Wednesday, July 17, 2013
"These People Are F***ing Crazy!"
This is a typical comment seen on a typical conservative blog concerning the Zimmerman trial:
"Ed Bonderenka said...
Trayvon deserved to die. He earned it.
Not for being black. Attack someone and threaten their life,
give them no recourse, you've brought it on yourself.
Define deserve. Had it coming."
We don't have a serious problem in this country?
The character who posted this comment believes Trayvon Martin deserved to die because he bloodied Zimmerman's nose. Zimmerman "felt" his life was in danger, so he shot and killed Trayvon Martin.
I wonder if the commenter Bonderenka would "feel" the same way if, say, a person walking down the street at night in Conceal Carry and Stand Your Ground Florida saw Commenter B. reach inside his pocket and that said pedestrian "felt" the commenter was going for a weapon, and because that pedestrian "felt" threatened, took out his/her gun and shot said commenter B. quite dead.
We could all then say, Commenter B. "had it coming." Afterall in Conceal Carry and Stand Your Ground Florida, who knows when someone reaches into his/her waistband or pocket if he or she isn't going to pull out a gun? So if we "feel" threatened, we shoot and kill! It's the American way.
What a country!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
51 comments:
Since we were not at the scene when this "attack" occurred nor were we on the Jury or in the court room, we don't know all that happened.
You can't blame Zimmerman for trying to get off regardless if you feel him guilty or not.
The person most responsible this is Angela Corey who charged him with the wrong violation and then did a lousy job of proving the case.
Interesting, Anon.
Did you and people like you think that when the jury found O.J. not guilty?
You and they didn't know all that happened that night, and you and they were not at the scene when the attack in L.A. happened. And I suppose you couldn't blame O.J. for not trying to get off, regardless if you felt him guilty or not.
And, no, Anon. The person most responsible for this travesty is NOT Angela Corey, it is George Zimmerman who did not stay in his car when the police dispatcher told him to.
George Zimmerman, armed with a loaded lethal weapon pursued Trayvon Martin because he "thought" he was a criminal.
How would you or your pals on the right like to live in a country where you can be pursued by someone with a loaded weapon just because he or she "thinks" you are a criminal?
That's the world you and your rightwing buds envision for America.
And it stinks.
I didn't know we were discussing O.J. I thought this was about Zimmerman. I also don't remember riots or crowds breaking windows when O.J. was acquitted.
From your response I assume everything with you is political and right or left. FYI, the Ms. Corey was a Republican so using your logic, it was the GOP's fault.
OJ guilty; Zimmerman guilty. With Zimmerman it was clearly at least manslaughter... with a strong possibility that the shooting was first degree premeditated murder... IMO. The a**hole Zimmerman got away with it thanks to Stand Your Ground. No SYG and the police would have arrested him immediately and taken proper care with the evidence and crime scene.
When Zimmerman said "these a**holes always get away with it" he may as well been talking about himself... as well as other murderers (past & future).
Stand Your Ground = Snuff the Witness (According to Hal Sparks today on the Stephanie Miller show... although I said basically the same thing in my post on the subject).
For the first time ever I just got physically ill listening to the emotional hyperbolic crap from the left.
The frenzied lunatics are out for blood. Without using any reason, or considering anything that doesn't nicely fit into their template of self invoked white guilt, accusations of racial profiling, and outright racism they have decided that jurors who actually listened to hours of testimony and heard all the evidence are what, delusional?
My stand is well stated on this and other sites including my own. It is not complimentary to Zimmerman in any way. But Mediate and the rest of the over the top left have lost it.
Anonymous is ABSOLUTELY correct.
"Ms. Kenaw,
I must agree with Mr. FreeThinke's assessment contained in an earlier thread, and reluctantly conclude that you have become unhinged."
Really? Well good for you.
Why should I pay any attention to someone who comes to my blog and insults me as you have?
People who feel strongly about a subject are NOT unhinged. They have their valid reasons for expressing their outrage.
I've read several articles on this tragedy, and the one that makes the most sense is the one written by Charles Blow of the New York Times and which I have posted on my blog.
The System Failed.
I don't need another condescending anonymous telling me I'm crazy [thats the implication for "unhinged") for believing there was a miscarriage of justice in this case. I do not need another anonymous coming here to insult and demean me because I don't agree with him/her on how this case turned out.
There are many rightwing blogs out there where I've read many opinions that differ from mine. I have not gone to them and insulted them for holding those opinions.
I, unlike you, anon, do not call those people crazy/unhinged for their opinions.
You conservatives, as I said in another comment, have a sickening habit of trying to dehumanize and crush those you disagree with. And you do it by likening us to the greatest monsters in history. All this because we disagree? And you say I'm unhinged?
What irony!
RN, about half the country disagrees with what you said.
So it is not a unanimous view.
http://gollygeeez.blogspot.com/2013/07/you-help-us-understand-martinzimmerman.html
"...a fascinating examination of how the new law [Stand Your Ground] has affected Florida. It’s from last month in the Tampa Bay Times but reads even more powerfully today. Money quote:
The number of [SYG] cases is increasing, largely because defense attorneys are using “stand your ground” in ways state legislators never envisioned. The defense has been invoked in dozens of cases with minor or no injuries. It has also been used by a self-described “vampire” in Pinellas County, a Miami man arrested with a single marijuana cigarette, a Fort Myers homeowner who shot a bear and a West Palm Beach jogger who beat a Jack Russell terrier.
People often go free under “stand your ground” in cases that seem to make a mockery of what lawmakers intended. One man killed two unarmed people and walked out of jail. Another shot a man as he lay on the ground. Others went free after shooting their victims in the back. In nearly a third of the cases the Times analyzed, defendants initiated the fight, shot an unarmed person or pursued their victim — and still went free.
No wonder Zimmerman felt able to stalk Martin. What did he have to lose when he could simply kill the dude anyway and get away with it? Worse, the law is subject to huge discrepancies depending on the case, the jury, the prosecutors, etc. It’s enforced with wild inconsistency, as illustrated in the above video."
Well RN, I really don't have a quarrel with the jury decision. The prosecution didn't have much of a case and they didn't have enough to convict someone of second degree murder.
However, I do have a quarrel with many who saw no issue with the incompetent chief of police who did not conduct a competent investigation. Zimmerman says he felt threatened, well that's good enough reason to kill the kid.
That is a disgrace.
Was Zimmerman profiling Martin for no good reason? He had a history of calling in about suspicious minorities and only minorities. But everyone is in a rush to deny the circumstances that allowed a young boy to be shot dead for no good reason.
Everyone is in a rush to have us believe that the trial verdict is a moral vindication of Zimmerman.
But I guess there is no irrationality on the right. Mr. Bondereka was quick to point out that he hadn't said Martin deserved to die because he was black.
I guess that absolves him of being part of the "over the top" right who were so freaking desperate to demonstrate with their finely tuned reason how little is required to legitimately take a young boys life.
Disgusting.
Yes, Ducky, it is disgusting. And the right will never understand it.
Indeed this is so, and that means of course about half the country disagrees with what you have said.
Gosh, we have a chess game it seems. Right now it would appear we your side is legally checked.
The gears are turning for round two as the feds get involved and the Martin family files civil action suit.
We will have to wait for the final word...
So let's take this in a different direction for a few moments...
I've heard the GOP wants to actually reach out to, and win more minority votes.
As many have pointed out, given the circumstances, this was gonna be a struggle to get a conviction.
What I do not understand, and what few have tried to explain, is why conservatives who are reacting to this, are doing so with such inflammatory language?
Ed's comments are pretty typical of what the majority of commenters at that site had to say.
It is one thing to see how how Zimmerman could be acquitted. It is quite another for a political party, seeking votes from people of color, to completely dismiss Trayvon and say essentially he got what he deserved... and then not care how that plays with the people you are supposedly wooing to your party.
People of color are not avoiding the GOP because the Dems are offering free stuff, in spite of Romney's claims... they are avoiding the party because people like Ed refuse to hear that their language is offensive.
People do not go where they perceive they are not wanted.
Welcome to the new GOP... courtesy of the Tea Party...
And here's a great example of what I am talking about from a commenter named Phillip Gordon...
“George Zimmerman to Got His Gun Back” - ABC News
Well thanks to the idiots who can’t respect the jury’s verdict, and the bleeding heart liberals running wild in the streets, and the death threats that he has been getting. He needs it more now then ever.
Suck on it libtards.
Instead of Obama’s stupid speeches and his phoney Gun Control excuses, What we really need is more Americans like Zimmerman to stop thugs like Trayvon Martin..
The next thing we hear is that Obama wants yo give Trayvon Martin a Holiday names for in in February, after all there are still 15 days not named after Black Martyr's
This kind of discourse ought to gain a lot of new minority voters to the GOP...
Have you read all my statements and comments?
I thought not.
Ms. Shaw said...
You conservatives, as I said in another comment, have a sickening habit of trying to dehumanize and crush those you disagree with. And you do it by likening us to the greatest monsters in history. All this because we disagree? And you say I'm unhinged?
----------------
Why not just say "you people?"
I disagree wiht Mr FreeThinke comparing you to Hitler. I know what he intended, but that comparison is always fraught, and it throws a wrench into the wheels of debate. I have no intention of "crushing' or "dehumanizing" anyone.
Such paranoid thoughts bloom in darkened dogmatic corners where the "us against them" mentality prevail. Please, get out into the sunshine!
I do wish you would broaden your horizons and become more inclusive of thoughts and ideas outside the narrow grooves you seem to travel in.
There is a diversity of thought out there. Please read the Slate column. Perhaps it will do you good. Very few things in this world are black and white.
I believe justice was served, but I also believe Zimmerman should have stayed in his vehicle.
I truly did not intend to offend you, but rather to shake you out of your rigid ideology.
Anon B37
Ms. Shaw stated...
"I, unlike you, anon, do not call those people crazy/unhinged for their opinions."
She stated it in a thread of her weblog post entitled ""These People Are F***ing Crazy!"
And she said without the least hint of irony.
Anon B37
Dear Anon, you're not very perceptive, are you.
The title of this particular blog post comes from a Comedy Central video, not from me.
And what you do not understand is that the comedian was directing that statement, which was supposedly by a fictional mouse, to unnamed people. That statement was NOT directed at any of my commenters.
Mr. FT came to my blog and called me "unhinged," and compared me with historical murderers. He engaged in a personal attack on my character.
That you don't see the difference between the two instances means, to me, that you're not perceptive enough to understand that the two are not comparable.
Anon B37: "I believe justice was served, but I also believe Zimmerman should have stayed in his vehicle."
And I believe THE LAW was served, but not justice. There's an enormous difference here. George Zimmerman "thought" he was in mortal danger, since the only other witness to this tragedy is dead, the jury believed he killed Trayvon Martin in self-defense.
Zimmerman paid no price for instigating the whole sordid encounter. And an unarmed teen is dead. Trayvon Martin's life was worth something, I think. Under the SYG law, it wasn't.
Anon B37: "I truly did not intend to offend you, but rather to shake you out of your rigid ideology.
Anon B37"
I'll believe you, Anon B37, and your crusading efforts to enlighten those with "rigid ideologies" when you go to conservative blogs such as "Geeeeez" and "Always on Watch" and "Western Hero," and try to dissuade people like Ed B. and Philip Gordon, whose comments are quoted above in Dave Miller's and my comment.
You appear to be concerned only with liberals who hold strong opinions.
That's a bit self-serving, isn't it?
Dave,
This verdict illustrates the deep political and racial divisions within this country.
The irony is that the people who are wagging their fingers at dissenters to this verdict, telling everyone that the law found Zimmerman not guilty, are the same sorts who were livid when "the law" found O.J. Simpson and Casey Anthony "not guilty."
At least I've been consistent. I was very angry at the O.J. verdict and the Anthony verdict. In both cases I felt the victims received no justice.
And I don't believe Trayvon Martin did either.
It will be interesting to follow the Michael Dunn case--he's the 46 year old man who shot his gun into a SUV full of black teenagers, killing one, and who then drove away, went to a motel and ordered pizza, and never went to the police.
Dunn is claiming the SYG excuse. He believed his life was in danger. No weapon was found at the scene, and he was the aggressor. Luckily, there are witnesses to this crime. But the fact that this cold-blooded murderer will use the SYG excuse is a crime in itself, IMO.
What was the dead teen's crime? The music in the SUV was too loud and the dead teen, Jordan Davis, mouthed off to Dunn.
This is the climate we now have in the SYG states. Any yahoo with a gun can say he or she is fearful of his or her life and then shoot to kill.
Compliments of ALEC and the NRA.
RN points out that the side that is against giving murderers the ability to call their crime "self defense" and therefore not a crime was "legally checked". Sure, but the law is what the party in charge of the legislature decides it is. In FL (as well as other states), the Republicans decided murder could be called "self defense" so long as there are no witnesses who saw everything.
I am in agreement with you Shaw in believing THE LAW was served, but not justice. That law being SYG. A law written by two creepy ass Cracker organizations (The NRA & ALEC) and passed by the creepy ass Cracker Party (you know who I'm talking about).
The Republican Party is NOT seeking votes from people of color, they are attempting to disenfranchise them so they can win elections with only the old xenophobic Cracker vote.
As for "rigid ideologies", I'm sticking with mine. My rigid ideology tells me that "thinking outside the box" by redefining murder as "standing your ground" in "self defense" so more guns can be sold and the NRA can make lots of money is morally wrong. I'm rigidly against it.
Aaron Osmond, Utah State Senator, Calls For End To Mandatory Education
Thank your for publishing my comments.
This statement contains an opinion:
"Zimmerman paid no price for instigating the whole sordid encounter."
How do you know that Zimmerman instigated the encounter?
This is what none of us know. Mr. Zimmerman, the only living witness to the "whole sordid encounter" stated in a sworn statement that he was returning to his vehicle and that Mr. Martin attacked him, knocking him to the ground.
There is evidence that he was indeed knocked to the ground and punched, but we have nothing other than his word to go by about how the encounter started.
Do you discount out of hand the possibility that Mr. Martin, angry that a "creepy ass cracker" was following him, doubled back and jumped Mr. Zimmerman?
We don't know with certainty who instigated the encounter.
While poor judgment, getting out of a vehicle and following someone is not against the law.
I am not familiar with the other names you stereotyped me in with, but I again urge you to read the Slate article.
Respectfully,
Anon B37
Shaw... a legally sound decision, but not very satisfying.
However independent of that, we do have to think about how both sides express themselves.
The conservatives have an electability issue brewing over things like this. If you keep insulting people with words like "thug" and comments like "he deserved it" in instances like these, you will indeed soon find yourself in a monochromatic party.
However, let's suppose for a few moments that the verdict had gone the other way. Is it unreasonable to think that the loyal left would have celebrated the coming punishment of Zimmerman?
I think so... and that too would lead to more Balkanization within America.
We've arrived at a terrible place...
Unwilling to consider the other and also to show some grace...
George Zimmerman, Chaz Bono...
Anyone else see the resemblance?
Anon B37: "How do you know that Zimmerman instigated the encounter?"
Who initiated the whole incident? Trayvon Martin was walking home to his father's fiancee's home. Zimmerman decided Trayvon "looked suspicious," and THAT started the whole tragedy. And we most certainly know that.
Anon B37: "This is what none of us know. Mr. Zimmerman, the only living witness to the "whole sordid encounter" stated in a sworn statement that he was returning to his vehicle and that Mr. Martin attacked him, knocking him to the ground."
That living witness, the one who shot dead Trayvon, had everything to gain by stating that. Since it could not be corroborated by any other "living" person, why should I believe him?
I'll tell you this, Dave, I live in a neighborhood in a city, and I have listened to folks who have lived here all their lives and to what they say when a person of color walks on these streets.
Without exception these same folks, whom I've gotten to know quite well, are of the conservative persuasion when it comes to politics. Just the other day, a neighbor, an older woman, told me how disgusted she was at what people were saying about the verdict and that she didn't think Zimmerman did anything wrong.
This was a working class neighborhood years ago it did not take kindly to any person of color walking the neighborhood streets, and there were certain elements who lived here that made sure those who did manage to visit the neighborhood were made to feel very unwelcome.
I'm glad to say this is not the mentality now, but it sure was in the recent past.
Racism is part of this country's culture north and south and anyplace where fear and ignorance flourishes.
People just don't want to face it.
People need to read American history to understand it.
I suggest reading "The Life and Times of Frederick Douglass" for starters.
"Who initiated the whole incident? Trayvon Martin was walking home to his father's fiancee's home. Zimmerman decided Trayvon "looked suspicious," and THAT started the whole tragedy. And we most certainly know that."
I understand your point of view, but we still haven't gotten to the bottom of who initiated the physical confrontation.
All we have is Zimmerman's sworn deposition and statements to the police. He could be lying, but he could also be telling the truth.
The time gap suggests Mr. Martin had time to make haste to his father's house, but chose instead to hang around. His right, obviously, but this action, like Zimmerman getting out of his vehicle, contributed to the tragedy.
"...but this action, like Zimmerman getting out of his vehicle, contributed to the tragedy."
People can speculate all they want about what "should" have happened and who initiated what.
But the tragic outcome pivoted on one man's suspicions and assumptions over a teen who was wearing a hoodie.
One person was the adult; the other was a teen.
The adult was carrying a lethal weapon; the teen was carrying candy and ice tea.
Our legal system let the killer off.
There's nothing more to be done about that trial.
Perhaps Zimmerman may face other charges in a civil court. Who knows.
first he has a hate week so his wingnut pals can trasha nd bash you then he calls you Hitler?
"Anonymous said...
BTW. Kiudos to Mr. Free Thinker for telling Ms. Shaw that she sounded like Hitler!
July 18, 2013 at 9:13 AM"
those are the people he attractsand you tried to be a friend to him...learn your lesson much shaw?
"But the tragic outcome pivoted on one man's suspicions and assumptions over a teen who was wearing a hoodie."
Your assertion is unfounded. The tragic outcome pivoted on one man decided to physically engage another.
Even if Zimmerman had blatantly racially profiled him, that is no cause for physical confrontation.
Who do you believe forced the physical confrontation?
Martin had fighting experience and had almost four inches on Zimmerman. Zimmerman weighed 25 lbs more than Martin, but was described as soft and a poor fighter by the man who tried to train him.
Suppose Zimmerman started it by throwing a punch or attempting to physically detain Martin and Martin, within his rights, fought back.
Next, suppose Martin ends up on top, bashing Zimmerman's head into the pavement and breaking his nose, as the evidence showed.
Does Zimmerman have a right to pull out that pistol and shoot Martin? Or must he just lay there and take it if he is unable to get the attacker off of him?
Does he just have to take his beating since he started it?
Now, suppose a man is simply jumped by another, he's not stalking or anything. Does that man have the right to pull out a gun and shoot his attacker if he is unable to get out from under his assault, since he did not start the fight?
Now, what if it's the same situation, but it's a woman on bottom, and she is being raped?
How do we determine what is legitimate self-defense?
I'm hearing many complaints about Stand Your Ground, so I am seeking clarification.
Anon B37
Anon B37,
I'm done with suppositions and second guessing what happened that tragic night.
Only two people really know what happened, and one of them is dead.
You favor Zimmerman's story, the man who had to describe what happened in such as way as to keep a jury from convicting him.
The system found Zimmerman not guilty of 2nd degree murder.
He is still responsible for killing Trayvon Martin, and nothing you nor I say will change that.
If Zimmerman feared so much for his life, why did he refuse a stand your ground hearing?
"You favor Zimmerman's story"
No, Maam. I have stated quite clearly that Zimmerman could be lying, but we have no way of knowing.
You claim you are "done with suppositions and second guessing," yet that is all your outrage is based upon.
Yes, the defense agrees that Zimmerman killed Martin. That is not the point. The question is, was it justified?
We, as a nation, must learn from this. How do we proceed in addressing Stand Your Ground statutes?
For this reason, I asked the questions I asked in my last posting.
Those opposing "Stand Your Ground" laws must be able to defend their position.
I believe such laws should stand.
Had Zimmerman gotten the best of Martin, bashing his head into the pavement, and Martin saw the gun, grabbed it and shot Zimmerman dead, he would be justified.
I understand the arguments about institutional racism. I state my opinion soley on the legal question.
Thank you again for entertaining opposing opinions.
Anon B37
Are some people determined to believe George Zimmerman liked because he appears whiter than Trayvon Martin?
In actual fact, Zimmerman's grandmother on his mother's side clearly had African blood and made no secret of that.
If Zimmerman had been the one who died that night, who would automatically believe that Martin had lied about what happened? Who would automatically believe that Martin was telling the truth about what happened?
Anon: "You claim you are "done with suppositions and second guessing," yet that is all your outrage is based upon."
No. My outrage is based upon the fact that this killing did not have to happen.
I am opposed to SYG laws and Conceal Carry laws.
Nothing good can come of those laws. Only more deaths and trials.
Just last November, Michael Dunn shot and killed a black teenager because he mouthed off at him when Dunn asked him to turn down the loud music.
Dunn is claiming SYG. After killing the unarmed teen, he left the scene, went to a motel and ate pizza, and never reported what he did. The surviving kids in the SUV got the tag number, and that's how the cops caught up with him.
Dunn told the cops he was never so scared in all his life.
There was no weapons, as Dunn claimed, in the car, and it was he who got out of his care and approached the parked SUV.
He's white, the dead teen was African-American.
This time there were witnesses.
But Dunn is sticking to his story about fearing for his life to justify his shooting up the inside of the SUV.
If you and others who support this insane law think these insane laws will diminish killings you are sadly naive:
"MIAMI (CBSMiami.com) – As some state lawmakers are calling for a re-thinking of Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, which allows people to defend themselves from danger without the need to first try to get away, an analysis of state data shows deaths due to self defense are up over 200 percent since the law took effect."
And this from Tampa Bay Times
"Florida's 'stand your ground' law has allowed drug dealers to avoid murder charges and gang members to walk free. It has stymied prosecutors and confused judges. • It has also served its intended purpose, exonerating dozens of people who were deemed to be legitimately acting in self-defense. Among them: a woman who was choked and beaten by an irate tenant and a man who was threatened in his driveway by a felon.
Seven years since it was passed, Florida's "stand your ground" law is being invoked with unexpected frequency, in ways no one imagined, to free killers and violent attackers whose self-defense claims seem questionable at best.
Cases with similar facts show surprising — sometimes shocking — differences in outcomes. If you claim "stand your ground" as the reason you shot someone, what happens to you can depend less on the merits of the case than on who you are, whom you kill and where your case is decided."
It is my opinion that the SYG laws are the mark of a sick, sick culture.
Stand Your Ground Insanity:
Gregg Isaac began his trial last week for a confessed home invasion in 2005, where he shot and killed Antonio Corbitt in front of an 8-year-old child. After the trial judge originally denied Isaac’s motion that he could use deadly force under the state’s version of Stand Your Ground law, the South Carolina Supreme Court agreed to halt the proceedings and hear the case to determine a procedural point.
The reason the Supreme Court will consider the case has to do with exactly when a judge should hold a hearing to determine whether the defendant is immune from going to trial and the defendant’s right to immediately appeal; it will not tackle the substance of the law, according to The State. If the Stand Your Ground hearing determines the shooter was protecting himself in a place he had a legal right to be, then the case never proceeds to a trial.
The state’s 2006 law is nearly identical to American Legislative Exchange Council model legislation that states a person not engaging in unlawful activity has no duty to retreat and “has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force.”
Isaac almost certainly would not win with this argument. He did not have a legal right to Corbitt’s apartment: He broke in with two other men, and when the resident looked like he “was going to pull a gun from his pants” Isaac shot him twice. Even though Isaac does not have a credible chance to walk free under Stand Your Ground, the South Carolina Supreme Court may decide he should get the hearing that was previously denied where his lawyer will repeat the argument. Once rejected, the case would move onto a murder trial.
While Isaac’s case goes too far, other Stand Your Ground defendants have succeeded on dubious legal claims authorized by the statute’s broadly permissive language. ProPublica has highlighted some of the most notable Stand Your Ground cases that have led to freedom from criminal prosecution: One man avoided prosecution for shooting two men he suspected burglarized a neighbor’s home, another killed a mentally disabled man who was unarmed, and yet another was let off for chasing a burglar for more than a block.
Most famously, Zimmerman originally claimed he had immunity from prosecution because Florida’s Stand Your Ground allowed him to pursue Trayvon Martin for looking suspicious. He dropped the claim, and argued self-defense instead when he went to trial, but the jury instructions contained Stand Your Ground language, and a juror admitted it still played a role in their decision to acquit him of all charges.
I'm reading comments and can't help but be amazed at how people completely accept the version of events peddled by the killer without so much as a hint of skepticism and viciously attack anyone who questions that version as "ignoring facts". Really? Is that what a "fact" is to you, anything George Zimmerman says?
There was not a single witness in that trial who could confirm that Trayvon Martin "doubled back" and attacked Zimmerman. Not one. Yet you cite that assertion as if it's been based solely on the testimony of the killer.
Another comment lost in the "zone."
Mark Levin: "If Zimmerman Is Harmed, I Blame The President Of The United States"
Mark Levin is walking talking piece of pig excrement.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - George Zimmerman, who was acquitted of murder by a Florida court last week, will not immediately get back the gun he used to shoot unarmed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, because the U.S. Justice Department requested a hold on evidence from his trial, a law enforcement official said on Thursday.
Shaw Kenaw,
In a sick culture of over 300 people, it hardly takes much digging to find some aberration or abuse.
What about the tens of thousands of murders, and even more assaults each year where the victim had no chance whatsoever?
This article provides some statistics on Florida's Stand Your Ground. It agrees that accused blacks seek recourse to it at a greater percentage than they are represented in the population.
It also claims that blacks are the victims of the law at a greater percentage, so unless someone would dig into the numbers, it is hard to tell, since minorities in general are both perpetrators and victims of crimes at a greater rate than their population percentage.
http://news.yahoo.com/no-blacks-dont-benefit-floridas-stand-ground-law-133951308.html
But all of that aside, what part of the law do you want struck down?
Can someone who is pinned to the ground on their back being raped resort to deadly force? Does the answer depend on the race of the people involved?
Anon B37
Wise words from Charles Barkley on the subject:
And let me tell you, Mr. Zimmerman was wrong to pursue -- he was racial profiling. I think Trayvon Martin, God rest his soul, I think he did flip the switch and started beating the hell out of Mr. Zimmerman. But it was just a bad situation. And like I said, the main thing I feel bad for, it gives every black and white person who is racist a platform to vent their ignorance.
That's the thing that bothers me the most because I watched this trial closely and I watch all these people are television talking about it. A lot of people have a hidden agenda. You know, they want their racist views, whether they are white or black --
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/07/18/charles_barkley_on_zimmerman_trial_i_agree_with_the_verdict.html
Anon B37,
"What about the tens of thousands of murders, and even more assaults each year where the victim had no chance whatsoever?"
What on earth does that have to do with the Dunn/Davis murder I cited ?
That victim, Jordan Davis, had no chance whatsoever, and Michael Dunn is using SYG as his defense.
I think you've had your say on this subject. You've expressed your opinion, and I mine.
We don't agree.
Leave it at that.
For the record, I do not support the SYG or conceal carry laws.
We are THE MOST violent western democracy in the world; we have THE MOST firearms in circulation; and we have THE MOST DEATHS from firearms than any other "civilized" country in the world.
It is my opinion that you and people who think like you have been taken in by groups like the NRA and their corporations whose only goal is to make billions of dollars off of firearm sales and ammunition, and to hell with what that has done to this country.
That's my opinion, which I and millions of other Americans hold, and which I am entitled to, as you are yours.
You will not change my mind; nor will I change yours.
We are seeing the results of unbridled Emotionalism out in CA. it appears all the leftist non stop agitation is having an effect on the non thinking. Oy Vey... !!!
I think you've had your say on this subject.
So I should shut up now?
I have had my say, and I have asked you direct questions about the rights you think one had to defend herself, and you've given me nothing but emotionalism.
Such is modern-day liberalism...
I suppose we agree that further discussion, in light of your non-answers, is futile.
Go ahead and delete this. I'm surprised I've survived this far.
The Breitbart.com lunatics are ripping their eyeballs out and biting their tongues bloody because Obama said he experienced profiling when he was a youngster. The comments are hilarious!
Stupid first and foremost because they're Breitbart morons, second, they're stamping their wittle hooves over summpin' the president said. Waaaaah! Waaaaaah!
Love the comedy but most of all love seeing our president have that much of an effect over these goon-asses.
"The Breitbart.com lunatics are ripping their eyeballs out and biting their tongues bloody because Obama said he experienced profiling when he was a youngster."
Could you provide links to these very same lunatics so we may enjoy the comedy as well?
Anon: "I ave had my say, and I have asked you direct questions about the rights you think one had to defend herself, and you've given me nothing but emotionalism.
Such is modern-day liberalism..."
Oh give it up, Anon.
Have you gone to the conservative blogs and seen what they've written?
Trayvon deserved to die?
Modern day conservatism.
My view on this whole sordid affair is that if George Zimmerman had not profiled Trayvon Martin as a potential criminal, none of this would have happened.
Period.
Zimmerman brought this on himself.
And he killed an unarmed teenager.
Also, Anon, I do not delete people for stating their opinions, I delete them when they attack me or one of my commenters, using vile language, or leave comments that are no more than taunts.
You have not been deleted.
Did you notice that?
You and I are not going to agree on this. As many people who agree with you agree with me in my position.
Can you concede that?
Thanks.
"We are seeing the results of unbridled Emotionalism"
A boy is dead; gee, lets not have any emotion.
Post a Comment