankrupt him. Zimmerman is already serving a life sentence NO MATTER WHAT.
“It’s not the difference in firepower that concerns me.”
How unsurprising.
@Kristen: “He killed that boy in self defense? Good. Let him prove it.”
What United States of America do you live in? Zimmerman has to prove nothing. The prosecution has to prove that it was NOT self-defense.
I am willing to bet that anytime the gun advocates at the NRA speak out, protest, lobby the media, or call the public’s attention to something that you NEVER call any of them professional gun crime profiteers. Have you ever called Van Cleave a “ghost busters” of all things guns?
When a gun advocate is in need of help are they calling “ambulance-chaser lawyers” to bail them out of it?
I bet you never think of the NRA and gun rights loons like Ted Nugent as gun “pimps” do you?
They are damned sure “all too happy to help build” an angle of gun rights “injustice whether one existed or not”. That in itself is awful to inflict on a community (and now nation), IMO, but it happens often and is done for personal gain. Of course you have no problem at all with those activists do you?
Pitiful!
JW, most of “us” have decided he should have been arrested long ago.
It seems to me that most of “you” have already decided he should not have been, and that’s what makes “us,” in your minds, “judge, jury and executioner.”
Even though Zimmerman is the only one in the case who’s done ANY killing.
From ABC News:
“…former Army Major Jon Soltz, the chairman of VoteVets.org….said that U.S. soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan had a higher standard of when to use deadly force than Americans who lived in states with Stand Your Ground laws.
“There is no shoot first law for our troops in Iraq or Afghanistan. We cannot just shoot somebody because they have a hijab on in Iraq and kill them and say we’re scared. Everybody in Iraq has a weapon and all U.S. forces are always scared,” Soltz said. “This is a legal protection in these states that is actually afforded to Mr. Zimmerman that is not afforded to our troops in combat. Unless I’m wrong I didn’t think Florida was a war zone.”
“Have you ever called Van Cleave a “ghost busters” of all things guns?”
No, but I’ll pass your comment to him and make sure to address him that way next time I see him.
.
Ted Nugent had a very successful career before his occasional comment on the Second Amendment. Jackson and Sharpton built their careers on exploiting their own race.
“When a gun advocate is in need of help are they calling “ambulance-chaser lawyers” to bail them out of it?”
Why are you asking me, when your brother is the resident “gun advocate”?
Jack, then he has nothing to fear, does he?
JohnW, thank god for civil court. I hope the Martin family gets compensated for their loss, whatever the criminal outcome.
The way you gun people are so committed to carrying water for that fat gunslinging cowardly turd is just amazing to me. So far, all we know is that an unarmed kid is dead and that the town of Sanford did its level best to let it slide by with no legal response. Guess what…the police chief left after getting a vote of no confidence. Think he left because he forsees coming out of this looking good? Doubtful.
And to all of you who seem incapable of leaving your house without being prepared to pull a Zimmerman, I devoutly hope that under the same conditions you and your family would be reduced to living under a bridge. After all, it’s better than being “carried by 6″.
“it is NOT the responsibility to discern EXACTLY what a threat is armed with. That can cost you your life“. Damn straight, it certainly cost Trayvon Martin his.
John, after having flatly predicted race riots, I’m glad you didn’t dispute your fondness for dire scenarios. Although many exploiters from Sharpton to Hannity have grabbed on to the Martin story-as they did with the King case-the two cases are not comparable.
In many ways the details are opposites. In one a gang of cops with road rage were videotaped beating and stomping a man, in the other no one saw a gun user follow and kill an unarmed teenager. It was the cops on trial in the King case, and it was months later and a change of venue to a white flight suburb before the verdict that caused riots. There was no law giving cops the right to harm an arrestee, but there was a long history of LAPD being particularly aggressive with minorities, so despite the national coverage it risked mostly local tensions. By contrast, it is a private individual charged in the latest case, there is little immediate evidence for the public, there are claims that Zimmerman is shielded by self-defense laws, and Sanford is hardly Los Angeles, so reactions there are bound to be scaled differently. And it’s been over forty years (after Kent State) since riots from any issue have tended to spread nationally.
Yes, you could be right, there might someday be such outrage in the Martin case as to cause riots. But it is premature for you to make the unqualified declaration “If Zimmerman is acquitted, there will be race riots”, and it’s ironic coming after you’ve expressed skepticism at others’ rush to judgement. We’re still learning about your unaudited certainties, particularly when images of violence are raised, but could it be that you’re more similar to people who have less certainty than you’d prefer to think?
#81 & #88 Just a tad contradictory there, Jack?
@Dan Casey: “JW, most of “us” have decided he should have been arrested long ago.”
Just like Kristen, you seem to be ignorant of how the legal system works. This time, specifically related to Florida law.
typical liberal assumption that Zimmerman should go to jail..well IF he is guilty yes he should however that is a court decision miss kristen..you’re showing your socialism there dearie..just put him away with no court?? yeah, you really understand how our courts process due law do you?
Maloof, what did Obama do to make gas prices rise?
Comment by Sandi Saunders — April 11, 2012 @ 2:18 pm
IT became sort of a president but really a tyrant dictator..
As most of you know I’m an avid hunter, gun owner and a holder of concealed weapons permit. I have never carried a weapon concealed on my person. I do keep a pistol in my glove compartment sometimes on long trips as one never knows what might happen on the interstate. (of course I check the reciprocal agreements with other states). My oldest son asked me one time if I would shot someone in our house. I told him I would call the police and let them handle it as it is what they are trained to do. I have never been in a position where I felt like I needed a weapon to defend myself, but it is my constitutionally given right to keep and bear arms. From what I know about the situation Zimmerman should have stayed in his car and let the police do their job. Had he done that a 17 year old boy would probably still be alive. The point is avoid situations where a gun might be necessary to defend yourself. On a similar note my Father always said “nothing good happens after midnight”. As I say on a variety of issues most things that happen to us are a result of decisions we make.
So all of Dave Hicks high minded propaganda about people who carry guns being responsible and having to retreat and prove that they needed to discharge their weapons is just that, propaganda? If Zimmerman assures you that he HAD to shoot, that Trayvon was “threatening” him that is all you need?
This is a perfect case of why people do not like, trust or want more people walking around armed. Zimmerman may have “a life sentence” already in some respects, but Trayvon has a death sentence already carried out. Even IF Trayvon did attack him and was somehow getting the upper hand against a bigger man, it was still bringing a gun to a fist fight and someone needs to say that is not OK.
Jack, regarding your comment at 9:00, I believe they have enough evidence too, or he would not have been charged. I was responding to this comment.“#37.I think they’re pushing it with a murder charge under the circumstances with the evidence they seem to have.”
Despite the story being all over the media, we don’t know every bit of evidence that they have.
@Kristen: “JohnW, thank god for civil court. I hope the Martin family gets compensated for their loss, whatever the criminal outcome.”
Again.. you misunderstand self-defense laws in Florida. If Zimmerman’s defense succeeds, he will be afforded protections against being prosecuted civilly.
@gdad: “#81 & #88 Just a tad contradictory there, Jack?”
No, different completely. At trial, prosecution has to prove his guilt. Pre-trial he only has to show with a preponderance of evidence… much lower burden, and not required to do at all.
@Debbie,
The prosecutor could also be laying on the charges a bit heavily to leave some wiggle room to plea to what she thinks is right. Of course I have no way of knowing what evidence she has.
Most experts believe that Murder 2 will be difficult, if not impossible, to prove in this case.. but again, nobody knows what new evidence she may have.
She does have to prove intent to get Murder 2 over manslaughter. If she doesn’t prove intent, even if the jury convicts, it would likely be overturned as a matter of law.
I really think that most of Zimmerman’s team’s effort will be spent pre-trial. My guess (and that’s all it is) is that he probably stands a pretty good chance at getting the case dismissed.
But, like I said earlier, it could go any number of ways at this point, and it will certainly be interesting to see.
I have a couple of friends in Orlando… my boss is there and my best friend (a lawyer). I told them both that they always get the best cases in Orlando.
For those of you who don’t know, preponderance of evidence is lower than the burden of proof that is on the prosecutor once it goes to trial, but is all that is required during the pre-trial when petitioning for the judge to dismiss the charge based on the self-defense claim.
Generally, if it seems that there is a greater than 50% chance that it was self-defense, then the requirement has been satisfied.
#98 Please learn to read, pammala.
Re: #39
“The press is always all over any sensational, egregious or inflammatory news, why that is such a mystery is laughable. It sells.”
——-
Thanks Sandi. I glad some one here recognizes what Dan is in denial of. FWIIW, I don’t think it is a mystery. Yet it is so common that the folk (on both sides) who practice it don’t even recognize it. IMHO, that doesn’t make it less repugnant, however.
—————————–
Re: #39
You are also selling them short. The moment the case comes to trial and evidence is presented they will ignore Sharpton et al and they will become advocates for the system. That is just how they role.
Sharpton has no credibility when questioning the court system and by the time the press is finished with this story, the narrative will, as usual, not be in his hands.
———-
Sure hope you are right.
—————————–
Re: #39
Expecting people to keep quiet, not speculate, not discuss and not have an opinion is silly. An unarmed teen is dead and people have a right to know what happened to the best extent the system will allow.
———
I agree. However, it is not speculation, discussion nor have an opinion that bothers me. I have speculated and posted opinions with a big IF in them. IMHO, there is a big difference between speculation and voicing an opinion (identified as such) v. pontification with assurance of their infinitely wise omniscience as to what actually happened.
FWIIW, I fully second what Art Hill said at #65 “…I’m not defending Zimmerman. There’s a lot here that doesn’t add up. I applaud the special prosecutor for doing her job in a hostile environment, may justice be served.”
FWIIW2, I posted earlier on this blog that I applauded Trayvon Martin’s attorney for keeping the pressure on.
FWIIW3, I also applaud the media who asked reverent questions and demanded answers — along the lines of Art Hill comments @ #65.
FWIIW4, most of all I applaud the Special Prosecutor.
—————————–
Re: #39
Even a lot of gun advocates, self defense maestros and non-liberal people said: “Stand your Ground” does not apply and yet that is precisely why he is pleading not guilty.
———
Here’s where we part a a bit. Asserting self-defense has been around for a long time. There are always unsuccessful assertions of self-defense. IMHO, if there is a major issue it is with the PD and local prosecutor.
To quote Walter Olson (a senior fellow at the Cato Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies) See: http://tinyurl.com/7njt8yj
**
Under any criminal law, injustice can result if cops get the facts wrong. The Sanford, Fla., police, accused of buying a dubious self-defense tale after the Trayvon Martin shooting, will now come under searching scrutiny for that decision. Sanford’s mayor says his town is eager to stand corrected by the evidence as a fuller story emerges.
**
As to the law itself, I posted earlier, quoting a very well known attorney (Dave Kopel See: http://tinyurl.com/85xy9r8 )
**
SNIP
[quoting the actual law] (3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. [end quote of the law]
Again, this is irrelevant to the Martin/Zimmerman case. A duty to retreat, if it existed, would apply to a crime victim, who would be required to retreat [rather] than to use force in self-defense, if retreat were feasible. In the [pro Martin] version of the case, Zimmerman stalked and shot Martin; Martin never attacked Zimmerman. Accordingly, Zimmerman never had any lawful right of self-defense. Only [if] Martin had violently and feloniously attacked Zimmerman would there be an issue (in any jurisdiction) as to whether Zimmerman had a duty to retreat. In the [pro Zimmerman] version of the case, there was such an attack, but it was impossible for Zimmerman to retreat. Thus, duty to retreat law has no bearing on the case.
SNIP
**
FWIIW, that would be the exact application of common and case law here in Virginia. Ditto the majority of the States’ statutory or case law.
BTW, as to claims about “A rise in homicides after ‘Stand Your Ground,” was enacted into Florida law, homicides per capita in Florida have dropped, not risen, since that state enacted its law. See: http://tinyurl.com/84v5auz
**
SNIP
Between 2004 (the year before the law’s enactment) and 2010 violent crime in Florida dropped sharply, and homicides per capita also dropped, though not sharply.
SNIP
**
FWIIW, some of the data on self-defense shootings being thrown around in the papers appears to include justifiable shootings by police, which aren’t at issue in the current debate and some of the higher tabulations appear to have included unsuccessful assertions of self-defense.
Again I second Art Hill’s comment @ #65 “…I’m not defending Zimmerman. There’s a lot here that doesn’t add up. I applaud the special prosecutor for doing her job in a hostile environment, may justice be served. [emphasis added]“
My, my,my.
John, you sure are popular!
FACT #1: NO ONE is in full possession of the facts here. This includes me, if that need be said.
FACT #2: Zimmerman is a horses @$$. When a dispatcher tells you not to follow, YOU DON’T. Reminds me of a SNL skit in the wake of the Rodney riots. One member playing King, one playing riot victim Reginald Denny (anyone else remember his name). They were doing a PSA saying “STAY IN YOUR CAR”
FACT #3: If, in John’s words, one has “exhausted all his other remedies before firing”, then self defense is the most immediate and elemental right of all. Just try to have life, liberty OR happiness without it.
FACT #4: The last time I checked, this was still the United States of America, much to Kristen’s dismay. O.J was innocent until proven guilty. Ted Bundy was IUPG. Scott Petersen, ditto. Let’s not forget that poor security guard at the Atlanta Olympics. HE was actually innocent, not that anyone cared at the time. The list goes on. Insert your favorite, innocent or guilty. Beloved or repugnant.
FACT #4: If Zimmerman DID “exhaust all his remedies”, he is still bears partial culpability in his fate.
If he exhausted his options, he should get off somewhat easy, which WILL cause riots. Some people just aren’t happy unless they’re enraged. If he failed to exhaust his options, he should be buried under the nearest jail.
Not that I’m sure any one here cares what actually happened.
Re: my last
********** Missed reference Alert ***********
Sandi’s comment that I was referencing throughout was @ #69 not #39
Duh!
Sorry!!!
Whether or not the press is “all over” sensational news is entirely beside the point. Being “all over” a news event does not mean the reporting is not objective. The press has NO DUTY not to report something until all the facts are known. And if you believe that’s the case, then you’re arguing against day-of and day-after coverage of the Kennedy assassination, the destruction of Shuttle Challenger, and 9/11.
The press has a duty to report fact that are known, following newsworthy events. If others take those fact and spin them into something else, that’s not on the press.
The Atlanta Olympic guard’s name was Richard Jewell, by the way, since i didn’t have it on hand.
Re: #81
If he does not dismiss, it goes to trial and you can still raise a self-defense claim with the jury.
———
Why wouldn’t he have the option to waive a jury trial? Given all the publicity that might be a good strategy.
Also, in some States, the accused can nolo contendere or Alford plea with the reservation to appeal points of law and/or per-trial and other of the judge’s decisions on objections raised.
“The last time I checked, this was still the United States of America, much to Kristen’s dismay. O.J was innocent until proven guilty.”
Not for nothing, but they didn’t get a guilty verdict on OJ. He’s still innocent of Nicole’s murder, and nothing that could happen in civil court could change that. So I guess OJ didn’t kill Nicole.
This garbage about race riots is such a load of crap. All the Martins have wanted from day 1 is for the case to be investigated and Zimmerman to be questioned on the record so they have some idea what happened to their boy. That’s it. And if the Sanford PD had done their job at the time, none of this would have happened.
@Robert Sadtler: “FACT #2: Zimmerman is a horses @$$. When a dispatcher tells you not to follow, YOU DON’T.”
Maybe you shouldn’t.. but the law doesn’t say that you have to obey a dispatcher, so it is irrelevant. He did not break the law by ignoring the dispatcher. Not sure why this keeps coming up.
You, Robert, could have been there yourself and told him not to follow Martin, and it wouldn’t have been any different, legally, than the dispatcher telling him that.
gdad, what you say we start a fund to pay for remedial writing classes for pammala? Oh, critical thinking and maybe anger management classes too. I think a lot of gonzos would chip in.
Michael A. Howdyshell:
“My oldest son asked me one time if I would shot someone in our house. I told him I would call the police and let them handle it as it is what they are trained to do.”
I would hope you would also tell him that if the intruder took 2 minutes to get in and the police took 10, that you may have to shoot the intruder.
“I have never been in a position where I felt like I needed a weapon to defend myself, but it is my constitutionally given right to keep and bear arms.”
That’s good, but don’t miss the point that if that position suddenly materializes, you may feel the need for that weapon worse than ANYTHING.
“it was still bringing a gun to a fist fight and someone needs to say that is not OK.”
If I am rightfully in fear of being grievously injured by someone’s fists, then I’m glad I had a gun at that fistfight. No one should have to lay down and die for the utpoian ideals that Sandi believes in.
If you watched that clip that Jack posted from Baltimore where the tourist was assaulted, I can assure you that if that was me and I was punched and circled by that mob, the gun would be out of the holster! Rightfully, it should be before then as waiting until that punch and his head hitting the concrete could have killed him or knocked him out. I would not be clarifying whether or not that was a pack of Skittles in their pocket while that girl stomped on my face. Parhaps no single one of those criminals was armed, but it did NOT matter. He was in serious jeopardy. There is a very good reason the law does not require your assailant to be armed if you have to shoot them and there is a reason that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Robert Sadtler, how dare you bring logic or reason to this blog!
.
There are many different threads and issues in the entire Trayvon/Zimmerman case.
First is the basic issue of whether a cfime was committed. That should and could have been determined from the beginning by placing charges against the shooter, conducting a thorough investigation, and letting the court and the legal syaytem do its job. Hopefuilly mthat will happen now
but it has been made more difficult by the failure of the Sanford police dept. to do its job initially. Everyone, including Zimmerman, deserves their day in court and the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven by the evidence.
The second thread is a civil rights issue. That is the profiling of young black/brown men and the issue of whether or not law enforcement (or neighborhood watch) shold automatically srop and harrass people who are not committing a wrongful act at the time simply because of their skin color or the way they are dressed.
The third thread is the treatment of cases involving shooting deaths of young men of minority groups by police and law enforcement officials in many areas. The fact that the minority communities have the feeling or impression that these deaths are somehow not given the same importance as the violent death of non/minority members is a problem that needs to be addressed and deqlt with not just in this case but in general.
And the fourth thread is the necessity or lack of necessity of the proliferation of the stand your ground laws and whether or not they create an incentive for vigilantism and what the effect of that is.
This case has become a symbol for all of these issues and they all need to be adressed. But they all need to be separated from the Zimmerman case as far as the facts in evidence and his guilt or innocence.
Dan, i don’t dispute the fact that the press should report what it knows, but it SHOULD report it ACCURATELY.
1) The press relentlessly characterizes GZ as “white” when he is clearly (and I mean on record, not appearance) “mixed”.
2) The press insists on declaring the gated community “predominantly white” when it is 49% “white”. Depends on what your definition of “predominantly” is, I guess.
3) GZ’s white neighbor is all over the news, but you have to go digging for footage of his black neighbor taking up for him. It simply wouldn’t do to have a black man speaking out in favor of some honkey who shot a black kid. Looks unseemly.
4) the nbc debacle isn’t worth dignifying. Problem is, you don’t get to posture on that one. I dare you to refer back to your blog the day that Officer Crouse was murdered. Within 20 minutes of his death Kristen was posting the most sarcastic, disrespectful, opportunistic piece of trash it has EVER been my displeasure to read. “I believe her exact words were along the line of “OK, which gun advocate wants to justify this?” His kids hadn’t even been told that Daddy was gone yet, for God’s sake. Having served as a prison guard, I’ve faced rapists, child abusers, and murderers. No one has ever evoked the reaction I had to her post. Even today, just reading her name makes me feel like I need shower. Instead of trying to dial back the rhetoric, as a responsible moderator would have done,you let it pass without comment. Yet, the next day you dedicated an entire blog to trashing the first pro-gun post as “first to milk the cause ” or whatever. You have the credibility (and journalistic integrity) that makes Jerry Springer and the Enquirer look like Pulitzer material.
But if that’s not on the press, than I guess that it’s on you.
Do I have to suffer through some lame excuse now?
Bright side is, you’re just a farce, Kristen is an opportunistic ghoul.
Precisely right Dan #111. Stop blaming the press, and stop pretending every issue does not have their spokesmen/women at the ready to rush in and manage and manipulate as best they can for their cause.
Anyway you want to play this, if Zimmerman had been black and the kid white, we ALL KNOW the arrest would have been immediate, the attention would not have been as sensational, and sadly some here would be arguing differently than they are now.
And while I am preaching…yet another angry felon with a gun kills a local man and goes after a woman. Not that it matters.
Jack, I’m fascinated that you can’t imagine a scenario in which it’s not appropriate for a heavily armed adult to stalk and gun down a kid in cold blood, guilty of nothing but walking around while being black. And carrying candy.
When you gun folks don’t get the deference to which you feel entitled, it’s because of ludicrous stances like this one. And there is no constitutional right to “self-defense” even if “self defense” is at issue, which it wasn’t in this case.
John Wilburn,
I’ve actually seen that video posted online from a couple of angles. There was a second person out in the road filming it.
I must say, when that guy’s head hit the pavement, and you heard the thud… I got ill… physically ill.
@dave: “That should and could have been determined from the beginning by placing charges against the shooter, conducting a thorough investigation, and letting the court and the legal syaytem do its job.”
I swear, people don’t listen. If they had arrested him without evidence that contradicted his claim of self-defense, the POLICE would have been guilty of a crime in Florida.
RobertSadler, seriously, spare me the faux righteous indignation. I’m not remotely interested. And if you feel you need a shower, well, you probably do.
Robert Sadtler,
1) The last I checked, there were three major races on our planet: white, black, asian. If Zimmerman is ethnically part Hispanic, or even all Hispanic, it does not mean his race isn’t white. If he is part Hispanic, so what? I’m part German — which has nothing whatsoever do with whether I’m white.
2) If the racial makeup of a community’s residents is 49 percent white, 25 percent asian and 26 percent black, guess what? That community is “predominantly white.” For the explanation of this, please look up the definition of predominantly in any dictionary. It does NOT mean “majority. You are blaming the media for your own misunderstanding of the word’s meaning.
3) The NBC producer committed a grievous error in editing that tape and he has paid for that with his job. He was certain to get caught doing what he did, so he cannot have done it intentionally for the purpose of molding public opinion (unless he wanted to get fired).
4) So, are you citing comments on this blog by Kristen as evidence “the news media” is biased about this case?
Re: #118
This case has become a symbol for all of these issues and they all need to be adressed. But they all need to be separated from the Zimmerman case as far as the facts in evidence and his guilt or innocence.
———-
Well put, dave
See, we do agree on somethings.
Robert Sadtler, perhaps you are unaware of this, but not a day, hardly even an hour goes by on this blog that Kristen and anyone with a less than total devotion to conservatism, guns and God does not get bashed with every vituperative ounce the conservatives (who generally hate the press, the Roanoke Times, Dan Casey and this blog) who manage to come here just for that purpose, can muster. So she might have been emotional and distressed over yet another idiot with a gun killing someone who did not deserve it and “let fly”. Since I know the situation we are under here, I cut her much more slack than you do and fully understand what she was saying.
It is hard to see real loss, hardship, pain and suffering being downplayed because “people have rights” sometimes.
#119 Get hyperbolic much, Robert?
If Kristen makes you so sick, there’s a guaranteed way you don’t have to see her name ever again.
“Not for nothing, but they didn’t get a guilty verdict on OJ. He’s still innocent of Nicole’s murder, and nothing that could happen in civil court could change that. So I guess OJ didn’t kill Nicole.”
I now expect your complete acceptance of a “not guilty” verdict should Zimmerman get that.
“I think a lot of gonzos would chip in [to help pammala with her writing skills].”
Here is a link to free, downloadable grammar and composition textbook that one of my favorite professors while at Bluefield College published. Hopefully, you will find his teachings as useful as I have over the years.
http://www.ugrammar.com/
Gee Robert Sadtler, tell us what you think…LOL! You did notice Kristen’s avatar appears to be an ivory tower, did you not? Don’t miss this one:
http://blogs.roanoke.com/dancasey/2012/04/thursday-column-reprise-va-is-for-lovers-of-weird/
Dan tells a Massachusetts middle schooler about Virginia and the whole centerpiece of the article is his disdain for our firearm liberties.
@Kristen: “Jack, I’m fascinated that you can’t imagine a scenario in which it’s not appropriate for a heavily armed adult to stalk and gun down a kid in cold blood, guilty of nothing but walking around while being black. And carrying candy.”
I can imagine such a scenario. If George Zimmerman were not in fear for his life or great bodily harm, it would have been heinous for him to “talk and gun down a kid in cold blood.”
Also, I was mistaken earlier when I used the term “dismiss” earlier. That’s more of a civil term, but it is the equivalent of what I meant to say, “judgment of acquittal.”
121.”Jack, I’m fascinated that you can’t imagine a scenario in which it’s not appropriate for a heavily armed adult to stalk and gun down a kid in cold blood, guilty of nothing but walking around while being black.”
You know, if Zimmerman had pulled the gun on unarmed martin, he would have run like the wind, UNLESS he had already started beating Zimmerman. This is a point that I hope gets explored.
“Since I know the situation we are under here, I cut her much more slack than you do and fully understand what she was saying.”
Pretty much just because she is an emotional fellow lefty. That’s why she gets a pass. Had I danced on a warm grave for ANY reason, Sandi’s sky would have fallen.
126.Re: #118
I agree, that’s a good summary.
Comment by Robert Sadtler @119 “Do I have to suffer through some lame excuse now?”
Answer, “no” – And yet here you are on this blog you so evidently despise and have to “suffer through”?
Masochist or hypocrite…you choose.
Hi Jack. Call me Bob. You make a fair point. Let me clarify. I said that he was a horse patootie, I did NOT say that he was GUILTY. I dare say that the entire crux of my initial post was that we DON’T know all the facts. What I said was that he CONTRIBUTED to his situation. It may not be against the law to disregard a dispatcher (depending on what the instructions ARE) but it is always UNWISE. Just for the record, would I have been smart enough to tell him myself, or even grab his arm and hold him back? I don’t really know. And I hope never to find out.
Now, under Fl’s SYG law, he did not break the law. However, if he did it here in Va, IT WOULD. Under Va’s law, disregarding the dispatcher would have “contributed to the problem”. And that would have landed him in court immediately. Probably jail, too. In addition, claiming self defense in Va is an automatic confession to 2nd degree murder. So much for innocent until proven guilty. He is very fortunate to have been in Fl.
I’ve already had a shower Krissie, so my hygene isn’t in question. Your sanctimony isn’t either.
And no, dan, i was NOT citing Krissie’s comments as media bias…
I was citing your silence that day and your bluster the next.
AS YOURS.
Thank you Sandi, and actually an accurate summation.
Being less than a week since the shooting death of Officer Jaime Padron, it is incredibly heartless and cruel for anyone to be using the death of a police officer to make a point. Robert Sadtler, please refrain from posturing until there has not been a recent gun tragedy in the U.S.
Sandi, DARLING!
Thank you for talking to me like an adult, I genuinely appreciate a rational, adult discussion. I assume that she was, indeed, emotionally distraught. Anyone with a conscience should be, at a dead police officer. Unlike yourself, she did not take a breath and think it through before posting. She hates guns and gun owners, so what? If I can’t deal with that, I should just lock myself in the closet and slit my wrists. It was her sarcasm that made me ill. That and dan’s silence, followed by lambasting the first pro-gun post as “First to make hay”.
Actually, I’m fairly aware of the environment around here. I’ve been following since late last year, but only twice now have I felt it worth the time to weigh in. By the way, our last exchange in the wake of bob ackerman’s editorial has been the subject of extensive discussion. You and I have been held up as an excellent example in how to carry on a discussion. You seem to get a tad more heated with my good friend John-Boy. I guess he gets your goat a bit. Bad John-Boy! Tsk-tsk. I hope we don’t have to go down that road.
Hopefully, everyone is taking notes. It is possible to have a discussion with courtesy. Sandi, call me out any time. as long as you do it this way, and not theirs.
Just for the record, I know John and Dave Hicks well. They both have lives, and better things to do. But as long as the law abiding gun-baby gets thrown out with the bathwater, someone has to tell the other side. My kudos to them for having the patience to do it. I certainly wouldn’t bother. The only reason I ever see this blog is because one of them emails me. If we dial down the rhetoric and stop blaming each other for life’s problems, we’ll probably find that each other goes away.
I’m not going to touch devotion to conservatism with a ten foot pole. Outside of guns, I’m a flaming social Lib.
“I now expect your complete acceptance of a “not guilty” verdict should Zimmerman get that.”
You’ll get it, much the way I’ve embraced Casey Anthony’s “innocence”. Because that’s how it works. And guess what…ANY DAY you sit here touting your guns, you’re “dancing on a warm grave”. You just don’t always know who’s.
Lemme guess RobertStadtler…you’re ” new here”. Or are you just a long-time stalker looking for an in. Yawn. In either case, I can think of 1000 offensive things that have been on this blog since then. You’re quite selective, but then, you would be I’m sure. As for your “hygiene”…that’s between you and whomever has to smell you.
And in the spirit of JohnW’s and RobertStatdler’s tender sensiblities, I’m going to go on record now as not wanting to rush to judgment on a mob of people stripping and beating a guy on the street. Because, we really don’t know what happened, and the video doesn’t show much. And who’s to say what he was doing to them before the video started? Maybe he asked for it? Maybe he had Skittles? We don’t KNOW what happened.
“It may not be against the law to disregard a dispatcher (depending on what the instructions ARE) but it is always UNWISE.”
Well there was a case where a 911 dispatcher told an elderly woman whose house was violently being broken into, NOT to shoot the two intruders if they made it in. After a LONG wait for the police, the intruders got in despite her barricade, she shot them anyway, and THEN the police got there. It was clearly self-defense and she was not charged. In her case, she was probably better off ignoring the dispatcher.
Dan,
FYI this is what good deal more objective reporting than much of what I have read looks like:
http://tinyurl.com/899zzsw
**
Nation divided over Trayvon Martin case?
By Ruben Navarrette Jr., Special to CNN
updated 11:47 AM EDT, Thu April 12, 2012
SNIP
For those Americans who think that Zimmerman acted in self-defense to save his own life, the decision to charge him is tantamount to giving in to a mob. In fact, as I skipped from one conservative talk radio show to another Wednesday afternoon, that’s how I heard it described by hosts and callers alike.
Yet, for those who believe that Zimmerman was the aggressor in this fateful encounter, that he racially profiled Martin and then essentially hunted him down, the decision represents something else: justice. That’s how Martin’s family described it in applauding Zimmerman’s arrest.
Personally, I’m thankful the suspect is in custody. And that has nothing to do with which team I’m on — Team Martin or Team Zimmerman. That’s irrelevant. But, if you must know, I don’t have a team. I don’t know that really happened on the night of February 26 on that dark street in Sanford, Florida. And neither do you. After all, we weren’t there.
SNIP
Whatever the verdict turns out to be, let’s hope that both camps are mature enough to accept it. I’m not hopeful. Too many people have already made up their minds. In fact, it’s hard to see how Zimmerman can get a fair trial — especially in Seminole County.
The strain is showing. The country hasn’t been this racially divided since the O.J. Simpson criminal trial in 1995. And as with that trial, how you see these events seems to have a lot to do with the color of your skin.
SNIP
[Emphasis added]
**
BTW, if you read the whole article, did you note that the reporter did a reasonably good job of identifying his opinion as separate from what he stated as facts and that he acknowledging his biases.
jack @ #104/106 posted “For those of you who don’t know, preponderance of evidence is lower than the burden of proof that is on the prosecutor once it goes to trial,”
You are wrong. That is a civil standard, not a criminal standard. Never used in criminal law…
“Probable Cause” is what I think you are mean – a probable cause hearing is when the prosecutor presents the evidence to proceed with a prosecution, arrest or a warrant. Enough evidence or “probable cause” the prosecution goes forward.
Also the Second Degree Murder charge in Florida:
Under Florida law, second degree murder is the unlawful killing of a person when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind, regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual. The maximum sentence for the crime is life in prison.
I think there are two reason why this is the proper charge:
1. “any act imminently dangerous to another”
and
2. “without premeditated design to effect the death”
and Jack, I believe you posted that the defendant doesn’t have to “prove” anything. That is partially true. But an affirmative defense of “stand your ground” makes it necessary for the defendant to produce sufficient evidence to get that jury instruction for that particular defense theory.
@Bob: “It may not be against the law to disregard a dispatcher (depending on what the instructions ARE) but it is always UNWISE.”
Yes, but that is the case with anyone. If I told you not to murder someone, then it would, technically, be illegal for you not to do what I said…. only because it was something illegal that you did, not because of who I am telling you to do it.
If the dispatcher told him not to steal a car, that is different… because stealing a car is inherently illegal, not wrong because the dispatcher told him not to do it.
“Now, under Fl’s SYG law, he did not break the law.”
Depends on whether or not it is determined that he escalated the situation to the point where he needed to use the deadly force. If he did, then he would have had a duty to retreat, which would not fall under “Stand Your Ground.”
However, if he was pinned on the ground by Martin, then he had exhausted his means of retreat. In any case, Stand Your Ground will only apply if it is determined that he did not escalate.
Virginia has, almost word for word, the same thing as Florida’s Stand Your Ground. You can use deadly force in Virginia even if it turns out that the person you killed ended up being unarmed. The belief in the threat needs to be present, not an actual threat.
“However, if he did it here in Va, IT WOULD. Under Va’s law, disregarding the dispatcher would have “contributed to the problem”.”
I’m not certain of that. If you have a link that provides a reference, please provide it.
Thanks.
“It was clearly self-defense and she was not charged. In her case, she was probably better off ignoring the dispatcher.”
Dispatchers are not sworn officers, and you have no requirement to obey them provided that what you’re doing isn’t otherwise against the law.
In fact, if I were walking down the street open carrying my handgun and a police officer walked up and demanded identification, I’m not required to comply with him, either.
“The strain is showing. The country hasn’t been this racially divided since the O.J. Simpson criminal trial in 1995. And as with that trial, how you see these events seems to have a lot to do with the color of your skin.”
I don’t know where the writer gets this. We’ve had a huge swathe of the country with its panties in a wad every since a black man took possession of the White House. In fact, I’d say the frustration of some over the racial mix of our president is what’s feeding their enjoyment-by-proxy of seeing some guy they relate to shoot a black kid for no reason and with (until yesterday) no repercussions.
And I don’t believe there’s a soul on the planet that generally believes the shooter was in genuine fear for his life.
“ANY DAY you sit here touting your guns, you’re “dancing on a warm grave”. You just don’t always know who’s.”
B.S. !!!
“I’m going to go on record now as not wanting to rush to judgment on a mob of people stripping and beating a guy on the street. Because, we really don’t know what happened, and the video doesn’t show much.”
There may well have been a backstory, but a few things are certain: 1. He did try to leave and was struck. 2. Staying on the ground (being neutralized even if he was a threat at one point), a further assault commenced. 3. He was robbed. 4. He was stripped purposefully to humilliate. Do you dispute any of these things? Do you think the criminals in the crowd should be arrested? We had a LOT more evidence here than the Martin/Zimmerman case. Do you think race was a factor in this tourist beating/robbery/humiliation?
Jack is correct. Nobody has to heed the advice of a dispatcher, no matter how good it may be.
I wonder if George Zimmerman wishes he had heeded that dispatcher’s advice.
“In fact, if I were walking down the street open carrying my handgun and a police officer walked up and demanded identification, I’m not required to comply with him, either.”
I firmly stand against “Stop and ID” because these people who comply only build up an entitlement with the cops to be able to circumvent the law… the same with offering up the CHP on a traffic stop. Good for you.
“I wonder if George Zimmerman wishes he had heeded that dispatcher’s advice.”
I wonder at what point Martin decided to punch Zimmerman.
Youre just lying, JohnWilburn, and its disgusting. The only thing that child did wrong was not have a gun so he could shoot Zimmerman first. O balance we’d be better off.
Your need to make up lies about a murdered child is grotesque and if this is what your buddy calls “gelling the other side of the story” it’s no wonder you don’t make much headway. And there’s NO doubt whose grave you’re dancing on now. A dead kid. You do the gun lobby proud.
Hi Jack. I was not trying to claim that the dispatcher has the force of law. I was merely saying that when someone working for the authorities suggests a course of action ON TAPE it is foolhardy to do otherwise. If not from a legal standpoint, then from a CYA standpoint. I DO have to hand it to John, yeah, in his example, following directions would have been suicide. Allow me to edit myself: when the authorities advise a course of action, disregarding it ON RECORD is ALMOST always unwise. There are, obviously, exceptions to every rule. Mea culpa. That’s what I get for talking in absolutes. You and I are on the same side of this issue.
Dan, grab the anti-nausea meds, YOU AND I are in agreement! I will wager my life that if he doesn’t wish he’d followed the advice now, he will. Forever. God knows he should.
Oh, and someone tell Kristen that I may be new HERE, but I’ve been involved in gun-owners’ rights since the early 90s. Look at my progress, now look at yours.
I woke up happy, and I’m going to bed happy.
Hey John, hear that? I’m new. Heh, heh.
Re: #142
Also the Second Degree Murder charge in Florida:
Under Florida law, second degree murder is the unlawful killing of a person when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind, regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual. The maximum sentence for the crime is life in prison.
———-
Hillary,
Just for the record, assuming, arguendo, that there is evidence establishing that there was some lever of physical confrontation or struggle prior to the shot, what are you asserting as evidence (or what do you believe needs to be established as proof) of an act that was perpetrated that created imminently dangerous to another?
Following?
Asking a rude question that could be easily ignored?
IMHO, that is one of the loose ends / many unaddressed details that bother me (which I was referring to at comment #61).
I’m not playing games with you I really don’t have a feel for where that requirement is being met. It may well be. I don’t know. I’m just interested on what facts (even allegations still in dispute) you are making that assertion on.
#143 Jack posted, “The belief in the threat needs to be present, not an actual threat.”; “where he needed to use the deadly force. If he did, then he would have had a duty to retreat
Not so Jack. There is a big difference in FL and VA laws regarding self defense.
In your home, the “castle doctrine” differs in Fl and VA:
“In Florida, the law presumes [this] reasonable fear, however Virginia, unlike Florida, does not recognize this “presumed fear.” . In Virginia, you cannot use lethal force just because someone has invaded your home. You must have a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm.”
In public spaces:
In both Florida and Virginia you may use lethal force to defend yourself from a reasonable fear death or great bodily harm. In Florida, though NOT in Virginia, you are allowed to use lethal force to “repel forcible felonies” (e.g. rape, arson, robbery). In VA you must have a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm in order to use lethal force.
Carjacking:
In Florida, you can use lethal force if someone tries to steal your car. This is true whether the carjacker is armed or not. There is no duty to retreat. In Virginia, car owners have no duty to retreat, but, again, can only use deadly force to defend against a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.
http://rvanews.com/news/florida-vs-virginia-comparing-self-defense-laws/58745
Robert Sadtler,
I don’t need to grab that anti-heave meds. Most people agree with me, most of the time — at least, that is what I believe. I’m a moderate (leaning left) and you strike me as one, too.
@John…
You are assauming he punched Zimmerman..
All the evidence ive seen points the other way.
The coroner said there were no marks on Martins hands that
would have indicated such a thing.
The video of Zimmerman at the police station
does not suggest such a thing happened.
…
Is that the new vigilante way??
If they look odd..corner them ..corner them tighter and tighter
till they get the desperate look….then shoot them.
Lawmakers/changers better listen up.
149.”Youre just lying, JohnWilburn, and its disgusting.”
You have every right to disagree with me, but no grounds to call me a liar. That was uncalled for.
I’ll leave the last two words out so Dan will approve this post.
“Hey John, hear that? I’m new. Heh, heh.”
Yeah, Suzie tried to pull newbie heirarchy on me one time. Kristen…Suzie… whatever. Different stuff, same respectability.
Robert Sadtler, you and I have had a couple of productive and enlightening exchanges even as we disagreed for one reason. You are secure enough in yourself and your POV that you do not see the need to lash out against my beliefs, integrity or capability. Whether you sensed, or just know that coming into a discussion with “Well you anti RKBA….” or “You liberal pond scum eejits…” I am civil, respectful and patient, until I am given a reason not to be.
Any conversation can escalate into a heated debate and even insults, but dang, when it starts there, where is there to go? I am beyond doubt a verbal jouster and make no bones about it, but I prefer not to come to verbal blows with anyone. I “suffer no fools”, but I also do not try to fool anyone. “The Untouchables” is one of my favorite movies for a reason.
“Wanna get Capone? Here’s how you get him. He pulls a knife, you pull a gun, he sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That’s the Chicago way, and that’s how you get Capone.” I want that as my ringtone, I could listen to it ten times a day. You play fair, so will I. It is just that simple.
#144 Jack posted, “In fact, if I were walking down the street open carrying my handgun and a police officer walked up and demanded identification, I’m not required to comply with him, either.”
First, not true, as it is dependent on which state you are in and if the police are conducting an investigation in the area [of which you many not be aware]. If you are walking down the street, they can ask your name . A Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision upholds local laws in at least 21 states which give police the right to ask people their name and jail those who don’t cooperate. If you refuse, they can arrest you… although the following Supreme Court ruling stops just short of forcing you to provide ID, “the precedent has now been set for future rulings that can expand to capricious searches at the whim of a police officer.”
The Supreme Court decision of 2004:
The case of Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of the state of Nevada, 03-5554
The Court ruled that forcing someone to give police their name does not violate their Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches. The Court also said name requests do not violate the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, except in rare cases.
http://www.dojgov.net/supreme_court_privacy.htm
Re: #142
“The strain is showing. The country hasn’t been this racially divided since the O.J. Simpson criminal trial in 1995. And as with that trial, how you see these events seems to have a lot to do with the color of your skin.”
I don’t know where the writer gets this. We’ve had a huge swathe of the country with its panties in a wad every since a black man took possession of the White House.
———
I’m not sure that you aren’t supporting what Ruben Navarrette Jr. wrote. Although he was writing about “Nation divided over Trayvon Martin case”, I didn’t read him as alleging that all the current division was solely the result of the Trayvon Martin case.
Could not both sides be throwing gasoline on the fire?
I think that we had become very divided prior to this case. I also think we have also become more divided over this case. But that doesn’t mean that the country has been more racially divided since 1995 than it is now. Things can be accumulative in a way that the sum being greater than the parts — or they can work in some ways to create a synergy of two or more things functioning together to produce a result not independently obtainable by the individual parts.
What is sad, IMHO, is that, for many, the color of skin appears to be a major factor in both your example and in the Trayvon Martin case. IMHO, in both cases that is unacceptable.
John Wilburn, who wants us all to let justice take it’s course, wonders: “I wonder at what point Martin decided to punch Zimmerman.”
As an unarmed person, I can tell you this, if I was followed by a man at night, and confronted for being in an area I had every right to be in, I would think that maybe I was about to be attacked and at the point a gun is pulled (and I do not believe it was while his head is being beaten on the pavement) I would decide I had two ways to go. One would be to yell for help and try to disarm him or at least keep the gun from being used. At that point, running or surrendering to whatever malice was planned might not even be a consideration. The teen had little else to fight with after all. You have no way of knowing what Zimmerman said to him, no way to know if Martin knew that he was not under attack. You assume all that you do not know inures to Zimmerman, but nothing says others will feel the same. You cannot be “standing your ground” if you are following or chasing someone.
And using your ideal of both of them “being prepared” they would probably just both be dead.
Re: #152
In Florida, though NOT in Virginia, you are allowed to use lethal force to “repel forcible felonies” (e.g. rape, arson, robbery). In VA you must have a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm in order to use lethal force.
———
Hillary,
Are you saying that forcible rape is not great bodily harm and that women should not be allowed to use lethal force to defend themselves from rape?
Theres something weird and stalkerish about coming out of the woodwork and wetting your pants over something I said on here months ago. Most people would have had other things to fret about since then, but whatever. Glad to give you a hobby.
And John, if you have a better means of describing someone who tells lies, let me know. As for your “two words”, wow…..suitably chastised indeed.
Dave Hicks @#151 – your post is quite confusing, but if you are asking what has to be established by the defendant for the Stand Your Ground affirmative defense – evidence must be presented by the defense to demonstrate the victim’s aggression, provocation or instigation of the conflict that gave rise to Zimmerman’s need to defend himself using lethal force. When or if that is presented, he will have the affirmative defense afforded by Stand Your Ground – whether before a judge or a jury.
Re: #152
In Florida, though NOT in Virginia, you are allowed to use lethal force to “repel forcible felonies” (e.g. rape, arson, robbery). In VA you must have a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm in order to use lethal force.
———
Hillary,
What, in your opinion, constitutes a “reasonable fear” and “great bodily harm”?
WWIIW, I tend to rely on the likes of the writings on the Arming Women Against Rape & Endangerment site, such as Defending the Self-Defense Case by Lisa J. Steele http://tinyurl.com/7wfzadb
@Hilary,
It is also the standard of proof used in Grand Jury indictment proceedings. Yes, it is civil, but also used in criminal proceedings in some circumstances. Not at trial, though.
Since he keeps coming up, have you all heard about this book?
http://www.amazon.com/O-J-Innocent-Can-Prove-It/dp/1616086203
@Dan Casey: “Jack is correct. Nobody has to heed the advice of a dispatcher, no matter how good it may be. I wonder if George Zimmerman wishes he had heeded that dispatcher’s advice.”
Just a guess… but I’d bet some money that he wishes that he had. Not legally required to… but probably wishes he had done things a little bit differently.
The Affidavit in the Zimmerman case:
Prosecutors outlined their murder case in court papers, saying the neighborhood watch volunteer followed and confronted the black teenager after a police dispatcher told him to back off. The facts in the affidavit establish probable cause for the 2d Degree Murder charge.
The brief outline, contained in an affidavit filed in support of the second-degree murder charges, appeared to contradict Zimmerman’s claim that Martin attacked him after he had turned away and was returning to his vehicle.
In the affidavit, prosecutors also said that Martin’s mother identified cries for help heard in the background of a 911 call as her son’s. There had been some question as to whether Martin or Zimmerman was the one crying out.
“Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued,” prosecutors said in their account.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2012/04/12/murder_charge_brought_in_trayvon_martin_case_associated_press/
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/04/12/150525253/affidavit-reveals-new-details-in-case-against-george-zimmerman
http://tinyurl.com/d8o3v74
**
April 12, 2012, 6:25 PM
Meet the Judge Who Drew George Zimmerman’s Case
By Joe Palazzolo
The Florida judge assigned to George Zimmerman’s case is among the newest on the circuit court’s bench, but former colleagues and adversaries say Jessica Recksiedler’s previous life as a tough-as-nails trial lawyer and prosecutor makes her a good fit for what could be one of the highest-profile trials in recent memory.
After graduating Stetson University College of Law, she spent about two years as a state prosecutor in Florida’s Ninth Judicial Circuit, leaving for private practice in 1998. Judge Recksiedler, 39, was elected to the bench in 2010.
SNIP
Rutledge Bradford, who worked with Recksiedler when she started out in private practice, described her as “a complete bulldog of a lawyer, aggressive and tenacious.”
SNIP
**
@Hillary: “In Virginia, you cannot use lethal force just because someone has invaded your home. You must have a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm.”
Yes, Hillary… and if you think the person who broke into your home in the middle of the night is there to dance the Macarena with you, you’re crazy.
Sandi, I enjoy this. We’ll never reach an agreement, I afraid I’m one of “those”, but I do enjoy having the debate on civil ground. I hope to meet you face to face one day. Probably wont be the most comfortable discussion, but it’s always affirming to have a pleasant dialogue.
Dan, assumptions are dangerous. Before you assume too much common ground, in the interest of full disclosure, if I had to label myself it would definitely be moderate leaning RIGHT. Left on more issues, but right takes all the top spots. I’m sure that we all believe that most people agree with us most of the time…it’s probably what gets us into trouble. Probably why no one ever seems to reach consensus either.
Shame. For those that aren’t familiar, Sandi and I had a great discussion in the wake of Bob Ackerman’s editorial. Not to dredge up that whole thing, but a good study in people trying to find common ground. If anyone cares to check it out, I assume it’s still up there somewhere.
I’m still looking for a solution.
Chicago way? Sounds a lot like President Obama????
Re: #157
Sandi,
I’m not trying to pick a fight, here.
I am just confused about the appearance of equating “Well you anti RKBA….” with “You liberal pond scum eejits…”.
FWIIW, I have never considered anti-RKBA to be pejorative or otherwise having negative connotations. Nor do I us the term with the intent of disparaging or belittling someone.
To me pro-RKBA and anti-RKBA is simply descriptive shorthand — not all that different from pro-choice and pro-life (save both those are shorthanded “pro” something). FWIIW, that is another set of issues where I don’t take my position based on dogmatic faith or empathy, either.
When it comes to persuasion I tend to lean far more toward logos than either ethos or pathos.
I believe some folk on the anti side of the RKBA continuum have well thought out logical positions. However as an INTJ my primary interest is not understanding a concept in the abstract, but rather applying that concept in a useful way. As an INTJ, I also ruthlessly apply the criterion “Does it work?” and “What are the unintended consequences?”. I do dislike poor logic and fallacious arguments, however. (Big surprise there, right.)
Other folk work at a different level. That is fine with me, also. It would be a very boring world, were we all alike. FWIIW, I never like arguing with ESFP, ENFP, or ISFP. We can never get on the same wavelength. It’s much better when we agree to disagree, IMHO. Also, I never like to argue religion or other positions based on ethos or pathos. OTOH, I absolutely support others’ right to their beliefs, however they reach them. That doesn’t mean, however, that I have to agree with them or accept their beliefs as valid reason for public policy.
But back to the public policy issue at hand. I use pro-RKBA to mean someone who fully supports both the basic right to keep (e.g., own, possess, have, etc) and the basic right bear (e.g., carry, have handy in their vehicle, etc) various weapons — including but not limited to firearms. OTOH, to me an anti-RKBA individual is someone who does not support both the right to keep and the right bear arms? I do not see pro-RKBA excluding those who agree with reasonable restrictions. OTOH, I do not see anti-RKBA as apply to only those supporting total ban & confiscating. I’m not sure where the midpoint of the pro- v. anti- on the RKBA continuum is. However, IMHO the sub-issue of bearing self-defense weapons, including concealed firearms might be the fulcrum for balance.
As to RKBG v. RKBA issue, I have never understood why (in some states, including Virginia) it is not legal for an individual to carry any of a laundry list of less lethal weapons when that same individual can legally carry firearms. I often wonder about the history behind such a law.
——–
OTOH, Are you saying that you are pro-RKBA?
If so, how do you interpret / understand the “bear arms” part of the right to keep and bear arms?
Re: #164
I’m not sure what was all that confusing — albeit there was an auto spell roadkill of “lever” for “level” and I was in a rush and a bit cryptic.
However, let me try again.
My questions were focused on the actual charges brought Zimmerman, the element of that crime that must be met to establish those charges, and what evidence there might there be to prove those threshold elements. That requires a theory of the crime.
What are you alleging that meets the requirement of the charge brought against Zimmerman — assuming, arguendo, that there is evidence establishing that there was some level of physical confrontation or struggle prior to the shot (which is widely reported by both sides, albeit there is debate as to who started it and who was on top)?
Please lay out the sequence of events or actions that meet that charge. Citing alleged supporting evidence would be helpful.
——-
I was not introducing the details of the affirmative defense. However, the state’s theory of the crime is a major driver in rebuttal.
As to that, see my earlier comment on this thread and discussed in more detail on an earlier thread. To repeat a well presented short clip from a quote from a very well known attorney (Dave Kopel See: http://tinyurl.com/85xy9r8 )
**
SNIP
[quoting the actual law] (3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. [end quote of the law]
Again, this is irrelevant to the Martin/Zimmerman case. A duty to retreat, if it existed, would apply to a crime victim, who would be required to retreat [rather] than to use force in self-defense, if retreat were feasible. In the [pro Martin] version of the case, Zimmerman stalked and shot Martin; Martin never attacked Zimmerman. Accordingly, Zimmerman never had any lawful right of self-defense. Only [if] Martin had violently and feloniously attacked Zimmerman would there be an issue (in any jurisdiction) as to whether Zimmerman had a duty to retreat. In the [pro Zimmerman] version of the case, there was such an attack, but it was impossible for Zimmerman to retreat. Thus, duty to retreat law has no bearing on the case.
SNIP
**
Let me play with those points with various theories of the crime, which either the state of the defense might adopt.
If either the [pro Martin] or [pro Zimmerman] version of events as laid out in the press to date are use and accepted my the jury (or judge if they go no jury), the issue of duty to retreat or lack thereof does not apply.
Are you saying that Martin never attacked Zimmerman? That Zimmerman stalked and shot Martin w/o provocation? If proven, there is no affirmative self-defense case and Fl’s SYG law is not applicable.
Are you saying that Martin had violently and feloniously attacked Zimmerman but it was impossible for Zimmerman to retreat? If so, there is an affirmative self-defense case established. However Zimmerman had retreated as far as he could. So the SYG provision is academic. However, the overall question of “reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm” does comes into play.
Now moving on from the newspaper reports.
Are you saying that Martin had violently and feloniously attacked Zimmerman and that Zimmerman could have retreated? If so, there is affirmative self-defense case and Fl law SYG law is in play and would have a bearing on both the “reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm” and “the right to stand his … ground.”
Are you saying that Martin had violently attacked Zimmerman but it was not feloniously, as Zimmerman provoked the attack with what actions (Following? Asking a rude question that could be easily ignored? etc?)? If so then Martin right to self-defense by standing his ground and meeting force with force must be examined and if justified proceed to Zimmerman right to self-defense as per the last two paragraphs above.
If there are another versions / sequences of events that fit you propose as the theory of the crime I would like to hear them.
@Hillary,
For the police to conduct a Terry Stop they must have reasonable suspicion of your involvement in a crime. Carry a handgun does not constitute such suspicion.
Hillary on “Stop and ID”:
“First, not true, as it is dependent on which state you are in and if the police are conducting an investigation in the area [of which you many not be aware].”
Yes, it does depend on the state. TN officers, for instance, may ask for your ID even if you’re open carrying because there, a holster is said to partially “conceal” the handgun and in TN, partial concealment is concealment. It also therefore requires a concealed handgun permit to open carry. It also creates a license for the police to harass carriers. In Virginia, a cop needs to have “reasonable articulation of suspicion”. It’s occasionally abused, but better than what TN has. It would be better here if folks did as Jack suggested and not show them ID to play along with their fishing expedition. Time has shown that where many people offer up ID or the CHP proactively and unnecessarily builds an entitlement attitude with the cops and makes it harder on those who wish to maintain their privacy within the law.
“I hope to meet you face to face one day.”
Hey Bob, just know she has already said she avoids open carriers like the plague, so you might want to conceal that day to cater to her neurosis.
Casey Anthonys attorney is weighing in on Zimmerman and, surprisingly, says there’s no chance of their getting a conviction on Zimmerman. Birds of a feather.
How long until the FLA GOP taps Anthony and Zmmerman to run for local office. They could be the next Joes the Plumbers.
“How long until the FLA GOP taps Anthony and Zmmerman to run for local office.”
I was thinking more along the lines of Anthony for Secretary of State and Zimmerman to head up Homeland Security.
.
Jesse Jackson is denouncing “assault weapons” and concealed handgun permits on CNN right now, this minute speaking with the media ON HIS WAY TO A FUNERAL. And has more media press conferences scheduled in between the services!
He just said Zimmerman’s incarceration is a “touchdown!”
Jackson is a sickening, anti-liberty, race pimp profiteer.
Are you going to condemn this shameless guy, Warren?
Jack on 4/12 @2:18
They had a gun, a 17 year old dead guy with no weqapon except a bag of skittles and a cup of tea, a man who admits to owning the gun and a 911 call in which he was advised not to stalk or confront the teenager. If that’s not enough to mske an arrest and let the courts and prosecutors sort it out, thern there must be no law in fLA. The police were clearly not interested. He was just one more dead black kid to them as is witnessed by the fact that they made no effort to identify the dead boy and notify his family. No canvass of the neighborhood, no effort to make contact through his cell phone, which they had. Just another John doe black kid.. That’s why this is a problem and has become an even bigger problem.
Gonna vote for this “flip-flopper” John Wilburn?
“Mitt Romney And The NRA: A ‘Diss’ Before Courtship”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/12/mitt-romney-nra-courtship_n_1422258.html?ref=politics
“They had a gun, a 17 year old dead guy with no weqapon except a bag of skittles and a cup of tea, a man who admits to owning the gun and a 911 call in which he was advised not to stalk or confront the teenager. ”
Hey dave…according to our gun folk, none of this means that Zimmerman wasn’t a heck of a guy out freely exercising his 2a rights. He’s a poster child.
Your post is spot on.
John Wilburn, I am not a fan of Jesse Jackson, but he is hardly the only activist in this nation. You don’t like what he is saying so that makes him “a sickening, anti-liberty, race pimp profiteer”, and yet it has been said that: “You keep any special interest group alive by nurturing the crisis atmosphere.” Know who said that, Former National Rifle Association chief Ray Arnet.
The way Jackson’s comments hit you and make you seethe and call him names, I know exactly how you feel:
“it’s a big fat stinking lie, just like all the other lies that have come out of this corrupt administration. It’s all part — it’s all part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intentions to destroy the Second Amendment in our country.” As Rachel Maddow summed it up, “the way you can tell Obama is coming for your guns, is that he’s not coming for your guns”. That one ticked me off royally so I know your pain. And guess what no unarmed teenager whose funeral he was about to attend prompted the comment. It was just a pure, malicious lie to nurture the crisis atmosphere you people live in.
Another nugget of wisdom, propriety and dishonesty was their calls asking for donations stating: “Hillary Clinton has teamed up with countries like North Korea, Iran and Cuba to draft this arms trade treaty that could have a drastic impact on civilian gun ownership. The U.N. wants us to believe this treaty is about automatic weapons and dirty bombs, but the fact is all hunting rifles, shotguns and pistols can be on the table.” A real piece of work, the NRA; a totally sickening, anti-truth, gun pimp profiteer!
Want me to go on or has it dawned yet? “Where you sit often determines where you stand”.
Sandi, the story about Romney and gun rights you’ve linked to is a great read.
What it doesn’t say is this: Romney has pulled the exact same act with regard to:
1. abortion rights
2. public support of birth control
3. cap and trade
4. gay marriage; and
5. a health insurance mandate
With respect to #5, in 2008, Romney said, “I like mandates. The mandates work.”
In 2009, he said, “Massachusetts is a model for getting everyone insured.”
It’s not at all beyond the realm of possibility that any politician could have a “come to Jesus” moment and change his fundamental position on any given issue. At the same time, it’s astounding for a politician to have done a 180-degree flip on SIX big issues, all in the past 10 years.
And therein lies Romney’s greatest weakness. The guy doesn’t seem to have a soul. Above all else, he stands for getting votes for Mitt Romney — and he’ll say or doing anything in the pursuit of that.
Romney is sort of a tofu candidate…he tastes like whatever’s around him at the time. I still think he was the best choice for the GOP since they couldn’t be bothered with Huntsman, but I don’t think he has much shot against Obama (granted the election is a long way off).
Here is the link to the discussion Robert and I (along with others) had on guns previously.
http://blogs.roanoke.com/roundtable/2012/03/monday-letters-pick-of-the-day-38/
I am sorry Dave Hicks, but it is too late in our game for you to pretend I have not often and vehemently denied being “anti-RKBA”. That you do not consider “anti” or “Anti-RKBA” to be “pejorative” after your too often efforts to demean and rebut anyone who speaks in any but glowing and unfettered terms of gun rights is just not credible. I feel disparaged and belittled every time someone describes me as “anti” or Anti-RKBA”.
This simply is not a black/white, pro/con issue and you and other gun rights advocates who also understand the need for some restrictions already admitted that…”we are just haggling over the price”, remember?
The insults and demeaning of “my position” have been delivered and there is no walking them back now.
You cannot “ruthlessly apply” criteria that has not been tried. You cannot say it is “illogical” or “fallacious” just because you disagree with it, which is too often the gun rights advocacy position.
There are more than just two sides here and as long as you refuse to see and acknowledge that, the longer we will poke each other with sticks.
In trying to be all things to all people, Romney is nothing to anyone and it shows. He is such a pandering pol that his picture could be in the dictionary. He is a joke, and a bad one. This nation is searching for prosperity, hope and a real unity again and he cannot even be at peace with his own POV. Willard Romney will never be President.
#185 A family member of mine used to work for the NRA. Until it got to where he could no longer stand the gun pimping and scare tactics.
Maybe they would stop accusing Obama of coming for their guns if he just sort of came for them but not really too seriously. You know, something in between.
Robert Sadtler #171, why do you assume a meeting between us, “Probably wont be the most comfortable discussion“? Do you think I cannot be civil in public or that I lose my rationality in an actual conversation? I am not understanding what you mean to convey. Until someone is offensive beyond my parameters, I fully enjoy a spirited disagreement as much as a spirited agreement in conversation. I freely admit that once those parameters are breached, there are no do-overs as life is too short and I have too many people I would rather spend time with for such entanglements. I might just surprise you!
Today’s News.
That bulldog of a judge in the Zimmerman case has offeredm to recuse herself from the trial due to her husband’s connections as a part time legal analyst for CNN
And in Ohio, another man who had previously been arrested for domestic violence, and burglary exercised his 2A rights to own a gun when he carried it into a Cracker barrel Restaurant and killed his wife ann 10 year old daughter and critically wounded another daughter. It was the 10 year old’s birthday . He was subsequently shot and killed by the police when he refused to stand down and give up his cherished weapon. This tragedy could of course have been avoided if every person in the Cracker Barrel had been armed to the teeth and jumpoed in creating a shootout .
Hum!
http://tinyurl.com/btmhyjn
**
Most Americans back gun lobby, right to use deadly force
[video]
Deborah Charles Reuters
3:28 p.m. EDT, April 13, 2012
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Most Americans support the right to use deadly force to protect themselves – even in public places – and have a favorable view of the National Rifle Association, the main gun-lobby group, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed.
However, there was also strong support from respondents for background checks as well as limiting the sale of automatic weapons and keeping guns out of churches, stores and workplaces.
The online survey showed that 68 percent, or two out of three respondents, had a favorable opinion of the NRA, which starts its annual convention in St. Louis, Missouri, on Friday.
Eighty-two percent of Republicans saw the gun lobbying group in a positive light as well as 55 percent of Democrats, findings that run counter to the perception of Democrats as anti-NRA.
SNIP
**
A bit more facts:
http://tinyurl.com/6u8vs4f
**
April 13, 2012
Affidavit: Zimmerman did not use racial slur
It is not clear what effect the conclusion will have on the federal investigation
Associated Press
When a recording was released of a 911 call George Zimmerman made to police shortly before fatally shooting Trayvon Martin, some who heard it zeroed in on three words to suggest he had uttered a racial slur.
An affidavit released by the prosecutor who has charged Zimmerman with second-degree murder says he did not use a slur, however. The document filed Thursday did say Zimmerman “profiled” Martin. It did not elaborate.
SNIP
Some cited the alleged slur as potential evidence for the U.S. Justice Department, which could still bring a hate-crime charge against Zimmerman. And it fed growing outrage over the police department’s initial decision not to arrest Zimmerman.
It is not clear what effect the affidavit’s conclusion will have on the federal investigation. Martin was black. Zimmerman’s father is white and his mother is Hispanic.
**
I read the affadavit online. It does NOT say Zimmerman DID NOT use a racial slur. Instead, it makes no claim that he did say it.
There’s a difference.
@Dan,
They did clarify what he did say, though, during the part of the call that was supposedly the racial slur.
I really like the part about Trayvon’s mom identifying the screaming voice on the 911 call. I actually think it sounds a bit like my son, but I could be wrong.
Jack,
More than one voice recognition expert has flatly denied the cries of help could have been coming fromn Zimmerman. If they weren’t coming from him, who were they coming from? Trayvon’s mom is not necessarily an authority but she knows her son’s voice better than most. The experts will get there eventually.
The most interesting thing to be about the affadavit is that it claims TRAYVON was the person retreating, as he was pursued by an armed, permit-carrying Cop Wannabe Idiot. How dare he try to run away from a jerk with a gun?
“And in Ohio, another man who had previously been arrested for domestic violence, and burglary exercised his 2A rights to own a gun when he carried it into a Cracker barrel Restaurant and killed his wife ann 10 year old daughter and critically wounded another daughter. It was the 10 year old’s birthday . He was subsequently shot and killed by the police when he refused to stand down and give up his cherished weapon. This tragedy could of course have been avoided if every person in the Cracker Barrel had been armed to the teeth and jumpoed in creating a shootout.”
dave, I know you’re being sarcastic but let’s think this through just a bit: This tragedy could have been avoided ONLY if the authorities has disarmed this gun-loving POS. Because even if everyone in Cracker Barrel had been armed, the dude still would have been able to kill his wife and daughter before the other patrons had a chance to brandish their firearms. And if everyone had them, it might have been en even bigger tragedy.
Yes Dan
That was precisely my point. Fewer people with access to guns at a time when they are emotionally overwrought= fewer people shot and killed. The abuser had no business having a gun. The wife was leaving him. His guns should have been confiscated. This, by the way was not a pistol or concealed weapon but a long gun this pos used. And more people with weapons in the restaurant would likely have resulted in more danger to more people.
Re: #111
“The press has a duty to report fact that are known, following newsworthy events.
v.
Re: #195
“It does NOT say Zimmerman DID NOT use a racial slur. Instead, it makes no claim that he did say it.”
———
Wow!
Dan, have you changed you tune as to the media getting the facts wrong, spinning them?
Is that a condemnation of the AP for failing in their “duty to report fact that are known”?
Of the papers and TV stations nationwide for not confirming the facts before publishing them?
BTW, remember I have used the term “both sides” in my condemnation of the media fanning the flames of divisiveness and division along known fault lines by feeding alleged facts and using value loaded words and pictures in order to excite the readers / viewers into spinning and spreading myths — all for the sake of readership / viewer share and ultimately their own personal and corporate profit.
Most of the media that I have dealt with live by the creed of “Get it first: correct it later (on the back pages)” — OIOW “Scoops trump truth.”
As to the the media (on both sides) handling of this tragedy, I say a curse on both their houses.
Dave Hicks,
I neither know no care what the AP reported; I am not defending or criticizing them. I read the affidavit. It makes no claim that Zimmerman used a racial slur. And that’s it. It does not say he DIDN’T make one and that is a fact.
If I write right here that I’m fat, and you conclude from that I’m not hairy because I made no claim that I was, where is the logic that allows for such a conclusion? Seriously.
Re: #195 and #197
Wait a minute.
After Jack comment, I looked up the affidavit online myself.
Please read first paragraph of http://tinyurl.com/7r9qrqx
Hum?
# 181: “Jackson is a sickening, anti-liberty, race pimp profiteer…Are you going to condemn this shameless guy, Warren?”
Not sure why you thought I should be singled out on this, John, but my answer is that I do strongly disapprove of the way all those across the ideological spectrum have been exploiting this case, Jackson included, and I’ve disapproved of many other things he’s done before, as well as occasionally approving of some of his actions, for instance, his support of the striking Memphis sanitation workers.
But with many apt words to choose from, in this particular case I’ll likely use another word to indicate my disapproval than your choice of “condemn”, given the connotations in its’ etymology with killing. That’s why I don’t condemn your use of it, although I’ll express my similar thoughts differently. Peace.
Re: #202
“I neither know no care what the AP reported”
———–
Double Wow!!!!
Did not know??? You did not read the clip (or check the link) at #195????
If not how and why did you reply to it?
Do not care???
Then why the defense of the media at #111????
Please explain, as something is not adding up here.
Dave Hicks,
The affidavit says what Zimmerman DID say. It does not say what he DID NOT say. You cannot conclude he did not say anything from it.
Btw, I’m not saying he said anything racial or not. All I AM saying is that you cannot concluded he DID NOT say something based on a few brief quotes of what he DID say in the affidavit.
Re: #206
Dan,
Are you saying the phrase “these efiing punks” has no bearing on the earlier reports of Zimmerman saying “these efing coons”?
Are you also saying that the AP and the papers and TV stations nationwide are reporting false information when the report as fact that “Zimmerman did not use racial slur”?
@Dan: “If they weren’t coming from him, who were they coming from?”
At one point it was reported that an eyewitness claimed they came from Zimmerman.
@Dan: “Because even if everyone in Cracker Barrel had been armed, the dude still would have been able to kill his wife and daughter before the other patrons had a chance to brandish their firearms.”
This is true… and I don’t think anyone has ever claimed that having a gun would defeat the element of surprise by the bad guy. No doubt if he were careful he could definitely kill a person or two, but not six or eight.
In either case, an armed citizen could certainly have saved the taxpayers a rather large future expense.
—–
From Fox News:
When a recording was released some who heard it zeroed in on three words to suggest he had uttered a slur; instead, the document filed Thursday says the phrase Zimmerman uttered was “Those f—–g punks.”
—–
From AP:
Despite what some people think they heard, prosecutors say George Zimmerman did not utter a racial slur in his call to 911 on the night he shot Trayvon Martin.
The disputed words on the recording turned out to be ‘these f—— punks,’ prosecutors said in an affidavit filed Thursday in support of the murder charges brought against the neighbourhood watch volunteer.
Dave Hicks,
What I am saying is this: Nobody can read that affidavit and draw any logical conclusion that it says Zimmerman DID NOT use a racial slur. If the AP did independent reporting, and put the question to the prosecutor and she said, “he did not use a racial slur” that is one thing. But you cannot draw that conclusion merely from the affidavit. And if the AP drew that from the affadavit, then they jumped to an unwarranted conclusion. Like you have, apparently.
“In either case, an armed citizen could certainly have saved the taxpayers a rather large future expense.”
And in either case, an armed citizen could have fired his gun wildly and killed an innocent person.
“Could” is pretty wide open.
He did not say “punks” IMO. I do not know what he did say, but it was not “punks”. That the officer(s) who listened to the tape gave his interpretation of it in the affidavit does not mean that the tape has been analyzed and a final expert determination has been made on the supposed “punks” or who is “screaming for help”. Funny how you are now doing what you have accused others of doing. Odd how this case does this to people.
Re: #209
“…unwarranted conclusion. Like you have, apparently.”
—–
What unwarranted conclusion are you alleging that I have jumped to?
FYI, from the AP story as reported by papers and TV stations nationwide, “An affidavit released by the prosecutor who has charged Zimmerman with second-degree murder says he did not use a slur, however.”
Seems fairly clear to me.
http://tinyurl.com/8452hly
**
U.S. divided by race in Trayvon Martin case, not on deadly force
SANFORD, Fla. — Two new polls in the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting show divergent views among black and white Americans over whether the unarmed black teenager’s shooting was justified, and show that most residents believe they should have the right to use deadly force if their lives are threatened.
Both polls were conducted by Reuters/Ipsos. In the poll on the Feb. 26 shooting, 91% of black Americans surveyed said that the fatal shooting of Martin by Sanford neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman was unjustified. Among whites, that number was 35%; among Latinos, 59%.
“This incident is one of the clearest splits we’ve seen between whites and blacks,” Ipsos pollster Chris Jackson told Reuters.
But, he added, most people — whether white or black or Latino — agreed that the full story of what happened that night would probably remain unknown.
SNIP
**
Dave Hicks @161 – not my words, read the link I provided…
Dave Hicks@165 posted, “What, in your opinion, constitutes a “reasonable fear” and “great bodily harm”?”
It isn’t important what I think constitutes reasonable fear or great bodily harm – the law of each state will define that, some using the qualifier “imminent”, some qualify with “weapon” or “prior bad acts”. Not my call, state legislators make that decision.
jack@166 – you are correct.
Jack @171 – posted, “and if you think the person who broke into your home in the middle of the night is there to dance the Macarena with you, you’re crazy.”
Not my law, Virginia’s. If a 17 year old breaks into your home armed with a bag of skittles, and is taking your computer, you come into the room, he drops the computer and attempts to leave, you shoot him, you have a problem. Take it up with your legislators if you don’t like the law…I personally don’t care if you moon walk…again, I did not write the law.
Jack@176 – no they can ask your name in 20+ states, and you do not have a right to decline, whether they think you’re a suspect or not. Supreme Court already decided that. If you appear suspicious, act suspiciously and they suspect you of something, they certainly can demand an ID. You do not have to provide it – but police are more of the taser you first, ask questions later…You get to choose.
http://tinyurl.com/7uuntr8
**
Any objections? Judge in Trayvon Martin case reveals legal ties
By Michael Muskal
April 13, 2012, 12:02 p.m.
The judge in the George Zimmerman murder trial announced Friday that her husband works at the law firm that recommended the defendant hire his current attorney.
In a brief televised hearing, Circuit Court Judge Jessica Recksiedler explained the relationships and gave Zimmerman’s attorney, Mark O’Mara, and the office of special prosecutor Angela B. Corey until next week to file any objections. The judge said she had an ethical obligation to disclose the relationships.
SNIP
**
Also, yp Dan’s point – the prosecution does not have to put all they know or all the evidence they have in the affidavit – so if there was a racial slur they would not have to put it before the court – because something isn’t in the affidavit does not mean it does or does not exist.
Re: #211
As I posted earlier on another thread:
http://tinyurl.com/6osrbxq
**
Expert Says Zimmerman Said ‘Punk’ Not ‘Coon’ On 911 Audio
Audio expert says Zimmerman didn’t use slur
As the investigation and non-arrest of George Zimmerman stands its ground atop the media’s list of hot topics, more facts, analysis and opinions continue to surface.
The latest comes from Tom Owen, chairman emeritus of the American Board of Recorded Evidence. With 28 years of experience in breaking down and stripping audio recordings, he says he is certain that Zimmerman did not call Trayvon Martin a “coon” as he whispered to himself while on the phone with police. Instead, he says that Zimmerman called him a “punk.”
SNIP
[Emphasis added]
**
FWIIW, this is one of the experts that used his expertise to support the theory that it is not Zimmerman screaming for help in the background on other 911 calls.
dave expressing his loathe of gun owners:
“And in Ohio, another man who had previously been arrested for domestic violence, and burglary exercised his 2A rights to own a gun when he carried it into a Cracker barrel Restaurant and killed his wife ann 10 year old daughter and critically wounded another daughter.”
And he had no right to commit a murder. Any excuse will do eh?
Sandi, have you not figured out that the NRA does not speak for me? They ARE NOT the voice of all gun owners. I am much more philosophically aligned with VCDL. NRA is a good organization to work through as an instructor because so many states approve their training credentials. They do other good things too, but don’t consider their ever growing political monster to speak for me. I assure you, it does not. VCDL is right on.
“…the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a gun-rights organization that makes the NRA look moderate.”
Eleanor Clift – - Politics Daily – July 5, 2010
Re: #214
Dave Hicks @161 – not my words, read the link I provided…
———-
Yup, read your link. But earlier today I read a news source that ranting about it being legal to carry a machine gun concealed in Virginia (which is wrong). Also read a TV news transcript that alleged that a semi-auto rifle use in a crime was the same as standard issue weapon for US combat troops (which is also wrong and in fact the picture was of a Avtomat Kalashnikova, an AK-47 in this case). As are being discussing on this thread the AP and Dan are at odds — suggesting that the news or blogs are not always the best source of legal info.
So, I’d rather trust attorneys opinions and read case law. I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice. However, I have read of Virginia cases where women being raped were not prosecuted for use of deadly force, under our SYG common law. For a good general discussion see: Defending the Self-Defense Case by Lisa J. Steele http://tinyurl.com/7wfzadb
————————
Re: #214
It isn’t important what I think constitutes reasonable fear or great bodily harm – the law of each state will define that, some using the qualifier “imminent”, some qualify with “weapon” or “prior bad acts”. Not my call, state legislators make that decision.
———
Any citations of statutes you can provide — particularly for FL (or even for VA)?
Again IANAL. However, from what I have read, “reasonable fear”, is not typically defined in statute — rather leaving that to case-law. Nor can I remember see great bodily harm / grievous bodily harm / etc defined in statute.
You are right that “imminent” is part of the The AOJ Triad and is a key consideration in “reasonableness.”
FWIIW, in my reading qualify such “weapon” fall under the heading of disparate force (along with considerations of relative age, strength, gender, training, level of aggressiveness, number of aggressors versus number of defenders, etc. FWIIW, I have read of where someone like me with COPD, a pacemaker, on blood thinner., etc have been “reasonable” in their fear even though things like that are typically discussed in the legal papers and I doubt seriously it is well defined in statute.
OTOH. I am not at all sure where “prior bad acts” would be part of the “reasonableness” question. I tend to thing of that as related to credibility of the witness and/or a consideration in the sentencing phase, following conviction. More information on your thought here would be welcomed.
IMHO, “”reasonable fear” is, in the final Analise most often determined by folk such as you and I — the jury of the accused peers and not by state legislators.
Again see: Defending the Self-Defense Case
Dan,
Re: the media
Why do you dismiss the incident of NBC News producer’s misleading segment about the Trayvon Martin case in Florida as having no barring on / nor reflective on the media, yet hype about very rare incidents where legal concealed carry was actually a factor in in others misdeeds?
Hum?
Just had a wrinkle in the ongoing saga of the CAPTHA code.
Sent my last comment, above.
Got the typical CAPTHA code error message, “Error: You entered in the wrong CAPTCHA phrase. Press your browser’s back button and try again.”
Did that.
Got the error message, “Duplicate comment detected; it looks as though you’ve already said that!”
Back buttoned. Hit F5. There it was.
And CNN now opines that he said “cold”…
http://ironicsurrealism.com/2012/04/05/cnn-back-peddles-george-zimmerman-said-cold-not-coon-video/
This is shaping up to be a battle of the paid experts:
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2012/04/are-there-any-media-people-in-new-york-city.html
John Wilburn, have you not figured out that Sharpton and Jackson do not speak for all black people? They ARE NOT the voice of all liberals either. Your tar brush only applies one way is what you are saying.
I see John Wilburn, you simply use the NRA, but back the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a group that has been described as a “radical pro-gun group that seeks to eradicate all existing gun laws (including background checks on gun purchasers)”? Wow, hard to figure that one.
The group whose “newsletter” includes such golden oldies as “The Flash Mob Attack – How to Defend?” in graphic detail? That VCDL?
Eleanor Clift looks more right by the moment.
One thing I have noticed on this passionate thread. At least folks on both sides of the issue for the most part are acting like adults.
The blog has improved immeasurably.
223.”John Wilburn, have you not figured out that Sharpton and Jackson do not speak for all black people? They ARE NOT the voice of all liberals either.”
YES! Please tell them that!
Re: #221
Good link, Sandi.
Back in the day, we refereed to paid experts as hired guns. Doubt that is PC now.
Here are some for you:
http://tinyurl.com/7s999df
**
SNIP
But a six-month investigation by 60 Minutes and The Washington Post last November showed that there are hundreds of defendants imprisoned around the country who were convicted with the help of a now discredited forensic tool, and that the FBI never notified them, their lawyers, or the courts, that the their cases may have been affected by faulty testimony.
SNIP
**
—–
http://tinyurl.com/6phelqd
**
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Albert Hamilton: One of America’s First Experts from Hell
SNIP
Albert Hamilton continued to disgrace himself as an expert witness in several forensic fields for another ten years, making him one of the most notorious forensic charlatans in American history. If there is anything to learn from this man’s career, it is that the woods are full of phony experts, and if judges let down their guards, we will have charlatans in our court rooms, and baloney in our verdicts.
**
—-
http://tinyurl.com/76wh3j6
**
When Experts Become Advocates: The Case of Dr. Charles Smith
It almost goes without saying that an expert witness has to be impartial. However, it is not always easy to keep one’s impartiality in real-life courtroom scenarios, where an expert may feel under pressure to present the case for one side. Or, an expert may feel he or she needs to be an advocate for a certain cause, representing an opinion of a certain hospital department or a heart-felt social education mission rather than professional standards.
A rare glimpse into the pressures experts are exposed to – and the terrible things that can happen when experts allow those pressures to influence them – was recently given in a public inquiry into forensic pathology practices in the province of Ontario, Canada. The inquiry has recently heard the closing arguments. The main focus, widely reported in Canadian press, were the practices of top Canadian pediatric forensic pathologist, Dr. Charles Smith. During his remarkably candid testimony, the disgraced Dr. Smith provided a checklist of the reasons he “fell victim to [his] tendency to become dogmatic, adversarial, too defensive, and to speak in black and white terms” – with disastrous results.
SNIP
**
Good stuff to think about — the popularity of TV CSI et al notwithstanding.
John Wilburn
Wrong. I have not expressed anywhere a loathing for “gun owners” Nor do I feel such a loathing.
What I do loathe is the easy availabilty of guns that makes it possible for the guy who’s having a bad day or just lost his temper to grab his gun and start shooting. What I do loathe is that people like the guy in Ohio who has been involved in domestic violence and burglary still has and is able to keep guns of any kind. What I do loathe is the mentality that says we should all go aaround armed to the teeth all the time because we have this paranoia about the need for “protection”
That gun strapped to your ankle or the one strapped to your side or the guns on the rack in your pickup truck make it all too easy for you or anyone else who has them to use them in a fit of anger or when they just happen to be having a bad day. I don’t buy the argument that its not the gun, its the person with the gun. If he didn’t have the gun in the first place, he couldn’t use it.We liove in the most dangerous country in the so called civilized world as relates to deaths and injuries due to gun violence. And there is no logic that can convince me that the solution to that is more guns in the hands of more people.
I have to love the logic that says that the big fat grown up slinging the gun at the kid is going to be the one screaming for help. It’s so obviously moronic on its face, but as I expect that this will be the sort of “argument” presented by Zimmerman’s defense, I embraced it fully for the idiocy it is.
And what we can get from our resident gun people is that are no bad killings, anywhere, there are just people stupid enough to be standing in front of the bullet.
221.Hum?
The same thing happened to me yesterday evening.
Dave Hicks@219 posted, “I am not at all sure where “prior bad acts” would be part of the “reasonableness” question. I tend to thing of that as related to credibility of the witness and/or a consideration in the sentencing phase, following conviction. More information on your thought here would be welcomed.”
I was a legal advocate for a woman who had been battered numerous times [30-40x] – broken arm, detached retina, burst ear drum etc. In the state this occurred, there were strict gun laws, no such affirmative defense as SYG. On subsequent beatings when the defendant had been removed from the home, stalked the female and broken into the home several times…prior bad acts would be relevant. He had assaulted her so many times before, beating, choking, kicking, spitting [which was also considered assault] that to ignore those prior incidents would be ignorant. If she had a weapon, if she lived in any state, if he again broke into her house [without a weapon] I do not doubt if she shot and killed him, her claim of self defense and “reasonable fear” would free her from a murder prosecution.
By the way, except for her killing him, the facts laid out above are true.
Actually if I were still doing legal advocacy, I would suggest to all my victims move to Florida…
Speaking of pimping, Romney did some fine gun pimping in front of the NRA yesterday. Got them fellows into a right fine froth. Obama, he’s coming for ALL your guns.
I read about that in the paper this morning, Gdad. The tired old logic that just because he hasn’t come after your guns yet, he will. You just watch, he’s coming after us. Fear and ignorance, so American.
@Kristen: “I have to love the logic that says that the big fat grown up slinging the gun at the kid is going to be the one screaming for help”
You don’t think he would have been screaming for help if his head was being pounded into the pavement?
Of course that might end up not being the case… but… if it turns out that his head was being pounded into the cement, I don’t think it is that far-fetched to guess that he might have asked for help.
Romney’s sucking up to the fringe groups and reversing of his previous stands has become so ridiculous that it is beyond me how he can be considered a serious candidate for President.His opportunism and willingness to say anything anytime to any group in an attempt to secure their vote has turned him into a caricature of a politician and an empty shell as a person.
Re: #231
Hillary,
Very good example. And, I agree! I support your contention fully as to the reasonableness of armed self-defense in cases like that. I hope most folk would, also.
IMHO, it is rather like my “I have read of where someone like me with COPD, a pacemaker, on blood thinner, etc have been “reasonable” in their fear even though things like that are typically discussed in the legal papers and I doubt seriously it is well defined in statute.”
However, I believe it also supports my position that “IMHO, ‘reasonable fear’ is, in the final [analysis]* most often determined by folk such as you and I — the jury of the accused peers and not by state legislators.” [* Dang I wish I could proof better shortly after typing something. When ever I had the opportunity, in school and at work, I would let a paper sit fro a while before proofing. As a sight / speed reader and a mildly dyslexic, I suck at proofing -- particularly something I wrote and therefore tend to read what I intended rather that what I actually wrote.]
BTW, as to your recommending a move to Florida, I find that interesting on two levels.
1) It seems to imply (or maybe I am misreading it reading it to infer) a tacit approval of armed self-defense. I wonder how many here would agree that in the case you cited that “reasonable fear” would be justified and that armed self-defense would be “reasonable”.
FWIIW, I can just see the slippery-slope arguments slipping in. [Wonder if Dan would demand an a priori identification of exactly where a non-arbitrary sharp line would be established between the reasonable v. non-reasonable fear -- as he does with the issue of reasonable restrictions on 2A?.]
2) The need to move from Virginia to Florida. IMHO and IANAL opinion that same case would be found the be reasonable armed self-defense under Virginia’s common law / case law.
—-
FWIIW, I have long supported the idea that a restraining order or protective order should be an automatic CHP for the party under threat of violence. However, I have no idea how that would work with mutual restraining orders or protective orders. Hopefully, Virginia’s current law that prohibits the subject of a restraining order from carrying concealed or from purchasing or transporting a firearm of any sort (See: § 18.2-308.1:4.) would trump the restraining order’s or protective order’s approval of concealed carry, as it does court issued CHPs.
FWIIW2 and for the same reason, I would love to see a change in the federal law to allow non-violent felons have their 2A rights restored easily and at little cost. IMHO, the holder of a restraining order or protective order who happens to have been convicted of a non-violent felony (for example larceny of $5 or more, from an individual; or shoplifting or receiving stolen property valued at $200 or more — see: § 18.2-95. Grand larceny defined; how punished) should not be rendered (as that poor lady was for whatever reason) defenseless. Or for that matter, IMHO, should anyone be deny 2A rights for non-violent felonies — other than, maybe, habitual offenders. In the real world only the well-to-do and well connected get their rights restored. IMHO, that is not right.
“Dan,
Re: the media
Why do you dismiss the incident of NBC News producer’s misleading segment about the Trayvon Martin case in Florida as having no barring on / nor reflective on the media, yet hype about very rare incidents where legal concealed carry was actually a factor in in others misdeeds?”
Dave Hicks, I reject the premise of the question. I’ve written here that the NBC producer’s actions were wrong and that they would certainly lead to discipline (I was 100 percent correct about that). I haven’t “dismissed” his sins — I have said they do not (logically) constitute evidence of bias by the media. For that to be the case you would have to argue that the guy A) believe he would not be caught or B) wanted to be fired. Neither works. One guy screwed up, and that’s all.
To the extent that I “hype” incidents in which CC was a factor in misdeeds, I do not excise quotes that change the context of what was uttered in the circumstances.
Re: #237
Dan I do believe that argument is a fallacious “Illicit Quantifier Shift.”
Were there CHP holders misdeeds involving excising quotes that change the context of what was uttered in the circumstances, it might make some sense.
Let me rephrase the question.
Why do you attempt to systematize one identifiable group by rare misdeeds of its members yet dismiss a individual misdeed in another as having no barring on that identifiable group?
.
.
Dave Hicks – the victims who are granted protective orders have no prohibition against owning/carrying a weapon…However, most victims – usually women – of domestic violence, in my many years of legal advocacy, did not own or carry a weapon. As a matter of fact I cannot recall any victim who carried.
@Hillary,
Here’s the story of a man in Botetourt County a couple of years ago. Guy came drunk through is glass patio door, armed with nothing, not stealing anything or threatening anyone in any way. Homeowner with his 12-gauge shoots the intruder immediately.
And guess what… case closed.
http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/200867
According to the CCA: “So far, from what I’ve been told, it appears to be justifiable homicide. If nothing changes, that’s where it is headed. When you have someone entering a home in the night and in a threatening manner, it is the kind of thing that rises to the level of justifiable.”
In this case “in a threatening manner” has nothing to do with being armed or actively threatening someone’s life.
Re: #239
“the victims who are granted protective orders have no prohibition against owning/carrying a weapon”
———
Don’t think that “Virginia’s current law that prohibits the subject of a restraining order from carrying concealed or from purchasing or transporting a firearm of any sort (See: § 18.2-308.1:4.)” says or implies that. I sure don’t read it that way.
IMHO and IANAL opinion, when that paragraph is read in toto the law’s wording of “It shall be unlawful for any person who is subject to….” can only make sense when referring to the person whom the order restricts — not the one who is granted protective orders.
——————
Re: #239
“As a matter of fact I cannot recall any victim who carried.”
———
Could be that speaks volumes.
I’m not alleging chicken v. egg causation.
However, the fact that the victim was known to the abuser to be unarmed might have entered into the equation or maybe consciously or unconsciously influenced the abuser’s action. Even if that knowledge didn’t, the issue of disparate force could have left the victim essentially defenseless.
All that aside I have never understood those who fail to prefer charges, testify, etc when abused. Not criticizing them. Just don’t understand.
Since when is “…someone yelling, cursing and pounding on their house about 10:40 p.m” seen as not “threatening anyone in any way”, Jack? Can you not be honest even in clear cases of self defense? Geez.
I know we have a friend who had his property robbed twice (he worked nights) and when he stayed home unexpectedly and “caught” them in the act coming back for the third time, he was on the phone to the police in a 911 call and when he advised he was armed and if they broke into his home, he would shoot them, he was literally ordered not to shoot and that he would be held responsible if he did. Worse yet, the police arrived and charged NO ONE because they had not had time to load the loot.
I know a couple who was confronted by a drunk (spurned) acquaintance who shot him when he burst into the door and chased them up some steps and the perfectly “justifiable” and absolutely understandable shooter was charged and tried, although not convicted of the shooting. That was an ordeal.
I know a man who was confronted by an angry mob and shot up into the air to get away from them…he is now a convicted felon and they laugh about what they did.
Counting on the police to believe a shooting is justified is a serious gamble IMO. Where do you think the phrase “I’d rather be judged by twelve than carried by six” comes from? The idea that simply “feeling threatened” is enough is seriously misleading.
#241 Dave Hicks, does not your point agree with what Hillary said in #239? Are you arguing just to argue? She said there was no prohibition on the victim getting a gun or a permit to carry it and you show that the law says that the person who has the protective order on them “cannot”:
“An individual who is subject to a restraining order, or to a protective order and prohibited by § 18.2-308.1:4 from purchasing or transporting a firearm.”
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-308
@Sandi Saunders: “Since when is “…someone yelling, cursing and pounding on their house about 10:40 p.m” seen as not “threatening anyone in any way””
So you are suggesting that if someone is pounding on your door, yelling and cursing, and it is in the evening, then you are IN FEAR FOR YOUR LIFE, as Hillary suggests you must be?
Thank you for making my case.
When we talk about threats as they relate to self-defense shootings, we talk about threats to you life or serious bodily harm.
Now you seem to be in agreement, Sandi, that the person banging on your door, yelling and cussing is a threat to your life the moment he comes in the door. Amen.
Re: #243
IMHO, two of your examples sound like good examples of the reasons for a stronger SYG law.
As always, YMMV.
Wonder if that is a reverse corollary to the WYSDOWYS (Where-You-Stand-Depends-On-Where-You-Sit? Could there be a WYSDOWYS2 (What-You-See-Depends-On-Where-You-Stand-Too)?
.
.
BTW, I am suggesting that WYSDOWYS2 likely applies to either / both sides of an issue.
Re: #244.
Sandi,
Could be. OTHO, one could easily read $239 as suggesting that I was suggesting wrong in my post at #236 — where I went out of my way to point out my points of agreement with her comments at post #231.
IMHO, were more of us to clearly points of agreement along with points os disagreement, we might find more consensus than we think exist.
dave:
“And there is no logic that can convince me that the solution to that is more guns in the hands of more people.”
I guess Virginia going from 3,000 to 300,000 CHPs in the last 17 years and the crime rate falling is a logic that cannot convince dave. A 100-fold increase in the number of people who may lawfully conceal and clear example of more guns in the hands of more lawful people is not good enough for dave. I cannot believe he ever made the tinfoil hat argument for someone else.
“WYSDOWYS2″
Dave Hicks, I’m beginning to wonder if instead of function keys at the top of your keyboard, there are acronym keys?
.
John Wilburn,
You cannot logically conclude, based upon Virginia crime rate data, that crime has dropped because of concealed carry legislation enacted in 1995.
That’s because the crime rates began declining in 1991, years before that law was enacted.
Dan,
Per the Virginia crime rate data, the vehicle thefts and property crimes showed a marked decline in 1991, but the personally violent crimes showed a downward turn through the 90s as would correlate with a more armed populace.
Dave Hicks@241 “All that aside I have never understood those who fail to prefer charges, testify, etc when abused. Not criticizing them. Just don’t understand.”
Let me provide you with some insight:
^ If she leaves a violent situation, would you let her come live with you? The abuser usually will have told her he would kill her and anyone who helps her leave.
^ Women in most abusive relationships do not control the money…can she borrow some from you to try and make her escape?
^ Women are ALWAYS threatened that they will lose custody of their children because the abuser: a. has a good job, b. has friends in high places, c. will testify she is a bad mother and have “friends” also attest to this, d. she is without funds or resources and unable to take care of the children.
^ And my all-time favorite – they unfortunately love the guy and thinks he will change.
In almost 40 years – just one guy actually changed and stopped hitting his wife…well as far as I know…
JW@10:57
That is because you have not and cannot establish a causation link between crime going down in Va. and the issuance of CHP permits.
There are tons of other factors that have enterefd into that decline including various kinds of legislation, more efficient las enforcement, more ploce on the streets, better community p[rograms in many areas to deal with reducing crime and a host of others. You still do not deal with the central point of the ease with which the person who goes around armed all the time can lose it due to a moment of weakness, a loss of temper, or a temporary emotional upset and shoot somebody when thaty would not happen if he/she didn’t have the gun readily av available. If you want or need a gun to p[rotect yur home, then have a gun to protect your home and leave it there. Don’t carry it around everywhere you go putting the rest of us at risk.
Hillary @239…However, most victims – usually women – of domestic violence, in my many years of legal advocacy, did not own or carry a weapon. As a matter of fact I cannot recall any victim who carried.” Which is why they were victims.
John Wilburn
You seem to be forgetting that 1) Virginia also passed a no-parole law in the mid 1990s that kept criminals locked up A LOT longer; 2) The demographic bulge that resulted in fewer criminal-minded males on our nation’s streets beginning in the early 1990s; and 3) the fact that crime rates ALSO declined in states that didn’t enact “shall issue” laws around the same time.
For these reasons I don’t see how you can logically conclude that CC legislation was responsible for decline crime rates in Virginia.
dave:
“…better community p[rograms in many areas to deal with reducing crime and a host of others.”
Do you think gun “buy backs” were a good idea? Do you have a problem with the new Virginia law that goes into effect July 1st that says a local government cannot do a buy-back without sellinjg the guns bought back to dealers?
“You still do not deal with the central point of the ease with which the person who goes around armed all the time can lose it due to a moment of weakness, a loss of temper, or a temporary emotional upset and shoot somebody when thaty would not happen if he/she didn’t have the gun readily av available.”
Look, when Cain got PO’d at Abel, he picked up a rock and wasted him. I don’t believe in limiting liberty based on what someone could do. THAT is living in fear!
“If you want or need a gun to p[rotect yur home, then have a gun to protect your home and leave it there. Don’t carry it around everywhere you go putting the rest of us at risk.”
Don’t you dare tell me that I should risk my safety for what you believe in. My carrying a gun does NOT put you at risk. You take care of your security. I’ll take care of mine. You can weep for the family you were unable to protect and I’ll weep that you didn’t think they were worth the “risk” of protecting.
Dan,
I agreed with “project exile” and think there are other things that help curb crime, but disarming the lawful is not a proper avenue to try to achieve this.
Phil Chitwood@11:53
And which is also the reason the streets are not littered with the dead bodies of men who abuse their spouses. You would prefer a wild west shootout between the abused wife and her abusing husband instead of effecrtive laws protecting the women and taking the weapons out of the hands of the abusers. You would just add to the prtoblem.
JWilburn
But I’m supposeed to risk my safety for what you believe in? That’s a two way street pal. And yes I support gun buy back programs and no I do not support the new Va. law that reqwuires them to be sold back to dealers. When they buy them back they should melt them down and take them outm of circulation. One less potential humasn life destroying weapon on the street. And Abel had a herll of lot better chance of defending himself from a rock thrower than a Glock. Your arguments have gone from lacking in logic to being ridiculous.
#254 Phil Chitwood – that is a pretty asinine remark not worth the dignity to refute…typical blame the victim rhetoric
John Wilburn, you are just plain insulting. You have no more proof that more guns lowered crime than you do that there is a man in the moon, and yet you persist because it fits you pitiful narrative.
You “value” your life but people who do not go around armed don’t value theirs. You believe you have your “security” well in hand, and anyone who is killed in gun violence did not. You believe that you are “protecting what you value” and that those who refuse to have guns don’t value their families. You are proving to be a bad joke as well as the worst friend gun advocacy could have IMO.
“Domestic violence” in general implies a familial or emotional relationship. Believe it or not, they do not want to kill the abuser, they just want them to stop. If you have even a grain of sense, you know that once a gun is “pulled”, “drawn” or exposed (I do not want the nomenclature police to come out), in a highly emotional situation, it is very very likely to be used, by or on someone. You people show your blinders more clearly every time you post. And if two emotional, irrational people have guns, as is likely in your case…? Good luck, you are going to need it.
dave:
“And which is also the reason the streets are not littered with the dead bodies of men who abuse their spouses. You would prefer a wild west shootout between the abused wife and her abusing husband instead of effecrtive laws protecting the women and taking the weapons out of the hands of the abusers. You would just add to the prtoblem.”
dave, if there were streets littered with abusive men, men who abuse would go extinct! Having a gun levels the playing field. Abuse absolutely would go down as no one would beat an armed woman.
I would take my chances with a shootout to over being mudered anyday.
Presumably, since I am very experienced and have a great safety record as a carrier and you just declared me dangerous to the public since I carry, you would also tell women, in general, that they are endangering the public by carrying and it is better for society overall that they accept an increased risk of being beaten, raped, or killed. Easy for you to say from the safety of your keyboard.
John Wilburn,
Some of the above is why it is best to not suggest any causation as the Pro-more-restrictions-on-the-RKBA crowd will attack it and claim they have defeated any level of contribution to good results and any level of fault for the bad — rather than consider that among the various factors producing a trend or correlation the one you have suggested might, just might, be a significant factor.
It’s sort of the reverse of them posting statistics from around the world an claiming one factor is the driver — all the while while ignoring all the other drivers / factors (including differences of socioeconomic, demography, cultural, historical, value systems, etc).
.
.
Re: #255 & #256
Dan,
Now that John Wilbur has agreed with you on “project exile” and agrees that there are “other things” that help curb crime (and I’ll concur, FWIIW) are you willing to concede that maybe, just maybe, the steady transition toward nationwide “must issue” could also be a driver of less violent crime?
“Now that John Wilbur has agreed with you on “project exile” and agrees that there are “other things” that help curb crime (and I’ll concur, FWIIW) are you willing to concede that maybe, just maybe, the steady transition toward nationwide “must issue” could also be a driver of less violent crime?”
Dave Hicks, it’s possible. But the evidence for it is quite lacking.
dave:
“But I’m supposeed to risk my safety for what you believe in?”
My carrying a gun does NOT risk YOUR safety.
“And yes I support gun buy back programs and no I do not support the new Va. law that reqwuires them to be sold back to dealers. When they buy them back they should melt them down and take them outm of circulation. One less potential humasn life destroying weapon on the street.”
Boy, did you ever buy into that crap! There is no good reason that cars seized from drug dealers are sold to the public, but guns seized from drug dealers are destroyed. There is also no reason that gun buyback programs funded with taxpayer money and using taxpayer money to buy them and taxpayer money to destroy them should be allowed. They should be changed so that they are less expensive by not destroying the guns and getting dealers to buy them. Then everything sold goes through a background check. This is a compromise. Really, they could be sold to the public, if anything. It’s not like criminals are the ones bringing their guns in to the buyback in the first place.
Besides, if the dealers are having to buy a larger percentage of new, more expensive guns, fewer people can afford them. Since you’re all for the wealth-redistibution stuff, I thought you should be in favor of this.
“And Abel had a herll of lot better chance of defending himself from a rock thrower than a Glock.”
Ah, the slippery slope… Can’t you go online and find where someone has been strangled with a shoelace somewhere, then champion a bill to force us all to wear velcro shoes.
“Your arguments have gone from lacking in logic to being ridiculous.”
Your deal on the gun buyback programs is purely emotional. My response was logical. You’re a smart guy, so I wondered if you possessed enough logic to see the folly in those things. Obviously not.
“You believe that you are “protecting what you value” and that those who refuse to have guns don’t value their families.”
Sure they do, just like the Christian Scientists show how they value their families with prayer instead of taking them to the doctor. Some sick kids die for the emotional philosophies of the parents. Of course, if you never have to defend your family with a firearm and if the Christian Scientist’s kids never get deathly ill, you and they may never see the value in what I’m saying. For what it’s worth, I’d rather you go on thinking I’m wrong than anything happen to either of you.
Dave Hicks,
When I hear “more guns in the hands of more people” being a problem, the 100 FOLD INCREASE of CHP holders througnha time of decling crime is a flashing light and blaring siren that flies in the face of their claim. You make a fair point, though, it’s hard to discuss logic with the illogical.
Sandi says: “Good luck, you are going to need it.”
That’s pretty rich coming from the purposefully unprepared who prefers to rely on luck or a rapist or murderer’s mercies.
John Wilburn, there is no value in what you are saying. If carrying a gun in public is the answer, we have already lost. Comparing us to a freaking cult? You remain nothing but an insult.
Dave Hicks, you cannot save him from himself, his true feelings are showing.
Re: #256
Dave Hicks, it’s possible. But the evidence for it is quite lacking.
———
Dan,
“Quite lacking” I do not agree, but as always, YMMV. “Not conclusive” I would agree. IMHO, it is an intriguing observation that is hard to ignore.
OTOH, would you say that there is any more evidence to support posting statistics from around the world an claiming one factor is the driver — all the while while ignoring all the other drivers / factors (including differences of socioeconomic, demography, cultural, historical, value systems, etc)?
Hum? I wonder.
I suspect this but another case of What-You-See-Depends-On-Where-You-Stand-Too (WYSDOWYS2).
Dave Hicks,
The homicide rate in Great Britiain is one quarter what it is in the United States. Do you believe it’s possible that’s because of the far higher rates of gun ownership in the U.S.?
Re: #272
Dan,
It might, just might, be a factor among many other factors but certainly not the driver posited by the Pro-more-restrictions-on-the-RKBA crowd and not conclusive proof of what the Pro-more-restrictions-on-the-RKBA crowd likes to allege.
Your turn. Bring the discussion home to “Must Issue” and our crime rate.
Our crime rate is because gun advocates fight every common sense effort to track guns and thus keep them out of the hands of criminals because any kind of tracking is seen as the enemy, instead of the carnage and mayhem produced by the wrong people having guns. What a damnable shame.
Well Dave Hicks,
You’re trying to suggest more guns = less crime.
I am suggesting that more guns = more murders.
Re: my last
As but one example from (2001 UK census):
Ethnic groups:
white (of which English 83.6%, Scottish 8.6%, Welsh 4.9%, Northern Irish 2.9%) 92.1%,
black 2%,
Indian 1.8%,
Pakistani 1.3%,
mixed 1.2%,
other 1.6%
———
Before anyone gets there underwear in a wad, I am not suggesting that any one ethnic group need be any more violent than another for this demography difference to be a driving factor in the rate of violence. However, tension and friction between ethnic groups might just be. At a minimum it suggest that comparing the US to the UK could be highly suspect.
———-
Much of the stats thrown around by the Pro-more-restrictions-on-the-RKBA crowd remind me of the joke making the rounds of email forwarding (I’ve received a number of copies / versions.
Here is one version:
**
For those of you who watch what you eat, here’s the final word on nutrition and health. It’s a relief to know the truth after all those conflicting nutritional studies.
1. The Japanese eat very little fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans.
2. The Mexicans eat a lot of fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans.
3. The Chinese drink very little red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans.
4. The Italians drink a lot of red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans…
5. The Germans drink a lot of beer and eat lots of sausages and fats and suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans.
—–
CONCLUSION:
Eat and drink what you like. Speaking English is apparently what kills you.
**
Re: #274
No, Dan.
I’m trying to suggest more armed self-defense = one factor that may well help explain the reduction of the rate of crime in this country. I’m not suggestion a single driver.
You, OTOH, are suggesting that more guns = more murders — w/o qualification or consideration of other drivers.
BTW, as the total number of small-arms worldwide has increased, how would your formula explain the general worldwide reduction in violent crime?
“If carrying a gun in public is the answer, we have already lost.”
Carrying a gun in public was the answer for a lot of people who lost their lives. I’ve said before that you are quite clear that they are simply collateral damage and not worthy of you just saying “hey, sometimes innocent people are raped, robbed, and murdered and I recognize that will always be possible, so to each their own as how to make sure it’s not them one day.” No, you try to tell me that my life and the life of my family is not worth defending because NOT ENOUGH innocent people are being raped, robbed, and murdered for you to justify letting SOMEONE ELSE be able to make their own decisions on how best to take care of themself. That’s a sickening attitude.
I will carry everyday, everywhere I go sometimes open, sometimes concealed and when concealed, you will walk by me unnoticed in all number of places at diffent times and be just fine because you will not have the opportunity to stick your nose into the method I use for self defense and concern yourself with it.
I do not need to make any more points in this conversation. As soon as Sandi agreed that shooting an unarmed man dead as soon as he comes through your door in the night is justified, my work for the day was done.
OMG…this is it in a nutshell. Weeks and weeks of debate and finally this made it all wothwhile.
“No, you try to tell me that my life and the life of my family is not worth defending because NOT ENOUGH innocent people are being raped, robbed, and murdered for you to justify letting SOMEONE ELSE be able to make their own decisions on how best to take care of themself. That’s a sickening attitude.
I will carry everyday, everywhere I go sometimes open, sometimes concealed and when concealed, you will walk by me unnoticed in all number of places at diffent times and be just fine because you will not have the opportunity to stick your nose into the method I use for self defense and concern yourself with it.”
Maybe Americans just naturally have more homicidal tendencies than the British. The bloodlust and glee surrounding the murder of Trayvon Martin seems to indicate it. Of course, god forbid anyone mention that a (gasp) white cop might be equally vulnerable to a misplaced bullet. Oh the horror.
Hypocrites.
#281 I’d agree that it’s pretty obvious Americans just like shooting at each other more than do folks in most other nations. And the gun sort of falls into that graven image category for some guys.
John Wilburn, your lack of comprehension is exceeded only by your arrogance and that is saying something.
YOU are the one who threw out the despicable and totally loser argument about the “value” of people and their families in your stupid post #256 and now you want to put that loathsome position on me?
You have no way on earth to know that “Carrying a gun in public was the answer for a lot of people who lost their lives”.
YOU are the one who is quite clear that the “collateral damage” is irrelelvant as long as your rights are not disturbed and you have disagreed with every argument of gun control anyone brings up. So it is actually YOU that is saying “hey, sometimes innocent people are raped, robbed, and murdered and I recognize that will always be possible”, but don’t you dare tell me that more background checks for all sales, more tracking and registering of guns, more knowledge of who has guns is an answer to the criminals having guns because that infringes on my right to believe I have my own defense in hand.
You, John Wilburn, YOU said of people who chose to live unarmed in public “you didn’t think they were worth the “risk” of protecting”. YOU are the one who believes that “NOT ENOUGH innocent people are being raped, robbed, and murdered for you to justify” any gun control efforts. You say it over and over and over.
THAT’S “a sickening attitude”. You are only concerned with protecting yourself and I am concerned with protecting everyone to the best extent possible, even if that inconveniences you when you want to buy or sell a gun.
gdad, it does seem as though they’re seized with religious fervor in defending their guns. I’ve been accused of holding to my “socialistic tendencies” as a religion, but I guess I’ll take a religion that wants people fed and housed over one that wants them shot all day long.
Oooh, ya’ll are giving me, an ordained reverend, some ideas.
Church of the Smoking Barrel?
The Holy Holster Church of the Second Amendment?
Our Lady of Stand Your Ground?
Sandi:
“You are only concerned with protecting yourself and I am concerned with protecting everyone to the best extent possible, even if that inconveniences you”
Let’s disarm you for your own good because after all, government knows best.
The Tabernacle of the Sacred Gunshot.
The Temple of Glock Almighty.
Oh the Temple of Glock. I like the ring. It’s dripping with false idolhood.
I’ll be there at 11:00am, Sunday. Can we sing “Leaning on the Everlasting Arms”?
John Wilburn, do you just like to show your ignorance or is it a quirk? I have never, not once, not in any frame of reference said ANYTHING about “Let’s disarm you for your own good because after all, government knows best”. Granted there are days I think you should not be walking around unarmed but with a gun, but that is not what I am pursuing. Are you admitting you should not be armed?
A number of time lately I do a post referencing an earlier post by someone else.
Later the number is not what I cited.
(Yes, I know that the numbers that I see for my latest posts (not yet approved) will change when Dan approves a group of posts and there are intervening posts when arranged by date stamp. That’s not what I think I am seeing, of late.)
Question for anyone:
Are you seeing it happen, also?
Am I making mistakes as to comment numbers more often or is something happening to change them?
Statist Sandi:
“I have never, not once, not in any frame of reference said ANYTHING about “Let’s disarm you for your own good because after all, government knows best”.
So, is it more like:
“Let’s disarm you for your own good because after all, Sandi knows best”.
Don’t call me ignorant and then say,
“Granted there are days I think you should not be walking around unarmed but with a gun, but that is not what I am pursuing. Are you admitting you should not be armed?”
On the second sentence, yes, I should be armed, I have every right to be, and it’s none of Sandi’s or the government’s business. The first sentence is too much gibberish to understand.
Re: Dan Casey — April 15, 2012 @ 8:27 pm
Well Dave Hicks,
You’re trying to suggest more guns = less crime.
I am suggesting that more guns = more murders.
———–
Dan et al
As I have repeatedly said, I do not equate statistical correlation (positive or negative correlations) to causation — unless there is rigorous control in the studies for other variables.
However, I have suggested / do suggest that the lack of more violent crime as more folk have “Must Issue” permits and (more to the point) the documented coexistence of a reduction in violent crime while folk have more “Must Issue” permits, does raise intriguing questions and does strongly suggest that the pro-more-restrictions-on-the-REBA crowd are wrong in their mantra.
Then I look at your suggestion that “more guns = more murders.” IMHO, trends within the same sub-sets of the universal have more likelihood of “statistically significant” (i.e., it is unlikely to have occurred by chance) and are far less likely to be driven by unaccounted for variables than cross cultural comparisons.
Then I thought more about “Project Exile” and about my suggested corollary to Where-You-Stand-Depends-On-Where-You-Sit (WYSDOWYS) — namely that What-You-See-Depends-On-Where-You-Stand-Too (WYSDOWYS2).
I would posit that WYSDOWYS2 comes into play, big time, when each of us consider violent criminals armed with firearms. I suggest that we see quite different things.
It appears that what Dan and others see (based on where they stand) is that if the the firearm was not in the picture / if goverment would deal with, control, and restrict the firearm, then the criminal, him/herself, would not be a problem and would cause far less mayhem.
OTOH, it appears that what I and others see (based on where we stand) is that if the the criminal was not in the picture / if goverment would deal with, control, (rehabilitate?), and restrict the criminal, then the firearm, itself, would not be a problem and would cause far less mayhem.
I think that Dan’s and Sandi’s comments ( Comment by Dan Casey – April 16, 2012 @ 10:38 am, Comment by Kristen – April 16, 2012 @ 11:08 am, Comment by Dan Casey – April 16, 2012 @ 11:25 am) are very telling as to their views on RKBA issue being faith based.
I suggest that they are projecting. “One common denominator in these existing approaches to projection is some presumed similarity between self and other. … (in fact, they often may be quite different)…. [emphasis added]” — http://psych.wright.edu/~ccl/TDW/ReadingsTDW/Neuberg.pdf
IMHO Dan, Sandi et al need to look in a mirror. It might well be that they will find that “where they stand” on the RKBA is faith-based and not as supported by logic and rigorous examination of empirical evidence. However, others’ position might well “quite different” in its underpinnings.
Again, as an INTJ my primary interest is not understanding a concept in the abstract or dealing with faith based assumptions, but rather applying concepts in a useful way in the real world. As an INTJ, I also ruthlessly apply the criterion “Does it work?” and “What are the unintended consequences?”.
I do suggest that the goverment dealing with, controlling, (rehabilitating?), and restricting the criminal would work far better and have far less unintended consequences than Dan’s et al opposite proposals.
As always, YMMV.
To all: “you didn’t think they were worth the “risk” of protecting”.
Just so you’ll know, I never carry open…always concealed. If the place disallows firearme but does not have a metal detector….I DO NOT disarm. For someone with no criminal intent, it’s just silly. Moreover, if any of you libs are around when the you know what hits the fan, I will fight for you even if you don’t want me to. While I am in the process of doing what you don’t have the nerve to do for yourself, please shut up till it’s over.
Dan,
As to reliable statistics and another issue you and I have kicked around (hate crimes), check out: http://tinyurl.com/d9v2ka5
**
Race-Based Hate Crimes, the UCR, and the NCVS
Eugene Volokh • April 16, 2012 3:07 pm
Which racial groups are targeted for hate crimes, and at what frequency? That turns out to be an interesting question, on which two different datasets offer two different answers.
The United States has two main crime measures, the UCR and the NCVS. The UCR (Uniform Crime Reports) reports on crimes that are reported to, and then reported by, the police. The NCVS reports on what is said by people surveyed through the National Crime Victimization Survey; it includes crimes that aren’t reported to the police, and aspects of crimes that aren’t reported to or by the police.
Each has possible flaws: The UCR doesn’t cover unreported crimes, and in some ways reflects police classification decisions more than anything else. The NCVS is more prone to error as a result of respondent mistakes or falsifications, since no-one investigates the respondents’ claims. (Note that the NCVS asks respondents to report whether a crime was a hate crime based on whether “the victim perceived that the offender was motivated by bias because the offender used hate language, left behind hate symbols, or the police investigators confirmed that the incident was a hate crime.”) To give you a sense of the difference between the two, note that the UCR Hate Crime Statistics 2005 reports 7163 hate crime incidents in 2005; the NCVS Hate Crime Reported by Victims and Police (2003-2009 data) estimates “an annual average of 195,000 hate crime victimizations.” Figure out for yourself which you think is most plausible. My sense is that the NCVS tends to be more reliable (except as to homicide, which the UCR measures pretty well, and which the NCVS for obvious reasons doesn’t measure at all).
SNIP
**
Good stuff!
Also, a good example of why it might be a good idea to question alleged causation based on statistics.
Dave Hicks,
More heroin = more heroin ODs.
Do you really believe that’s too big a conclusion to jump to?
Phil Chitwood,
Please don’t pull your gun under the belief you would be protecting me from some harm.
Nothing personal. I would say that to concealed carrier who says they would draw their firearm in my defense.
Seriously Phil, what on earth would give you the idea that I do not “have the nerve” to shoot someone? That is just a bunch of hooey! I do not believe that you having a gun will make the difference you believe it will, although it is certain to draw fire to you “when the you know what hits the fan” so I pray it never happens to you. I appreciate the sentiment as I know you mean it. And I know you are one of the “good guys”. I do not want to take your guns, I want to take them from the bad, unstable, emotional and under the influence guys.
Until you can be men and women enough to help us track the guns and who has them in some sort of system, we have no hope of keeping them out of more criminals hands. You have the courage to face fire and an armed criminal but you do not trust us that we do not want to take your guns. That is just sad. With God as my witness Phil, this is not about taking your guns. I would march with you on any senator or house member who tried. Can you even trust me on that?
Phil Chitwood @294 posted, “please shut up till it’s over.”
by its, you mean the carnage? I think I’ll pass, and most of us don’t want to hear the phrase, sit down and “shut up” – you are not mine or anyone else’s lord and master.
I disrespectfully decline your offer to “fight for me”.
Dave Hicks, you try to talk a big “logical”, “rational”, “fact based” game, but in reality it appears that you only provide lip service to your “primary interest is not understanding a concept in the abstract or dealing with faith based assumptions, but rather applying concepts in a useful way in the real world. As an INTJ, I also ruthlessly apply the criterion “Does it work?” and “What are the unintended consequences?”.
You want us to accept that after the fact prosecution is the best we can do to preserve your right to guns and I do not accept that premise whatsoever.
I suggest that the government dealing with guns, tracking them, requiring registration and arresting and penalizing anyone caught with an unregistered firearm severely is a much better hedge against crime and the protection of gun rights for the law abiding.
You better believe my mileage varies and carries less carnage too.
A law abiding gun owner has no need to fear the government ignoring the constitution and coming for their guns but a law abiding citizen has absolute reason to be concerned that a criminal, an unstable person, or someone under the influence will ignore the law and find a way to get a gun to use on some of us. One of those is a fantasy that will never happen. The other is a reality that needs to happen.
“Gun shows. Gun shows were a major trafficking channel, involving the second highest number of trafficked guns per investigation (more than 130), and associated with approximately 26,000 illegally diverted firearms. The investigations involved both licensed and unlicensed sellers at gun
shows.
Straw purchasers. Straw purchasing was the most common channel in trafficking investigations. Almost half of all the trafficking investigations involved straw purchasers. Therefore, although the average number of firearms trafficked per straw purchase investigation was relatively small, 37 firearms, there were nearly 26,000 firearms associated with these investigations.
Unlicensed sellers. Unlicensed sellers were a focus of about a fifth of the trafficking investigations, and involved an average of about 75 guns per investigation and almost 23,000 guns. Unlicensed sellers range from individuals who knowingly sell guns to criminals from their personal collections
to interstate gun runners buying guns to sell to gangs and drug organizations.”
FOLLOWING THE GUN
Jeez PhilChitwood…talk about a straw man. For the record, I’m not asking you or anyone else to “fight for me”. I’m comfortable taking care of myself, thanks though. Good grief….the martyrdom is palpable.
Re: Comment by Sandi Saunders — April 16, 2012 @ 4:48 pm
approximately 26,000 illegally diverted firearms … nearly 26,000 firearms associated with these investigations
Interesting highlighting. The size of the study, not the results???? Hum?
Sometime ago, in another recent thread I quoted figures suggesting the just short of 90% of the firearms illegally diverted criminals most likely came from straw purchases.
So what are you trying to dispute?
IMHO, expand what has already failed doesn’t make sense. The criminals will just work around it and/or shift procurement processes as the always do. I also suggest that the unintended consequences will be far more violence a la Prohibition.
Far better, IMHO, to address the criminals involved in criminal behavior than to criminalize yet more behavior.
“While I am in the process of doing what you don’t have the nerve to do for yourself, please shut up till it’s over.”
301.”Jeez PhilChitwood…talk about a straw man. For the record, I’m not asking you or anyone else to “fight for me”. I’m comfortable taking care of myself, thanks though.”
By the way Phil Chitwood, Kristen has real conviction on not wanting anyone to save her or even a gun to save herself in a moment of peril. She once responded directly to a question that she would rather be violently raped or mudered than use a handgun to defend herself. I applaud that level of conviction.
I am not “disputing” anything, I am backing up what I think is a very good reason to “follow the gun” and you get the criminals. It has nothing to do with you.
You say it has already failed and I say it has not, it has only diverted the sales to the places where no background check is required and there is trace, no penalty and no problem with a straw purchaser or FFL who is willing to lie, cheat and sell.
If we follow the guns we make those people accountable as they are not now. It has ZERO impact on you, John Wilburn, Phil Chitwood, or any other law abiding gun owner/carrier. Do I trust you all with guns everywhere? No, but I recognize that as your right and if there are less criminals with guns, there are less shoot outs for ANYONE to get into in the first place.
“Seriously Phil, what on earth would give you the idea that I do not “have the nerve” to shoot someone?” – Sandi Saunders
I have to agree, Phil. It was just yesterday that Sandi said that shooting an unarmed person who comes into your home at night is justified.
Lately, with Trayvon Martin’s death serving as a focal point for Pro-more-restrictions-on-the-RKBA crowd, Stand-Your-Ground laws have come under attack from every corner.
Earlier, I pointed out Virginia’s 400 year common rights. However, I was pleasantly surprised to learn that for more than a century California judges have declared that a person who reasonably believes he or she faces serious injury or death from an assailant does not have to back off – inside or outside the home – and instead can use whatever force is needed to eliminate the danger.
http://tinyurl.com/ckffn7u
**
California Criminal Jury Instructions
Volume I
Series 500 HOMICIDE
B. JUSTIFICATIONS AND EXCUSES
CALCRIM No. 505
505. Justifiable Homicide:
Self-Defense or Defense of Another
The defendant is not guilty of (murder/ [or] manslaughter/attempted murder/ [or] attempted voluntary manslaughter) if (he/she) was justified in (killing/attempting to kill) someone in (self defense/[or] defense of another). The defendant acted in lawful (self-defense/ [or] defense of another) if:
1. The defendant reasonably believed that (he/she/ [or] someone else/ [or] ) was in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury [or was in imminent danger of being (raped/maimed/robbed/___ )];
2. The defendant reasonably believed that the immediate use of deadly force was necessary to defend against that danger;
AND
3. The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against that danger.
Belief in future harm is not sufficient, no matter how great or how likely the harm is believed to be. The defendant must have believed there was imminent danger of great bodily injury to (himself/herself/ [or] someone else). Defendant’s belief must have been reasonable and (he/she) must have acted only because of that belief. The defendant is only entitled to use that amount of force that a reasonable person would believe is necessary in the same situation. If the defendant used more force than was reasonable, the [attempted] killing was not justified.
When deciding whether the defendant’s beliefs were reasonable, consider all the circumstances as they were known to and appeared to the defendant and consider what a reasonable person in a similar situation with similar knowledge would have believed. If the defendant’s beliefs were reasonable, the danger does not need to have actually existed.
**
So much for Stand Your Ground being exclusively a red State or johnny-come-lately phenomena.
Got to love it:
Former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, a Democrat, used her Current TV show to lambaste Stand Your Ground laws, and to blame Republicans for the existence of such laws in the first place. However, Granholm signed Michigan’s Stand Your Ground bill into law in 2006.
See: http://tinyurl.com/bw2qaub
Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, signed Arizona’s Stand Your Ground bill into law while governor of that state in 2006.
According to the Arizona Daily Star:
[Gubernatorial spokeswoman Jeanine L’Ecuyer] said Napolitano, a former state and federal prosecutor, concluded the measure would not cause the harm that foes contend it would. “She believes in the fundamental right of self-defense,” L’Ecuyer said. “And the law still requires the defendant to be in imminent peril of death or serious physical injury.”
See: http://tinyurl.com/ch38lxt
——–
Let’s hear from Dan et al about flip-flops