Going native on the Thursday OPEN thread
Shot by Dan in the West End neighborhood, a couple blocks from Wasena Bridge.
When the Earth is sick, the animals will begin to disappear, when that happens, The Warriors of the Rainbow will come to save them.
Chief Seattle
May 17, 2012 - 11:28 AM
George Zimmerman had a broken nose, two black eyes and lacerations on the back of his head the day after his fatal confrontation with 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, ABC-TV news reported Tuesday night.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-injuries-20120515,0,2513426.story?track=rss
Ever wonder why the MSM dropped the Trayvon Martin case like a hot potato a few weeks ago? it’s because they knew this information and I guess forgot to share it. Also was the fact that Zimmerman is hispanic and 1/8 black.
Eric Holder is proceeding with “hate crime” charges against Zimmerman. Mitt ought to point that out loud and often to every hispanic audience he speaks to.
Can you say Duke lacrosse rape case?
I’ve got bad news for you old time “studio wrestling” fans. Remember Chief Jay Stongbow? He was my favorite. When he “went on the warpath”, no one could beat him.
Well, guess what? He isn’t an Indian at all! Not even 1/32. Nope, he is Joseph Luke Scarpa from Philadelphia.
After wrestling, he went on to Harvard where he had a successful career teaching ethnic studies and sensitivity training.
http://www.bostonherald.com/track/inside_track/view/20120517elizabeth_warren_not_alone_on_the_trail/srvc=home&position=also
I hope terps takes advantage of this. He’s been hysterical with his posts lately.
Walker will be toast and just another footnote to the history…
Comment by dave — April 7, 2011 @ 1:51 pm
“Scott Walker is the heavy favorite to win his recall election”
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/mitts-millions-the-note/
LOL. LOL. LOL.
Of all the mentions I-ve seen of this Indian tribe
I-ve never seen this spelling.
“Totero” Town was located where Salem is now.
Tort makes it sound as though there could be a lawsuit pending.
Can you say that it’s highly possible that the injuries were sustained because a kid was fighting for his life?
Gee Suzie, why don’t you and Willard argue a point no one is making? Would not be the first time. Of course Martin fought for his life, he was being followed by a stranger and had no idea what he wanted and what he was going to do to him. Wouldn’t you? Zimmerman still has to answer for his part in escalating the situation by following (possibly seeming to stalk?) the kid for no reason other than he was walking in the neighborhood. Your assumption of Martin’s guilt is no different than anyone’s assumption of Zimmerman’s. No one has argued there was no struggle. The argument is when the gun entered the picture.
Great game last night Gdad. The kids have a Lacrosse thing tomorrow night hopefully we can get there for the second half.
Suzie:
“Ever wonder why the MSM dropped the Trayvon Martin case like a hot potato a few weeks ago?”
Suzie, even if irrefutable evidence surfaces that proves George Zimmerman acted in self defense, I will eat a sideways yardstick before it will matter to the anti gun rights and politically correct people who are already convinced of his guilt.
All other contributing circumstances aside, I’ve thought all along that Trayvon Martin likely initiated the physical altercation and before Zimmerman ever drew a gun. I’m curious to see what all shakes out of this. One thing is for absolute sure: No matter what could possibly exonerate Zimmerman that should turn up, there WILL be race riots if he is acquitted. Take that to the bank.
Why did Obama’s literary agent 1991 say that Obama was born in Kenya?
Weird.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/The-Vetting-Barack-Obama-Literary-Agent-1991-Born-in-Kenya-Raised-Indonesia-Hawaii
““Ever wonder why the MSM dropped the Trayvon Martin case like a hot potato a few weeks ago?””
It has not been dropped, of course, like a hot potato or anything else. Just last week there were stories all over the media that hte Justice Department was looking into whether Zimmerman violated federal law.
The guy took his gun to a Skittles fight. He harassed a teenager, who had a perfect right to be in that gated community, because in Zimmerman’s warped way of looking at things, Martin had to have been up to no good.
If he had a broken nose, so what?
#9 Wasn’t back in town in time to see the game, Michael, but figured PH would win easily. Did Will play attack or is he back at midfield?
I hope to see tomorrow night’s. Also keeping my fingers crossed for the soccer team tonight. Fleming is fired up and getting better. I don’t think they’ve ever beaten PH, but unless our guys are pumped up it could happen.
Dan
I promised myself that I wouldn’t submit any posts today about our favorite Indian. But you baited me, Dan, like an alcoholic to bourbon, by leading with Roanoke’s own Indian Trail. So, its your fault.
Now the head of the genealogical society has confirmed, along with the clerk in Oklahoma, that no marriage application exists for granny. It was all one big lie. But no lie is too big for Dan to defend when a liberal is being attacked so I can’t wait for the defense.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/editorials/view/20220517harvards_woman_of_color/
Zimmerman got out of his car after he was told not to. End of story. He didn’t need to chase down the young man – if he got some cuts and bruses – good. The victem here is a dead young man.
Terps and LC, you guys really need to find new obsessions.
Just more of that big open mind from Lake Claytor, the open minded, willing to entertain any idea kinda guy.
Oh so the “lame stream media” is a fine source when it says what you want to hear, huh Suzie? Typical hypocrite.
We watch CBS news in the morning whilst drinking our coffee and eating some toast. CBS has had something on the Travon Martin case at least once a week, often more than that.
Frankly, I expect news on this case to slow down until Zimmerman goes to trial. In a criminal proceeding, other than some pretrial motions, there’s not much going on between the indictment and the trial because each side is preparing their case and doing investigation.
Debbie @ 16: +1
Give it a rest, Terps & LC. Who gives a crap? I am quite certain that both of you could find an issue with Warren and Obama to complaint about that actually have some merit, unlike your chosen obsessions.
@11 – Nothing to see there. Move along…
I guess the locations are interchangeable depending on who he’s trying to con at certain points in his life. Haha
Like Joe, I don’t recall seeing that spelling of the local indigenous tribe’s name before either. “Totera” is the way it most often appears in modern texts, although like “Roanoke”, it is in every case an approximation of the original spoken word. Do we know who erected the stone?
The Indian trail that it refers to is the one that Daniel Boone later followed, roughly along the Rte. 11 gorridor south past present day Marion, then west through the mountains. The other great native American trail ran to North Carolina, and became the Carolina Road, or roughly Rte. 220. They were together to the north, along present day Rte. 11 up the Valley.
Several indigenous sites have been located in the Rke. Valley, usually near creeks or the river, from Southeast Rke. Co. to the biggest and most well excavated site, on the river bank plain in Salem about where the Moyer sports complex is, possibly extending to the model airplane site behind Timber Truss. It’s easy to imagine why Gen. Lewis would establish his fort in Glenvar, just before where the valley runs out heading southwest.
15.”Zimmerman got out of his car after he was told not to. End of story. He didn’t need to chase down the young man – if he got some cuts and bruses – good. The victem here is a dead young man.”
Yep, guilty beyond proven innocent he is destined to be. Robin thinks whatever the PC police tell her.
And for goodness sake, the 911 operator IS NOT the authority that overrides all decisions made by the people who are there. I recently read where a 911 operator told a woman not to shoot intruders IN HER HOUSE! She had no choice but to disobey. Shame on the 911 operator who recklessly “played God”.
Who knew?
A large portion of Germany’s massive gold reserves are stored abroad, mainly in the Federal Reserve in New York.
Germany has gold reserves of just under 3,400 tons, the second-largest reserves in the world after the United States. Much of that is in the safekeeping of central banks outside Germany, especially in the US Federal Reserve in New York. One would think that with such a valuable stash, worth around €133 billion ($170 billion)…
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/debate-breaks-out-in-germany-over-foreign-gold-reserves-a-833289.html
My mother loved Donna Summer and her favorite Donna Summer song is linked below. I have no doubt my mom, Donna, and many others are dancing in heaven tonight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TKQcWEXSKU
#16 writes, “Terps and LC, you guys really need to find new obsessions.”
#20 writes, “Give it a rest, Terps & LC. Who gives a crap?”
This is the sound of losing the debate. ROFLMAO
My mother loved Donna Summer and her favorite Donna Summer song is linked below. I have no doubt my mom, Donna, and many others are dancing in heaven tonight.
It warms my heart to hear liberals sing the praises of dittohead Donna Summer. Hows about a Friday drive-by tribute to that great lady?
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/05/17/donna_summer_was_one_of_us
Gdad, we did not get there until the 4th qtr. Will did not play a lot as the game was already secure I think he was playing attack and he looked very good. Hope we can pull one out tomorrow night. Our boys have a Lacrosse party tomorrow night hopefully we can get there by the start of the second half. I like blogging much better when we discuss things we agree on.
George The Animal Steele told me that Strongbow was a member of the A-wop-o-ho tribe.
#27 Yep, good old Christian right winger Donna, who feigned 22 orgasms on one of her big hits.
Here’s an interesting concept from a…wait for it….wait for it…..Venture Capitalist:
“In a capitalist economy, the true job creators are consumers, the middle class. And taxing the rich to make investments that grow the middle class, is the single smartest thing we can do for the middle class, the poor and the rich.”-Nick Hanauer
The full speech:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/05/here-is-the-full-inequality-speech-and-slideshow-that-was-too-hot-for-ted/257323/
Another out take from this remarkable man:
“I have started or helped start, dozens of businesses and initially hired lots of people. But if no one could have afforded to buy what we had to sell, my businesses would all have failed and all those jobs would have evaporated.
That’s why I can say with confidence that rich people don’t create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is a “circle of life” like feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion this virtuous cycle of increasing demand and hiring. In this sense, an ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than a capitalist like me.”
Wow….just wow.
Too soon, people. Let the body cool off for chrissakes…
Another example of Republican generosity.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/08/house-conservative-says-food-and-health-programs-for-children-is-wasteful-spending/
#26 No Phil, what you’re hearing is the sound of gagging at reading the same nonstories over and over again. Apparently we’re supposed to be outraged by what they are saying, I am not.
The 5 minute video linked below offers a slightly different view on who the real “job creators” are in our economy. It comes from the brain and mouth of a 1%er. Take some time and be informed.
http://www.upworthy.com/breaking-you-know-that-nick-hanauer-ted-talk-you-werent-supposed-to-see-here-it-?c=cp2
Gdad is now slamming Ron’s mom for liking Donna Summer.
#36 I liked Donna Summer. But some of her stuff was far from Christian or right wing. Pretty sleazy, in fact.
#32 Yeah, I can’t believe suzie would jump in like that and turn Donna’s death into a political thing.
Cold,
Looks like you and I found the same speech last night.
When a blog can take the death of Donna Summer
and turn it political is about the time
I go outside, breathe a little..
and realize just how small some people’s worlds really are.
Phil, the “sound of losing the debate” is the sound every post and comment from Lake Claytor and Walker make, you all make some good stooges though.
When you have to crawl through the bowels of life to find the excrement you use to smear, it must be so fulfilling. Here’s the really interesting part: it does not matter. Do you seriously think the entire nation is going to go into turmoil and refuse the office of the duly elected President to Obama because some literary agent took some poetic license? You birther, anti-science, anti-intelligence, analytically disabled troglodytes are serious starting to piss me off.
When grown people have nothing better to do than hide behind the safety of anonymity and throw crap the world is in worse trouble than we know. You are not a three-year-old, grow up and start acting like you are worth the skin you were given. Dan might think you are needed to represent for the ditheads in this nation, but you are just jerks. No wonder you support Willard.
I hear ya joe, everything it seems gets twisted into something political around here. I think I’m going back to sports and weather…who needs this?
Other John & Joe, agreeing with you. I really never found disco to be a very political matter. And while I know everyone hates disco in retrospect, I actually miss people dancing together…actually dancing as opposed to “grinding”. People here are just too interested in arguing lately. Everyone ought to get some fresh air.
The puffed up worlds of Suzies…thats who needs it.
We are just fringe elements feeding off the empires
of the glorious and exalted.
Toot toot..ahhhhh….Beep Beep
My mother loved Donna Summer and her favorite Donna Summer song is linked below. I have no doubt my mom, Donna, and many others are dancing in heaven tonight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TKQcWEXSKU
Comment by Ron — May 17, 2012 @ 7:57 pm
Just to make clear, the comment above was not intended to be a political statement of any kind.
I like Disco…
@46 CnP, but more importantly – do you like disco dancing?
Seriously? Folks don’t think disco was political?
“Disco was utopian and subversive, and political to its core. Born in New York’s deepest underground, it brought together strands of gay liberation and post Civil-Rights racial integration. Disco put into practice what the Sixties preached. This feature uncovers the politics of the disco movement, beginning in the lofts of New York and culminating in a racially charged backlash and the mass burning of disco records in football stadiums across America.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0124284
Phil, what you’re hearing is the boredom engendered by having already refuted the same crap 100 times and a lack of interest in wasting any time refuting it 101. Everyone knows terps lies like crazy on this blog anymore…there’s little to be gained pointing it out again. Between him, PP screaming about “HOLY COMMISSIONS” or whatever and LC fretting about that what pops up on that cokehead Breitbart’s smearsite…the Right on here is running scared with their pants on fire.
http://moronwatch.net/2012/03/andrew-breitbart-cocaine-and-hypocrisy.html
The proof of Breitbart’s cocaine use…you can’t prove he DIDN’T use it, so I guess he did!
My daughter the punk rock fan has a dirty little secret. She loves Disco. I discovered this a few years ago when we were traveling to Damascus, VA for my grandmother’s funeral. I was browsing through her cd’s in the car and came upon, The Best of Disco.
Me: Disco???
Her: Yes, Mom, disco.
Yeah Ron. Unfortunately, how many will take the time to be informed….
Miriam:
“…I know everyone hates disco in retrospect, I actually miss people dancing together…actually dancing as opposed to “grinding”. People here are just too interested in arguing lately.”
I, too, like disco so don’t count me in that everyone. You make a great point about dancing. There was a time when dancing was dancing, not grinding. There was a time when comedy shows and sitcoms got laughter, not applause. There was a time when debates were debates, not arguments.
I liked the world better before the internet and smartphone, so folks needing fresh air was both a figurative and literal statment full of truth. I think I’ll go outside and wash my truck!
If Zimmerman has stopped following this kid when the dispatcher told him to, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Kristen @49 – doesn’t that “HOLY COMMISSIONS” sound a lot like…
Holy Commissions, Batman!!
I like it, and think that should become part of our new lexicon…sounds better than Holy Smokes, Holy Moly…etc
Miriam. When the girls wanted to try out the moves I was the first one up. Yes, I loved the dancing. Fun stuff.
I like disco better in retrospect than I did at the time, I think. And anyone who doesn’t want to dance when I Will Survive comes on is half dead.
I have a fond memory of having to learn the hustle for a bar mitzvah.
@48 Gdad, wow! And here I just thought we were shakin our groove things.
@52 John, I agree entirely with your comment there. (It’s been awhile since we agreed, so I wanted to celebrate that brief shiny moment.)
@55 CnP WOOHOO!
53.”If Zimmerman has stopped following this kid when the dispatcher told him to, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.”
And if Zimmerman hadn’t been armed and Martin assaulted him, we also wouldn’t be having this conversation, but only because the media wouldn’t have reported it.
Y’all can disco dance, smack those booties, grind those a$$es, do the hustle, drop it like it’s hot, do the chicken dance, slide the electric slide, do the Dougie, and catch Saturday Night fever til the sun comes up Sunday morning, but this is real dancing in my book:
http://youtu.be/mxPgplMujzQ
So is this (not to mention great animation!):
http://youtu.be/LiDeGrtjt2k
#57 Who knew, uh, Miriam? Actually, it was pretty obvious that disco was really big in the gay community and, yes, some folks hated it for that reason alone.
@58
You missed the point. If you leave someone alone they won’t assault you. And the dispatcher told Zimmerman to quit following him. Why do you always think someone is attacking your gun rights? Zimmerman was carrying his gun legally, but he should have heeded the instructions of the dispatcher.
The aggressor here wasn’t Trayvon Martin…his only mistake was not bringing a gun with him to 7-11 to shoot down any porky self-important Dirty Harry wannabes looking to gin up some excitement.
Yupbilly,
We still need to know more facts about this case, but I believe the gunners’ argument goes something like this:
1. Zimmerman HAD THE RIGHT to hassle Trayvon Martin, no matter what the dispatcher advised.
2. Martin HAD NO RIGHT to ignore/defend himself/stand his ground against such hassling.
3. Once Martin decided to defend himself from such hassling, Zimmerman HAD THE RIGHT to kill the teen with the Skittles.
Or something like that. Seriously, I can conceive of circumstances in which Zimm is both guilty and not guilty of that crime.
For example, if he was getting out of his car, and Martin walked up to him, pushed him down, jumped on top of Zimm and started wailing on him, I’d reckon Zimm had the right to shoot (although, it would be inadvisable, as he has well learned by now).
But, if Zimm hunted Martin down after dispatch told him to let it go, accosted Martin and told him to remain there until the cops arrived, then pulled his gun on Martin. It’s a different story. If Martin jumped Zimm when he pulled the gun, because Martin was in fear of his life, then Martin was entirely justified in defending himself.
Yupbilly:
“You missed the point. If you leave someone alone they won’t assault you. And the dispatcher told Zimmerman to quit following him. Why do you always think someone is attacking your gun rights? Zimmerman was carrying his gun legally, but he should have heeded the instructions of the dispatcher.”
No, you missed the point. I have been assaulted for no reason whatsoever, so it certainly is possible. I think Zimmerman approached Martin, but I bet there’s a good chance that Martin may have acted aggressively and inappropriately because of it. Even if Zimmerman were to have been an inexcusable jerk to Martin, there was no call for the physical altercation that I think Martin probably started. I think things got out of hand for Zimmerman at THAT point. Hence, the shooting may be excusable instead of justifiable, two different legal meanings and a very good example, at that.
It’s not PC to think things could have happened that way, but it the most plausible to me.
It’s very easy for us to be Monday morning quarterbacks here and what the dispatcher said is NOT the gold standard. How about this: If Trayvon had walked home a different way, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Yes, he can walk home how he wants, but Zimmerman can lawfully get out of his car if he wants. Wouldn’t the dispatcher have told Martin to run away if Martin had called 911 because of a guy that was following him? This story goes both ways, but the politically correct crowd can’t or won’t see that.
Dan:
“For example, if he was getting out of his car, and Martin walked up to him, pushed him down, jumped on top of Zimm and started wailing on him, I’d reckon Zimm had the right to shoot (although, it would be inadvisable, as he has well learned by now).”
This too, is presumptuous. If Martin had beaten Zimmerman into a coma or Zimmerman died, no matter what Zimmerman did in the way of following or harassment or whatever, would it have been “advisable” in hindsight NOT to shoot.
Your insulting explanation of what the “gunners” think was just your gratuitous contempt for us, nothing more.
Zimmerman being found guilty with lots of real evidence that he is a legit murderer is the only result that will go off without a hitch.
If he is found innocent OR if the death is excusable, though not justifiable (which is where I’m leaning), there will be race rioting and numerous accounts of unprovoked black violence against whites. Sorry, but that’s exactly what will happen. If Zimmerman is wrongfully found guilty, that’s another travesty.
If he is found innocent OR if the death is excusable, though not justifiable…”
The word “excusable” used in this context makes me want to riot. Has it ever occured to you, JohnW, that rioting is the way people completely without any money or power (interchangable in this country these days) get their point across?
I wonder if the gun people ever consider the real and actual point of the second amendment (nothing to do with defending yourself against wielders of Skittles)…as a way a populace can fight back against a government run amok and a society who’s social compact has been broken. Does it occur to you that there is a population that might DEFINITELY feel their social compact has been broken in the event a guy can walk after gunning down one of their children in cold blood?
How invested should that population be in the status quo? Because it sure as hell isn’t working for them. And they just might choose to exercise their second amendment rights.
John Wilburn – what are your thoughts on the following story:
“Fla. woman Marissa Alexander gets 20 years for “warning shot”: Did she stand her ground?”
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57434757-504083/fla-woman-marissa-alexander-gets-20-years-for-warning-shot-did-she-stand-her-ground/
In a past thread I mentioned only half-jokingly that I should encourage my DV victims to move to FL – however, in the back of my mind, and because in so many court cases I was involved with the women who fought back, normally paid a greater penalty than the abuser…well, so it continues…
John Wilburn,
When you were assaulted for no reason, were you following the person who assaulted you? Had you been talking with a 911 dispatcher and been advised to leave that person alone?
The 911 recording of Zimmerman is the smoking gun to me. That call is not a presumption, it’s a recorded fact.
I guess it all boils down to who is doing the presuming. You presume your facts and I’ll presume my facts.
And while we’re presuming, let’s presume that Zimmerman was scaring the crap out of Martin by following him. Now, presuming that situation is correct, do you thing the Martin kid had a right to “stand his ground”?
John Wilburn,
Did you shoot and kill the person who assaulted you? No? Congratulations!
“He was probably scared”
Yeah right. His actions sure don’t back that theory up. He wasn’t cornered. Yet instead of getting away he attacked. Doesn’t sound like he was scared.
Boy the media really did it’s job in guiding the feeble-minded sheep when this story first broke. The public hasn’t been able to shake the primacy effect and still seems to picture Martin as the innocent, smiling twelve year old from the first photo released. You may need to consider Martin as he was the night he died. He was no longer a twelve year old smiling kid. Instead he was a 17 year old with a history of behavioral issues. He was high the night of the incident. He had a history of possession of drugs in school as well as possession of stolen property and burglary tools. You can argue the merits of “stand your ground” all you want, but please don’t try to paint a seventeen year old drug user who jumped on top of someone and beat them down as a scared little kid.
Do you people realize you are actually arguing that the fact that Zimmerman approached this person makes it justifiable for Martin to beat him down, break his nose and repeatedly slam his head into the concrete? This is justifiable because he followed him and approached him? Really? Geez! What would I be justified in doing to those annoying solicitors that come to the door?
Any of you people who are so ready to crucify Zimmerman ever said a harsh word to someone else? Ever instigated a confrontation? Does that mean the other person would have been justified in beating you mercilessly and you should just lay there and hope they don’t kill you because you initiated the encounter?
John Wilburn…..
Here ya go, nice and short….some added info for you.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/wave-of-black-mobs-brutalizing-whites/
Here’s another Awesome video..from someone who knows what she is talking about.
It’s a little long John, becuse she gives “personal experiences along with her points, but well worth the 10 minutes or so it takes to watch it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis&feature=relatedt.
And of course, I’m not sure if you have ever received THIS in your e-mail…if not, it’s good for a laugh.
AN ACTUAL CRAIG’S LIST PERSONALS AD
To the Guy Who Tried to Mug Me in Downtown Savannah night before last.
Date: 2010-09-27, 1:43 am. E.S.T.
I was the guy wearing the black Burberry jacket that you demanded that I hand over, shortly after you pulled the knife on me and my girlfriend, threatening our lives. You also asked for my girlfriend’s purse and earrings. I can only hope that you somehow come across this rather important message.
First, I’d like to apologize for your embarrassment; I didn’t expect you to actually crap in your pants when I drew my pistol after you took my jacket.. The evening was not that cold, and I was wearing the jacket for a reason.. my girlfriend was happy that I just returned safely from my 2nd tour as a Combat Marine in Afghanistan .. She had just bought me that Kimber Custom Model 1911 .45 ACP pistol for my birthday, and we had picked up a shoulder holster for it that very evening. Obviously you agree that it is a very intimidating weapon when pointed at your head … isn’t it?!
I know it probably wasn’t fun walking back to wherever you’d come from with crap in your pants. I’m sure it was even worse walking bare-footed since I made you leave your shoes, cell phone, and wallet with me. [That prevented you from calling or running to your buddies to come help mug us again].
After I called your mother or “Momma” as you had her listed in your cell, I explained the entire episode of what you’d done. Then I went and filled up my gas tank as well as those of four other people in the gas station, — on your credit card. The guy with the big motor home took 153 gallons and was extremely grateful!
I gave your shoes to a homeless guy outside Vinnie Van Go Go’s, along with all the cash in your wallet. [That made his day!]
I then threw your wallet into the big pink “pimp mobile” that was parked at the curb ….. after I broke the windshield and side window and keyed the entire driver’s side of the car.
Earlier, I managed to get in two threatening phone calls to the DA’s office and one to the FBI, while mentioning President Obama as my possible target.
The FBI guy seemed really intense and we had a nice long chat (I guess while he traced your number etc.).
;In a way, perhaps I should apologize for not killing you … but I feel this type of retribution is a far more appropriate punishment for your threatened crime. I wish you well as you try to sort through some of these rather immediate pressing issues, and can only hope that you have the opportunity to reflect upon, and perhaps reconsider, the career path you’ve chosen to pursue in life.. Remember, next time you might not be so lucky. Have a good day!
Thoughtfully yours, Semper Fi,
Alex
I believe Sharon N has just written a long post that John Wilburn will read every word of. . . several times.
Re: Comment by Dan Casey — May 19, 2012 @ 12:59 pm
Dan,
Sounds as if you are starting to have some doubts rather than the earlier infinitely wise omniscience about what took place.
Congratulations.
Although I have posed some news updates, I’ve tended to steer clear of voicing an opinion on this matter, as I was not there and I don’t know what happened.
IMHO, the vaguest part of the Zimmerman arrest affidavit is “Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued.”
As you now point out that “confrontation” could have been anything. Who accosted whom, initially? Danged if I know.
Look for the Zimmerman verdict oh, about late September.
#70 Sharon, tell us how many incidents the same reporter would find of a white or whites attacking minorities, if that’s what she was looking for? My answer: probably just as many.
Kristen, justifiable vs. excusable are legal terms. Justifiable is when the problem comes to you and you must defend yourself. Excusable is when you contributed in part to the problem, but still wound up having to defend yourself. I’m leaning to this Zimmerman case being an “excusable” action when the dust settles.
Rioting is neither justifiable nor excusable.
Hillary, “warning shots” are something from Hollywood, are a function of bad training, and have no business in the real world. They demonstrate that you ARE NOT in a dire enough place to have to shoot someone, they can go astray, they waste ammo that you might desperately need before the situation is under control, they put more focus on you and your actions after the situation is diffused, and the list goes on. Warning shots are interesting in that the shooter must NOT want to shoot the intruder and scare them off, but our laws don’t want that and obviously don’t always see it that way.
What I teach is that you only draw when the situation actually calls for you to shoot (some advanced in-home/business scenarios aside). If the situation changes before the shot is made, say the criminal turns and runs away or throws their hands up dropping their weapon, congratulations, you have thwarted the attack before the shot needed to be fired (like at the grocery store in Utah recently). Something must change at the instant you draw to prevent you from shooting. This helps keep the brandishing and warning shot mentalities at bay.
Yupbilly, I have no problem with Martin legally standing his ground provided Zimmerman is proven to be the aggressor. The gun issue has skewed the question here. Even if Zimmerman was annoying or a jerk, did he initiate the assault? I doubt it. If he did and Martin had beaten him or shot Zimmerman in self defense, fine. I’m being very fair about this.
Dan, no I didn’t shoot the FOUR black teenagers with whom I had had zero interaction with and assaulted me solely because I was white while walking into the post office alone at night. It was before I was legally old enough to carry. I successfully fought against two of them briefly, but would absolutely been beaten to a pulp or worse had someone not come in and caused them to flee. Being a gun-free-zone, I guess I would just have to chance the same again today.
Sharon, I’ve seen that well-circulated Craigslist “joke.” I don’t forward stuff like that. It really isn’t model gun owner behavior by any stretch of the imagination. It’s not cute to behave that way.
Gdad
How aobut you tell ME? Do a little research, if you think there have just as many attacks of whites on blacks in the same time period….SHOW me. Violent attacks of whites on blacks is MUCH lower than blacks on whites, or blacks on black, I THINK it is even lower than white on white…but if you can find otherwise…SHOW me.
So true John Wilburn, I guess Alex should have just shot him huh?
Adding to my comment to gdad….actually, what she was looking for were cases where blacks said they were doing it in retaliation for “Trayvon”..not ALL black on white crime in that time period.
John Wilburn – So in the circumstances reported in that story, do you think it was a SYG scenario, or not? Does the fact that there had been domestics between the 2 parties previously and the threat of physical assault change the SYG justification?
Your observation that, “Something must change at the instant you draw to prevent you from shooting.” is unfortunately the side of DV that plays a role in almost every case. Nothing had changed, the shooter was doing what most DV victims do – they “rationalize” by the old “I still love him” trap. It’s the same reason many do not follow through on their Protective Orders/Restraining Orders. For more than 35 years, the Tina Turner song, “What’s Love Got To Do With It” played in my head while in court hearing dismissals….
Hillary, there were a lot of problems with what she did. After “pushing past” the spouse (getting free), she went not only out of the house, but into her car to get the gun out of the glove box. She had multiple opportunities and methods to leave. The police should have been called to extract him from the house, if necessary. She purposefully re-engaged him, making her the aggressor, so she is at fault. Had he attacked her after she got the gun in a way that wasn’t defending himself, she would possibly be in the same boat as Zimmerman, where they both contributed to the problem, but wound up having to defend themselves… excusable use of lethal force. What makes Zimmerman very different is that he was the neighborhood watchman, he was valid in approaching Martin. What makes the difference is exactly at what point Zimmerman presented lethal force and at exactly what point it became physical and who initiated it. I believe Zimmerman had no opportunity to flee once the fight was on as Alexander clearly did.
Alexander made several more obvious moves that she went on offense after leaving an in-progress incident. Zimmerman has not shown such.
To put another twist on it, if there were children in the house with a violent attacker, that changes everything, she might very well be justified in going back in and re-engaging the threat in defense of the children (or others).
John Wilburn – yes there were children in the home. I hope he gets jail time since there was a protective order in place which he violated. But for his violation, none of this would have occurred…I believe the decision against the wife is being reviewed…
Thanks for you take on it.
“Any of you people who are so ready to crucify Zimmerman ever said a harsh word to someone else? Ever instigated a confrontation? Does that mean the other person would have been justified in beating you mercilessly and you should just lay there and hope they don’t kill you because you initiated the encounter?”
Easy one, Chuck. The answer is no. This is likely because normal people who don’t feel the need to walk around with a gun all the time don’e engage in witless bellicosity because…hey! If the other guy has the nerve to fight back, I can always blow his head off!
You do little for the Pro Zimmerman case with that sort sort of rhetorical question.
“Rioting is neither justifiable nor excusable.”
Riots that succeed are called revolutions. And targetting the children of one population is an excellent way to incite one.
Hillary,
I believe the issue in the Alexander case is/was the question of imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.
FWIIW, I have recommended this link from AWARE (Arming Women Against Rape & Endangerment) before and recommended it to all.
http://www.aware.org/arttruelaw/defendingsd.shtml
**
SNIP
In the vast majority of states, the basic elements of self-defense by means of deadly force (firearms and other weapons) include:
The client had reasonable grounds to believe he or she was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. Heated words, vague threats, and the possibility of future harm are not enough. The harm must be serious and imminent.
The client actually believed that he or she, or a third person, was in such imminent danger. Establishing this subjective belief often requires the client to testify.
The danger was such that the client could only save himself or herself by the use of deadly force. Some states do not require the defendant to retreat, even if he or she can do so safely.1 Most states do not require the defendant to retreat if he is in his own home defending against someone who is unlawfully present. Law enforcement officers are not required to retreat.
The client had to use no more force than was necessary in all the circumstances of the case.
The standards for the use of non-deadly force (bare hands and feet) and force used in the defense of property are usually similar.
At a minimum, the defense must include some evidence, generally viewed in the light most favorable to the defense, on each of these factors in order to receive an appropriate jury instruction.
SNIP
[Emphasis added]
**
For more on the issue of imminent danger read the section “The AOJ Triad” and “Would a Reasonable Person Believe the Client Was In Imminent Danger?”
———-
I also strongly recommend that women read the book Cornered Cat — Kathy Jakson and/or check out her great web site: http://www.corneredcat.com/Contents/
From the section “Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy” in the Chapter “Legal Concerns”
**
SNIP
The Basic Standard
You may legally use deadly force only when there is an immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent.
SNIP
**
FWIIW there is a new “article” about the hype surrounding the Zimmerman/Martin case adapted from a forum post written by a retired lawyer. Good stuff.
———-
BTW — As I have posted before, I am neither an Attorney-at-law nor do I play one on TV or the internet. No one should take my opinions or comments as legal advice.
.
.
Re: Comment by Kristen — May 20, 2012 @ 2:08 pm
Kristen,
Do you honestly believe that the only people who have ever said a harsh word to someone else are those folk who carry guns?
Do you honestly believe that the only people who have ever started a fight are those folk who carry guns?
Those are not rhetorical questions — as I am truly trying to understand your worldview.
What’s up Chuck? Thanks for straightening me out.
By the way, where do the smart-minded sheep get their news?
———————-
John Wilburn, a pleasure to debate with you. At least you’re civil in your arguments.
Thanks Dave H @85. I fully understand the self defense laws, not the SYG laws – they seem to have a rather blurry dividing line between when it applies and when it doesn’t.
Chuck, I cannot fathom how your mind works but no one is “actually arguing that the fact that Zimmerman approached this person makes it justifiable for Martin to beat him down, break his nose and repeatedly slam his head into the concrete” What we are, in truth, arguing is that if Zimmerman had done what he should have done, Martin would not be dead and his own life would not be what it has become. It is not “justifiable because he followed him and approached him”, it is justifiable because he followed him and escalated an incident that never had to happen.
Likewise, you would not “be justified in doing” anything “to those annoying solicitors that come to the door”. You are acting like Suzie and just making stuff up.
Yes, I have had “a harsh word to someone else” but I did not follow them and confront them. No, I have never “instigated a confrontation”, but if I did and got my butt beat, that would be fair. Zimmerman was hardly beaten “mercilessly” in any frame of reference. The officer on the scene wanted him charged, that says a lot that none of you want to hear.
There is such a thing as asking for it and yes, Zimmerman did and should have been man enough to take the beating and be done with it.
Sandi I stopped tryingto fathom how your mind works, if at all, long ago, but despite the fact that you deny making that argument, you turned right around and made it again in the second paragraph of your post. My point, which you clearly did not understand,is that even if Zimmerman initiated a verbal encounter with Martin, it doe not mean he forfeited the right to defend himself when Martin attacked him. It also did not give Marting the right to attack him physically. It is a well defined legal principle that words alone do not constitute sufficient grounds or provocation to justify a physical assault. Yet you continue to argue that the whole thing is Zimmerman’s fault for getting out of the car.
Sorry you don’t have a good counter to that, but in the future please refrain from calling me a liar or accusing me of making things up, of course, I guess you would know a thing or two about both those acts.
Kristen, a confrontation desn’t have to be initiated in a dark alley by armed people. Ever had a dispute in a business that you felt treated you unfairly? Ever had to deal with a trespasser on your property? I find it a little difficult to believe you’ve never had an argument with someone.
Oh, and BTW, a confrontation doesn’t have to be physical either. You guys are arguing that the fact that Zimmerman dared approach someone and may have asked what they were doing means he deserves and should be man enough to take a beating. That is a very interesting precedent you are seeking set.
Comment by Hillary — May 20, 2012 @ 5:35 pm
“…the SYG laws – they seem to have a rather blurry dividing line between when it applies and when it doesn’t.”
———-
Hillary,
I’ll totally agree with you, if you let me fix that as follows, “…the statutory SYG laws – they seem to have a rather blurry dividing line between when it applies and when it doesn’t.”
I’m not playing games, as I too think too many of the laws are convoluted.
By that I mean, Virginia is a common-law SYG State. Virginia’s self-defense laws are based on common law developed in case law over the last several hundred years. We have pretty good coverage for self-defense, IMHO.
We can SYG not just in our “castle,” but anywhere we might be legally — IOW we do not have to make any attempt to retreat. As long as you are not “part of the problem,” you can SYG and defend yourself — anywhere. If you end up killing your assailant, it is considered a “justifiable homicide.”
OTOH, if you are/were part of the problem (if you in any way contributed to or exasperated or elevated the conflict/problem), then you must retreat as far as you can safely, [indicating that you have given up the fight] and only if the assailant keeps up the attack, may you defend yourself. In that case if the assailant dies, it is considered an “excusable homicide.”
Also, you can only use deadly force to protect yourself or others when you reasonably fear immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death OR grievous bodily injury to yourself of another innocent.
BTW, unlike Texas, you can’t use deadly force to protect property or against a trespasser.
The problem with codifying that history of common law and case law into statutory law is as Mike Stollenwerk of the DC Gun Rights Examiner said about VCDL opposition to the “Castle Doctrine” bills considered by the VA GA this year:
http://tinyurl.com/cxse7k5
**
SNIP
This “risk” Van Cleave speaks of arises anytime a legislature enacts a statute because no matter what the legislature thinks or says it intends to do, at the end of the day, as memorialized since at least 1803 in Marbury v. Madison, it’s “the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Since enacting a statute potentially displaces closely related common and decisional law from its precedential moorings, only when a court rules on a case will the law’s actual meaning be announced.
For example, consider the competing cannons of statutory construction “expressio unius est exclusio alterius,” holding that “the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another,” with the cannon holding that statutes enacted in derogation of common law are to be strictly (narrowly) interpreted.
The first cannon might be used by prosecutors to argue that after the passage of a castle bill, some of the other “old fashioned” English common law style defenses found in case law but not mentioned in the castle bill are no longer available to justify the killing of another human being. And the second cannon might be asserted by a defense attorney contending that the legislature only meant add or clarify one circumstance of where self-defense is justified, and not to eliminate other defenses available at common law.
SNIP
**
#80 Wrong once again, Sharon. Here’s what the lede says:
“In a wave of black-on-white crime since the February Trayvon Martin slaying, reports are emerging of dozens of brutal assaults by black mobs and assailants against white victims – and SOME attackers are citing the revenge for the Martin slaying as reason for their aggression.”
SOME attackers. In fact, of all the ones I read (I didn’t read them all), none of them cited the Martin case.
Chuck, I did not call you a liar, I said you were mistaken. And your fantasy about hurting people who come to your door, was making totally irrelevant things up. They are your words, they were wrong and they remain wrong. I have never said Zimmerman forfeited the right to defend himself, but he most assuredly escalated the situation and that cannot be ignored. He knew the police were on their way, he had been told not to follow the teen. You want to ignore that and we think it is significant. So did the police. The incident happening was ALL on Zimmerman. He was not beaten “mercilessly” and he chose his behavior just as surely as Martin chose his. Maybe you or I would have run, Martin chose to fight, but it was Zimmerman who forced that choice. And Zimmerman who chose to end a fight with his gun.
Sorry, gdad YOU are wrong again….I went back and read most of them, and all but ONE that I read cited “Trayvon” as motivation, admittedly, another said that the victim’s Father “suspected” it….the others I read clearly said that they attackers were saying “This is for Trayvon”..or something to that effect.
#80 To expand a little, Sharon, I read them a little more and while some might seem to have a link, several have nothing more than somebody “thinks” there might be a connection and others where, say, one witness says he or she heard Martin’s name mentioned. This is the sort of thing people report happening all over the place after any national story like this regardless of color.
Eye and ear witnesses are, of course, notoriously unreliable, and most all of these came from raw, early reports. Some don’t mention Martin at all but the “reporter” (I hesitate to call anybody who writes for thew WND a reporter) has thrown them in in an obvious attempt to beef the story up some.
Kristen:
“Riots that succeed are called revolutions.”
The LA riots were never bound for success no matter how long they went on or how much propertry they needlessly destroyed. Surely you are smart enough to realize the difference between a group of angry people or sports fans and those trying to sieze political or physical control.
I say again, riots are neither justifiable or excusable. They are indefensable behavior. Some completely innocent guy’s car getting flipped over because people don’t like a totally unrelated court verdict or their soccer team lost (or won) is not acceptible behavior for anyone.
Yupbilly, I return the compliment. Thanks for being above the mud-slingers!
Sandi:
“There is such a thing as asking for it and yes, Zimmerman did and should have been man enough to take the beating and be done with it.”
You don’t know this. I don’t know this. None of us know exactly what happened. I can tell you this; George Zimmerman had ZERO obligation to accept the beating and hope he wasn’t seriously injured or killed. That’s nonsense. I bet you would never say Martin should accept the beating if he approached Zimmerman and got one. Martin gets points and benefits of the doubt with you because he is black, and perceived disadvantaged in every circumstance.
Sandi:
“Martin chose to fight, but it was Zimmerman who forced that choice.”
Why? No matter what Zimmerman may have said to Martin, Martin had no right to start the fight… if that’s what happened. I bet the gun never came out until Zimmerman was getting pounded.
If the races were reversed, I bet you’d never say the white man was forced to fight the black guy. No, the white guy should have run, called the police, and let the justice system take care of the black guy. And in that case, you would support due process.
First, you do not know that Martin “started” the fight. Second, there would have been no chase, no confrontation, no fight and no death if Zimmerman had stayed in his car and let the police handle the non-issue.
What you “think” I would say or believe if the races were reversed is wrong and not relevant.
A question that hasn’t been asked, why the gap between the February 26th shooting, and the sudden wall-to-wall media blitz beginning around the 20th of March?
Okay John Wilburn, this is just nonsense that is not going to go unchallenged. “I bet you would never say Martin should accept the beating if he approached Zimmerman and got one.” That is simply and utterly untrue. If the situation was exactly reversed and Martin was the one who ignored the dispatcher, followed Zimmerman and confronted him anyway, he would have been the cause of the confrontation and the one to escalate it, ergo the one at fault. Being a “neighborhood watch” is not the same as being a cop. His “duty” ended at calling the cops, which is why they told him not to follow him.
You think “Martin gets points and benefits of the doubt with you because he is black, and perceived disadvantaged in every circumstance“. Excuse me, but the reality of this situation is that the only person for whom race mattered was Zimmerman. He saw this kid walking the neighborhood, looking around and decided he was “suspicious”. On what grounds? He decided to follow him, even chase him, and he decided to confront him. None of that has any bearing on any “perceived disadvantage” from my POV. I have a son who wears a hoodie, with visible tattoos, who has walked the sidewalks of an unfamiliar neighborhood when he is on the road playing music, and this issue is 1200 times more about the decision of Zimmerman to confront a kid in a hoodie for walking at night in a neighborhood, than it will ever be about race to me. Again, you are being judgmental and wrong.
John Wilburn, I bet the gun came out as soon as Zimmerman stepped out of his car, but neither of us were there so our bets mean nothing.
#102 Sandi, I think Zimmerman didn’t like Martin’s looks because he was carrying Skittles. Poor choice.
DaveHicks, Chuck and JohnW’s posts illustrate the point beautifully. People who carry guns all the time are going to feel much more empowered and invincible when picking fights with other (most likely UNarmed, save a bag of Skittles or two) because they know that should they proceed to suffer the repercussions of their aggression, they can always pull out their gun and blow the other guy away.
Actually, after deliberately instigating a confrontation with Trayvon Martin, I do think Z was obligated to take his “beating” like a man…it was his fault after all. But instead of fighting fair, the big p****y takes his gun out and shoots the kid in cold blood. And from what I see of our gun people, they’re totally good with that.
I am developing, if possible, and even lower opinion of those who feel that they are somehow special enough that they need to always be in a position to shoot someone dead for whatever reason, at whatever time they choose.
Trayvon Martin was never, ever the aggressor here. And Z’s aggression is ON TAPE for pete’s sake. But hey, Martin was just a black kid who didn’t need to go to college anyway or anything because the degrees of black kids aren’t worth diddly. So no big loss.
PC enough?
And Chuck, generally the people I argue with are people I know in some fashion whether personal or work. And no, I don’t think I’ve ever set out to deliberately make someone mad enough at me to start beating on me, ergo I dont need a gun to save myself from my own social ineptitude. The answer is still no.
Thanks Dave H. @93. My concern or maybe bewilderment regarding SYG is the murky justification of {in the example out of FL where DV victim arrested, found guilty etc} sending that particular women to jail. John Wilburn suggested @82 that it was because she left the home to retrieve her weapon, and returned. My understanding of the Castle Doctrine which morphed into the SYG, that as long as you had a lawful right to be on/in the premises, you have no duty to retreat from your own home when threatened. The abuser in this case had a protective order against him, was therefore in the victims home unlawfully, had prior “bad act” against the victim, and therefore, it could be assumed by the victim, a reoccurrence of this abuse. Those sets of circumstances, in my experience, should justify her belief she would again be assaulted, [imminent danger] and wanted to protect herself and/or children – I do not believe there was a requirement on her part to abandon her home, and the children who remained there. That is where my confusion regarding the application of SYG law in this specific FL case arises.
Good point Hillary, Zimmerman did not have to give up a piece of sidewalk but that woman should have run from her own home? Do you folks even hear yourselves?
Debbie:
103.”John Wilburn, I bet the gun came out as soon as Zimmerman stepped out of his car, but neither of us were there so our bets mean nothing.”
You may be right, but neither of us were there. I think the most probable scenario is that it did not come out when he exited the car and have some valid reasons for believing such. If the gun were to be out of the holster, from concealment, in hand, and logically in a “low ready” position or worse yet, on target at the point you suggest, Martin would have run like the wind or at least had no opportunity to fight. The nature of encounter, including the audio, does not lend itself to Zimmerman having already made presentation at the point he exited the car. All the evidence that we DO have suggests that the gun was drawn well after exiting the car and after the verbal confrontation. The murky part, but that I think is most likely, is whether the gun was out at or shortly after the physical confrontation. At that point, I think Zimmerman was in over his head and defended himself from a situation he made worse from bad decisions and poor training. We’ll see how it shakes it out.
Kristen:
“Actually, after deliberately instigating a confrontation with Trayvon Martin, I do think Z was obligated to take his “beating” like a man…it was his fault after all.”
Zimmerman questioned a black guy. Yeah, I think malicious wounding is an appropriate penalty. Death if Zimmerman was white, a good yelling at if he were “more hispanic”, and nothing at all if he were black. That’s more kosher, right?
And you think we sound silly?!
This notion that Zimmerman should have laid on the pavement and volunteered to be savagely beaten for offending Martin is absurd.
THE REAL ANSWER TO THIS:
Both Martin and Zimmeman should have kept their hands to themselves. No fight. No drawing of a gun. No aftermath. Whose hands went into action first? That’s the big question and I bet the answer is Martin.
“Both Martin and Zimmeman should have kept their hands to themselves. No fight. No drawing of a gun. No aftermath. Whose hands went into action first? That’s the big question and I bet the answer is Martin.”
I bet that Zimmerman attempted what amounted to a citizen’s arrest of Trayvon Martin. And that Martin, being fully versed in Fla. law, decided to Stand His Ground. Then Zimm pulled his pocket protection, and Martin, now in fear of his life, attempted to Stand His Ground even more. And now lots of people are saying Zimm had the right to Stand his Ground. What about Martin’s right?
“And that Martin, being fully versed in Fla. law…”
Oh yeah, I’m sure it’s a large percentage of teenagers that are fully versed in Florida law. That was a joke, right?
No JohnW, the only acceptable “outcome” is Z shuts his mouth and goes away. We don’t live in a country (yet) where anyone with possession of a weapon gets to accost and grill other citizens walking around minding their own business. Z was 1000% responsible for EVERY bit of the result of his taking it on himself to be judge, jury and executioner. And FYI, he looks like a zit popped on the back of his head.
The “big question” is not remotely “who hands went into action first”…and since only 2 people know the answer and one is conveniently dead, we’ll never know. The “big question” is how in hell Z felt empowered to pull his gun and shoot an unarmed kid.
JohnW you’ve made your opinion of blacks pretty freaking crystal clear over on the “college tuition” thread. It’s just magnified by your absolute disdain for Trayvon Martin’s life. Be proud…Suzie’s applauding you, I’m sure.
“It’s better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6″. So….Z’s being judged by 12. Embrace it…all gun people should It’s what you want.
This un PC enough for you?
John Wilburn, are you being deliberately obtuse? No one is saying Zimmerman should have “laid back and enjoyed the inevitable” like a good rape victim. We are saying he should have fought fists with fists. If the ONLY self defense you know is to pull a gun, you do not know much and deserve the consequences. At best, this is some level of manslaughter IMO. Fair is fair and he DID instigate and escalate the entire episode, there is no denying that and it should not be overlooked.
Kristen:
“JohnW you’ve made your opinion of blacks pretty freaking crystal clear over on the “college tuition” thread.”
No, you simply manufactured an opinion for me, like on any other issue where we disagree.
“It’s just magnified by your absolute disdain for Trayvon Martin’s life.”
NO. I have no disdain for Martin’s life, but wronging Zimmerman for the sake of political expediency and ruining Zimmerman’s life for retribution, DOES NOT make anything right.
“Wronging Zimmerman”? How is pointing out the fact that he killed a kid in cold blood “wronging” him. It’s the reality. Bleak, I admit, but true. As for ruining his pitiful life, I’d like to think it’s ruined already. He at least enjoys the advantage of being above ground.
Kristen:
“How is pointing out the fact that he killed a kid in cold blood “wronging” him.”
We don’t know it was in “cold blood”. That’s why. I don’t think he approached Martin with the intent to kill him in cold blood. That’s a ridiculous assumption even by your standards.
“….As for ruining his pitiful life, I’d like to think it’s ruined already.”
Due process is only for those Kristen likes. The prosecution lives for narrow-minded, prejudice jurors that think like this.
Re: Comment by Hillary — May 21, 2012 @ 11:20 am
My concern or maybe bewilderment regarding SYG is the murky justification of {in the example out of FL where DV victim arrested, found guilty etc} sending that particular women to jail. John Wilburn suggested @82 that it was because she left the home to retrieve her weapon, and returned. My understanding of the Castle Doctrine which morphed into the SYG, that as long as you had a lawful right to be on/in the premises, you have no duty to retreat from your own home when threatened.
—–
As I wasn’t there at the trial, I have no idea what was presented to the jury by the defense attorney. I long ago and from personal experience quit trusting the press to get the details right. In addition, anyone, who has ever been involved in a trial knows that the public often get “information” that is not allowed in the court. Hence, the restriction on jury members reading, talking, etc about the case to anyone. The jury is instructed to consider only what was presented in the court — nothing more from any other source. The whole high-tech social-networking is really becoming a problem, BTW.
Now if her attorney was able to convince the jury it was reasonable to believe/fear that the children were in immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grievous bodily injury, then I do not understand the verdict.
Did her attorney base the defense on her being in immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger? Or, did her attorney base the defense on her children being in immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger?
IANAL, but IMHO, were the defense based on her being in danger, the fact that she left and returned, overrides the defense — remember the “otherwise unavoidable” aspect of the defense. IOW, she could have kept going.
—————————-
Comment by Sandi Saunders — May 21, 2012 @ 11:51 am
Good point Hillary, Zimmerman did not have to give up a piece of sidewalk but that woman should have run from her own home? Do you folks even hear yourselves?
Sandi,
Who has said she “should have run from her own home?”
ITOH, if she avoided danger by running and then returned of her own volition with a weapon to kill someone, that is a different story.
As I said above I was not at the trial, much less at the shooting. So I do know what was presented as the defense much less what actually happened.
As to whether Zimmerman had “to give up a piece of sidewalk” that would depend on what occurred in vaguely described “Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued” part of the Zimmerman arrest affidavit. What does “confront” mean? Who initiated the “struggle” which ensued?
Again, I was not there. I have no idea.
Dave H – here is a link for the information you referred to in post #116. So what do you think with the added info?
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/justice/florida-stand-ground-sentencing/index.html
Comment by Kristen — May 21, 2012 @ 11:01 am
“… because they know that should they proceed to suffer the repercussions of their aggression, they can always pull out their gun and blow the other guy away.”
———-
Kristen,
Did you even read what I wrote? Did you even look at the links I provided?
I have repeatedly said that “if you are/were part of the problem (if you in any way contributed to or exasperated or elevated the conflict/problem), then you must retreat as far as you can safely, [indicating that you have given up the fight] and only if the assailant keeps up the attack, may you defend yourself.”
I have never said or otherwise indicated that the aggressor had no obligation to retreat under Virginia common/case law. As far as I know that is true in most States.
@ Dave Hicks…your icon scares me!
Re: Comment by Miriam — May 22, 2012 @ 2:33 pm
your icon scares me!
———-
OK.
I’ll change it.
Given that the resident troll lies continuously, I was curious if was lying, yet again with her claim that she had fixed it so that no one could use this avatar.
I used it.
She lost, yet again, for the umpteenth hundred (or is that umpteenth thousand) consecutive time.
If anything, she is consistent.
.
.
Re: Comment by Kristen — May 20, 2012 @ 2:08 pm
“This is likely because normal people who don’t feel the need to walk around with a gun all the time don’e engage in witless bellicosity….”
Vs.
http://tinyurl.com/ch85jl4
SNIP
That wasn’t the case this past weekend when mobs of teens and young adults started more than 30 fights Friday night. That despicable, mobbish eruption was tame compared with Saturday night’s encore. Police say 400 to 500 young people ran around removing their shirts and threatening each other. Fights spilled over into the parking lot and then down Williamson Road where the McDonald’s was under siege. Such big swagger from tiny minds that draw power only when plugged into crowd-think.
“Clearly, these kids came with one goal — to cause trouble,” said Robyn Schon, general manager of the Roanoke Civic Center. They succeeded. Luckily for them, and for the thousands of others attending the carnival, their asinine, boorish and criminal behavior did not result in serious injuries
SNIP
**
———–
Now let’s see:
Following Kristen proclamation of life as she sees it, people who don’t carry a gun all the time don’t engage in witless bellicosity, therefore these mobs of young adults who started more than 30 fights Friday night must have been armed.
Wonder how the LEOs missed that? Wonder why mobs of armed young adults who started more than 30 fights wasn’t Dan lead blog thread, if not his column?
Could it be Kristen’s world view is flawed in some significant way?
Hum???
Miriam, I find that eye avatar of your to be a little creepy. I’m considering a new avatar. Either my car just to bother Suzie or a nice handgun. Perhaps a skull and crossbones. We’ll see!