A Few Trayvon Martin Thoughts

This seems to be getting so much air time these days and the folks on one side of the issue are using it as an excuse to make all kinds of demands. Let me say up front that what happened to this young man was a tragedy. If the facts as we know them stand, George Zimmerman should go to jail for a very, very long time. Will he or won’t he? Hard to say. I believe that in the end, justice will prevail in this case. I guess the real question is whether justice would have prevailed if people hadn’t screamed loud enough to basically force outside looks into how the Sanford PD was handling this case. With all that said, I offer my thoughts on what happened, hoodies, the resulting “movement”, and the Stand Your Ground law…

First what happened. I don’t see how anyone can defend George Zimmerman given the facts we have been presented thus far. Now, I have heard other things claimed, namely that there are witnesses that say that Trayvon was seen on top of Zimmerman swinging away. I have also heard that while Zimmerman was following him, Trayvon was in fact the one that turned and began the confrontation. But let’s be clear, these are nothing more than other things being claimed in the news cycles. I have seen nothing thus far that backs up these claims. As such, I must dismiss them as nothing more than rumors or chaff thrown out to deflect criticism. If these things end up entering into the arena as actual facts, perhaps we may have to revisit what I think of this case. But until then, we should focus on judging what we know the facts to be as I write this when forming an opinion.

The facts as I understand them are the following:

  1. Zimmerman was a self-appointed neighborhood watch person. He was not authorized to carry a gun while doing so, but did have a legally registered handgun
  2. Zimmerman made roughly (I have heard several different numbers) between 46 and 49 calls to 911 over the past 15 months.  Of these, nine (not all as claimed by many) involved “a suspicious person”, each time the person in question was black.
  3. In this incident, Zimmerman was told by police dispatch that they did not need him following the person. They agreed to meet him at the mailboxes, which he then chose not to do and instead chose to follow Martin.
  4. There was an altercation of some sort. Shouting was heard along with two gunshots. Martin was shot by Zimmerman and tragically died.
  5. Martin was not armed, was not engaging in any sort of criminal behavior, was on his way to the home where he was staying in the complex.

Oddly Acceptable?: The New Black Panther Party has offered a $10,000 reward for the capture of George Zimmerman

There are also two other things that I believe to be true in this case, but cannot claim as fact: First, Zimmerman is a racist. Over the last year he has operated under the premise that black men were the suspicious ones. He went door to door in the neighborhood telling people to be on the lookout for suspicious young black men. All nine  calls made regarding suspicious persons was a black male. I don’t hear the racial epithet as clearly as some claim to on the 911 call, but I don’t doubt that it is what people think it is. I believe that Zimmerman is a racist. I could be wrong… but that is what I believe.

Second, from the accounts I have heard thus far, it appears to me that Zimmerman was a cop wanna-be. He was interjecting himself into things that he didn’t need to be (being the neighborhood cop). He was going to school for law enforcement. He clearly stated in the past that he wanted to be a police officer (despite assaulting one previously). He actually felt “on par” with the police as he chose to ignore their requests in this situation and handle the matter as he saw fit. That reeks of feeling that your authority is equal to or above theirs. All of this adds up to someone who appears to want the power of being a police officer without having the training or authority. Again, just my opinion, but I think a fairly easy conclusion to come to.

It is my belief that Zimmerman should be charged with murder, although I am not sure that it would warrant 1st degree murder (I don’t think he planned it). My guess as to what happened is that Zimmerman confronted Martin, possibly was retreating, but possibly not (no idea what is true in this part of the story). Martin and he fought, and Zimmerman panicked and pulled the trigger. It appears to me that Zimmerman was in the wrong. That all being said, I believe that we should wait to hear what the Grand Jury finds. Perhaps there are facts we don’t have yet. But given the facts we believe that we have, Zimmerman should go to jail for a long time. While some refuse to acknowledge that there are varying reports of how things went down, there is this report, claiming that there is an eyewitness who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman beating him prior to the shooting. That isn’t to say Zimmerman is exonerated, only that there is still more evidence to come. And before we send Zimmerman to the big house, I think we should let them sort through what is fact and what is conjecture. Hell, as awful as Sandusky was in what he did, I didn’t hear anyone screaming for him to be convicted without due process….

One thing that should be noted: of the two people who are involved in this case, only one of them has a history that would suggest criminal or irrational behavior. That would be Zimmerman. He has had several brushes with the law, including assault on an officer, reported domestic violence (which resulted in restraining order request), etc. Trayvon Martin, to the best of my knowledge has no criminal activity on his record. While I never believe the “saint” portrayal of every victim in a case like this (every single one of them was a great person, who fed the poor, got straight A’s, never, ever got in a fight, and kissed small babies), there is nothing besides a recent 5 day school suspension to indicate that Trayvon Martin was someone who was a bad kid. And I read somewhere the suspension was due to truancy, not any sort of violence, although I cannot confirm that.

As to the hoodie. There is no crime in wearing a hoodie. Further, it is not fair that anyone would suggest that it is acceptable to believe that someone wearing a hoodie with the hood up should be considered suspicious. However, I do agree with Geraldo Rivera’s sentiment that we have to protect our children by making them understand that, whether right or wrong, the hoodie does, in fact, cause some people to assume ill will. Is it right? No. Does that matter? No. We have to deal with the reality of the world, regardless of the fact that the world shouldn’t be that way. One thing that the black community must begin to accept though, is that the popular culture that they refuse to denounce is a large factor in the perception of their youth. Gangsta rap videos showing young black men in hoodies and pants below the nut-line isn’t helping to paint a positive image of young men in hoodies. It sucks, just like it sucked for the “greasers” in the 1950’s, but it is the reality that we have to deal with.

Can you imagine the outrage if this woman was white and her sign was directed at black people?

The Stand Your Ground” Law is a fair and just law. I do not believe for a second that it results in a slew of new murders that prove it is a bad law. The number of “justifiable homicides” in Florida tripled from the law’s inception forward, from 32 to 91. However, overall crime has continued to decrease since the law was enacted. And how many of those cases would have resulted in the victims death instead of the attacker? For those who really stop to think about it, would you want the law some other way? Should a potential victim be forced to run in the face of assault if standing your ground is the smarter move? Just as important, if you are attacked, believe your life in danger, and kill your assailant, should you be forced to spend time in jail, go through the experience of losing your job, spend tons of money on legal expenses, all so that two years later, it can be found that you really were just protecting yourself?

It seems to me that the law DOES NOT make proving self defense any easier. It does not make taking someone’s life any more appealing. It does not do anything other than allow the facts to be investigated BEFORE someone’s life is ruined simply because they were the victim of a potential crime. And most important, it does not apply to this case as I understand the facts of this case. That the Sanford PD has failed utterly in doing their job is not some sort of statement on the law, in ANY WAY AT ALL. That is like saying, well, that because the founders flubbed up the enactment of freedom and liberty, that the idea of freedom and liberty is flawed. Perhaps I am starting to understand a few connections to the premise of the arguments on a certain side of the aisle….. but I digress.

Race Baiting is nothing new to the Good Reverend Al

Now on to the hoopla around the case. Some of it is very warranted. Thank goodness someone raised a stink about this because it sure as hell looked like the inept (or corrupt, you decide) Sanford PD was willing to use an improper application of the Stand Your Ground law to allow a man to go free after killing an innocent boy. Therefore, the initial flags that went up were not only warranted, but necessary to somehow get the path to justice started. I do disagree with T-Ray’s statement that it is a local issue that should be handled locally. It stopped being a local issue when the local PD decided to not do their job. Their gross mishandling of a large percentage of this case called for outside intervention. Hopefully when this is all said and done, the Sanford PD will be purged of any inept or corrupt members. Until then, I would advocate the state formally keeping a close eye on how they do business.

As to the amplification of the madness around this case after it has become clear that a deeper investigation is underway, it is as much a travesty as the case itself. When will the race-baiters like Sharpton and Jackson ever stop? They won’t, it is the only way they can remain relevant (much like the NAACP, which should be ignored 99.9% of the time going forward). I have grown weary of the claims made against white America in general. More to the point, I am tired of the truth being ignored simply because it is far easier to fire up people with select cherry picked facts. Want an example? How about this one…

In the United States of America, when someone is killed by someone that they do not know (in other words, killed randomly), the statistics may surprise you. According to the Department of Justice (click link to see data), The percentage of stranger homicides where blacks kill whites is 17.7% and the percentage where whites kill blacks is 4.5%. In other words, when the killer is a stranger, blacks kill whites 4 times more often than whites kill blacks. Further, when blacks are killed by a stranger, it is seven times more likely that they were killed by a black stranger than a white stranger. And this despite the fact that blacks make up only 12.4% of the population. Where is the outrage over these statistics? There isn’t any, because there isn’t anything to be gained by a truth like that being common knowledge, at least not if you are an activist trying to get political action….

And that is why I despise the “movements” that rise up in the aftermath of a tragedy such as what happened to Trayvon Martin. It becomes a politicized and anti-white quagmire, where anyone who “stands their ground” will instantly be labeled a racist (as I am sure at least some will accuse me of being simply for offering the statistics above). This last week has seen school walkouts, rallies in nearly every major city, and a universal call for the arrest of Zimmerman. This despite the fact that had the situation been reversed, those same race-baiters would be holding rallies denouncing the arrest of a black man before the Grand Jury analyzed the facts. The double standard and complete omission of data in the both the reporting and the rally cries is sickening.

And as just a quick aside, do you on the left not find it odd that the only time the President ever has anything to say regarding a local law enforcement issue, it is around a case of potential racial injustice against blacks? I wish we would hear from him just as loudly in the other 4 cases out of 5 where the races are reversed. But we don’t, and that is what allows idiots like Glenn Beck to get away with claiming that Obama is a racist. There comes a time when you have to realize your own culpability in the perception others have of you.What I want is a President who doesn’t make statements meant to stoke the racial fires that are already being stoked so sufficiently by idiots like Al Sharpton.

So I am sure there are plenty of you waiting to start shooting over my bow. Let’s go ahead and get started with that…

Advertisements

Comments

  1. I think the whole story is meant to fuel the racial fires…purposely! Divide and conquer. Otherwise, The Revs Al & Jesse would be outraged at every black on black crime too. But you never hear that. Makes you wonder….

    As to the hoodie issue..from where I sit in Metro Detroit..hoodies are worn, hood up, but just as many whites as blacks. I see middle aged white women out walking every day around here..hoods up!..so I’m not buying the hoodie/black connection.

    • USWeapon says:

      Anita… I don’t see it as a hoodie/black connection as much as I do a hoodie/suspicious behavior connection that is being drawn. And while this connection is patently erroneous, the realities today require that we do what we can to protect our children. My 18 year old son wears hoodies all the time, even in 100 degree weather. Obviously the hoodie is not a valid reason to assume suspicious behavior, but whether it is valid or not won’t help me feel better if something like this happened to my son. Therefore we have to educate our kids on what the perception is…

      • I’m just saying….

        Would a hoodie with the hood up in 100 degree weather be suspicious to me? Probably.
        On a cooler day say 70 degrees? Maybe a little strange that they need the hood, but within reason and not suspicious.
        50 degrees or less? No.

        • One account I read said it was raining, so the hoodie makes sense. I think a lot can be blamed on frustration and stupidity. Zimmerman may have thought the police were doing a poor job and not making it a priority to stop the theft that was going on, so he decided to act more aggressively than simply reporting where it may be the reports were often ignored.

          “Frank Taaffe pointed out the circumstances that he believes led his 28-year-old neighbor to react the way he did on the night of Feb. 26: Eight burglaries within 15 months, most done by young black males, he said.
          “The stage was already set. It was a perfect storm,” Taaffe said.”
          link after Flags post

        • This is true. I have a full length, black leather duster. I love that coat. In all weather, I get suspicious looks, but it varies depending on the weather. In a nasty, cold, winter storm, I get a few looks, but mostly people comment how suited the coat is to the weather and how they wish they had one. In less cold weather, I get a lot of looks, everyone assuming I must be packing because I could easily hide an M60 under that thing, or that I am stealing since I could hide a lot under it easily.

          I do not labor under the illusion that I should not have to deal with the suspicion. I understand it. However, I should never have to fear for my life from a law abiding citizen, nor should I have to fear that, based on my clothing choice, I should have to fear law justifying an attack from a law abiding citizen.

  2. I have grown weary of the claims made against white America in general.

    Why doesn’t this surprise me?

    as I am sure at least some will accuse me of being simply for offering the statistics above).

    The statistics you ignore are what is telling, USW. There are reasons people in poverty are sometimes perpetrators and more likely victims of crime (black on black crimes). Also, what is behind those statistics (what were the specific murders about)? All the rational statistics you offer point away from the case at hand; a black kid wearing a hoodie was whacked for being a black kid wearing a hoodie.

    The uproar was justified and obviously necessary or likely nothing would’ve happened to the shooter and/or the police. You do point this out, but then veer away with statistics that have nothing to do with what Zimmerman said on the tape about the kid.

    The fact opportunists like Sharpton (I agree he is an opportunist) are involved is an ugly aside, but that needs to be ignored IN THIS CASE because of how justified the anger should be. Why you can’t comprehend the anger of the black community for what happened (after the shooting) is what continues to baffle me (about you). I’m sure, among other things, they see it as the state seeking to ignore their plight. The same state that tells them how “free” they are and how appreciative they should be for living in the greatest country in the world, etc.; the same state once that regarded them as chattel, etc.

    Black Panther reward: I don’t agree with it, but if it were my kid who was killed, I’d be donating money to it.

    • You should not be surprised at all Charlie, the claims are very frequent, and are, statistically, unwarranted and ludicrous. Is it a wonder that some grow weary of it? If men like Sharpton really cared about the Affrican-American population, they would but out of serious cases like this so as not to discredit them with their well-established idiocy.

      That said, I generally agree with the rest of your post. The stuff about those in poverty, however, I blame a great deal more on the war on drugs than I do on anything else. From my experience (and based on where I live and the circles I run in as part of the music/entertainment industry, I have a lot of experience), the majority of black initiated crime is related to black market activity, most of it drug related. This is not a presumption of drug use by the black population, in fact that is no higher than the white population. It is the dealing that is predominantly black, at least at the end user level. You can say what you want about this, I am not talking about statistical numbers, I am talking about what the reality on the street in my town actually is. I applaud the capitalist spirit of the black population for finding a means of commerce outside of government regulation. Only problem is, because it is already lawless, many who cross that line also cross other lines of law, having no solid philosophy preventing it. Thus, turf wars and so forht errupt. Its not gang related, it is trading territory related. A removal of the war on drugs should be a no-brainer for anyone who knows anything about prohibition. Unfortunately, history is lost at best and warped at worst for most Americans.

      • Jon, I agree with much of your post. And I’m all for decriminalizing all drugs (if for no other reason, than to raise revenue).

        What many living in poverty face is crime or living in total squalor. I don’t know that I blame them for opting to earn.

        • Not blaming them either, applauding, in fact. I actually am curious as to how the black culture in America would change if we did legalize drugs.

  3. SK Trynosky Sr. says:

    I’ll kick off though I may be in and out today. The facts are all over the map on this one. I think the only things we can agree on are that:

    Zimmy is a jerk,
    Zimmy ignored Police advice on the telephone
    Zimmy violated the tenants of stand your ground
    The cops did a lousy job

    Trayvon was a young black male
    Trayvon wore a hooodie which unfortunately but accurately is considered “tough guy” outerwear in certain areas these days
    Trayvon was out of his own neighborhood visiting friends
    Trayvon was a young black male

    What we do not know:
    Where was Trayvon shot, Front or back?
    Angle of the kill shot
    Powder burns?
    Why did this guy with arrests have a gun or carry permit?
    Was Zimmy wearing any type of uniform?

    While I have been in a lot of scary situations over the years I have rarely felt the need to “carry” mostly, to be honest, because it would be an illegal carry. But I must say in young Trayvon’s defense that if he was in a strange neighborhood at night, being followed by someone he did not know who was not a cop, Trayvon himself, had he clobbered the guy with the cell phone or bag of skittles could probably plead self defense. I don’t know is anyone else out there has ever been stopped by an “undercover” out there because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. It is damned scary and the split second before they identified themselves as cops allowed all sorts of thoughts to run through your head.

  4. USW,

    On the whole, I will have to disagree with you. I do agree Zimmerman was wrong to follow Martin, but where is/was that illegal? Martin objected to being followed, perhaps questioned or even harrassed verbally…. Martin did not respond in a LEGAL manner. Instead of calling the police, his father or others who might have helped, he called his girlfriend. Shortly after that, by all accounts, Martin attacked Zimmerman, breaking his nose in a vicious attack.

    “Sanford PD was willing to use an improper application of the Stand Your Ground law “. Zimmerman may be guilty of something, but I’m not sure what. Not trying to defend him because I do think he was clearly in the wrong, but if/when attacked, he was/is protected by the law as written. Martin, not Zimmerman initiated violence. From that point on Zimmerman was covered by the law. The police will have to prove some malicious intent to prosecute, which will be difficult. This is simply uncharted territory.

    As for Zimmerman being racist, I have read of black friends of his defending him of that charge. It appears to me that he was frustrated by all the break-ins in what was supposed to be a “safe”, gated community. “Where is a cop when you need one?”

    Most of my info from John Lott’s website, with plenty of links……

    Why the shooting in Florida isn’t covered by that state’s “stand your ground” law
    The “Castle Doctrine” or “stand your ground” law doesn’t let you pursue someone and then shooting them. There is a reasonable person test that the victim felt that they were in danger and that it was necessary to fire the gun in self defense. From Fox News:

    Media stories sharing the transcripts of the 911 tapes from the evening of the incident clearly show that Mr. Zimmerman was instructed by authorities to remain in his vehicle and to cease pursuit of Mr. Martin. George Zimmerman seems to have ignored the direction of the authorities and continued his pursuit of Mr. Martin.
    Mr. Zimmerman’s unnecessary pursuit and confrontation of Trayvon Martin elevated the prospect of a violent episode and does not seem to be an act of self-defense as defined by the castle doctrine. There is no protection in the “Stand Your Ground” law for anyone who pursues and confronts people. . . .

    CNN has some edited takes of the 911 calls, but they didn’t have any racist comments being made.

    His parents believe that race was a factor in their son’s death. . . . . Zimmerman’s family made a statement saying, he grew up in a multiracial family and that he was not racist. He has since moved out of the family home after receiving death threats. . . . .

    More is available here.
    Audio of 911 call
    Listen to the audio and tell me if you can tell when George Zimmerman supposedly uses the term “fuckin’ ‘coons.” I have listened a couple of times and I can’t hear it. Even the left wing Daily Kos only says:

    It’s not clear. It’s said in a low voice. But, in the opinion of many who have listened to this publicly available version of a 911 call made shortly before he shot unarmed Trayvon Martin to death last month, George Zimmerman seems to be saying “fuckin’ ‘coons.” . . . We know for certain that the 28-year-old Zimmerman, who has been identified as the “captain” of an unregistered neighborhood watch group in some reports, made other comments in that 911 call that could, in context, be considered racially charged. For example, “These assholes, they always get away.”

    I am not sure how that last quote is racist given that Zimmerman never even volunteered the race of Martin until he was specifically asked about it and that it could have been referring to the criminals that had been breaking into homes that he was obviously upset about.

    Some details about the case from Fox Orlando:

    “The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, ‘Help! Help!’ and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911,” said the witness, who asked to be identified only by his first name, John.
    John said he locked his patio door, ran upstairs and heard at least one gun shot.
    “And then, when I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point.”

    Man shot and killed in neighborhood altercation: MyFoxORLANDO.com

    See more details here. The Examiner has a summary here:

    — The witness reports that George Zimmerman was on the ground and Trayvon is on top of him punching him.
    — The witness says that George Zimmerman was screaming and yelling for help.
    — Police arrive and find Zimmerman bleeding on his face and the back of his head. He also has had grass stains on his back. All this confirms the story told by Zimmerman and the witness.
    — Police play the 911 tape for Trayvon Martin’s father, who tells police that the voice screaming is not the voice of his son.

    A copy of the police report available here confirms some of these points.

    • @LOI… I don’t have time to answer all right now so I will do so in piecemeal.

      Zimmerman was wrong to follow Martin, but where is/was that illegal?

      Is refusing to obey police dispatch illegal? No, but he was clearly in the wrong and looking for trouble.

      Martin objected to being followed, perhaps questioned or even harrassed verbally…. Martin did not respond in a LEGAL manner. Instead of calling the police, his father or others who might have helped, he called his girlfriend.

      Are you really going to make the argument that MARTIN did not respond in a legal manner? He is being followed by a truck through the neighborhood. Did you ever stop to think that maybe HE was afraid of the criminal elements that had been at work in that neighborhood?

      Shortly after that, by all accounts, Martin attacked Zimmerman, breaking his nose in a vicious attack.

      By all accounts? I haven’t seen that version of the story even verified yet once. All we have right now is a bunch of he said/he said…

      but if/when attacked, he was/is protected by the law as written. Martin, not Zimmerman initiated violence. From that point on Zimmerman was covered by the law.

      Zimmerman was in his truck and left the safety of that truck to confront Martin. That he initiated a confrontation eliminates him from protection under this law, unless it can be PROVEN that he made clear his intention to halt the pursuit. More imortant, LOI, is the fact that when there are questions as to what went down, the standard practice is not to “do nothing”. The standard practice is to make the arrest and let the court system sort it out. THAT is what should have happened immediately once the facts were shown to be conflicting in any way.

      • (Is refusing to obey police dispatch illegal? ) 911 dispatcher, not a police officer

        (No, but he was clearly in the wrong and looking for trouble.) Neighborhood watch captain in a gated community with 8 burglaries in the last 14 months. How had the police responded to all his 46-49 calls? How many arrests? You say he was looking for trouble, I say he was looking to prevent trouble. He was trying to create an environment that was not so friendly or forgiving to crime.

        (Are you really going to make the argument that MARTIN did not respond in a legal manner?) Yes, if as it appears, Zimmerman only talked to/at him. I think he did a poor job and that may have been what set Martin off, but Martin seems to have initiated force where there was only words being exchanged. If Zimmerman did not threaten violence, the CRIME rest with a 17 yr old attacking instead of reasoning.

        (The standard practice is to make the arrest and let the court system sort it out.) OK, I agree with that and it might have helped or might not have. Had they arrested him after his release from the hospital and then let him go a day later because there was/is not enough evidence to charge him, would it be any different? People are angry and want someone to blame. They refuse to blame a young man that lost his life. That leaves the guy that shot him, who is a different race. Now the media blitz has lead to the state stepping in and convening a grand jury. May justice prevail and the truth win out.

        • Sorry LOI, you are wrong on this one. Zimmerman pursued. By definition that means he was not protected under a self-defense law, having not had a direct attack on his person or another. He was looking for trouble. Is that illegal? No, but if you use lethal force in that situation? Yes, it is illegal. 911 dispatch and police are not always right, but they are looking out for your safety. If you violate their recommendation and pursue outside of your property then you are not acting in defense. Period.

          Not forgiving to crime is fine, but you do not get to dictate the environment to fit your own terms except on your own property. If the police think you are out of line or are crying wolf, then you may well be, especially if you are not on your property or hired to a specific job protecting a certain piece of property. I am not saying there should not be neighborhood watch people, I am saying they don’t get to use lethal force whenever they want. If they are attacked? Yes. If they follow recommended precedure and still feel threatened? Sure. When they start chasing people around because they want to have a no-tolerance neighborhood? No, thats BS. Lethal force is not allowed.

          Martin did not follow police channels, that does not mean he did not respond in a legal manner. He is not required by law to call the police. I probably would not either in his situation. He is not required to respond to some guy yelling at him either. Zimmerman had no legal authority. Martin was unarmed and felt threatened. I might have beat the crap out of zimmerman too in self-defense. Also, speaking of self-defense. If you cannot handle a single unarmed 17-year-old without using a gun, you shouldnt be on neighborhood watch, or at least you should not be pursuing anyone. Zimmerman should have either been able to handle himself with equal armament or he should have stayed in his damn truck.

          • Jon,

            (Sorry LOI, you are wrong on this one. Zimmerman pursued.) Could be, but then you also might be mistaken. Kinda ruling before the jury and facts are all weighed in…..If Zimmerman pursued to have a conversation, that IS legal and indefensible. Martin was free to respond with any words or silence that he felt was needed. If Zimmerman offered no threat, Martin had no legal right to initiate violence.

            He is not required by law to call the police.(agree)
            I probably would not either in his situation.(why not?, puts you on the right side of the legal argument)
            He is not required to respond to some guy yelling at him either.(agree)
            Zimmerman had no legal authority. (agree, but he did/does have a legal right ta ask anyone in public who they are, what planet they are from or anything else, doesn’t mean they will answer)
            Martin was unarmed and felt threatened.(unarmed, yes…felt threatened, any proof? are you reading his mind? Maybe he felt pissed off, we can’t know what he felt or thought, we can only judge based on his actions)

            I might have beat the crap out of zimmerman too in self-defense. (why? why not use words to respond to non-threatening words? And would you have also got on top of him after knocking him to the ground, cutting off any escape route?)
            Also, speaking of self-defense. If you cannot handle a single unarmed 17-year-old without using a gun, you shouldnt be on neighborhood watch, or at least you should not be pursuing anyone. Zimmerman should have either been able to handle himself with equal armament or he should have stayed in his damn truck. (In no way am I defending his actions or judgement, all I am saying is from what I have read, it appears to be legal, and that Martin, like many 17 yr old’s, exercised poor judgment, and was the only one to break the law, as written)

            • and was the only one to break the law, as written

              You can’t support that with the evidence on record. If – IF – Trayvon felt threatened, then he was perfectly within his right to defend himself.

              You, yourself, acknowledge that “we can’t know what he felt or thought, we can only judge based on his actions,” and I agree. So you can’t know that his actions weren’t self-defense either. I have seen no credible eye witness accounts of exactly what exactly what happened in that crucial interaction. You don’t know if Zimmerman grabbed Trayvon, or if he pulled the gun on him, or if he threatened him – you just don’t know. And neither do I.

              Therefore, you cannot reach the conclusion that either of them “broke the law” – only that Zimmerman’s poor judgment and overzealousness led to this situation and that he, ultimately, bears responsibility (morally, if not legally)

            • No, It does not matter why Zimmerman pursued. He did so after being instructed not to for his own safety. IF he makes a self defense argument, it must be taken into consideration that he put himself into that dangerous position. I don’t care if he claims to have pursued him to invite him to a game of pinochle, he obviously perceived a threat, or he would not have called it in, then pursued the threat despite being warned otherwise. I believe that he takes his life in his own hands at that point. That may not be the legal position, but I believe it is the proper philosophical position when determining justifiable homicide or self-defense.

              You are correct, I should not have said Martin felt threatened. However, IF he did, he would have had a right to defend himself. In the face of an assailant with a gun, running is a bad idea, part of the reason that the stand your ground law was made. He would, in that case, have the right to initiate violence. Self defense does not just apply to use of a gun or gun owners. Self-defense is self-defense. And yes, I would have gotten on top of him and cut off his escape or whatever I had to do to get the gun from him. Then I would have disabled it and called the police or left the scene, depending on whether I trusted the police. Based on the handling of this case, a call to the police would might not have been the way to go.

              I would not bother to be on the “right side of the legal argument” because there should never have been a legal argument to start with. He is walking down the street to the place he is staying. Why should there be a damned legal argument? Why would I involve the police? What is this, the USSR where I can get asked for my papers at anytime and stopped for being out past curfew? Besides, as I said above, if it was known to me how the police were, I might not have bothered calling them, might have even avoided it on purpose.

              What proof do you have that non-threatening words were used? What proof do you have that Martin broke any laws? I have seen no evidence proving that he broke a law at all, only conjecture and theory.

    • “As for Zimmerman being racist, I have read of black friends of his defending him of that charge.”

      http://news.yahoo.com/black-friend-defends-shooter-florida-teen-192619898.html

      • Yep, he is being tried and convicted by the media. It bleeds, it leads! Watch our ratings climb while we ruin this man and drive this community mad with bloodlust.

      • If he used the term f’n coon, there is at least some amount of racism present, no matter what his friends may say.

        • Some are saying the word was “goon” -I haven’t been able to tell from the recording what he said.

          • VH,
            How is “goon” that much different than “coon”?

            Do you consider “goon” to be term of affection?

            • No, I don’t think it has anything to do with affection-I read that part of the article too and it was beyond stupid to claim it was a term of affection but he was trying to support his friend-but I do think it has more to do with thinking someone is a thug/criminal. Now why he thought he was a thug or criminal might make the distinction moot or it may not-but declaring the word was “coon” has it’s own prejudicial connotation.

            • Actually, yes! For Florida it is a term of affection!
              Urban Dictionary
              gOOn
              The coolest most badass group of kids in tampa

      • It’s perfectly acceptable to have Black friends (who will defend you) and still be a racist against other Blacks.

        You meet your friends thru other friends, neighbors, work, church – whatever. You get to know them and see they’re decent people.

        However, there are also the “hoodie wearing guys who have committed 8 burglaries within 15 months, most done by young black males.” *

        It’s a complicated issue, and the term racism makes it worse.
        I prefer discrimination, because it can happen between and within any race.

        This is my hypothetical take on Zimmerman:
        * he doesn’t hate all blacks.
        * he just doesn’t like the problems that are happening in his neighborhood.
        * but most of those problems (by his reckoning) are caused by young blacks.
        * they all seem to be wearing hoodies.
        * as a police-wanna be, I should be able to catch them.
        * why haven’t I been able to catch them?
        * then he did catch one (he helped solve/stop some crime).
        * see, I am a good cop – I need to redouble my efforts.
        * call the police 56 times in one year to report…neighbor’s garage doors open…lights left on…and a few ‘unsavory’ black men…
        * why haven’t I caught more of them?
        * why do the police ignore all my phone calls?
        * there’s a kid in a hoodie.
        * probably up to no good.
        * and the cops will probably just ignore me – again…

        A dislike for criminals just slides-down-the-slippery-slope to a dislike for young black males.

        And this entire little story would/could be just as true if Zimmerman were Black…

        * Just as an aside – how does he know most were done by young black males? Have they been caught? I which case the crimes are solved. If not, how does he know most were done by young black males?

    • Shortly after that, by all accounts, Martin attacked Zimmerman, breaking his nose in a vicious attack.

      How does one respond to this?

      One doesn’t. Talk about emotional pleading.

      A kid gets followed by a wannabe who is TOLD by the police to back off … the kid calls his girlfriend instead of his father, et al and that makes him somehow responsible for what happens next?

      Life if Illusion … you ain’t kidding, brother.

    • LOI,
      This is all I have to read of your post…

      On the whole, I will have to disagree with you. I do agree Zimmerman was wrong to follow Martin, but where is/was that illegal? Martin objected to being followed, perhaps questioned or even harrassed verbally…. Martin did not respond in a LEGAL manner. Instead of calling the police, his father or others who might have helped, he called his girlfriend. Shortly after that, by all accounts, Martin attacked Zimmerman, breaking his nose in a vicious attack.

      …to know you’re not interested in the truth.

      USWeapon accused me of jumping to conclusions without all the facts.

      Well, you’re jumping to conclusions by making up facts.

      Your post is complete bullshit.

      But it’s the only way you can continue to justify the lie you live within.

      • Todd,

        Harsh words, hope you remember them. I am above all else here, interested in the truth. If my facts are made up I have provided links where the made-up information came from, which seems to me to be a couple notches above what you have offered including the insults. So when the grand jury and the facts of this case come out, if I and the sources of information I have shared turn out to be in error, I will humbly apologize to all. Makes me wonder though, what offends you so about me expressing my opinion?

        (But it’s the only way you can continue to justify the lie you live within.) A judge and jury all in one Todd? Glad you don’t have execution powers along with those….

        • Ah, poor LOI, you’ve been exposed and now you’re the ‘victim’, huh?

          And you’re gonna act like the ‘elder-statesman’ and stay above the fray, huh?

          Just more of your never-ending bullshit LOI. You’re only the victim of your own actions.

          PS – Your entire post is an insult.

          • ::blows whistle, throws penalty flag::

            Sorry, Todd. While I happen to agree with your opinions, the Supreme Law of SUFA is civility.

            5 minutes in the penalty box.

            ::Shoots a warning look at LOI::

            Play nice, everybody, this isn’t Red State.

            • Was that the movie where the whackjob religious fanatics kidnap the kids? Scary.

              Hopefully this will ighten it up some. From my Sunday facebook post: Sunday with Momma Stella:

              MS: What’s this Betow, Ebtow, Betow, whatever it is?
              Me: Tebow, ma.
              MS: Ebow?
              Me: Tebow.
              MS: Tebow? What’s that about?
              Me: The Jets got him as a backup quarterback.
              MS: Yeah? So? What happens now?
              Me: Chaos.
              MS: What?
              Me: Everything gets fucked up.
              MS: Yeah? I don’t like them anyway, the Jets.
              Me: They’re idiots.
              MS: Yeah. And watch your mouth.

            • I reject your authority!! 😉

    • Ok LOI,
      Here’s some thoughts:

      I do agree Zimmerman was wrong to follow Martin, but where is/was that illegal?

      It’s not illegal. But Zimmerman started this confrontation for no valid reason.

      Martin did not respond in a LEGAL manner.

      Bull. What is the LEGAL manner? Is there something Martin must do to deserve his freedom?

      Instead of calling the police, his father or others who might have helped, he called his girlfriend.

      Wrong. He was on the phone with hhis girlfriend before this started.

      Shortly after that, by all accounts, Martin attacked Zimmerman, breaking his nose in a vicious attack.

      Wrong. By ZIMMERMAN’s account Martin attacked him. This is disputed by the girlfriends account who heard the start of the encounter. I have seen no other account of the start of the encounter.

      Martin, not Zimmerman initiated violence.

      Where’s your evidence of this?

      As for Zimmerman being racist, I have read of black friends of his defending him of that charge.

      I already addressed this. It means nothing.

      It appears to me that he was frustrated by all the break-ins in what was supposed to be a “safe”, gated community. “Where is a cop when you need one?”

      Which indicates his bias when he spots Martin.

      CNN has some edited takes of the 911 calls, but they didn’t have any racist comments being made… Listen to the audio and tell me if you can tell when George Zimmerman supposedly uses the term “fuckin’ ‘coons.” I have listened a couple of times and I can’t hear it.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/16/trayvon-martin-911-audio-_n_1354909.html?1331949268

      First 911 Call
      * Trayvon is coming at him
      * at 1:35 – “These assholes, they always get away.”
      * at 2:05 – shit he’s running
      * at 2:22:

      Zimmerman: fucking coons (it’s muttered under his breath – listen carefully)
      Operator: Are you following him?
      Zimmerman: Yes
      Operator: Ok, we don’t need you to do that
      Zimmerman: Ok

      Police play the 911 tape for Trayvon Martin’s father, who tells police that the voice screaming is not the voice of his son.

      Not until weeks after the killing.

  5. First degree murder does not mean “planning”, though that is one aspect that can justify First Degree Murder.

    Premeditated is the defining level, which means:

    He brought a gun, with the forethought intention (premeditation) of using it -or else he would not have brought a gun.
    Then, the review is on how he used the gun he intended to use – self defense or not.

    It was not self defense (this is where the arguments in court will be made), hence it was intentional aggressive use of a weapon that was fatal = 1st degree murder. (It will probably be pleaded down to manslaughter).

    • He brought a gun or he carries a gun? He was the neighborhood watch captain, intent on reporting crime, insuring the safety of his community. He may have felt at risk, hence the gun. Bottom line, who initiated violence?

      http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/21/10791755-neighbor-comes-to-defense-of-trayvon-martins-shooter?ocid=ansmsnbc11

      • LOI

        He brought a gun or he carries a gun? He was the neighborhood watch captain, intent on reporting crime, insuring the safety of his community. He may have felt at risk, hence the gun.

        1. There did not exist – a priori – a risk.
        None existed except in his mind.
        There were no screams for help.
        There was no crime in progress.

        He brought the gun out of his house into a area where there was no crime or threat.

        Bottom line, who initiated violence? http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/21/10791755-neighbor-comes-to-defense-of-trayvon-martins-shooter?ocid=ansmsnbc11

        He did, without a doubt.

        The kid was walking, and he interfered. This is undisputed.

        • It is not undisputed. I dispute you version of the events. He had a permit and was therefore legally able to carry. I have a permit and carry. if I am attacked, does defending myself become Premeditated?

          “He brought the gun out of his house into a area where there was no crime or threat.”
          Eight burglaries within 15 months, most done by young black males

          “There were no screams for help.”
          Zimmerman was heard screaming for help while laying on the ground with Martin above him, beating him.

          “There was no crime in progress.”
          Was it a crime for Zimmerman to follow Martin and to ask him what he was doing? Martin chose to answer with violence, not words. Had a police officer asked the same question, would that have been any more right or wrong? In a gated community with an ongoing burglary problem, simply asking a neighbor you don’t know who they are is cause for attack? If I were to follow you and ask you questions, would you respond the same way?

          From the first reports I heard, I thought Zimmerman was guilty and should have been arrested on the spot, but first and many reports leave out Martin attacking. Zimmerman may be an idiot with good or bad intentions, but he broke no law that I can see which explains why he was not arrested for over a month.

          • if I am attacked, does defending myself become Premeditated?

            I’m trying to picture this one, LOI … you follow somebody for no good reason in the world (unless you accept a black kid wearing a hoodie is reason enough) and the kid takes off running and you continue to follow … and somehow wind up in a fight (which looks like Mr. Z wasn’t very good at that) and you shoot the kid you were following somehow equates to you “defending yourself”?

      • The pursuer would be perceived as initiating violence. In this case, there was no justification for pursuit other than to threaten or initiate violence. So Zimmerman initiated.

        • Well said.. Reminds me of a relevant point: If you are in a road rage incident and leave your car to go yell at the other person, even without physical contact, it is considered assault and may be met with self-defensive measures.

          This happened, if I recall, after someone got out to scream at some one else. The one still in the car maced the guy who then sued her for assault. She counter-sued and won.

          Upshot, if leaving your car to confront another drive is assault, then leaving your car to stalk and confront a kid should also be considered assault, at least for purposes of justifying self-defense on behalf of Trayvon Martin. That said, I see nothing about the grass stains or injuries Zimmerman sustained that I would consider exculpatory in this light.

          Disclaimer: Again, I don’t have all the facts, so I can only speculate based on the available evidence. It may be that Zimmerman apologized for his mistake and was leaving when Trayvon attacked him – I doubt it – but I have have no evidence either way.

          • Reminds me of an incident on Third Avenue in Manhattan 20 or so years ago. I was with wife #2 and was cut off twice by the same driver. I managed to get ahead of him and stopped and got out of the car (my road rage), then he got out and quickly identified himself as a cop. “Back off, I’m a cop.” He showed me his badge and I bit my tongue, got back in my car and cursed the next several minutes. Simple math: a guy has a license to kill/arrest, you walk the other way.

            Zimmerman had a licensed gun and no reason in the world to follow that kid after being told not to by the POLICE. What he did was instigate a potential confrontation that turned into manslaughter. What was behind his pursuit I think we can all figure out from the tapes, but whether Zimmerman got his ass kicked or not before he shot the kid (and no matter who threw the first punch at that point), he’s the one who instigated the entire set of events.

            • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

              Heavens! You too had such an adventure with New York’s finest! 90% of them are outstanding beyond belief. The other 10%, there just are no words. None.

              • SK, I’ve had more than a few adventures … and you’re close on the stats (at least in my case). I’d say it’s closer to 75-25 … 🙂

                An Irish Lt. once made me spend the night in lockup instead of giving me a desk ticket because he didn’t like my look (I could see it in his eyes …:) … but another cop was pretty cool on the ride down to Central Booking. He knew I wasn’t going to say anything so he joked: “Blink once if I’m close to getting this right.” I had to hand it to him. Pretty good.

  6. 🙂

  7. 8)
    Keep forgetting to set notify

  8. On March 4th, in Kansas City, two black kids attacked and set a white boy on fire – allegedly for “being white”.

    Where is the filthy media on this one?

    Where is the public outrage?

    Why no marching by Al and Jesse?

    http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-03-04/news/31122324_1_white-boy-fire-tv-station

    • You forgot Charlie and Todd! And why are they not fuming every time a black kills a black. Happens every day in Detroit.

      ….I can’t believe I agree with Ray 😉 …..

      • Anita, love my. I only fume when my beloved new york state buffalo bills do something stupid (like pay a QB with a windup motion suggesting there are no runners on base) $60 million big ones … I argue black disadvantages in America when they are self evident and especially when someone makes a statement like (Paraphrasing t-ray, i believe) : 1) he was wearing a hoodie in a white neighborhood …

        I have no use for Al Sharpton. I too believe he’s a scamster who’s been given some legitimacy by MSNBC (I also remember Chris Matthews one time (on the air) saying: “Why are we covering what this guy has to say? Tawana Brawley …” And now their on-air best friends …

        I think the debate here stems from the immediate taking sides (the libtards like myself and Todd for the black kid) and others for defense of a law that we think clearly puts minorities at risk of being whacked from fear of dopes. A dope law, if you will. A shoot first and listen to what I have to say later law (since the guy who is dead can’t speak for him/herself).

        To call it race baiting is a typical SUFA response to anything that goes against many of its members most sensitive areas (I wonder why).

        I’d most certainly be fuming if I were a black person.

        As to the black kids who killed a white because he was white, hopefully they were brought to justice the way Zimmerman should be. I don’t think a death penalty is called for in any hate crime (but only because I’ll suggest that actually doing the time is worse than getting whacked).

    • When a minority attacks the majority, it’s not a hate crime, it’s social justice. Didn’t you get that memo from Holder?

  9. I work in downtown Kennett Square, PA (“KSQ”) – the so-called Mushroom Capital of the world (certainly smells the part). The area is home to high concentrations of immigrant workers and their families (and, shockingly, large numbers of illegals). The area is also home to some very violent latino/mexican gangs. After dark, KSQ becomes a very dangerous place. As a technology worker I often have to do work late at night. And I have to park about 5 minutes walking distance from my building.

    Do I view young males with droopy pants and hoodies and hats pulled down low over their eyes (those traits together or individually) as suspicious if I see them on or near my path as suspicious?

    YOU’RE GODDAMN RIGHT I DO.

    Just as they may see me – white dude, khakis, button down shirt….. getting out of decent car – dude probably has money……

    Take KSQ at night out of the picture…..

    Insert same kid same clothes anywhere else – I will still initially assess them as a risk.

    I don’t ever see surveillance video of people robbing gas stations wearing polo shirts tucked into a clean pair of levis with a nice shiny leather belt and laced up and tied sneakers.

    They wear hoodies……their pants are falling down……

    My own safety depends on me making an initial assessment of you – the clothes you are wearing are a factor (not the only one) that I calculate into that.

    It is not racism – my “profiling” gives me no power over those I am profiling to determine if I cross the street or continue on a path that puts me closer to you.

    • EXCEPT, Ray, Zimmerman was in a car and was clearly NOT in harms way (shit, man, he had the friggin’ gun). And he called the police and they TOLD him to back off. He didn’t. So, his initial profiling compelled him to create a situation he had no business getting involved in.

      I would think you might have called it in (as any of us might’ve done if we were so suspicious of the profile) and then let the police take over (as was their instructions). He didn’t. He wound up killing a kid carrying skittles and an Iced tea.

    • Ray, not often I get to agree with you but thanks for clearly supporting what I was trying to say last night. Law enforcement always warns people to be aware of their surroundings and the people around you. I too would watch the guy in the hoodie much more than the guy in the polo shirt. The trigger here is why is the person hiding his face from the sides especially as I said last night if the weather does not warrant wearing head gear. This has nothing to do with the color of his hide or to be PC his/her hide.

      Part of my bias is that growing up in the Illinois prairie, every coat Mom bought for me had a hood, which I detested since it blocked my peripheral vision. Mostly I left it down or if it had a zipper, took it off. Only when the weather was severely negative with significant wind, did I use it. In 20 years of living in CA, I have yet to live through a day that would require any kind of head gear below 2000 ft (with exception of rain). In fact it is a rare day that I even zip up my light jacket. Now I may be more insensitive to cold than most natives since I have experienced real cold and most here have not.

      Any, being cautious and observant is a far cry from pulling a gun on anyone. And I certainly would not look for trouble by stalking them.

  10. US Weapon:

    As to the hoodie. There is no crime in wearing a hoodie. Further, it is not fair that anyone would suggest that it is acceptable to believe that someone wearing a hoodie with the hood up should be considered suspicious. However, I do agree with Geraldo Rivera’s sentiment that we have to protect our children by making them understand that, whether right or wrong, the hoodie does, in fact, cause some people to assume ill will. Is it right? No. Does that matter? No. We have to deal with the reality of the world, regardless of the fact that the world shouldn’t be that way.

    In my opinion, this is an excellent interpretation.

    I discussed this a little while back with some friends and I made the following point: If an attractive woman in a short skirt is walking alone at night in an area of town known to be prone to rape, and is then raped, it is NOT her fault. It is still 100% the fault of the rapist, who is the only one doing something wrong. However, in the real world, she was not doing herself any favors, and could reasonably be said to have exercised poor judgment. That said, a hoodie, while in-and-of-itself nothing wrong is seen as “suspicious” by many. To that end, if you are shot because someone saw your hoodie as suspicious, it is NOT your fault.. but you’re not doing yourself any favors.

    My friend referred to this as, God I love this phrase: suicide by paranoid racist.

    I would also be interested in knowing the rest of his outfit. Though, again, his clothes do not, themselves, make it ok to shoot him, there is (in my opinion) a difference between a runner-hoodie or preppy-hoodie look and a ghetto-hoodie look. Throw in some saggy pants, those ridiculously oversized sneakers, and maybe some bling, and now you have a suspicious looking person, regardless of skin color. I don’t really know how to make this clearer, but if you dress like a thug, it shouldn’t be offensive that people will think you’re a thug. I think Chapelle had something to say about this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K1KHqi9bXc&feature=player_detailpage#t=45s

    ———————————

    All that said, I also think Zimmerman should go to jail. Not for murder, as I don’t see support for that position, but certainly for manslaughter unless more evidence comes to light, criminal negligence at the very least. As I heard it, he was legally licensed to carry outside the home (contrary to USW’s findings), and I listened to the video, and it does seem that Trayvon confronted Zimmerman first (“Why are you following me?” – a perfectly reasonable question) followed by Zimmerman (“What are you doing here?” – none of his f***ing business). So, while of course, the million dollar question is “who initiated physical contact,” the blame really lies with the guy who initiated the dangerous situation – that is, stalking a complete stranger for no good reason while disregarding police requests to stop.

    ———————————

    A final thought: The percentage of stranger homicides where blacks kill whites is 17.7% and the percentage where whites kill blacks is 4.5%. In other words, when the killer is a stranger, blacks kill whites 4 times more often than whites kill blacks.

    Given the situation around this case, given what we have seen with the police in this case, is it possible, just possible, that these statistics are incorrect? You see, the host set is “of stranger homicides” – had attention not been called to this, it almost certainly would not have ever been considered a homicide. As such, it would not be in your data set. See where I’m going with this? This may be sampling error. If whites are far more likely to be found innocent (biased court system, prosecuted more vigorously, jury bias, superior lawyers), if murders of black individuals are far less likely to be pursued as aggressively (biased police investigations), etc etc, is it possible that the statistic is wildly skewed?

    I would suspect that black on white violence secures a much higher conviction rate than white on black. I would suspect that, especially in certain parts of the country (*cough* deep south *cough*), black on white violence is investigated far more aggressively than white on black violence. I’m not saying this is necessarily the case, but do you consider it at least plausible?

    • @ Mathius

      Given the situation around this case, given what we have seen with the police in this case, is it possible, just possible, that these statistics are incorrect? You see, the host set is “of stranger homicides” – had attention not been called to this, it almost certainly would not have ever been considered a homicide. As such, it would not be in your data set. See where I’m going with this? This may be sampling error. If whites are far more likely to be found innocent (biased court system, prosecuted more vigorously, jury bias, superior lawyers), if murders of black individuals are far less likely to be pursued as aggressively (biased police investigations), etc etc, is it possible that the statistic is wildly skewed?

      I would suspect that black on white violence secures a much higher conviction rate than white on black. I would suspect that, especially in certain parts of the country (*cough* deep south *cough*), black on white violence is investigated far more aggressively than white on black violence. I’m not saying this is necessarily the case, but do you consider it at least plausible?

      The short answer is yes, I do consider this plausible. I would imagine that there are a lot of factors that could get in the way of the data presented being as clear cut as it appears. The numbers are from the DOJ, which is why I was willing to accept them up front. However, as with any set of statistics, they are only as good as the data used to create them. I think that, regardless of your concerns here, we have some clear evidence that the misconception among the rally signholders that there is a war of white people killing black people is not supported by fact. Are there other factors out there? I would imagine so. I do not think that the issues you propose, if completely reconciled, would have a dramatic impact on the statistics. Perhaps we would see a 3:1 ratio rather than a 4:1 ratio. But I do consider it plausible that this data could be completely showing a flawed conclusion

      • The percentage of stranger homicides where blacks kill whites is 17.7% and the percentage where whites kill blacks is 4.5%. In other words, when the killer is a stranger, blacks kill whites 4 times more often than whites kill blacks.

        I was mulling this over and just had a thought. Blacks are 12.4% of the population. Interesting. Interesting.

        I looked at your raw data (that’s for posting that, by the way!).

        Black-on-anyone homicides numbered 1,084 in 2005. Of those, 786 had white victims. Which is 34.87% of all B-on-anyone murders.
        Conversely, White-on-anyone homicides numbered 1,032. Of those 90 had black victims. Which is 8.72% of all W-on-anyone murders.
        This fits almost perfectly with your 4x conclusion.

        Buuut…

        If I am black and I am going to murder a stranger (color blind), then 87.6% of the time, I should kill a white person.

        That’s not what’s happening.

        Colorblind, Black-on-white should account for 950 (=1084*87.6%) murders. The number was roughly 40% of that.
        Colorblind, White-on-black should account for 128 (=1032*12.4%) murders. The number was roughly 70% of that.

        In other words, there is a statistical bias, RESPECTIVE OF THE SIZE OF THE POPULATIONS, that a white person is 30% more likely to kill a black person. So, if I just fire a shot, I’m much more likely to hit a white person, just because there are more white people to hit. When you consider the fact that whites account for 35% of the victims of blacks, it’s actually lower than the converse since there are so few black people to hit. Both races have a bias in favor of victimizing their own races, but it’s not huge amongst whites like it is amongst blacks.

        Put another way, if there were a total of 1032 victims of white murders, and 933 of them were white, then the incidence of w-on-w is 90.41% – that’s not terribly far from the 87.6% of the population which is white to begin with. In other words, white murders skew toward white victims, but only by a few points. It’s pretty much a random / colorblind distribution.

        For blacks, on the other hand, 63.56% (=378/1084) is for b-on-b. That’s 5x the 12.4% you should get from a random distribution. So blacks shy tremendously away from killing whites. This is decidedly NOT a random distribution.

        Does this make sense or am I talking myself in circles?

        • Didn’t make any sense to me. the variances could just as easily had to do with factors other than race in any case. More likely, it is not a matter, for blacks, of shying away from killing whites. It is more likely a matter of direct dispute, which is most easily explained by territorial issues. Whites do not run into that particular issue as much, since they are not as often the street level dealers.

          Plus you did really seem to be talking yourself in circles, or maybe I just couldnt follow….

          • Allow me to try again, then. Considerate of the size of the respective populations, a white person is more likely to shoot a black person than the other way around. It only seems the other was because there are SO MANY white people.

            USW’s conclusion that a black man is 4x as likely to kill whites than the other way around ignores the demographic factors and treats blacks and whites as if they were equally represented in the population.

            The REAL QUESTION should be this: Why do blacks, with 12% of the population, have a number of murders on par with whites’ 80-something percent? That, my friend, is a far more interesting question. But with regards to WHO they tend to murder, it seems to me that blacks strongly favor (for whatever reason) black victims while whites only very mildly favor white victims.

        • USWeapon says:

          I think it does make sense, but I don’t have the time to really think hard enough to ensure that you haven’t talked yourself in circles 🙂

          I promise that I will though! If you are spot on with your analysis I think you have a very valid point.

          • I botched my math somewhere… I don’t have time right now to look at it, but hopefully you will have similar conclusions. Let me know – I’m pretty interested in how this will turn out.

            • I think see what I did.. I flipped my B-on-B and B-on-W numbers in my explanations, but not in the math behind it. So, I think, my percentages will be right, but make the following changes:

              “Black-on-anyone homicides numbered 1,084 in 2005. Of those, 786 378 had white victims. Which is 34.87% of all B-on-anyone murders.”

              -and-

              “For blacks, on the other hand, 63.56% (=378 786/1084) is for b-on-b. That’s 5x the 12.4% you should get from a random distribution. So blacks shy tremendously away from killing whites. This is decidedly NOT a random distribution.”

              That should fix it. Let me know.

              Matt

              • If you are going to be that thorough, you should also consider the general distribution of the population. I believe that black people, in general, tend to live in urban areas that are primarily black. By the same token, white people generally live in suburbs, which are mostly white.

                Seems to me that drawing any meaningful conclusions from these numbers would be difficult. It is interesting, though, how you can twist and turn the numbers to say just about whatever you want…

              • JB-

                EXCELLENT POINT.

                I have no idea how to go about breaking this out, but maybe I can take a sample city like DC with a huge isolated black population and wherever G-man lives where there are no minorities allowed, then compare the two?

                As for twisting the numbers, well, I work in a hedge fund – twisting numbers around is basically what I do for a living. It’s not about making the numbers say what you want, necessarily, but there are a billion different ways to slice and dice data and it’s never as cut and dry as people seem to want to think. We could duke it out over the assumptions (you’re a scientist, right? You know all about this stuff), but suffice it to say that the waters are far murkier than they appear at first glance.

              • One great example is the statistic that says if you do X, then you are more likely to die prematurely than a person who does not do X. The thing is, people who do X are also more likely to do Y and Z than people who do not do X.

                For example: Claim: eating red meat makes you more likely to die of heart disease (or something). The only problem with this is that people who eat red meat are also more likely to drink copious amounts of beer, smoke (or be near someone who does), drive a pickup truck, use a chainsaw, etc. Who’s to say that these other things do affect the statistics? You can’t possibly extract meaning from statistics like this.

                The murder stat is very complicated. Like Charlie says, black people may be more likely than white people to be suffering from economic hardships, have easier access to drugs and weapons, attend poor or failing schools, have a relative who is incarcerated, etc. These factors play a large role in the murder statistics, I’m sure. It has nothing to do with their race.

    • (Trayvon confronted Zimmerman first (“Why are you following me?” – a perfectly reasonable question) Yes, and legal

      (followed by Zimmerman (“What are you doing here?”) Legal again( – none of his f***ing business)rude, but legal

      Martin appears to have been the one who broke the law and attacked Zimmerman. Martin had legal options open to him, but chose illegal violence instead. Both made poor choices, but who’s were the illegal vs it ought to be illegal to be that stupid?

      • As I said, “so, while of course, the million dollar question is “who initiated physical contact,” the blame really lies with the guy who initiated the dangerous situation – that is, stalking a complete stranger for no good reason while disregarding police requests to stop.”

        Yes, technically Trayvon is responsible (assuming you’re correct, that he initiated violence – I have no special knowledge with this and thought it was still undetermined), but I still blame the person who created the bad situation.

        That is, if I “get in your face” and start insulting you and your mother, for example, and you wind up punching me. Yes, you initiated violence so legally, technically, you are at fault. Yes… but who is really “to blame”? Yes, you reacted badly, but I think the point is that you were RE-acting. You were RE-sponding to my actions. Same with Trayvon, whether he was or was not the initiator of violence and whether he felt he was just defending himself from a perceived threat (a dangerous, armed, possibly racist stalker – a perfectly reasonable justification for first-strike violence), it may be that Travon RE-acted badly and is “responsible” in a technical sense. Maybe. But who created the dangerous situation?

        • Matt, you and I may both “blame” Zimmerman, but that does not mean he broke any law or can be legally punished. 1st amendment rights allow you to be an A1 @sshole. I think he was wrong, but broke no law. It only takes one to make a fatal mistake, here we had two do so. Add to that , he was most likely a “troubled teen”, had been with his mother, moved in with his father and his girlfriend, suspended for five days, could be he had been drifting toward gangs and such….

          March 25, 2012
          Cause of Death: No Father
          By Michael S. Iachetta

          Most children born to American women under thirty are now born out of wedlock, even though studies show that their children are more likely to experience poverty and other negative consequences as a result. Studies also indicate that children raised in non-traditional homes are more likely to commit crimes and suffer abuse than children raised in traditional homes. A series of incidents over the last few weeks illustrate this sad fact, and suggest that such children may also be more vulnerable to violence outside the home.

          Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/cause_of_death_no_father.html#ixzz1qEp6nzR7

          • Matt, you and I may both “blame” Zimmerman, but that does not mean he broke any law or can be legally punished. Agreed.

            1st amendment rights allow you to be an A1 @sshole. Agreed.

            I think he was wrong, but broke no law. Agreed.

            could be he had been drifting toward gangs and such…. Maybe.. who knows? Not me.

            Simple facts: kid walking home, minding his business, older man packing heat starts following him around, verbal exchange, ::unknown::, kid is dead. Maybe the kid did something wrong in that unknown (as-yet-undetermined) section. Maybe he didn’t. But I blame the person who created the situation and, clearly, handled it poorly.

            Blame does not necessarily translate into jail time (nor should it), but it certainly seems that this guy recklessly created a dangerous situation which resulted in a kid’s death. Maybe even manslaughter is too much given the evidence at hand. Would you meet me in the middle at reckless endangerment and/or criminal negligence? Obviously, this is pending more information.

            • Would you meet me in the middle at reckless endangerment and/or criminal negligence?

              Not unless you want riots (justifiable one). The result was a death. Manslaughter it HAS to be.

            • (Would you meet me in the middle at reckless endangerment and/or criminal negligence? Obviously, this is pending more information.)

              Pending more information, YES, I would! I am very unhappy with what happened here, the death of a young man at the hands of a CCW permit holder who acted rashly.

        • This question comes down to -should we have neighborhood watch-what are they legally allowed to do-heck, what is just a citizen allowed to do-if they see someone they think is suspicious ?

          And the Who are you question-that to my mind was a big mistake-how about you identify yourself and explain why you were following him.

          • VH, so long as there are laws like stand your ground, I think the community watch thing (where they are permitted to bring guns and ignore the police) is a powder keg. We all get defensive in our own little worlds (whether it’s a block or neighborhood). I supposed it might be worse in gaited communities. If there was some way to legislate ignoring police as a crime (for the watchers), I think it would help alleviate the insanity that is the stand your ground law. It is a terrible law.

            • USWeapon says:

              @Chaz…

              You have made it clear that you don’t like the Stand your gorund law. So a ask you, based on what I wrote in the article above, how do you justify the opposite happening? The stand your ground law DOES NOT make it any easier to prove self defense. It merely ensures that if it was self defense, your life isn’t ruined while you go about proving so.

              In otherwords, we have two options available: We can have people who legitimately kill in self defense have their lives ruined (job loss, incarceration, legal bills, alienation) while they go through the process of proving so, OR we can have this law which gives them the chance to prove their claim, potentially delaying justice if they were not justified in their actions.

              So the two potential negative outcomes available are ruin an innocent person’s life or slightly delay the justice on a guilty person’s crime. It would seem to me the second is far more acceptable than the first. In this case, SO WHAT if Zimmerman gets an extra month of freedom prior to going to the big house. So long as he gets locked up if he is guilty, isn’t that the point? Will you argue that allowing a jury trial should be abandoned because it delays potential justice? Of course not. So why do so now?

              The Stand your ground law does not eliminate justice or lessen the burden of proof of self defense. It merely falls directly in line with the very credo that we Americans are supposed to embrace regarding those accused: Innocent until proven guilty. I can accept the small delay in justice in a case like this in order to ensure that others who are innocent and really were acting in self defense don’t have their lives ruined by doing so.

              How can you possibly defend a position in which you argue that I should not be able to defend myself from a potential attacker, or that I should further have my life ruined while I prove that I acted correctly? I am just not sure I am understanding your position here. It doesn’t make sense to me that you wouldn’t want to protect real victim’s lives from being ruined at the expense of a small delay in justice. for the fake victims..

              • So the two potential negative outcomes available are ruin an innocent person’s life or slightly delay the justice on a guilty person’s crime. It would seem to me the second is far more acceptable than the first. In this case, SO WHAT if Zimmerman gets an extra month of freedom prior to going to the big house. So long as he gets locked up if he is guilty, isn’t that the point? Will you argue that allowing a jury trial should be abandoned because it delays potential justice? Of course not. So why do so now?

                The problem is the guy who is dead, USW. You’re ignoring him/her in your argument. The point being, it is far more likely someone will get whacked with the law in place. Knowing there’s a law to lean on (especially after this case) may encourage those with hair triggers (like Zimmerman) to shoot first and worry about defense later. Zimmerman had two choices, it seems to me (once he initiated his pursuit and wound up in a fight, even if the kid threw the first punch): he could take a beating like a man, or pull a gun and shoot. Yeah, he gets to wait a month or two or more before he faces justice but the kid is dead and you’re ignoring that (in your argument).

                Reread your answer. You ignore the victim in this case start to finish. The point is a lot of less than life threatening individuals will be (at least one has been) killed because of this law. Sorry, but once you pull a gun and use it to kill someone, you should have some explaining to do. When it’s a one-on-one situation, it’s not much of a hurdle to exonerate yourself. A week earlier in Florida, some guy chased another guy two blocks and stabbed him to death because he felt “threatened.” That’s stretching the law a pretty long way and while he may wind up in jail for what he did anyway, what about the guy who was stabbed to death. It’s about preventing pointless manslaughters/murders more than concerning oneself with the shooter’s defense.

              • The problem is the guy who is dead, USW. You’re ignoring him/her in your argument.

                I am not ignoring him in my argument. I am just focusing on the law itself not the perceived or potential consequences. I do this because we cannot assume the consequences to be true. Therefore, we have to address the law and its intentions. AS to whether the law actually has influence over people’s actual decision to use deadly force in self defense, I don’t know that it does. And I haven’t yet seen any evidence that would support the claim that it has done so…

                The point being, it is far more likely someone will get whacked with the law in place.

                Do you have anything to back this belief up other than your gut feeling?

                Knowing there’s a law to lean on (especially after this case) may encourage those with hair triggers (like Zimmerman) to shoot first and worry about defense later.

                It may encourage them or it may not. I don’t think that we have any sort of data that shows the people are more or less inclined to have a hair trigger or shoot first.

                Zimmerman had two choices, it seems to me (once he initiated his pursuit and wound up in a fight, even if the kid threw the first punch): he could take a beating like a man, or pull a gun and shoot. Yeah, he gets to wait a month or two or more before he faces justice but the kid is dead and you’re ignoring that (in your argument).

                Do you have any indication, from statements made by Zimmerman or anyone else in the case, that indicates that Zimmerman was influenced by, or even aware of, this law? Or are you just assuming that he knew about the law and in the face of a beating, decided that the law would protect him so he is free to fire away?

                Reread your answer. You ignore the victim in this case start to finish. The point is a lot of less than life threatening individuals will be (at least one has been) killed because of this law.

                Again, is there any evidence that shows that more “less than life threatening individuals” have been killed because of this law? You state at least one has been. I assume you mean Martin. But there is no evidence that this law had any influence at all over the actions of Zimmerman. To the best of our knowledge, the application of this law has only impacted the aftermath, not the actual crime. And if a sudden video surfaced (as unlikely as it seems) that shows Martin was beating Zimmerman within an inch of his life, or some other circumstance that vindicates Zimmerman, won’t we be glad that an innocent man didn’t get his life ruined legally?

                Sorry, but once you pull a gun and use it to kill someone, you should have some explaining to do.

                You absolutely do. This law does not remove that.

                When it’s a one-on-one situation, it’s not much of a hurdle to exonerate yourself. A week earlier in Florida, some guy chased another guy two blocks and stabbed him to death because he felt “threatened.” That’s stretching the law a pretty long way and while he may wind up in jail for what he did anyway, what about the guy who was stabbed to death. It’s about preventing pointless manslaughters/murders more than concerning oneself with the shooter’s defense.

                In this case mentioned, was the decision to chase the guy and stab him to death, through statement by anyone involved, in some way influenced by the existence of the law. Did the killer even know the law existed or was it a general claim of self defense that only later had this law applied to it?

                I hope you can see my point, here. You are asserting that in these cases, the killer knew of the law, thought through the situation, and determined that because the law exists, they had free reign to kill at will. I don’t believe this to be the case. I don’t think that anyone actually thinks to themself that “it is OK to kill this guy. After all I live in FL and this law will protect me.” You seem to assume that they have that thought and I dont think there is anything to suggest there is validity in your belief on the count.

            • Stand your ground is not a bad law. It is also not applicable here. Stand your ground means you do not have to take the back door just because it is available. A lot of reason for this was that running from an attacker might be little better than running from a predator. You are perceived as prey and chased down. In some cases you might be perceived as no threat, but the criminal=predator reference is true in enough cases that standing your ground is often the best option, especially if others in the house might be threated if you flee. It is not the law that is a problem in this case, it was the erroneous use of it to justify a non-defense killing.

      • Martin appears to have been the one who broke the law and attacked Zimmerman

        Oy vey …

        • Charlie,

          Maybe you can explain why the government (which you are a big supporter of) has not arrested Zimmerman yet? It’s been a month! My explanation is the facts support Zimmerman’s story, that Martin attacked him. Zimmerman has a broken nose, grass stains on his back, assume Martin has bruised knuckles and other evidence that Zimmerman was beating Martins fists with his head….. So much easier just to write it off as a hate crime and condem Zimmerman without a trial or a thought…

          • LOI, I don’t support this government AT ALL, my friend (and I thought you’d have figured that out by now). Are you trying for emotion here? 🙂

            If your explanation turns out to be absolute fact, it still falls way short of exonerating Zimmerman and/or proving Martin “attacked” him. Frankly, if some bozo were following me, once he didn’t identify himself as a cop or federal agent, I’d probably confront him. If you’re suggesting Martin threw the first punch and Zimmerman can’t fight and therefore had the right to shoot the guy, you just proved my feelings about the law–it is absurd. Why the law didn’t arrest Zimmerman up front (or drug test him) suggests to me all the so-called “race baiting” couldn’t be more justified in this case.

            What Matthius said is accurate: Zimmerman is the one who instigated the entire mess (after being told not to by the police). That in itself, would have made me (as a cop) investigate Zimmerman before drug testing a friggin’ corpse.

            Maybe they’re just good old boys in that particular police precinct. Every once in a while, us libtard yanks do seem to come across those who think they’re still fighting the war …

            • Charlie, Charlie,

              As a young man, about 17, a man was killed around here. The man was unarmed and shot dead by another man who was armed. That man walked free, all charges dropped. The unarmed man yelled and threatened he was going to kick the armed man’s @ss in front of several witnesses. The armed man brandished his gun and warned him not to try. You could say he died of stupidity or blame it on all the drink. The judge ruled it self-defense and that was the end of the matter. It’s legal to throw words around, not rocks or punches. So if someone was following you, would you start throwing punches? If they fell to the ground would you follow them, allowing them no way to retreat? They would have to “trust” that you meant them no permanent harm, else they would have no choice but to resort to a lethal defense, be it a knife or gun. When you cut off a path to retreat, you take away their choices.

              • Sweet Jesus, LOI. If I’m reading you correctly (and I may not be), you’re blaming the kid for Zimmerman’s pursuit of him (after he was told not to pursue by the police). And catching a beating (especially when you’re the pursuer with a friggin’ gun) is a lot different than facing a “life threatening situation”. You have to be … HAVE TO BE kidding.

          • Seriously, for the sake of consistency, do not use government action or inaction as justification of anything or proof of guilt/non-guilt. You know the government is incompetent at best.

      • “Who made the first illegal move” is not relevant. Illegal action is not automatically justification for legal force. A thief who is not a threat, in most states, is not justified in being shot. Even in states where it is, when you pursue off your own property it is not justifyable homicide or self-defense. Thus, remove your concern for illegality in actions not involving killing someone.

    • As I heard it, he was legally licensed to carry outside the home (contrary to USW’s findings),

      Did I say that he was not licensed to carry outside the home? As I understood it, he did not have a concealed carry license, but was licensed to carry a firearm. Perhaps I wasn’t clear or I misrepresented it in some way?

  11. New Black Panthers Offer $1 Million For Zimmerman’s Capture

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/03/25/New-Black-Panthers-Offer-One-Millionf-Zimmerman

    To add another question in this discussion-why are the Black Panthers able to offer a reward for his capture-a reward which followed a wanted dead or alive poster-not in jail?

    • I have been wondering this myself…. It seems to me that this is solicitation for either kidnapping or murder. Either is a felony.

      • I wonder what the reaction would be-if someone captured Zimmerman or killed Zimmerman -because they wanted to collect the reward-and where exactly are they supposed to take him if they capture him.

        • I would think the first thing they do is claim Zimmerman attacked them …

          • HA!

            Also, the law is either playing this quietly or ignoring it, primarily because to go after them would be to give them exactly the position they want. They desperately want to be able to scream “see? We make an satirical offer and The Man comes down on us, but kill an unarmed black child and you can just walk away.”

            Why give them what they want?

      • So is voter intimidation, and where did that leave us?

    • Probably because nothing has happened yet. If Zimmerman were caught or killed, etc., I suspect there’s be a followup investigation, etc.

      And ultimately, whoever was charged with instigating whatever the charge is, would probably claim Zimmerman threatened them. And that’s why the dopey stand your grand law is so dopey.

  12. Good Morning, USW. Just back from the border….again. New Mexico has adopted the Texas way of doing things because of our results and we have been training New Mexico officers in same.

    Now on to your posting. You stated that you feel that this issue went beyond local and I will have to disagree. However, local to me means the State….not the Feds. If a local police force does not do its job, then it is up to the State Attorney General to further investigation. This issue of race is so sickening and the responses that I see here are no less…..I doubt that there are many on here that have lived through both. This country is more racially divided now than in my life time and I grew up in the 50’s and 60’s when it was bad. It is worse now. I blame this administration for it but that is a subject for later discussion. The ONLY reason that I fathom that the Feds are involved is because it is a black kid shot by a hispanic. If it was a hispanic shot by a black kid, there would be no uproar.

    The facts you presented are reasonable and nothing different than from what I have heard. But who knows..we certainly do not know. This guy that “went after” a black kid simply because he was a black kid in the neighbor hood that was subjected to burglaries by black kids….was not proper, If he was a self appointed vigilante. In my neighbor hood, we have a neighborhood watch group. We have a couple of cars every night that patrol our neighborhood with magnetic signs on our doors identifying whom and what we are. We regularly talk with the police and have them attend our neighborhood meetings to offer insight and statistics as to what we can and cannot do. We patrol our own neighborhood so well, that the local police can focus manpower elsewhere with minimal supervision in our neighbor hood. We write down license numbers of cars that are “circling” our area in the wee hours of them morning. ( No one is lost while driving up and down streets at 3 am ). We follow them all the time. If we see “suspicious” activity in our neighborhood, we report it and wait for the police but we notify them where they are…and,yes, we make assumptions but until there is something to act on, the police handle it. A hood wearing black guy (Actually a hood wearing anybody) in our neighborhood will arouse suspicion….especially in the wee hours of the morning. A car full of anybody will arouse suspicion at anytime if they are just randomly driving around. But we do not interfere unless there is reason and reason is if they are conducting something unlawful. But it is not an invasion of their privacy to be followed.

    Texas has a right to defend and act policy. I refer to (PENAL CODE) TITLE 2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

    CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

    In Texas, we have the right to defend PROPERTY as well as LIFE with deadly force. We also have the right to defend other person’s property and life with the use of deadly force. Everyone here carries a weapon up to and including wives and grand mothers,,,,and we all know how to shoot. So, having the right to defend is nothing new. To use it wisely is paramount. You will have to answer questions if you use deadly force. Fences and boundaries are not to be ignored. It is not unusual during the day to check out maintenance trucks and names and take down license numbers. This is a local community and neighborhood and we patrol it, we will make assumptions, and we will act. But our police force knows of our activities and advises us all the time. We know all shift personnel and have their cell phones. It is a cooperative effort.

    It is very different on ranch land. Owners will shoot first. No one….NO ONE crosses a fence line accidentally day or night. If you check the statistics, Johnson County, Texas, has the highest cattle rustling rates around. Expect to be questioned even if you have a flat tire on the side of the road in ranch country,

    My point being, is that there is nothing wrong with neighborhood watch programs, patrols, and questioning “suspicious” activity. There is everything wrong with tracking someone down and shooting them without cause and there is everything wrong with provoking an attack in order to use a weapon. Texas has a conceal and carry law but we do not need a license to carry shotguns or rifles in the open and in gun racks and cars…..and that includes semi automatic weaponry. There is nothing racist about assuming anything if the statistics prove otherwise. But there is everything racist about seeing a black guy and because he is black…..gunning him down.

  13. Apparently Cheney just got a heart transplant..

    Does anyone else picture him shouting KALIMA! and ripping it out of someones chest before having doctors transplant it into him?

    • LOL….come on Mathius……who else would know this?

      • Jon Stewart made this joke Monday night. Several hours AFTER me. I demand he give me credit!

        Interesting aside: apparently Jon Stewart reads SUFA.. could it be that he posts and uses a pseudonym? Perhaps he sticks with Jon and just changes his last name to Smith?

        • LOL!! I am flattered. However, I am afraid I am not nearly funny or liberal enough to be him, and, while he is quite smart, I don’t think he could pull off my personality in addition to his own…

          I would love if he read SUFA tho… 🙂

    • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

      I guess he had to do this before the “Death Panels” kicked in.

  14. DisposableCarbonUnit says:

    Completely aside from the current discussion….

    Another reason tourism is about to spike in Canada…

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/26/world/americas/canada-ontario-legalizes-brothels/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

    Maybe we will get out of the recession before the US does!

  15. USWeapon,
    Well, very interesting. It seems we agree on this case.

    So tell me, why the big deal last night?

    You accused me of coming to conclusion without all the facts.
    You said we should wait for all the facts to come out.
    You said “My thoughts (which go up tomorrow morning) center around the facts we do have, the concept of the hoodie, the law in question, and the race baiting that continues.

    Then you post an article that has the same facts I was using and reaches the same conclusion.

    Why is it Ok for you to do this but not me?

    • USWeapon says:

      To be honest Todd, I hadn’t read most of your facts from yesterday. The view I have here isn’t the same as it is for everyone else. I saw one post from you, then a reply from T-Ray that opened with “I haven’t made up my mind on this case” followed by a post from you that said “you have obviously made up your mind about this case”. I can admit that I have become a little sensitive lately to seeing some respond to a post claiming that the post said the opposite of what was said two inches above that on the screen. You ended up on the receiving end of my frustration over this. For that I owe you an apology.

      Additionally, you made the comment about “SUFA is xxxx” and that set me off just a little, as I think that phrases like that have been thrown around a little too often by Charlie lately, even when individuals are attempting to discuss things with him. That has frustrated me as well. While I see people in good faith trying to debate, the line that “all you SUFA people are…” continues to get thrown up there, despite the fact that many of us here at SUFA have differing views on a lot of different topics (just that I actually fall more to your side on this topic is an example).

      I really didn’t mean it to be that big of a deal. I wasn’t really upset with you personally or anything. I merely meant to defend T-Ray from what I was frustrated at happening to me. Perhaps I was a bit too personal in doing so. I didn’t mean to do so, and I am sorry for it.

      Why is it Ok for you to do this but not me?

      It isn’t. In my mind there were some differences in that I felt as though you had already convicted him and I was waiting on all facts before actually reading the verdict, but giving my opinion on the verdict thus far. A small difference, I know. But I don’t think I said you were wrong to offer your opinion on the case, but was instead defending T-Ray from a false portrayal of a stated position. Without going back to look at the entirety of last night’s comments, I am unsure, though. I may have crossed a line. If so I again apologize.

      • AS it turned out, USW defend our (Todd’s and my own positions) regarding Zimmerman. If I remember right, he also defended the law and that is where I disagree. It is an insane law that begs problems of this sort (shoot first and ask questions later). Granted, not everyone will act like this idiot Zimmerman, but knowing one can defend him or herself with such an ambiguous law makes it all the more likely some people will opt for being trigger happy.

        As to us libtards (my word quote you from the past USW) tossing words around about SUFA, etc, its member, etc., how do you think us libtards feel when you use that term?

        It’s akin to your claim our facts are emotional and your facts are facts … not that we buy it.

        • USWeapon says:

          I cannot say who used that term in the past, but I don’t think that it is me that does so. It just isn’t in my normal vocabulary. I understand your point, and can agree with it, but I just don’t think it is me that uses that term. I tend to use lefties and left leaning but usually stay away from libtards…

      • Careful, USW, it looks as though you’re on an apology tour here …

        • USWeapon says:

          Nah… but I am not afraid to do so when it is warranted. Despite the ideologue that you may think me to be, I really am not nearly as much as you think. I try to offer what I feel are thought out ideas. Sometimes I reply a little hastily and don’t word things well or overstep the bounds of civility that I ask of others. When that is the case and I owe an apology, I will continue to do so.

          • Well said. Therefore, I too apologize.

            Besides, the colonel understand this of the cannoli man … I am very liberal on political systems yet pretty damn conservative on issues of work ethic, scamming the system(s) and so on.

  16. Very interesting comments coming from the msm. Zimmerman is a “white hispanic”……does that make Obama a “white” black?

    • Colonel, there are many in the black community (and rightly so) who would say, “You’re damn right he’s a white black.”

      • LOL…I agree…..so, having said that ……please explain to me why it is racist to call Obama a “white black” and it is NOT racist to refer to Zimmerman as a “white Hispanic”.

  17. Hey USWeapon,
    Just a thought here, but Life of Illusion is the one who has been running SUFA in your absence.

    His attitude on this topic pretty much sums up his attitude on all topics.

    The reason I don’t post out here as often as I used to is, like Charlie said above somewhere:

    How does one respond to this?

    • Fear not, Todd, they need us the way the grass needs water 🙂

      … all 15 or 20 (or less) of them.

      Why (aside from our polar thoughts on what is moral, just, fair, etc.?) … because we’re a pair of charming devils; we are a Porfiry to their Porfiry, a mongoose to their snake, SAGES to their PATRIOTISM … we are Don Quixote to their rational thought (which, yes, in over abundance, destroys the soul) …

      Likewise, I find I need them (wait a second, keep your lunch down …) … as a break from other work. It is always fun to have some discourse with the other side, And, truth be told, I find even more name calling at so-called liberal democratic sites, even where I might agree with much of what they have to say. When bored, blog, I say. If nothing else, it keeps my typing speed up (certainly not my accuracy) …

      Besides, when you’re not hear, I feel as if I’m on Pluto, brother …

  18. Most complete “news report” I have seen so far. This, of course, does not “prove” anything.

    http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-account-20120326_1_miami-schools-civil-rights-punch

    • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

      In one day, I have now heard that the reason for his school suspension was (choose one)

      A.)Truancy

      B.)Assaulting a bus driver

      C.)Having an empty marijuana baggie

      OK sharpest news media in the world, which was it?

      • I heard he shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.

      • @SK

        If truancy was only heard from my article, perhaps you can eliminate that one. It was the only explanation that I had heard and I heard it on a political commentary show. It sounded like the least offensive charge that could be leveled at what seemed to be an otherwise good kid, so I figured that the conservative offering it would only have done so if he didn’t have any choice, as he would have preferred to offer that the kid was violent.

        I should have dug deeper on it, admittedly. But I don’t feel too bad that what I offered was truancy which wasn’t so bad, when what is being reported by the media is that the family released a statement saying that it was marijuana, which paints a worse picture (although still not a bad enough picture to draw any further conclusions about Trayvon).

        • Isn’t it sad that in today’s SUFA environment I actually had to add that last statement in parentheses? Without it, some here would have followed with “so USW is saying that since it was Mary Jane, obviously this is a bad kid that had this coming to him. What an asshole to assume such nonsense. USW is racist! DOWN WITH USW! DOWN WITH USW!”

          • Well, today we can add that he was suspended for carrying a screwdriver (burglary tool) and jewelry that did not belong to him.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              And the character assassination starts…

              None of this is relevant to the instant case. All that matters is: Zimmerman followed Martin, there was a confrontation, Martin was killed. Was Zimmerman acting in self defense? Assuming Martin begin the physical altercation, was Martin acting in self defense? (the real shame is that Martin can’t speak in his own defense). Arrest Zimmerman, charge him with murder and allow him to raise self defense as a defense to the charge. Let the jury decide.

              • And the character assassination starts… Starts? I started a month ago.

                charge him with murder I don’t think you can support this charge unless you show the requisite intent. You’re going to have to go for aggravated assault or manslaughter. Maybe reckless endangerment. A lot of it depends on how action confrontation worked out – I don’t know the details and that makes it hard to judge. Certainly, in my eyes, Zimmerman is MORALLY responsible for what happened, but legal terms, I just don’t think you can accuse him of murder.

                My humble opinion, of course.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Buck, Having some experience with private investigators and a freind being followed, it is not against the law. I inquired with the police on this and if I initiated violence (because he was following me (or a freind in this case), then yes, he had the right to use deadly force to defend himself. Sorry to say this, but if Travon hit first, his death is on him, not on Zimmerman. the events (in the article I posted below) seem consistant with black youth of today.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Mathius: I am unfamiliar with the FL criminal statutes as to what is necessary for murder in the 1st/2nd/3d vs manslaughter. But you get my drift.

                GMan: True, following someone is not against the law, but by my reading of the Stand Your Ground Law, illegality of one’s actions is irrelevant. The relevant question (again, only assuming Martin initiated physical violence) is whether or not Martin was in reasonable fear for his life. Being followed and approached by a stranger with a gun could certainly qualify.

              • As you know counselor. Charging him with murder is a bad idea if you don’t think you can get a conviction. Try him for what you believe you can get him on. That is why the Grand Jury is important. They will sort out the facts and determine what charges should or shouldn’t be pressed…

              • Buck the Wala says:

                USW, of course. As I said, I am unfamiliar with the varying degrees and requirements under the FL criminal statutes.

  19. gmanfortruth says:

    Hi Ya’ll 🙂

    Having read through all of this, I have a few things to add. Let’s have a trial by jury for the Zimmerman person, and let him face murder charges. Now, with that said, let’s have the following jury trials for murder…… for

    a. the 536 elected members of governement for the illegal murder of Libyans, Iraqi’s, afghani’s, Packistani’s ect, ect. We can go back as far as we wish in time.
    b. Anyone who has engaged in the act of abortion

    c. Any entity of Big Pharma that has led to any death as a result of legal medication/vaccinations.

    d. Any local politician that allowed a law to be enacted that denied the right to bear arms in self defense.

    I can go on and on, I think this media horseshit is just that, horseshit. Maybe they should tell the truth why gas prices are going through the roof…. maybe not!

    • Hey G-Man,

      c. Any entity of Big Pharma that has led to any death as a result of legal medication/vaccinations.

      I’ll vote for this one – I think it might include USWeapon!!!

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Sorry Todd, USW hasn’t been there long enough and isn’t likely that high up the chain to qualify. However, in an attempt to further the reach of murder charges, let’s include unions and their overpaid leaders. How many suicides are their bullshit demands responsible for? How many jobs have they destroyed because of their greed? THat trial would be a blast to watch on TV. We could fill several prisons and make many jobs with that outcome! 🙂

        • Plus I really only work on a single drug at the moment. An anti-epileptic seizure medication. Nothing that is going to kill anyone. And you are right G-Man. I am only the Project Manager running the trial. I didn’t invent the drug, I don’t work for the pharma company, and I sure as hell don’t work for the government agency that will tell the world it is safe (the FDA).

          So I thank you, good sir, for excluding me from the list of guilty.

        • The evil Mrs. Weapon, however, has been in this industry for ten years. Perhaps she is guilty! But I don’t think any of her drugs have killed anyone either…

          • gmanfortruth says:

            🙂 Let’s look at the highest levels first, then we can ask Mrs. Weapon what she knows under oath during those trials, LOL (only joking ).

  20. Buck the Wala says:

    Havent had much free time today to check in, so forgive me if some of this has already been said. Here are the facts as we know them:

    Zimmerman was armed and following Martin
    Zimmerman called the police
    Zimmerman was told not to pursue Martin
    Zimmerman pursued Martin
    There was some type of confrontation between the two
    Zimmerman killed Martin

    As Charlie was quick to point out (and correctly so), this case was severely mishandled by the police department. Zimmerman should have been detained and questioned immediately, if not arrested and charged with murder. Probable cause for an arrest was more than present based on the facts known and ascertained by the police at the scene.

    Now, in regards to the FL law, there has been much talk about Zimmerman’s right to use lethal force in self defense if Martin had initiated the confrontation/fight with Zimmerman. But what about Martin’s right under the FL law to use force in his own self defense for his reasonable fear for his safety? After all, Martin was walking down the street being followed and approached by an armed stranger. Wouldn’t the FL law apply here?

    • Actually Buck, I made that point somewhere in the comments today. I noted that perhaps Trayvon was aware of the break-ins and criminal activity in the neighborhood too. Why should he not be scared for his safety when some guy jumps out of a truck and confronts him. My assessment thus far is that the Stand Your Ground law does not apply to this case for Zimmerman, at least not given what we know so far. However, it very may well apply to Martin. Unfortunately, whether he was in the right or in the wrong, he can no longer be helped by any law because some idiot decided it was acceptable to shoot him….

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Missed your comment to that effect, but completely agree as you can see from my own thoughts on the issue. The worst aspect of this in my mind though is just how poorly the police acted in all this.

        • Yes, regardless of what the facts end up showing us in this case, the one fact we absolutely have is that the Sanford Police Department handled this case as poorly as possible. I am unsure whether it is corruption (why drug test the dead kid but not the shooter) or ineptness. Either way, it is a sad statement on the state of affairs of our law enforcement. It makes me wonder how often poor investigating might be happening that ISN’T getting exposed under the spotlight….

  21. USW, regarding local vs non-local case. It looks like the locals did mishandle the case, and that should be up to review as well. For the family to raise the issue is proper. However, the proper level of response is at the state level. The Feds should not be involved. Certainly, the President should stay out of it. Public comments by a president on local legal matters such as this can negatively impact people’s rights. Only if there is a total lack of action or inappropriate action at the local and state levels, should the Feds become involved. Even then the President should keep his mouth shut in regards to specific cases. It is okay for him to talk in generalities but not about specifics.

    A few months ago we had the Duke rape case. It bled, the press led and all but convicted them until it all fell through.

    My mind is still open. I will wait for the facts to be presented to a grand jury or in open court before I will convict anyone.

    The sad thing is that this is a situation that got grossly out of hand and resulted in the death of a youngster.

  22. USWeapon,
    Yesterday you said:

    it wasn’t a “concealed” weapon, it was just a weapon, and properly registered.

    Where did you see that?

    This is the only thing I could find about it – in the police report:

    http://cnninsession.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/martinpolicreport.pdf

    “Located on the inside of Zimmerman’s waist band, I removed a black Kel Tek 9mm PF9 semi auto handgun and holster.”

    That sounds like “concealed” to me.

  23. All of this reminds me of a story that my Grandmother told me ages ago. A gentleman was being accused of having an affair with a neighbor’s wife. Now, today this does not sound like a serious charge but considering it was the first quarter century of the 1900’s in a small Midwestern farming town, this was serious charge. Such things could get you removed from the church and generally ostracized in the community. The accuser was making his case when another gentleman from the audience stood up and asked, “Were you holding the lantern?”

  24. USWeapon,

    From the previous article:

    I guess I can take this as “apology not accepted”? That is OK, I can live with just knowing that I offered it.

    No, it is accepted. And I offer my apology for getting worked up here. I knew I was reading things out of sequence but didn’t stop long enough to put it all in a clear order.

    I’m out of energy and have other stuff to do, so how about a truce?

    Man, agreeing with you is hard work!!

  25. @ Buck…..a gracious good morning, counselor. Catching up on the news since I got back from the “frontier”…..I watched an interesting debate between two “constitutional” lawyers last night..concerning the commerce clause and the Constitution. Both sides had very interesting arguments. However, one thing that stood out in the debate was when a question was asked of the lawyer feeling that the SCOTUS would come down in favor of mandates….it went something like this…” Ok let us assume that the SCOTUS agrees that the mandates are Constitutional, does that not, in fact, become a far reaching decision. If Obama, or any President or Congress decides that it is for the benefit of the country and the welfare of the people, to mandate the manufacture and purchase of Chevy Volts, for example, and no gas powered vehicles at all?

    The lawyer, clearly trapped, answered…….I did not say that I was for mandates, I am arguing that they fall under the commerce clause. I am against mandates and, yes, if SCOTUS decides that mandates are Constitutional, then it would extend to any mandate in the future.

    Interesting, doncha think?

    • Buck the Wala says:

      What I find most interesting about this entire discussion is just how political SCOTUS has become. I was talking with a constitutional professor the other day about this and he made a very interesting point — if Obamacare was passed even 5 years ago, SCOTUS would have been unlikely to even grant cert to the case!

      I still strongly believe SCOTUS will find Obamacare, and the individual mandate, constituional by probably a 6-3 vote. That being said, just because something is constitutional, doesn’t mean it is a wise decision or something that should be done. And I look forward to a scathing concurring opinion by Roberts (at least that’d be my guess) saying exactly that.

      • What about the argument that the commerce clause was intended to only regulate “commerce” in and between states…..where did mandates come into play?

        • Buck the Wala says:

          1) commercial/economic activity — the decision to not purchase health insurance is an economic decision that has a substantial affect on interstate commerce
          2) tax power — congress has broad powers to tax
          3) necessary and proper clause — the mandate is necessary towards implementation of regulation of the health care system/industry

          Again, I am not saying it is a wise decision, but it is a political decision that falls within the Constitution. If you truly support an un-activist SCOTUS, they should sit this one out entirely and let it be used as the political football it currently is and allow the voters to decide in the next election.

  26. gmanfortruth says:

    THe way events are explained in this article, I can see this happening as it is written.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trayvon-martin-started-confrontation-zimmerman-lawyer-says/2012/03/26/gIQAIlr0cS_story.html

    I know that many of you already have your opinions, even without all the evidence. But it should be noted that all the BS involved with the media is a telll tale sign that something is wrong. It seems too me that they want to bring anything racist to the forefront anytime they can, even if it doesn’t exist in reality. The next subject being discussed in DC today is racial profiling. First, I will say that racial profiling is a natural human response, and in some areas, should be done in earnest.

    • I’d like to know if there were any other injuries to Martin besides a bullet wound. If he had no other injuries, and Zimmerman was beaten and bloody, that means that Zimmerman had every right to defend himself. Those defending Martin..set aside the lead-up to the fight…if someone is beating you, I’m sure you’re going to fight back.

      I’m not offended at all by Zimmerman, neighborhood watch captain, looking out for his neighborhood. Martin had other options too. If he was freaked out by being followed, all he had to do was run.

      Race is being used as a wedge. As usual. Why can’t the lefties..Sharpton, Jackson, Charlie just see people first instead of color? Martin is a person. Zimmerman is a person. A person is dead. Ridiculous all around.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Anita, I will stick my neck out and say that no charges will be filed for the killing. Now, a charge may be filed on a lesser charge, just to shut up all this media hype and left wing whining, but they will likely be thrown out later anyway.

        • Don’t know about all that. I see trouble happening no matter which way it goes, especially if the NBP and Farrakahn get their way. 👿

      • Anita –

        We do not know what, exactly, happened. We do not know who hit who first or why. You are throwing out the only concrete information we have (that Zimmerman got out of his car to follow this kid around) and then suppositioning that he was defending himself from being attacked by Trayvon. How does this make sense?

        We don’t know if Zimmerman pulled the gun on Trayvon. We do not know if Zimmerman physically grabbed Trayvon. We do not know if Trayvon was in fear for his life from this crazy guy stalking him.

        All we know if the lead up – and the lead up is entirely 100% Zimmerman’s fault.

        —————————————

        Let’s take a scenario where I flew to ::undisclosed location:: where Jon Smith lives, showed up outside his house with a shotgun and started demanding he answer my questions. Understandably, he would be disconcerted. Now, something happens. What, exactly? Who knows. But something happens, I wind up with a broken nose and he winds up with a hole in his chest. I was perfectly within my rights to fly to ::undisclosed location:: and I was perfectly within my rights to carry the gun (let’s assume I have a permit) and I was perfectly within my rights to ask him questions (though he, of course, was under no obligation to answer).

        Are you then going to throw out the first part of this scenario, ignore it as if it’s irrelevant, and treat me like the victim of Jon Smith’s assault? Whether legal or not, who is to BLAME for this situation. Is it Jon or is it me? Which one of us created a situation where this happened, and which one reacted to that situation? If Jon came out of his house and attacked me, would you think I’m the victim or would you think that he was worried about this crazed man who is apparently stalking him and taking action to defend himself?

        • The fight didn’t happen at a house. It was in a neighborhood. The first thing I’m going to do if someone is following me is run..away..not toward the stalker. I’m saying that Martin had other options. Are you denying that?

          • I heard he ran and that Zimmerman chased. But I’ve heard a lot of things and it’s hard to know what’s true.

            What I do know if that Zimmerman followed Trayvon around. And that being followed around by a stranger, especially when you’re a kid and he’s an older man, is highly disconcerting.

            Why, by the way, should you be expected to run away from someone? Why should you have to cower in fear to avoid a crazy person when you are doing nothing wrong? Why shouldn’t you be able to confront your stalker? There’s no law of which I’m aware which required Trayvon to run away – why should you fault him for choosing not to?

            So Trayvon is the responsible party because he didn’t run away from the crazy man who was stalking him? If I harass you, you’re to blame if something bad happens because you didn’t call the police or run away. Got it.

            Is it backward day and nobody told me?

            • Not buying your stuff Matt. If someone is following you, at least me, by instinct, I’m going to run.

              • That’s you. You’re not a teenage boy. Teenage boys are rash and have more guts than brains.

                I’m not saying that Trayvon handled this very well – there are certainly choices he could have made which would have ended with him safe and alive. But that doesn’t change the fact that he was not the instigator of the bad situation. If you create a dangerous situation and I react poorly and die, it’s still YOUR FAULT for creating the dangerous situation in the first place.

                How is it that people here can talk such a big game about liberty and freedom and the right-to-self-defense and self sufficiency, but then turn around and suggest that some kid is the aggressor because he failed to flee in terror from the guy stalking him?

              • Isn’t it always preached around here that you have no right to not be offended? (I think that’s how it goes). If someone is following you..sure you’re going to be offended.

                I’m not saying that Trayvon handled this very well – there are certainly choices he could have made which would have ended with him safe and alive

                …..Should be end of the story right there.

              • Running is a bad idea in many situations. If I am being followed, I would confront the follower. If he is armed, I would be on my guard. If in speaking to him he appears to be one who is presuming me guilty, I would determine at that point that running when a projectile weapon is involved is a bad idea. If that gun even starts to get pulled, by a person without authority, I would be on him as fast as possible and remove the weapon. Then I can either run or call for help. Not saying that is what happened, I am saying that could have been the scenario as easily as any other postulated. I am all about the right to defend oneself, but guys like Zimmerman mess that up, because they abuse the idea of clear and present danger.

              • Not arguing with you Jon, and SK has brought that up too, but its not like Z shot Martin in the back. Who knows what Z’s intentions were..he is a cop wannabe..in LEO classes…do you think he would have shot Martin in the back with his LEO training? Doesn’t seem plausible.

              • He probably wouldn’t, but Martin didnt know Zimmerman was taking LEO classes. The point I make is that Zimmerman’s actions created the confrontation, and it was not necessary. It was not illegal for him to do that, but self-defense arguments should be a LOT more suspect for anyone who is the pursuer. Like I mentioned to Gman in his little poll at the bottom, even a cop would have faced an inquiry over a situation like this. It may be that Zimmerman acted properly once in the confrontation. If so, he should be exhonerated. Regardless, a death occurred that did not have to because Zimmerman pursued, and Zimmerman should recognize that, as should those in his corner.

            • Seems to me that is pretty much what the Stand Your Ground Law -says.

              • Me too. But Anita seems to think that the stand your ground law only applies to Zimmy, but that Trayvon should have been obligated to run away. Odd.

              • It all depends who threw the first punch!

              • No. It doesn’t. That, of course, is important.

                If this guy is following Trayvon around, it may have risen to the level of threatening behavior. I know I certainly would have seen it that way had I been in his shoes. And self defense, including throwing the first punch, would still be justifiable in that situation.

                Put yourself in his shoes. Maybe hype it up so it’s a little clearer. You’re walking alone at night and some man starts to follow you. You make a couple turns and he stays behind you. You run and he runs to keep up. You turn down an alley, he comes up behind you and you…. ? Call the cops? Scream? Run some more? Or do you knee him in the balls and mace him?

                Oops.. seems he hadn’t committed a crime though – it was perfectly legal for him to follow you around like that. And he wasn’t actually a mugger or rapist – he was a self-appointed vigilante who thought you might be dealing drugs (based on the hoodie you were wearing and the color of your skin). And you are now, somehow, magically, the aggressor because you initiated the actual violence. When he shoots you immediately after you mace him, he will be justified because, hey, he just thought you were up to no good and you attacked first. Right? Right?

                You’re dead, he’s injured, and you’re to blame. Bad Anita! Bad! Too bad you died, because if you had survived, you could have been prosecuted for assaulting that poor innocent man.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Anita, if Martin was in reasonable fear for his life based on the actions of Zimmerman (remember: illegality does not matter), he would have been entitled to throw that first punch in self defense.

              • You lefties keep forgetting..as Matt has already conceded.. that Martin had other options.

              • So What?

                SO WHAT? SO WHAT SO WHAT SO WHAT?!

                If I threaten you to the point where you are in reasonable fear of your safety, you have other options than to use violence on me. You could run. You could cower. You could beg. You could please. You could scream. You could do a lot of things.

                But if you opt to defend yourself with violence, that someone make you responsible because you didn’t use those other options?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Anita, so did Zimmerman.

              • Matt, Buck

                Based on what you guys are saying -I’m not sure whether you are for or against this law and why you feel how you feel would be helpful.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                VH, to clarify — I am against this law.

                Not quite sure I’m following the second part of your question — are you asking why I believe it matters what Martin felt/perceived? If so, the answer is because, assuming Martin began the physical altercation and attacked Zimmerman, based on the stand your ground law, so long as Martin reasonably felt threatened and fearful of his life, he would be well within his rights to do so.

              • No -I was asking why you are for or against the law because your words keep saying, he had a right to stand his ground.

          • Anita,
            If you’d listen to the 911 tapes, Martin did run. And that action caused Zimmerman to get more excited and give chase.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          You guys kill me with all your BS about what if’s 🙂 If the kid was in fear, I’m sure his skinny black ass could easily out run a fat Latino. If he uses an SUV, run on someones porch and ask for help and call 911 on your cell phone. No, this did not happen, instead, the skinny black kid plays the typical bad ass role and confronts the fat Latino, then innitiates violence by striking him, knocking him down and then getting on top , slamming the Latinos head into the concrete. Guess what? I’d have shot his punk ass too!

          • I object, Your Honor. This trial is a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham!

            ——————————–

            Objection: assumes facts not in evidence.

            then [Trayvon] innitiates [sic] violence by striking him

            We do not know who initiated violence. We have nothing to suggest that, for example, Zimmerman didn’t grab Trayvon first, or threaten him with the gun.

          • I know you better than that, you never would have put yourself in that situation, nor for that matter would any of us here. We have a dumb assed wannabe running around playing cop. Whatever happened to that stuff about “observe and report” for neighborhood watch? Near as I can remember, most places allow you to use deadly force to prevent, murder, rape and arson. This guy wasn’t out looking for trouble but hoping for trouble. We all know people like him. No brains, big mouths. They often gravitate to police forces.

          • Gman, I would not run from you if you had a gun. Not because I am a badass, but because I would have a better shot toe to toe than running from a gun. If you were a fat wannabe, that would be even more the case. The point is that CPD was out the window for Zimmerman. He placed himself in harms way by pursuing a confrontation. Im not saying that makes him wrong, I am saying that I don’t pity some chubby vigilante with a gun who chose to seek a confrontation that he was instructed not to. He took his life in his hands, he better have some VERY compelling evidence that it was a self-defense case, because it does not look like one.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Jon, you would not have to run. I doubt you fit the profile of a problem person. 🙂 In your case I would waive and say Howdy! Zimmerman may have acted poorly, but so did Trayvon. I’ve been clear on my position, Zimmerman might be an idiot, but that doesn’t warrant being attacked physically. He who throws the first punch will always be seen as the aggressor in my opinion, regardless of the situation.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Too bad that’s just not how the law works.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                That depends Buck! Each city/state is different.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                To clarify — I’m speaking about the FL Stand Your Ground Law at issue in this case.

                But now that I’m thinking about it, I’ve never come across a self-defense standard that turns entirely on who threw the first punch or who initiated the illegal behavior — as far as I know, it’s always about a reasonable fear for one’s safety/well being.

              • Maybe, depends on where I was coming from. If I dont shave for a week and I am in my duster and my long hair is down, I fit the profile for “suspicious” on a lot of people’s radar. I could see me on the run as an EOS in a LOT of very likely scenarios. Profiling is important and not wrong, but shoot first ask questions later is wrong and a huge problem. You might not do that, but don’t presume I would not fit the profile on first glance. 🙂

              • Is that what the law turns on? I was under the impression, it simply stated one had the right to stand their ground if threatened, but I did not think it got rid of “was the response appropriate under the facts of the case for it to be considered self defense”

              • USWeapon says:

                It does not get rid of that requirement, VH, which is my point in defending the law. Since the requirement to prove self defense doesn’t change, the claim that Charlie made that it leads to people being more willing to use deadly force is rendered somewhat moot. It doesn’t change the law in regard to proving self defense. It merely stops people from having their lives ruined if they were justified and the facts prove that.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                USW,

                I agree with you that the law doesn’t negate the requirement to prove self defense, but it greatly extends what can constitute self defense. This is the concern I have with the law.

              • USWeapon says:

                I haven’t seen anything noting that the criteria are different than the criteria in FL were prior to the law’s enactment. Do you have a link to any sources that show a comparison of the two? I would be interested in reading. That could be a game changer in my opinion of the law if the criteria is drastically easier to meet…

        • I wonder-if the outcome had been different-if Trayvon had killed Zimmerman in their fight-the stand your ground law, should protect him from an automatic murder charge too -because of the circumstances. Wouldn’t we be in the same situation. Trying to find out-if it was self defense and was the reaction appropriate to the perceived /real threat. I just don’t see where this law is the problem. It seems to me the questions are the same-I’m just not required to run away-which in itself could get me killed. I don’t believe people will take this law as a license to kill-if they are the type that wants to kill-they will do so with or without this law.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        “race is being used as a wedge”

        Anita, everyone pretty much agrees that the police handled this extremely inappropriately. I don’t think they did a single thing right. If it were not for the attention placed on this by people like Sharpton, I’m not so certain a real investigation would ever have been initiated. Now, ask yourself, do you think for a minute this would have been handled so poorly had a white man been shot by a black man? I wish I could say it would have been the same…but I doubt it.

        “if Martin was freaked out…all he had to do was run”

        But why should he have to run? The FL law allows him to use self defense and ‘stand his ground’. And this is precisely why it is such a ridiculous law.

        • why should he have to run

          OMG Buck…to end the situation, that’s why.

          • If Zimmerman has kept his fat butt in his car like he was told it would have ended the situation. Running on Martin’s part would not have ended the situation, it would have lead to a chase and possibly gotten him shot.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Buck, I do not agree that the cops handled it improperly. Based on the police report, Zimmerman had plenty of evidence of being attacked. He did not run, he stayed at the scene. This is a clear case of self defense.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            The cops handled this properly?

            Why wasn’t Zimmerman detained and questioned by a trained homicide detective?
            Why wasn’t the gun taken in as evidence and had ballistics tests performed?
            Why was Martin subject to drug testing but not Zimmerman?

            The facts as we currently know them to be demonstrate that this is NOT a clear case of self defense. It could be, perhaps. But this is anything but clear.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Your answers are written in the police report. Zimmerman was cuffed and questioned, with a bloddy nose and the back of his head bleeding, along with grass stains on the back of his shirt. Why the need for ballistics, he said he shot him with the gun. It was determined at the seen, based on the evidence (and probably a witness that has not come out yet) that Zimmerman acted within the law.

              With that said, let me be clear. I have seen the black youth badass mentality far too often. I’m basing my opinions on those experiences, which are very real. If a black youth shows up in my neighborhood, you can bet your ass he will be not just followed, but confronted and told to get the F*^k out. That is the way it is. If the black youth decides to play the badass, he will get shot where he stands.

              • Interesting.

                And all “black youths” have this badass mentality? People in your neighborhood can tell, just by the color of his skin that he’s going to have this bad attitude, and then be told to get the F*^k out? And if he does, in fact, have this attitude, but hasn’t committed any crime, he will be summarily executed?

                Huh?

                I was unaware you lived in 1960 Selma, Alabama.

                —————–

                Why don’t you re-read your second paragraph, and I’ll give you an opportunity to clarify.

              • Matt..Do you really have to go there..Selma? Cmon man..stay in Florida, where the stuff went down.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Mathius, We don’t have crime where I live, none. We don’t have minorities where I live either, none. I used to live in Youngstown Ohio, one of the most dangerous cities in our nation. I know the mentality of today’s city youth, (not just blacks, too), They are not welcome around here, it’s as simple as that. Change black youth to white youth with gang colors, or a Latino with the same, it doesn’t matter. And yes Mathius, the badass attitude will get squashed quickly, not to mention how stupid it would be when we do not hide our firepower. I stand by my words.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                By all reports I have read, Zimmerman was cuffed and had a few cursory questions asked by a police office. He was not interrogated by a trained homicide detective, as he should have been.

                Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t ballistics confirm how close Zimmerman was to Martin when he shot him, possibly the angle and other vital information to help ascertain what had transpired as well?

                Whether or not Zimmerman acted in self defense could not possibly have been ascertained at the scene based on the facts and evidence as known at the time.

              • Good Grief G-I know that there is a bad ass type in the black community. I know this is also true of other communities as well but it seems to be the type with this attitude who controls certain neighborhoods in my town -but in reality these types harass and intimidate their neighbors too-if they have the nerve to disagree.

                I’ve been told by friends that I cannot come to their homes because it wouldn’t be safe for me to be there. I have offered rides home to friends who wouldn’t accept because they didn’t want me to be put in danger. I’ve stood in line while african-americans checked the people out behind me and made we wait-because the person behind me was black. I’ve experienced the hate-so I understand the caution-it is a reality. But let’s not become what we object too-and lets not paint all people with the same brush.

                I keep reading how scared blacks are of whites-but this isn’t my experience. My experience is either straight up racist hate aimed at whites or blacks being intimidated by other blacks.

                But I still try to see things from both sides.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Buck, I’m sure that all the forensic evidence was gathered. Ballistics is not needed. Powder marks/burns would answer the closeness question and can be determined with the clothing and autopsy.

                First punch to defend yourself depends on the laws, jumping on top of someone you punched and slamming head into concrete is assault, not self defense.

              • G-man,

                What right do you have to tell an innocent man that he is not welcome, just because he is a minority. I have known more than a few black youths who were decent, intelligent, hard working, honest individuals.

                If one of these upstanding citizens moved in from the city and decided to walk down the street in your town, he would be confronted, questioned, and told to “get the f*^k out.” And if he cops any attitude at being treated like a criminal, he will be killed. I can’t believe this is what you’re telling me..

                Anita, I think my Selma reference was pretty spot-on…..

              • Ok Matt..If Selma is fair game then so are the gangs at the Wisconsin State Fair and the the incident in Mo, I believe, where the white kid was burned by the black kids. Do you still want to go to Selma?

            • “Why wasn’t Zimmerman detained and questioned by a trained homicide detective?”

              He was.

              “Why wasn’t the gun taken in as evidence and had ballistics tests performed?”

              It was.

              See my post below about copies of the police report.

      • Anita, I hate to say this, but a black kid running in that situation looks awfully bad. You have to ask yourself that old 1940’s cinema noir question the cops used to always ask in the movies regardless if he is black, “Why did you run if you are innocent?”

        I just think that a situation was created here by an overzealous citizen. If in fact Zimmy was turned down on an application to be a cop, I’d love to know if it was for a psych evaluation. I also still want to know that if Zimmy had an order of protection out on him, why he was carrying? There seems to be dozens of possible criminal charges here. If this were “Law and Order”, I wonder if he would cop to manslaughter 2 or 3? with the threat of manslaughter 1 and negligent homicide?

        We need the Grand Jury here, just to sort out the BS.

        • Pretty much agree SK. But as GMAN said..he could have run..a couple yards over from what I read..to the safety of his house..then called the cops. Or..since he was right there by his house he could have explained himself to Z right then..situation over..everyone alive and healthy.

  27. A special thanks to those of you whom argued the Zimmerman case. Last night, at the neighborhood watch meeting, and the police in our area were present. I asked the question as to provocation. The police were entirely supportive of our efforts and the fact that we do not take the law into our own hands unless necessary, According to them. it is not a provocation to follow strange cars in the neighborhood with a marked car. They say to observe is fine but unless a crime is being committed and police response is limited, to just report it and let them handle it. That includes strangers in the neighborhood without purpose. But it also includes profiling. It is easy to spot gang clothing. Once a reputation for a neighborhood gets around the criminal element, they will leave it alone. If you know your neighbor is out of town and a maintenance or yard truck shows up…..it is suspect. But in our neighborhood watch program, we know who is out of town and who is going to be around. However, the discussion on here was great and it actually helped us change one aspect. Our parks are private except one. The public park is available to everybody but are patrolled by us as well. We are very vigilant as to drugs and drinking because of he number of children. If we feel that the drinking is out of hand, we simply call the police. (Out of hand means…throwing of bottles and cans, destruction of property, loud and abusive language around the kids, screwing on table tops, etc). We even help the city maintain the park at our expense. But it is ok to be vigilant but not be a vigilante.

    • Good points, common sense. It raised another issue, did Zimmy have a “marked car”. Just seen too many “gung Ho” types and that’s an insult to “gung ho”. Give a guy a gun and nightstick throw in some badge or other with a couple hours training (if that) and pray for the best.

  28. gmanfortruth says:

    @ VH, Down here 🙂

    VH, I will always profile! That is how I have been trained. A 14 year old white girl walking her dog is not a threat. A 14 year old black girl with gang colors is a different situation. Please tell me you can see this? I simply trust my instinct on who will be a problem, and yes, I profile, screw PC 🙂

    @Mathius, I don’t live in a town or city. The nearest thing to a town is 5 miles away. I stand by my words. OH, I also live on a private road, that is well marked.

    • G!, if you are right, are you still a racist in today’s America?

      a compilation of the late Trayvon Martin’s tweets.

      The social media scan, executed on PeopleBrowsr and supplied to TheDC by the individual who performed the search, contains tweets from the last month of Martin’s life, dating to the beginning of 2012.

      Martin tweeted under the handle “NO_LIMIT_NIGGA,” an account that was closed shortly after his death.

      Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/26/the-daily-caller-obtains-trayvon-martins-tweets/#ixzz1qKjpT7Xb

    • I already said I understand the caution 🙂 -but there’s using caution and there’s going overboard in your speech, which makes you sound unreasonable. And overboard in your actions(which I suspect or hope isn’t as extreme as you are stating), which can be intimidating and unfair-toning down your speech isn’t always being PC 🙂 -sometimes it simply means making people understand what you actually mean. Because your words G-made you sound really extreme.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        VH, Maybe I am extreme. I have watched neighborhoods become slums because people don’t stand up to defend themselves. That will not happen where I live now, of course, I’m not expecting it to happen anytime soon. I’m a racist in the eyes of the politically correct left, frankly, I don’t care. I’m a realist who see’s what is happening in front of me. The color of one’s skin is not an issue for me, it’s whats in their minds I have a problem with.

        • I’ve talked to you long enough on here to know that G-and I also see -I don’t think you are a racist either. But people who haven’t been around you as long-will not know it-by your words-at least not before you have to explain what you mean. 🙂

          • gmanfortruth says:

            I see what you are saying VH 🙂 But, since I’ve been called racist by the left for so long, maybe I should start acting like one (pretending of course). 🙂

  29. he [Zimmy] was accused of pushing his ex-fiancee,
    according to a Sentinel report. In competing court petitions,
    the woman accused Zimmerman of slapping her in the past, while
    Zimmerman claimed that she was the aggressor in the fight,
    according to the newspaper.

    Interesting… Zimmerman in a physical altercation with someone where he claimed the far weaker participant is the initiator.

    This poor guy.. getting attacked by his girlfriend and kids.

    • Not a fair assessment Matt. I am smaller than a whole lot of the people that havne’t been able to take me in a scrap in the past (many years ago, now my neices and nephews beat me up).

      Smaller does not equal weaker. Martin was 6’3″, after all, but skinny. That doesn’t necessarily mean weak. His tweets that I was looking at this morning before work sure paint a different picture of him…

      • Odds are good that he could take his girlfriend. I’ve known some girls who can beat up their boyfriends, but not many.

        As for the kid, well, Zimmy was ARMED.

  30. gmanfortruth says:

    SUFA,

    It’s time for a quick poll 🙂 The question is: Should Zimmerman be charged with murder (or any other crime pertaining to this death)?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I vote NO! Zimmerman acted within the law when he was physically attacked.

    • Yes, this should be investigated, as should any where the shooter is a pursuer. Even a cop would have had an investigation into his actions in a case like this.

      • Always thought stupidity should be a capital crime. Outside of that, yes. This guy was either looking for a fight or exercised such bad judgement as to be criminally negligent.

    • Let the grand jury sort it out first. We’re not exactly sure who initiated the violence.

    • I think an investigation is proper, that the city may not have had the legal resources to properly pursue this to know what to charge him with that would likely end in a conviction. To charge him knowing they would not convict would be a waste of money and only fan the flames of outrage when he walked. I fear them making up some BS charge just to appease the now national outrage generated by the media.

    • I say not until the grand jury finishes their investigation. When we have all the facts, we can then determine what punishment is suitable.

    • I agree with US and Anita

  31. For what its worth to anyone interested, here is some of the investigation material from the Sanford, Florida website. It includes 911 calls (I have not listened to them as I am at work). I did read a lot of the reports and they paint a different picture than what is on the news. There appears to be a lot more witnesses to this thing than what the media is sharing.

    http://www.sanfordfl.gov/index.html

  32. Time for a break. Colonel, can you decipher this? Maybe this is why we are not winning the hearts and minds.

  33. gmanfortruth says:

    Here’s a news report that sheds some new light!

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp=46865807&#46865807

  34. Dang-people are posting too fast-I can’t keep up 🙂

  35. Suspended THREE times for drugs, truancy and graffiti and ‘caught carrying a burglary tool’: New picture emerges of Trayvon Martin (and did he attack a bus driver too?)

    The teen was suspended from school three times
    He was on suspension when he was shot in February, after officials caught him with a ‘marijuana pipe’ and a baggie with drug residue
    Trayvon was kicked out of school in October for graffiti after he was allegedly caught with a ‘burglary tool’ and a bag full of women’s jewelry
    Officials also suspended him once for skipping school and tardiness
    Tearful parents say their son is now the victim of a smear campaign
    New poll shows 73 percent of Americans think Zimmerman should be arrested

    By Daily Mail Reporter

    Trayvon Martin was suspended from school three times in the months before he was shot dead by a neighborhood watchman, it emerged today.

    The new claims, revealed in a leaked report, paint a different picture of a teenager who frequently found himself in trouble with authorities.

    It was also revealed that he might have attacked a bus driver, according to a Twitter account that it is claimed belonged to the teen.

    The Miami Herald claims that in October, he was caught with a ‘burglary tool’ – a flathead screwdriver – and 12 pieces of women’s jewellery. Martin insisted that they did not belong to him.

    Earlier, he had been suspended for skipping school and showing up late to class. And most recently, in February, he was suspended again when officials found a ‘marijuana pipe’ and an empty baggie with traces of the drug.

    The fresh claims are likely to be seized upon by supporters of George Zimmerman who say the teenager launched an unprovoked attack on the neighbourhood watch volunteer moments before Trayvon was shot dead.

    The conservative news site the Daily Caller and the blog the Wagist claim they have unearthed a Twitter account, which has since been taken down, that belonged to the teen.

    Among many Tweets, the Wagist claims, is a message from his cousin implying that Trayvon attacked a bus driver.

    ‘Yu ain’t tell me yu swung on a bus driver,’ a user Tweeted to Travyon’s alleged account five days before he was killed.

    The Daily Caller, says it has published 152 pages of tweets downloaded from Trayvon’s account. The site says Trayvon went by the Twitter handle NO_LIMIT_N***A.

    A few of the messages make reference to using drugs including one that says: ‘Finna (I’m fixing to) smoke 1 wit my dawg wayne.’

    But most are simply a take on daily life — the same as most social media accounts.

    ‘PLZZ EXERCISE YO RIGHT 2 REMAIN SILENT.. DAM,’ he says.

    Another says: ‘2 glock 40’s… b**** you got 80 problems.’

    Meanwhile, Joe Oliver, Zimmerman’s longtime friend, told Good Morning America Monday that no matter how the case comes out — even if the shooting is ruled justified — ‘George has virtually lost his life, too.’

    Mr Oliver said Zimmerman has gone into hiding and is in fear of his life over the public outcry for his arrest. A fringe group, the New Black Panther Party, has offered a $10,000 reward for his ‘capture.’

    The boy’s parents say that they have never heard the claim about the screw driver and jewellery.

    The October suspension was officially for graffiti, after he and some friends wrote ‘W.T.F.’ on a school locker.

    According to an October report of the incident by the Miami Dade Schools Police, obtained by the Miami Herald, Trayvon never received any punishment for the jewellery because he said it was not his and it belonged to a friend.

    The report, leaked to the Orlando Sentinel and ABC News and based on anonymous sources, supports accounts from George Zimmerman’s allies that he acted in self-defense when he shot dead the 17-year-old one month ago in Sanford Florida.

    The embattled Sanford Police Department, while condemning the leak, confirmed that the story was consistent with information private to the State Attorney’s office, which is currently considering whether to file charges against Zimmerman.

    The police account is also based mostly on Zimmerman’s own words to officers after they arrived at the gated community February 26, but it is the most complete picture of his side of the shooting that has been released publicly.

    As the Orland Sentinel reports, Zimmerman got out of his car and followed Trayvon as he walked back to the home of his father’s girlfriend after picking up snacks at a local convenience store.

    Zimmerman called 911 to report a suspicious black teenager who looked like he might be on drugs.

    As he walked after the teen, the police dispatcher told Zimmerman he didn’t need to keep following.

    A minute passes and police don’t know what happens.

    Then, according to Zimmerman, Trayvon approached him from behind and they ‘exchanged words.’

    Trayvon asked Zimmerman if he had a problem. Zimmerman said, ‘no.’

    Then, according to Zimmerman, Trayvon said, ‘Well now you do,’ and unexpectedly punched Zimmerman in the face, knocking him to the ground.

    Trayvon, 6-foot-3 and 140 pounds, then reportedly climbed on top of the 250-pound Zimmerman and bashed his head into the sidewalk several times.

    One unidentified witness, who did not see the shooting, said he saw a younger man on top of an older man and the older man was screaming for help.

    Police say the cries that witnesses reported, which Trayvon’s family say were coming from the teen, are actually likely from Zimmerman.

    Zimmerman, who had a permit to carry a handgun, shot Trayvon once in the chest at very close range, killing him.

    According to police reports and accounts given by Zimmerman’s lawyer, Craig Sooner, the 28-year-old’s nose was bloody or broken, his lip was bleeding and he had a bloody gash on the back of his head.

    As the national outcry over the shooting continued to gather momentum, Zimmerman’s allies say he was in a ‘fight for his life.’

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2120504/Trayvon-Martin-case-He-suspended-times-caught-burglary-tool.html#ixzz1qKsGDbc7

    As I see it at this time, Zimmerman is innocent.
    He followed Martin in his vehicle and contacted the police.
    He continued following and ignored the dispatchers warning statement.
    He left his vehicle when he lost sight of Martin.
    Failing to spot Martin, he started to return to his vehicle.
    Martin had evaded Zimmerman.
    Martin returned and approached Zimmerman from behind.
    Martin confronted Zimmerman, loudly asking, “you got a problem with me?”
    Zimmerman responded, “no, I have no problem”.
    Martin responded, “well now you do” and then punched Zimmerman, knocking him to the ground.
    Martin then got on top of Zimmerman, banging his head against the concrete.
    Zimmerman began shouting for help.
    Zimmerman pulled his gun and shot Martin.

    Since this is all from “news reports” it proves nothing, but it should at least be reason to pause and not assume the guilt or innocence of Zimmerman or Martin.

    • Personally I don’t have the time line down for when all these phone calls and different reports fit together. But I did note something when I listened to the one where Zimmerman is asked if he was following Trayvon. After the operator asked him a question -I heard a lot of noise like Zimmerman was moving and jostling the phone-but I only heard it after the question was asked and maybe a half a minute(guess) after the operator told him to stop following- the additional sound went away-like maybe he stopped. Did anyone else notice this?

      Somewhere in the recording-he answered a question about where Trayvon was and he something about being at the other end of the neighborhood-like they weren’t close together and in another that Zimmerman had lost sight of him.

      I have a lot of questions that are not answered about this situation and those answers, if we are even able to get them-minus a he said/ she said educated guess-need to be answered.

      I find the main thing I hold against Zimmerman is that at no time, did I hear him even attempt to tell this kid who he was or to try and calm any concern or maybe just anger the kid felt at being followed. But if the kid was out of Zimmerman’s sight and had the ability to just walk away without any danger to his self-I honestly don’t know how a self defense claim would hold up in court.

      Of course all of this is just supposition and unfortunately that may be all we have.

      • VH,

        Great point! As an adult and a neighborhood watch CAPTAIN, he should have known how to conduct himself. He should have been able to defuse a situation, not cause it to escalate.

  36. “the outrage should be about us killing each other, about black-on-black crime,” especially in Chicago, rather than a single wrongful killing in Florida, he said.

    “Would you think to have 41 people shot [in Chicago] between Friday morning and Monday morning would be much more newsworthy and deserve much more outrage?” he asked.

    From Mar. 16 to Mar. 19, 41 people, mostly African-American, were shot in Chicago, Obama’s adopted hometown. Ten were killed, but there was little reaction outside Chicago, say several African-American leaders and commentators.

    One of the victims was only 6 years old. She was killed in a drive-by shooting conducted by two members of the “Latin Kings” gang.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/26/black-on-black-crime-widely-ignored-say-african-american-activists/#ixzz1qKwQIVZn

    • Also, the efforts by Obama, Plouffe, Sharpton and their allies to elevate Martin’s death are meeting criticism from other leaders in the African-American community, who say Obama and his deputies haven’t done enough to curb black-on-black crime.

      Obama’s focus on the Tayvon Martin death at the hands of George Zimmerman is misplaced, said Fair.

      “It reinforces the notion [among African-Americans] of the evilness of white people … that white people are killing black people,” said Fair. But “the outrage should be about us killing each other.”

      In 2009, completed law-enforcement investigations showed that
      352 African-Americans were killed by known whites — a category that includes Latinos — and
      4,094 African-Americans were killed by African-Americans, according to FBI data.

  37. gmanfortruth says:
  38. Highjack!

    SCOTUS/OCare

    1. Kagen was Solicitor General for O during the creation of the boondoggle. Why hasn’t she recused herself?

    2. Listen to the CNN video at the bottom of this story. Why were the liberal justices “prodding” the Adm’s lawyer and helping him out? Aren’t they there to question and get clarification only?

    3. Everything you read says the four liberal justices will side with the Adm/the five others will follow the Constitution. What is wrong with that picture?

    http://nation.foxnews.com/justice/2012/03/27/very-bad-day-obama-mandate-supreme-court

    • Buck the Wala says:

      I urge you and everyone else not to make the mistake of reading into the questions being asked to see where the justices are leaning and take away a likely conclusion. It just doesn’t work that way. Judges will often play devil’s advocate.

      In response to your questions/comments though:

      1) There is no requirement for Kagan or any other SCOTUS Justice to recuse. There really do need to be more precise standards for this sort of thing. But absent any requirement…

      2) They weren’t. Its oral argument. This often happens on both sides and across the aisle.

      3) First off, don’t read into things like that. Second off, it isn’t about siding w/ the administration versus the constitution. As I posted above, if this case was brought 5 years earlier, SCOTUS probably wouldn’t have even granted cert. There is also a somewhat likelihood of SCOTUS dodgin on prcoedural grounds anyway.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Buck, I think SCOTUS will rule on this case. The mandate is a no brainer, totally unConstitutional. the rest is just as much a joke. Obama’s key issue will be crushed in June when the decision is announced.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          I agree that SCOTUS will probably rule on the merits — but there is a decent chance that they will dodge; this has been standard procedure for the Roberts Court in many cases. I honestly do see this as a constitutional exercise of power so dont’ be so cavalier to believe the whole thing is a joke and will clearly be deemed unconstitutional. Remember, constitutionality doesn’t hinge on whether or not the decision is a wise move.

          • Constitutionality does not hinge on need either. The comments of the supporting judges seem to be focussing on how badly the health care system needs some sort of change or fix. It does not matter what the need is, that does not make it ok to ignore or “reinterpret” or “reinvent” the constitution outside of the prescribed channels. This is no joke, but to take the commerce clause to this level clashes heavily with OTHER KEY PARTS of the constitution. When things contradict, you have to take a closer look at it. There is far too much ground being broken with this mandate and far too little justification for it. Most of the justification is circular, meaning that the justification for this stuff is that it is the only way to make the national health care concept work. So throw the whole thing out and start over. There are better ideas. Lots of them.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              There may well be better ideas. This may well prove to be a bad idea (or, conversely, this can prove to be a good idea). But that is a political question, not a constitutional question. You want to throw the whole thing out? Go for it — convince enough people to vote out Obama, vote in a Republican Congress and repeal the law.

              • My point is that members of the court were talking about the need for legislation in this matter. That is NOT their role. That is part of what makes them qualify as “activist”. They are not there to determine if this law is needed, or good, or bad, or any of that. This is a constitutionality question.

      • A Puritan Descendant says:

        “Judges will often play devil’s advocate”

        Sure hope you are right. This statement by Justice Kennedy has be nervous >
        JUSTICE KENNEDY: But they are in the market in the sense that they are creating a risk that the market must account for.

        Pge 70 http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/11-398-Tuesday.pdf

      • Re Kagan…

        I know there isn’t a requirement, just thought perhaps morally or ethically she would remove herself. How silly of me.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Kathy, I actually agree with you that Kagan should recuse herself. (And I agree that there need to be real, enforceable standards on this).

          But how come no uproar about Clarence Thomas? I haven’t heard you say anything about his refusal here.

  39. Wow…..the Supreme Court Justices asked some pretty interesting questions today….centered around losing freedoms.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Colonel, The government is claiming that because everybody will eventually engage in the healthcare industry, that is why they can mandate it under the commerce clause. That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard, Obama and the Dems are proving their extreme ignorance.

      • “Everybody will eventually ________, that is why then can madate ________”

        Sounds like a slippery slope when you fill in the blank and add an agenda.

    • ACTIVIST JUDGES!!!

      ACTIVIST JUDGES!!!

      • gmanfortruth says:

        SOCIALIST LIBERALS!
        SOCIALIST LIBERALS!

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Always amusing how ‘activist judges’ can only be on one side….

        If Obamacare is struck down that’d be very activist of the judges if you ask me.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Why Buck? Because you don’t agree with them? The Feds have been over reaching for far too long, time to shut them down and shut them up!

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Not because I agree or disagree. There are activist liberal judges and activist conservative judges. I just find it amusing that some believe ‘activist judges’ are only on one side of the issue.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              I agree totally. However, I don’t believe that the Constitution is a “living” document that changes with the times. It’s intent to “limit” government doesn’t need changed.

            • Agreed Buck. There are 4 definitive conservative judges in SCOTUS and 4 definitive liberal judges.

        • See, Buck, the problem you have is that you do not remember non-activist court. hell, I can’t remember non-activist court. It had to be before Warren.
          Our definitions of this are completely different. In my case, i want the court to abide by the words and intent of the Constitution. if they don’t, then I call them activist. In your case, you want them to see things your way, if they don’t they are activist. In the scheme of things, the way the country was designed, I am correct. You, a young person wants things to be “better” so you are willing to meddle. Meddling is always dangerous. It sort of like the law of gravity. If gravity were repealed, just think of how easy it would be to lift and move things. Downside though would be that we would all float away.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            SK, it is not about the judge agreeing with me or not. I recognize there are activist liberal judges (who i may agree with) and activist conservative judges (who i may disagree with). You seem to be saying here though that it IS about the judge agreeing with your own view of the Constitution and your own interpretation.

            • If you are coming at it from a strict constructionist view, you are right. I was taught that the court was there to interpret or define the meaning of what was written. Historically, that was so. The mere fact that it changed to “well, we think that they might have meant”, “or times have changed” or “there is this really neat decision in Botswana” is more than worrisome.

              A lot of it comes back to a debate I kept having in the ’60’s over, “Does the end justify the means?” Took a long time for me, what with all the crap that was going on back there to answer “never”. Mischief abounds in uncertainty. If I am never really sure that what I do or want to do will always be protected, why bother?

              Going back to early years I seem to remember being told in High School history that most things Lincoln did were frankly unconstitutional and that was from people who admired him! Lincoln exceeded his authority but things like habeas corpus were returned after the emergency and the freeing of slaves and their gaining rights were enshrined as part of the constitution for among other reasons, to ward off constitutional challenge.

              There is a reason for Constitutional amendments and no matter what Ginsberg says, a reason why they are so difficult., There must be entire courses taught on the Volstead Act. That one piece of legislation, is, when you come down to it, one of the scariest things that ever happened in this country. If they could ram that piece of insanity through what other insanely evil things could be done?

              You could say that FDR’s attempt to pack the court was the first big time attempt to make the court political. Then you have to ask why? As much as I think of FDR as a man for those times (only). It was more than obvious that the reason was the court was telling him NO. He decided that the Executive could or had to, in the present emergency, legislate and they said no. Rather than figure out a way, his response was to neuter them. Wiser heads prevailed but it was from that point on, that presidents and yes, I think liberal leaning presidents, when given an appointment will nominate someone that they believe is like minded enough to allow them to predict decisions. Kagan, Sotomayor and Ginsberg are predictable in every single decision they render. Even Thomas is not predictable every time.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                “I think liberal leaning presidents, when given an appointment will nominate someone that they believe is like minded enough to allow them to predict decisions.”

                Both political parties have certain litmus tests they look to when nominating justices for SCOTUS. This is not a liberal thing.

                Also, there have been differences in constitutional interpretation from the very beginning. In 1803 Marbury v. Madison established the concept of judicial review — this does not appear within the constitution itself, but was deemed essential to the role of the courts and the functioning of our constitutional republic.

              • Yes but…. Did not work out that way for Eisenhower, Bush 1, Reagan or Ford. I tend to think that Conservative leaning presidents tend to still go with the concept of balance even if the justices may “lean” strict. I stand with what I said about liberals, they want, predictability, 100% of the time.

                Years back I came up with a definition of Liberals vs. Conservatives. Conservatives see things the way they are, Liberals see things the way they want them to be. Now, there is nothing wrong with wanting to see things get better but before you enshrine them in law or precedent, make damned sure you understand the law of unintended consequences.

                My favorite example or at least one of my favorites is the “Americans with Disability Act” where the courts have held that drunks and addicts are “disabled”. The damn sponsor of the legislation, Bob Dole, disagrees with that and said it was not the intent yet the courts opened it up to a “:broader than intended” meaning. The whole issue of “bias” crimes should have been thrown out because it opens up a can of worms that can’t be shut. Every disaffected human being in the country is a potential litigant.

              • Stephen K. Trynosky,

                I was taught that the court was there to interpret or define the meaning of what was written. Historically, that was so. The mere fact that it changed to “well, we think that they might have meant”, “or times have changed” or “there is this really neat decision in Botswana” is more than worrisome.

                What’s the difference between these two statements? They seem like the same thing – just worded differently – to me.

                “or times have changed”

                Times have changed. The constitution was written in rather vague terms so it could be interpreted and adapted to a changing world, without a need for an amendment every other month.

                Just one little tweak to your definition:

                Conservatives see things the way they are and want to go back 100 years 😉 , Liberals see things the way they want them to be.

                And one thought about this:

                Liberals see things the way they want them to be.

                If you’re not planning for the future, you’re falling behind! 😉

              • Todd, perhaps I was not clear enough. There is a difference between studying the documents and dictionaries of the time to determine intent and making it up or going outside (the South African Constitution for example).

                Times always change which is exactly why you need a central set of guidelines. I keep hammering that the Constitution has a mechanism for change, it just keeps getting ignored. If there is a good enough reason to change it, not a transient one, not an emotional one, it can be amended.

                I tried to make it clear that there is nothing wrong with trying to make things better, just be careful. I used the ADA as an example. I just as easily could have used all the crap that has devolved from the Civil Rights bills including race based quotas and preferential treatment (if you have the time some day, study what happened to the NY Fire Department Civil Service test for the past 40 years. One question was thrown out as “race based” which had to do with an half empty gas gauge!”) It is a study in judicial tyranny. We have now splintered to the point where the “Times” can get away with “White Hispanic”. As I heard a commentator say today about that, had Zimmy won the Nobel prize in medicine instead of shooting down the black kid, you could be damned sure the “white” part of Hispanic would never have graced the pages of the “Times”.

                Somewhere along the line if there are laws, regulations, rules with the consistency of wet spaghetti, they really don’t mean a thing and are all but irrelevant. You may like that, “anything goes”, but as it has been in the banking business recently, it is a recipe for disaster.

                You and I are two individuals as Churchill said, separated by a common language. I do plan for the future but open myself to the real world and probability instead of the Utopia that liberals seem to see just around the corner. Remember those French Generals in WW I, “It’s not the machine gun that stops our troops from winning it is their lack of spirit!” Libs are the same way, their ideas have not failed just not pursued them with enough spirit.

            • Interesting label….activist judge and its use……seems to me, if the President can appoint a judge to a lifetime term…..whoever the party in power appoints a judge that…….agrees with the party in power. Does that not make “activist” a foregone conclusion?

              Good Morning, counselor, I do hope that your day is going well……………………………………so far.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                G’morning colonel. Can’t complain too much today; how about yourself?

                I don’t think that makes activist a foregone conclusion. Though I do think its a label that’s thrown around much to glibly whenever a justice renders an opinion someone doesn’t agree with.

      • Stirring the pot,sir?

        You remind me of a Andy Griffith TV sitcom….where Gomer Pyle goes around hollerin’ “citizens arrest..citizens arrest…….

  40. gmanfortruth says:

    Well now, it seems that this story is getting interesting. Now the evidence is supporting Zimmerman and now this:

    Also Monday, an attorney for Martin’s mother confirmed that she filed trademark applications for two slogans containing her son’s name: “Justice for Trayvon” and “I Am Trayvon.” The applications said the trademarks could be used for such things as DVDs and CDs.

    The trademark attorney, Kimra Major-Morris, said in an email that Fulton wants to protect intellectual property rights for “projects that will assist other families who experience similar tragedies.”

    Asked if Fulton had any profit motive, the attorney replied: “None.”

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/27/police-zimmerman-story-is-consistent-with-evidence-in-trayvon-martin-shooting/#ixzz1qLv9s2rm

  41. gmanfortruth says:

    OMG! How everyone has been fooled by this bogus story! The media run bullshit is falling apart! It’s all about dividing the people before the economic collapse, so the media and government can blame the minority for all the violence coming. THe sheeple are such fools!

  42. @USW:

    I’m not sure if there is a state by state study and I do see your point, but there is “some” evidence to support the law gives some people a little more encouragement to act rashly. How many in this study can actually be assigned to the law is, of course, something that can’t be determined, but the fact there has been a tripling of the #’s has to make one wonder.

    http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/03/20/deaths-nearly-triple-since-stand-your-ground-enacted/

    I’ll look up some more tomorrow if I get a chance at work. It is a fascinating subject, frankly. I honestly don’t know the answer and my assumption was completely based on the zimmerman case (total conjecture based on this guy being a wannabe more than a racist) before I look the link above up.

    • Charlie,

      I was looking at this statistic as well. Correct me if I am wrong, but the number of deaths did not triple, just the number that were after the fact ruled as justifiable. Another way to look at the is three times as many innocent people who were acting in self defense were saved from having their lives ruined by a charge only to be exonerated earlier.

      I think it is correct for us to look at this law and its potential effects, but what I have found so far doesn’t show me that it is a bad law or that people are acting differently because the law was put in place.

      Thanks for the link. I look forward to what you find.

  43. gmanfortruth says:

    Why isn’t there absolute outrage about this?

    • USWeapon says:

      Black people should be just as embarrassed by the New Black Panther Party as rational white people should be by the Klan. There is no difference….

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I agree totally. In this instance, they are putting a bounty on him, which is kidnapping and a Federal crime. But, they are leftist race pimps supported by Obama and the democrats, so it must be OK now to kidnap people as long as the Left Wing says it’s OK. Really? It sure looks like the race pimps (MSM, Sharpton, Jackson, the New Black Panthers, Obama and Holder) want a bloody race war.

        • USWeapon says:

          I don’t know that I believe all of those mentioned want a bloody race war. I think that most politicians feel that any division you can sow within the populace is beneficial to their remaining in power (too busy arguing with each other to remove a corrupt government). The NBPP on the other hand does want a bloody race war. They believe it is justified and overdue. They also believe that they would “win” such a thing.

    • Saw a comment on a blog recently…

      NBP = The Klan with a Tan

    • Same as the “address” tweet.

      If you want Justice from the Justice System, you can’t go around the Justice System when it suits you needs (or desire or stupidity).

      Stupidity like this just puts the focus on the idiots who offered the bounty, instead of on the actual case.

  44. USWeapon says:

    How sad is this? This is the mindset that is stirred up when the race baiters begin doing what they do. Talk about innocent people terrorized…

    Elderly couple forced out of home after tweet claims killer of Trayvon Martin lives there

    “Black Power all day. No justice, no peace”

    • USWeapon says:

      They should sue Spike Lee’s racist behind. I do believe they would win…

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Yes, they should. Between Lee and TNPP, where is DHS and some terrorist charges? Nothing will happen in either case, the head race pimp in the White House won’t allow it. 👿

    • #1. If you’re going to tweet something like this, you better get it right.
      #2. Even if you get it right, you’re an idiot if you actually tweet something like this.

      What’s the value? Insight a mob? Vandalize the house – or the whole neighborhood?

      Even if you get the right address, he wouldn’t be there very long after word got out.

      Stupidity like this just puts the focus on the idiot who tweeted it, instead of on the actual case.

  45. Someone help me out here…..

    South Texas…….bounty on drug czars.
    Florida….bounty on Zimmerman,

    Texas bounty considered racist.
    Florida bounty considered public service.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      South Texas bounty = legal form to atain justice under the rule of law.
      Florida = illegal bounty akin to kidnapping to attain vigilaty justice.

      Those on the left hate our constitutional rule of law, therefore South Texas is racist and Florida is OK. Maybe we need to rethink our position on liberals?

  46. @ Buck…The Walla Man……(picking your brain here and knowing that you are not a Constitution Lawyer)….however…..in reading the Commerce Clause…it seems to me that the basis for this was protection of tariffs from one state to another. In other words, Interstate Commerce…..

    Since Health Care, as it currently stands, is not interstate in nature due to the restrictions of keeping it intrastate….why, in your humble opinion, is this not an argument? (Or is it and I just missed it). Justice Ginsburg, I think, has it wrong in her statement of “engaging in commerce. Hell, if I buy a CD from you on a personal basis, we are engaging in commerce. It seems to me that using the simple term “commerce” is pretty far reaching….or am I missing something here. (Please keep in mind that I am a dumb old retired Colonel who knows nothing).

    • Buck the Wala says:

      The overall health care system is interstate in nature — people routinely seek health care services in another state from where they reside.

      Ginsberg does have the correct basic standard — engaging in commerce / commercial activity. The reason you buying a CD from me does not qualify, is that it has zero effect on interstate commerce (though, I’m sure there are certain regulations out there on shipping from NJ to TX).

      The basic questions here as I understand them are:
      1) Does Congress have the authority to regulate the health care industry? Yes.
      2) Is the individual mandate necessary and proper towards this regulation? Yes.
      3) Does the individual mandate violate the constitution? Here is where the real arugment lies, and again, I would say the answer is No. It falls within congressional power to tax and it falls within the commerce clause (the decision to not purchase insurance is an economic decision (economic activity) which has a substantial affect on interstate commerce vis-a-vis the health care industry).

      The final question is whether or not the individual mandate is a good/wise decision — and that is something completely beyond the scope of the judicial system.

      And please, I would never call you a dumb old retired colonel…perhaps an old retired colonel, but not a dumb one. 🙂

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I would say the answer is No. It falls within congressional power to tax and it falls within the commerce clause (the decision to not purchase insurance is an economic decision (economic activity) which has a substantial affect on interstate commerce vis-a-vis the health care industry).

        Buck, My God, how can you believe this line of bullshit? Based on your opinion I can be forced to buy green peas because my choice not to buy them has a substantial affect on commerce. Why don’t you just wear a shirt that says “I’m a slave to the State, they can make me do anything” 👿

        • Buck the Wala says:

          GMan, I understand your frustration over this and your views. But there is an enormous distinction between being forced to purchase health insurance and being forced to purchase peas. You need to look at the peculiarities of the overall health care industry, how your decisions affect everyone else, etc.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            You need to look at the peculiarities of the overall health care industry, how your decisions affect everyone else, etc

            Buck, my responsibilities end with my family. I do not give a rats ass if Joe Blow has health insurance, it is not my responsibility to make it affordable for him. Forgive me for screaming bloody murder at the computer screen, 🙂 but your argument is pure bullshit!

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Look, I’m never going to convince you of the constitutional arguments in favor of an individual mandate. I’m not going to continue to try – it’s pointless.

              I truly believe this to be a completely constitutional exercise of Congressional authority. Given just how political SCOTUS has begun, it wouldn’t shock me if they ruled it unconstitutitonal (though it would still surprise me a bit). In past decisions and statements even Scalia has intimated that this would pass constitutional muster — not sure how he can walk that one back now, but Scalia is an evil genius when it comes to just that.

              I came across an interesting statement on DailyKOS earlier this morning — even if SCOTUS declares this unconstitutional, this could wind up being a good thing for those who want single payer, as it would solidify amongst liberals and progressives that single payer is the only option left.

          • Buck-even if you see a difference now-look at history and tell me that the court hasn’t always found away around the so called limits on their power-every power starts out small and grows and grows and grows.

            If this passes-I personally assure you-it is only the beginning.

            • Sarah Palin was right about death panels
              Ethel C. Fenig

              They laughed when Sarah Palin (R) announced that Obamacare would save money with death panels denying care to the elderly, the extremely ill. Well the elderly and their families are not laughing in not so merry old England, home of government run socialized medicine, the National Health Service, where death panels are…denying care to the elderly. According to The Telegraph

              A lack of treatment or insufficient treatment is contributing to 14,000 deaths a year in people over the age of 75, Macmillan Cancer Support has found, in what it called an ‘unacceptable act of discrimination’.

              Deaths from cancer are reducing in most age groups but at a slower rate in those aged 74 to 84 and are increasing in people aged 85 and over, the report said.

              The report, The Age Old Excuse: the under treatment of older cancer patients, said treatment options are too often recommended on the basis of age rather than how fit the patient is.

              Professor Riccardo Audisio, Consultant Surgical Oncologist at St Helens Hospital, said: “It is despicable to neglect, not to offer, not to even go near to the best treatment option only on the simple basis of the patient’s age.

              “This has been a horrible mistake that, particularly in the UK, we have suffered from.”

              And compared to greedy, profit driven, expensive American medicine that President Barack Hussein Obama (D) and his acolytes decry and the selfish Palinites support,

              According to research published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, there would be 14,000 fewer deaths from cancer in those aged over 75 per year if if mortality rates from cancer matched those in America.

              But…but…people over 75 are old. And they would vote for well, Sarah Palin (R) instead of Obama. Or…eek! former Vice President Dick Cheney (R) who should never have received a heart transplant claim the death panel supporting sensitive haters. Read their appalling comments here. More here.

              Watch the Supreme Court case on Obamacare closely; hope death panels are not in your 70+ year old future.

              Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/03/sarah_palin_was_right_about_death_panels.html#ixzz1qQQx20h7

              • Buck the Wala says:

                So wait, let me get this straight, Sarah Palin was correct about death panels because of something going on in the UK???

              • No, Buck! No.

                Sarah Palin was correct about death panels because of something ALLEGEDLY going on in the UK.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Thanks for the clarification there.

            • Buck, the Palin story was just to get Matt to spit up his RedBull. I think the article should inspire some thought.

              Obama has said he prefers a single payer system.
              1. I think this is fascist. Private ownership of insurance companies with the federal government controlling thru mandate.
              2. Slippery slope or whatever you want to call it, all government programs grow, so if ObamaCare is the start point, where is the end?
              3. The UK was held up as a model to follow. Their system is failing and they are scrambling to change it from an entitlement base system. So why is this the direction we MUST go?
              4. This was touted as necessary to insure all Americans, but even after implementation, some 15 million will still not have insurance? It was also explained it would reduce costs. This is already proven to be completely false.

              I suggest we re-examine the goals that we may all share, affordable health care. What examples are out there in the world that have decreased costs while providing better quality? I think most that you find will be free market based, like auto insurance.

              Also, you and Matt might want to review, there have been several points made that show Palin made a good point about those death panels.

              http://blogs.phillymag.com/the_philly_post/2011/10/20/sarah-palin-death-panels/

              (be sure you mumble that so your boss doesn’t think it’s him you are cursing)

              • Buck the Wala says:

                1) Single payer is not fascist. Socialist, sure. But not fascist.
                2) I explained earlier that I don’t buy slippery slope arguments, sorry.
                3) The UK is A model to follow, not necessarily THE model. Not to mention that your argument that the UK system is failing is a gross over-exaggeration, I will allow Bob (Bob…calling Bob…) to provide more information on this as he is eminently more familiar with the UK system and current situation than I.
                4) Obamacare was never sold as a means of insuring 100%, but of substantially reducing the number of uninsured Americans. I personally feel it is a travesty that it doesn’t attain universal coverage and its single greatest shortcoming. It is also why I was so pissed with Obama for backing out of inserting a public option.
                5) Palin and death panels — are we still on this? really??

          • Buck you need to stop focussing on the minor differences in food and health care and pay attention to how much they are similar. The specific goal is distributed cost. That specific goal could be accomplished in any market, the differences of health insurance are irrelevant to the goal of the legislation. Even if you could argue that it couldn’t based on current market trends, it would apply to all types of insurance. Home-owners insurance would be a good example. If everyone had to have home-owners insurance it would drive down the costs for those with homes. Total costs on the taxpayers could be arguably lower because less federal aid would be required in disasters because everyone has some sort of home-owners or disaster insurance. How about boating insurance? Dental? Life insurance? As mentioned in court, burial insurance? Those last two involve death, even I cannot argue that there would not be an eventual death for every person, so why should we not have nationally mandated purchase of life insurance and burial insurance, at least enough to make sure all debts were paid upon one’s death. You seeing the problem here? This sort of crap could end up forcing everyone to buy insurance for everything and it all be single payer and all that BS. It is foolishness, and it is in direct violation of the very idea of individual freedom, of the concept of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

      • Not buying something is NOT commerce at all, much less interstate commerce. The commerce clause effects interstate commerce, not interstate economic decisions. By your logic every purchase or lack of purchase affects interstate commerce because it all involves materials, shipping, manufacturing, even overseas manufacturing. Non-purchases do the same, since it affects, at its core, supply and demand, which goes across state lines all the time. Can you guarantee me that the CD you buy from D13 had no materials made or shipped across state lines? That it is not full of content created and recorded in another state, etc.? The shipping alone is interstate commerce. The lack of buying it will affect demand levels on that particular recording, possibly changing values, however minute.

        Further, you said “Ginsberg does have the correct basic standard — engaging in commerce / commercial activity”. Since when does the failure to engage in said commercial activity also get included in that basic standard. Verrilli tried to make the argument that everyone will eventually engage in the use of the health care system. Firstly, that is not true. It is possible for someone to not. My youngest sister, for instance, was born at home. She has never been to a doctor, ever. She has not needed to. If she got flattened by a bus tomorrow and was dead at the scene, she would have lived her entire life with no use of the health care system whatsoever. My middle sister has used medical services once. She had appendicitis. She was 13 at the time, and Dad had no insurance. It was paid for on a payment plan worked out with the hospital, the bill was not supplemented and took years to pay, but it is taken care of. So even in a case where health care is used, it does not guarantee that health insurance is used. I, too, have not used health insurance except when I was born and when I was 7 and needed stitches, my Dad had insurance at those times. All other health care occasions I have paid for myself, no insurance. You cannot guarantee I will ever use health care or health insurance. This may be anecdotal evidence, even theoretical since the persons mentioned are all alive still. However, if you go back a bit farther, the majority of the country never used health care services. So an absolute statement that everyone will eventually use the “health care market” is false. Further, the use of the health care market does not guarantee the use of health insurance. Even those with insurance, if their deductible is high enough, may never use it in their life. The whole thing is based on a false premise. And the whole thing is based on forcing demand to manipulate the market, which is outside of the commerce clause any way you read it.

      • @ Buck…….but does not, in your opinion, this create a slippery slope? I do NOT see the SCOTUS limiting the commerce clause to health care, should they not vote it unconstitutional. By your definition, or the definition that you put forth, because the wind blows across state lines, it is considered interstate in nature. This is awfully far reaching to me and beyond the scope of the original commerce clause as I read it. BUT….who knows.

        I have nothing to worry about as the mandate will not affect me. I have insurance….it is the subtleties in Obama Care, that goes beyond the pail that scare me a whole lot more than the mandate…..but I will agree with gman on one issue…….if this is passed and the commerce definition is more solidified, then I see a huge usurp of individual rights and power and that the government could regulate and mandate anything within that ruling. I find it very scary.

        The only way to defeat it then is in Congress and the refusal to fund said projects unless that violates some law.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          I don’t buy slippery slope arguments. Way too slippery if you ask me — they can be used to pretend to make any argument under the sun.

          I do agree with you that ‘the only way to defeat it then is in Congress’ — this is more of a political question (to me) than a constitutional question.

  47. If I were the repubs…..quit worrying about Obama…..he is toothless if you own the Senate and House.

  48. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    5 reasons ObamaCare is already good for you
    By Sally Kohn
    Published March 28, 2012 | FoxNews.com

    This week, the nine Justices of the Supreme Court have been listening to oral arguments about the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

    According to polls, 56% of Americans favor repealing the health care reform law. Then again, a decision on fundamental rights and constitutionality should not be a popularity contest. What’s more, according another poll, 1 in 7 Americans believes the Supreme Court has already repealed the Affordable Care Act. So much for polling.

    How’s about, instead, we look at some facts:

    1. Millions of Americans have already benefited from ObamaCare

    In 2011, an estimated 86 million Americans used provisions in the Affordable Care Act to get preventative care through their insurance plans, care that insurance companies previously subjected to co-pays or deductibles but now must provide for free. Over 2.5 million seniors have saved an estimated $1.5 billion thanks to prescription drug discounts included in health care reform.

    At least 2.5 million young people now can stay on their parents’ health insurance until age 26. And 4 million small businesses can now claim a tax deduction for providing health insurance to their employees, which so far over a quarter-million small businesses have claimed, providing insurance for 2 million workers.

    2. The law won’t fully take effect until 2014

    It’s amazing all the pre-emptive attacks on a law that, for the most part, hasn’t gone into effect yet. You can check out this timeline of the various provisions of the Affordable Care Act and when they will take effect.

    The controversial “individual mandate” at the center of the Supreme Court arguments this week doesn’t kick in until 2014. What this means is that the cost containment provisions in the Affordable Care Act haven’t gone into effect yet either, and meanwhile critics are attacking the law based largely on hypothetical future predictions.

    In fact, on Monday, the Supreme Court considered whether interest groups or individuals can file suit against a provision in the law that hasn’t even been enforced yet.

    3. The individual mandate was originally a Republican idea.

    Recently, President Obama’s senior adviser David Plouffe called Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney “the godfather of the individual mandate.” At a GOP primary debate in 2011, Romney said, “We got the idea of an individual mandate…from [Newt Gingrich], and [Newt] got it from the Heritage Foundation.”

    In fact, the idea of requiring businesses or individuals to provide and pay for health insurance traces at least as far back as Richard Nixon, who in 1974 proposed a mandate that “every employer would be required to offer all full-time employees the Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan,” the insurance plan Nixon was pushing.

    In 1989, Stuart Butler of the Heritage Foundation shifted the conservative frame from an employer mandate to an individual mandate, writing:

    If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not he has insurance. If we find that he has spent his money on other things rather than insurance, we may be angry but we will not deny him services—even if that means more prudent citizens end up paying the tab…. A mandate on households certainly would force those with adequate means to obtain insurance protection, which would end the problem of middle-class “free riders” on society’s sense of obligation.

    Incidentally, Butler has recently tried to renounce his invention of the individual mandate, but it appears to me that his reasoning reads something like, “I was for it when it was a Republican idea and am against it now that Democrats embraced it.”

    4. The Congressional Budget Office recently cut health care reform’s cost estimates.

    Conservatives have relied on apples-to-oranges accounting gimmicks to suggest the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently doubled the cost estimates for the Affordable Care Act.

    In fact, the CBO adjusted its estimates to say the Affordable Care Act will cost less than originally projected. Moreover, the CBO has said that repealing the Affordable Care Act would increase the deficit by $210 billion.

    5. Something had to be done about health care

    The fact is, almost three-quarters of Americans saw health care reform as an urgent priority in the fall of 2009.

    President Obama had a plan.

    Republicans did not.

    Still today, the president is trying to adapt and confirm the implementation of the Affordable Care Act to meet the needs of all Americans while keeping costs down. Republicans are simply putting forward another budget that slashes Medicare and middle class benefits while giving more tax breaks to the rich.

    At the end of the day, while Americans are still on the fence about the Affordable Care Act as a blanket concept, when asked about particular remedies that the law includes, the public is overwhelmingly supportive.

    This suggests that the president has a messaging problem, not a policy problem — whereas the Republicans simply lack any substantive alternative, let alone a popular one.

    All of the above suggests that the current fight over health care reform has nothing to do with the Affordable Care Act and everything to do with the president who signed it.

    Never mind the fact that the law already shows promising and valuable impact even before it’s fully in effect. Never mind the fact that cost estimates are dropping and, starting in 2014, the law will contain overall health care costs that are crippling our household budgets.

    Never mind the fact that the central component of the law was a Republican idea. Conservative ideologues are willing to sacrifice much-needed health care reform and the well-being of millions of Americans who don’t have health insurance or are being denied care because of pre-existing conditions, lifetime caps on spending or other injustices — all for the sick goal of undermining President Obama.

    Fortunately, about a third of the country — moderate and swing voters — haven’t made up their mind and are ready to listen to the president, who needs to a better job in the 2012 campaign of defining the benefits of his health care reform. But especially when faced with the alternative — a Republcan Party increasingly concerned only with the health and well-being of the 1% — voters will back the president and their own best interest to have health and prosperity for all Americans.

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/28/5-reasons-obamacare-is-already-good-for/

    • Wow, more crap from Fox News, huh?? 😉

      • …reading…reading…reading…

        Wow, very interesting. You know, I can’t argue with Fox News… 😉

        PS – Please ignore my previous post… 😉

        • Wait, what.. I’m confused.. I didn’t think Fox was allowed to publish articles that don’t tow the line for the GOP propaganda machine. Did someone miss a memo?

          Want to place bets on how long until Sally Kohn is fired?

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Juan Williams had a very similar opinion piece just a day or two ago… also on… GASP… foxnews.com

            Amazing, no?

          • Oh, now I understand. This is from “Bizarro” Fox News…

  49. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Ok, lets take this opinion piece apart 1 point at a time, shall we?

    Point 1, Preventive care is now FREE??? I see a lot of opinion pieces like this one, and one by Juan Williams earlier this week claiming that “services which were previously not covered, or had an associated deductible or co-pay are now free”. REALLY? How stupid are people now, really. Even though you go to the doctor for a routine physical and you no longer have to pay a deductible or co-pay, so your out-of-pocket expense for that particular visit is now $0, somehow that means it is FREE? Someone please explain the rationale behind that, because I don’t get it. SOMEONE is paying for that doctor visit, and ultimately that someone is YOU, unless of course you are among the “poor” who have heavily subsidized insurance, in which case it is other taxpayers and ratepayers who are paying for it instead of you. Any way you slice it, it didn’t just magically become “free”.

    Point 2, The law won’t fully take effect until 2014. This is presented as some sort of reason for challenging the law now??? Gee, it seems like a better idea to wait until it takes full effect and gets entrenched in the bureaucracy and THEN challenge it, at least according to this author. Yeah, I am sure that would work much better.

    Point 3, We are supposed to CARE whether this originally was a Republican or Democrat idea? I am pretty sure a bad idea is a bad idea regardless of the source! Also, if you look at what the Heritage Foundation proposed vs. what is in the current law, you will see that the plan from the Heritage Foundation uses free market tools to accomplish its goals, as opposed to government force, and the contents of the Heritage proposal differ significantly from the law which is currently being challenged.

    Point 4, It is easy to find the CBO report which recently doubled the estimated costs of this health care law to 1.78 Trillion over the next decade. I am not sure where the author found any statistic showing that the CBO LOWERED cost estimates. Regardless, 1.78 Trillion over the next decade is most likely a vast under-estimate. CBO routinely under-estimates the costs of each and every government program, and this one will certainly be no exception. Perhaps it is true that repealing Obamacare would cause an increase in the deficit of 210 Billion, it doesn’t matter what the government does, the deficit goes up, but that doesn’t automatically equate to repeal being a “bad idea”.

    Point 5, Obama had a plan and the Republicans didn’t?? I throw the BS flag on that one. Republicans submitted several alternative plans, but they were all blocked from even getting hearings in either the House or the Senate. Having plans that don’t even get hearings is not equal to not having a plan. The author wants us to somehow magically believe that a TERRIBLE plan is VASTLY SUPERIOR to no plan at all. That stretches the bounds of credulity.

    The author claims that Obamacare will bring “health and prosperity to all Americans” (and not just the 1% that Republicans are so in love with). And yet, due to what will inevitably cost over-runs and the need for strict cost controls, it is far more likely to cause a decrease in overall health of “the 99%”. The 1% will be able to afford great healthcare regardless of the situation, so they will be ok. As far as the “prosperity” argument, please explain how a government program like this which will cause our already bloated debt and deficit to balloon out of control completely is going to help the 99% become more prosperous, because I don’t get it.

    • “care that insurance companies previously subjected to co-pays or deductibles but now must provide for free. Over 2.5 million seniors have saved an estimated $1.5 billion thanks to prescription drug discounts included in health care reform. ”

      There was no savings, there was a shifting of costs from those who do not pay for their health insurance to those who do pay for their insurance or pay income tax. My personal health insurance costs have gone up about two thousand dollars so far…Also consider the abuse invited when things are “free” vs requiring some cost. How many will now go to the doctor’s office because it’s free instead of buying allergy medicine? Why pay for any minor medical treatments when it’s free?

    • Our insurance bill at work is going up 17% this year.

  50. Beautiful story……….
    One afternoon a lawyer was riding in his limousine when he saw two men along the road-side eating grass.

    Disturbed, he ordered his driver to stop to investigate.

    He asked one man, “Why are you eating grass?”

    “We don’t have any money for food,” the poor man replied. “We have to eat grass.”

    “Well, then, you can come with me to my house and I’ll feed you,” the lawyer said.

    “But sir, I have a wife and two children with me. They are over there, under that tree.”

    “Bring them along,” the lawyer replied.

    Turning to the other poor man he stated, “You may come with us, also.”

    The second man, in a pitiful voice, then said, “But sir, I also have a wife and SIX children with me!”

    “Bring them all as well,” the lawyer answered.

    They all entered the car, which was no easy task, even for a car as large as the limousine was.

    Once under way, one of the poor fellows turned to the lawyer and said, “Sir, you are too kind.”

    “Thank you for taking all of us with you.

    The lawyer replied, “Glad to do it.

    “You’ll really love my place.

    “The grass is almost a foot high.”

    Come on now…you really didn’t think there was such a thing as a heartwarming lawyer story…did you????

  51. It is hard to shock me anymore-but what the heck is this craziness about!!

    NYC Schools Ban Words Like Birthday, Slavery and Dinosaur

    Helen Whalen Cohen

    Community Manager, Townhall.com

    Mar 28, 2012 01:37 PM EST

    Taking political correctness to new extremes, the New York City Department of Education has banned the following words from tests (this is a non-exhaustive list):

    birthday – could be offensive to Jehovah’s Witnesses

    Halloween – references Paganism

    dinosaur – reference to evolution

    dancing – offensive to students whose religion bans dancing (references to ballet dance won’t be affected)

    home computers – reference to economic disparity amongst students

    50 words have been removed in total, according to ABC. The Department of Education says that this is necessary to avoid ‘appearing biased’. According to a Department of Education spokeswoman, banning these words is a way for “students to complete practice exams without distraction”.

    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/helenwhalencohen/2012/03/28/nyc_schools_ban_words_like_birthday_slavery_and_dinosaur

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I’m starting to believe that Liberals are all psychotic sociopaths. THey have lost it! 🙂

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Kindly refrain from calling all liberals psychotic sociopaths based on this idiotic idea.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          I was going to agree, then I read the most recent reply from Charlie 🙂 Now I must think about it, 😆

    • So, VH and G-Man,

      Now you believe the MSM? I mean, ABC News as a source? You couldn’t find this on Fox?

      I’d say this is just “media horseshit.”

      “That all the BS involved with the media is a telltale sign.”

      Maybe this is “just to shut up all this media hype and RIGHT wing whining.”

      “The media run bullshit is falling apart.”

      • You get up on the wrong side of the bed today?

        • Not at all VH. Those are all direct quotes from G-Man. All in this one article. I’m bet I could find many more in previous articles.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Yes Todd, you likely will. I do not trust the MSM to tell the truth, at least without some rediculous spin to go along with it. I’m likely opposite of you in that area. I just can’t help it, I’m not nieve. 🙂

  52. @USW:

    I’m not finding much more than several of the same stats regarding tripling deaths in FL. I’m not sure there will be anything definitive on this for another dozen years (or more), but assuming (for arguments sake) 1/2 the number of those deaths that have increased are legitimate and 1/2 are too ambiguous to call, just the Zimmerman case is enough for me to want this law repealed. I suspect at the very least a few more Zimmerman-like rushes to shoot (not based on race, just frightened individuals who feel more powerful with a weapon) are out there in those stats. One would be enough for me. Not because I don’t believe the remaining cases weren’t legitimate life threatening situations, but for the simple fact probably in most cases, it would be too difficult to determine. It is a slippery slope from both sides and I certainly want people to be able to protect themselves, but from where I sit, there’s way too much of a risk of Zimmerman-like shootings that would outweigh a need for this law. I’m thinking people should have to consider the consequences of their actions, as unfair as they may sometimes be, because having one’s reputation destroyed, as bad as that can be, still falls short of being killed by mistake (or from over anxiousness, zealousness, etc.).

    I would like to see all that stats on this from all the states involved (apparently 31 have the same or similar laws) and frankly, that shocks me (I’ve been living in a bubble, I guess).

    Just got home and have to shoot the pup with his insulin. I’ll try and fine more about this over the next few days, although I’m surprised it wasn’t staring me in the face when I googled it.

    • Back in my old auxiliary police days I was told, by a cop no less, and that cop was a black man too, “better to be judged by twelve than carried by six”. There is a certain amount of truth there.

    • @Charlie

      I appreciate the honest look that you are giving it. I found the same odd thing: a lack of ability to have the facts and statistics easily available.

      I appreciate what you are saying, but you mentioned just based on the Zimmerman case you think it should be repealed. You feel that way even IF (and this is “if” cause I have no idea) he had no idea that the law even existed, in which case it didn’t influence the outcome of this situation, AND even if the end result is that the investigation results in his going to jail for murder? I would think that if those two things come to pass, it would eliminate scrutiny of the law, at least as it pertains to this case, as it would support my argument that the law didn’t influence his actions and all that resulted was a delay in justice, not an absence of it. What if a magic video showed up showing that Zimmerman was actually walking back to his truck and Trayvon blindsided and him then told him “I am going to kill you”? If that happened would you agree that the law did what it was supposed to do, in allowing a person who was having their life threatened to not spend months or years in jail until exonerated.

      Obviously these are hypotheticals, but I am interested in why this one case would influence your decision. I agree that a ruined reputation is nothing next to a life, but shouldn’t our laws protect the innocent WHENEVER possible, including potential victims who save themselves? I think that the innocent should be protected at all costs. Why should someone who did absolutely nothing wrong have to have their world turned upside down if we can prevent it?

      ALL this law does is ensure that we review the evidence BEFORE ruining someone’s life. I don’t think it would be right to say that when facing potential death or serious injury, someone should have to think and make a decision between only two options: Have my life ruined or have my life ended. I imagine that if you found yourself in that situation, you wouldn’t be satisfied with those being your only two options.

      • charlieopera says:

        @USW:

        What if a magic video showed up showing that Zimmerman was actually walking back to his truck and Trayvon blindsided and him then told him “I am going to kill you”? If that happened would you agree that the law did what it was supposed to do, in allowing a person who was having their life threatened to not spend months or years in jail until exonerated.

        In this case it would not change my mind (because of the following Zimmerman did, ect.), but let’s say Zimmerman was followed by Martin (no 911 calls, etc.) and Zimmerman felt his life was threatened. Shooting to kill is, in my opinion, not justifiable when all the kid had were his hands vs. Zimmerman (as we know these two individuals physical attributes). If the guy was Hulk Hogan vs. Zimmerman and all he had were his hands, different story (maybe).

        Obviously these are hypotheticals, but I am interested in why this one case would influence your decision. I agree that a ruined reputation is nothing next to a life, but shouldn’t our laws protect the innocent WHENEVER possible, including potential victims who save themselves?

        The reason the case influenced my decision is because I never knew this law existed anywhere (I do sometimes live in a bubble). I would have been against it for exactly the reasons it is now being so scrutinized. So far there’s a video of Zimmerman in the police station with a spot of blood or a broken nose (which, if he has one now, suggests either he or the police did him the favor). If, on the other hand, hypothetically, Zimmerman got his ass kicked by Martin six ways to Sunday, it still would not justify (to me) his using a gun; and certainly not to kill the kid. Shoot him in the leg if you can’t fight. In the chest?

        I think that the innocent should be protected at all costs. Why should someone who did absolutely nothing wrong have to have their world turned upside down if we can prevent it?

        Good question, but since we’re dealing with a hypothetical here …

        Why should someone who did absolutely nothing wrong …

        This is the question many today are wondering regarding Martin … ending your hypothetical with a reality “be killed”? It’s a slippery slope, I agree; something very tough to define statistically, but I can’t believe that all the deaths in the “tripling” number were people who saved their own lives. I’m sure there were several, but my guess (and it is a guess) is that there are a few (if not many) bad decisions that could have been something short of a killing.

        ALL this law does is ensure that we review the evidence BEFORE ruining someone’s life. I don’t think it would be right to say that when facing potential death or serious injury, someone should have to think and make a decision between only two options: Have my life ruined or have my life ended. I imagine that if you found yourself in that situation, you wouldn’t be satisfied with those being your only two options.

        I hopefully never have to make such a decision, but I still believe the innocent deaths that will (or have) occur from this law, negate its justification. People who are genuinely threatened (or feel their lives are genuinely threatened) are not going to worry about what comes next (scrutiny, legal or otherwise). People without a genuine fear of their life (just scared shitless … or, as the case “may” be with Zimmerman, just lousy fighters), may opt to use a weapon with deadly force.

        • Self defense is very different in life than on paper, charlie. A shot in the leg is never what you are supposed to do. You shoot center mass or you don’t bother. Furthermore, there are a great many cases where a defender’s weapon is used against them. In those cases, it is generally because the person uses it as a threat instead of as a weapon. Don’t get too caught up in “better options”. In the Martin case, he may have been no threat to Zimmerman, and he definitely would not have been a threat had Zimmerman not pursued, which is why I have a hard time counting this as self-defense. In other cases, however, an aggressor is at fault. In fact, in this case Zimmerman acts more like an aggressor, which is why I lean to Martin’s side. In most cases I have seen where Stand Your Ground is employed, the defender/shooter is not the aggressor, they are not pursuing. If your intention is to steal a purse, not kill or rape, you may not deserve death. However, if you are pursuing, regardless of why, and you are judged as a threat, I do not pity you when you get shot down, because you were being the aggressor. You were engaging in a violent act or a threatening manner. Stand your ground does not permit you to pursue or initiate aggression, it merely means that you can defend yourself if attacked and you are not at home, nor do you have to hope you can outrun your pursuer or that he is not armed with a projectile weapon. You can make a judgement call to stop an attack with deadly force. I have no issue with that. If, on the other hand, your attacker starts running when he sees you are armed, you are not standing your ground when you chase after him and shoot him. As far as I am concerned, Stand Your Ground makes it easier to justify defense, but no easier to justify initiation of violence. I don’t care of taking a life seems harsh to you or not, you should never initiate violence or threaten it on another person. If you do, you deserve what you get.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Jon, I think it’s safe to say that the level of self defense taken is an individual issue, rather than a blanket ideaology. I have often heard that you should never use deadly force unless as a last resort. I disagree with that. Why should I wait till I’m damn near dead before I kill my attacker? Ain’t happening. Attack me, eat lead, sucks to be you.

            • True, and I agree totally, but in this situation, who attacked who is in question, mostly because of the pursuit. Had Zimmerman not pursued, my attitude would be different, to the point I would not even think it should go to trial. However, in this case, his actions created enough question to press charges and take it to trial. He may still be innocent of anything illegal, tho if he is aquitted, I hope that he is at least made to understand that a life was lost that did not have to be. Had he followed the police’s recommendation, a 17 year old kid would be alive. Not an innocent little boy per se, but not one worthy necessarily worthy of death either. Nothing in Martin’s record was anything close to death penalty level, at any age.

  53. My oh my. Anyone on here that will fess up to having this as their Rep? How dare you foist this on us!!

    http://www.therightscoop.com/rep-corine-brown-asked-would-african-american-lawmakers-be-involved-in-trayvon-case-if-he-were-white/

  54. So, what happened to the broken nose, bloody back of the head, and grass stains?

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/george-zimmerman-police-surveillance-16024475

    I guess George Zimmerman cleans up pretty good – in the back of a police cruiser no less…

    And for all of you who question why Trayvon Martin was wearing a hoodie? In Florida?

    Well, maybe for the same reason that Zimmerman was wearing a red and black fleece jacket…

    • Actually Todd…. it was noted in several reports that Zimmerman received care from the EMTs in the back of the patrol car at the scene. As I understand it, the broken nose and a cut on the back of the head were documented.

      I don’t, however, question why Martin was wearing a hoodie. My 18 year old son wears a hoodie in 100 degree weather….

      • USWeapon,
        I’m not contending Zimmerman wasn’t injured at all, but certainly not to the extend some have claimed:

        Martin attacked Zimmerman, breaking his nose in a vicious attack.

        slamming the Latinos head into the concrete.

        slamming head into concrete is assault

        bashed his head into the sidewalk several times.

        he had a bloody gash on the back of his head.

        banging his head against the concrete.

        At 1:04 and 1:07 in the video, I think I see a cut (dark line) on the back/top of his head. And a small cut on the head can bleed quite a bit, explaining why it looked much worse before it was cleaned up. But if Trayvon “bashed his head into the sidewalk several times”, the back of Zimmerman’s head would have been a lot worse, especially with a shaved head. He probably would have been unconscious and maybe dead.

        Then, according to Zimmerman, Trayvon said, ‘Well now you do,’ and unexpectedly punched Zimmerman in the face, knocking him to the ground.

        I’ve had my nose broken several times, and that is a messy injury too. If Trayvon punched Zimmerman in the face, with enough force to knock him to the ground, Zimmerman’s face/nose would be a mess, even after the EMTs cleaned it up. Or did Zimmerman just get a bloody nose while wrestling on the ground?

        And just after 1:07 in the video, there’s a clear view of Zimmerman’s back. It looks pretty clean. I’m not contending they weren’t on the ground, because that’s been well documented by many witnesses, but I don’t see “grass stains”, which don’t just brush off.

        I’ve also seen several accounts of how the fight started:

        Zimmerman told investigators that Martin jumped him from behind, punched him in the nose and pounded his head into a sidewalk, according to a police report first described by the Orlando Sentinal.

        Then, according to Zimmerman, Trayvon said, ‘Well now you do,’ and unexpectedly punched Zimmerman in the face, knocking him to the ground.

        Again, “pounded his head into a sidewalk” = unconscious and maybe dead.

        But more importantly, these two accounts are polar opposites. Was it a face-to-face confrontation? Or jumped from behind? These aren’t small details you mix up – unless you’re making them up to bolster your self-defense story.

        I also just saw this for the first time:

        The funeral director who handled Martin’s funeral said there were no cuts or bruises on the teen’s hands that would suggest a violent struggle or fight.

        “I didn’t see any evidence he had been fighting anybody,” Richard Kurtz of Roy Mizell and Kurtz Funeral Home in Fort Lauderdale, told television talk show host Nancy Grace.

        All this raises questions about Zimmerman’s version of the story, and how the police handled it. Shouldn’t they have treated this like a homicide from the start? Did they take pictures of Zimmerman’s injuries – before and after he was cleaned up? A through investigation from the start may also have backed up Zimmerman’s story, if it’s actually true.

        But what about Trayvon? I haven’t seen any information about him. Did he have grass stains – front or back? Torn clothes? Injuries from a fight – offensive or defensive?

        It seems all the police leaks have been information that backs up Zimmerman’s story. Are they playing-up Zimmerman’s injuries and messy condition to justify the killing? And withholding Trayvon’s condition because it doesn’t fit the story?

        And the hoodie question wasn’t for you!

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Todd, So now your a forensic scientist? I wonder what other things you pretend to be all knowledgable at? 🙂

          • G-Man,
            If you actually read my post clearly, you’d notice that I was asking more questions than anything.

            Compare that to your racist attitude that has declared Trayvon the attacker and Zimmerman the victim, without any evidence…

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Todd, I came across this video last night as well. It’s pretty amazing that there really isn’t a single thing at all that corroborates Zimmerman’s story. It seems the only ‘evidence’ that Martin attacked Zimmerman is from Zimmerman’s own (clearly biased) claims.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Maybe the two of you should look closer!

            http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/29/police-surveillance-video-of-zimmerman-may-show-head-injury/

            Looks like a pretty good knot on his knoggin to me 🙂

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Oh, I don’t disagree that there was a fight of some sorts. But that Martin ‘broke his [Zimmerman’s] nose’ or ‘repeatedly bashed his [Zimmerman’s] head into the sidewalk’?? I dunno. You are very quick to accept Zimmerman’s version of events which, as any one in law enforcement is likely to tell you, is the weakest form of ‘evidence’ (if you can even call it that) there is.

            • G-Man,
              Did you actually read my post? This is the image at 1:04 in the video. I noticed that cut and pointed it out in my post.

              And the “enhanced” image makes the cut look bigger because it’s fuzzy. Compare the outline of the cop’s head in the two images with the outline of the cut in the two images. It’s not an “enhanced” image – it’s just someone fooling around with the picture.

              Talk about bull#&$^ journalism…

  55. After listening to the different versions of the Supreme Court Hearings on Obama-care….on MSNBC, CNN, Fox…. I have come to the conclusion that if it is ruled unconstitutional, the left will yell…..judicial activism…..if ruled constitutional….the right will yell judicial activism…..so I guess that no matter which way it goes,….it will be judicial activism……..sigh.

    • If they vote on the constitutionality of it only probably not activist. Once they start delving into what should/could be saved (without the mandate), as they were doing today a little bit, that is not their job, and they then become activist. Making (revising) laws is Congress’ job, not SCOTUS’.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Actually I would say that voting to strike the law in its entirety would be pretty activist of the Court. Whatever happened to judicial restraint and deference to Congress?

        • BS, without a separation clause, the law is supposed to the thrown out entirely. It becomes a “sorry, that does not work, try again”. If there is a separation clause, wherein Congress is essentially saying “this should pass with or without the portion in question”. That is not the case here, in fact the bill had such a clause previously and was removed in the process of getting a version that would pass, thus the law must be struck in toto unless the court acts outside of standard procedure. As such, anything but a fill approval or a full strike would have the greatest potential of being considered “activist”.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Disagree on that one. The existence or non-existence of a severability clause typically does not make a difference.

            Now, to clarify, I am not suggesting SCOTUS should go through the law line by line to determine what stays and what goes — that would surly be activist!

            • Even without the clause, is not the severability related to whether the law would have been passed without the unconstitutional portion? In this case, due to the devastating impact on the insurance industry, I am pretty sure it would not have passed without the mandate, thus a whole new bill should be presented, since the current bill depends heavily on the mandate as its funding mechanism.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                I would argue that’s not the role of the courts to decide.

              • Agreed, but in that case, there remains a decision to be made. If there is a decision, and it is not up to the court, then it is the responsibility of the court to point out what is unconstitutional, and strike the law. If Congress then rubber stamps the remainder, so be it, but it would still have to go to a Congressional vote before the law could stand, the SCOTUS cannot simply allow it to stand without repassing after the unconstitutional aspects are removed.

              • Agreed. In that case, since a decision must be made, it is the responsibility of SCOTUS to strike the unconstitutional parts, and suspend the law pending a revote by Congress on the law minus the unconstitutional portions. If it fails to survive the revote, the whole thing is stricken and Congress has to start over. If it is voted in as it stands with the unconstitutional parts gone, then it can stand. I can live with that.

    • would you expect anything else, Colonel? Sadly, this is my expectation in every single political outcome. Both sides are so full of shit these days that we truly are screwed at the moment.

  56. There has been a lot of discussion on here about profiling. If you have ever conducted a job interview, you have profiled. From the very first seconds, you are assessing appearance, dress, speech, mannerisms, attitude, etc. After the initial impression you get to the experience, knowledge, goals, etc. The whole process is one of profiling to see if the candidate is not only a fit for the job but a fit for the company. Can they do the work, will they fit in? I can tell you right now, anyone interviewing for a job with me in a hoodie or any other inappropriate clothing, and using street slang, will not be asked to come back.

  57. T-Ray,
    You’re correct. And everything you state here is fine.

    The problems occur when you profile someone without any valid information, and assume they’re “f****in’ ‘coons” and “these assholes, they always get away,” simply because of the color of his skin and the clothing he’s wearing.

    The profiling you’re doing in the interview is based on facts.

    The profiling Zimmerman did was based on his prejudices, not facts.

    Trayvon wasn’t applying for a job with Zimmerman. He wasn’t asking for anything, other than to be left alone.

    Zimmerman’s unjustified prejudices caused Trayvon’s death.

    And this was for you, because you seem just so caught up on the “hoodie” issue:

    And for all of you who question why Trayvon Martin was wearing a hoodie? In Florida?

    Well, maybe for the same reason that Zimmerman was wearing a red and black fleece jacket…

    • It looks like he is wearing a nylon jacket. Can’t tell what the lining is. I too wear a jacket in CA in the winter and like his is almost never zipped up. Again, I have yet to see a day in 20 years in CA were a hood is called for because of cold weather. That includes the day we got 8″ of snow here and I spent the morning sawing up trees. I suspect Orlando has similar temperatures to what we have in Sacramento. Hoods on rain gear, yes. Hoods in extreme cold, yes. In Sacramento or Orlando, they are a waste of money. The other impression I get from people wearing hoods in this climate, is what wimps.

      • T-Ray,
        It’s fleece, not nylon. But I wouldn’t expect a CA boy to know the difference.

        and like his is almost never zipped up

        Little comments like this just feel like you’re trying to justify his action. Why does being unzipped matter? It wasn’t so cold that Zimmerman needed to zip up his jacket, so why is Trayvon wearing a hoodie?

        Do you think maybe the cops unzipped his jacket when they frisked him?

        The rest of your post is your personal opinion on weather and outerwear. How does that have any bearing on the case?

        But I do like this one:

        The other impression I get from people wearing hoods in this climate, is what wimps.

        So the 150lb wimp (as you have determined by his clothing) beat up the 250lb tough guy, who had to resort to a gun to save his own life?

        This just gets more and more bizarre…

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Zimmerman’s unjustified prejudices caused Trayvon’s death.

      WOW! Todd has joined the Race Pimp circus. Now Todd can give Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson a big ole hug 🙂

  58. For the anti-slippery slope crowd: Government has banned certain incandescent bulbs because there are more “efficient” bulbs available. They are attacking salt, sugar, transfat, soda, etc. because of the negative health ratings. The Mayor of NYC is actively seeking to ban these things. I hear radio ads daily about what food to put on my plate. How soon will it be before it is mandated that we consume a certain amount of broccoli a week because it lowers health risks hence insurance costs which the government is now controlling under the commerce clause? It may sound silly now, but if they can mandate insurance and negatively mandate that we cannot consume certain items, why would we not think that they can someday mandate consumption of any item?

    Also, I thought we went through a few weeks ago the difference between commerce and trade. I have yet to cross a state line to receive healthcare, which I would guess is true for 95% of the people. I so, how can the government classify this as commerce and regulate it?

    • T-Ray,

      How soon will it be before it is mandated that we consume a certain amount of broccoli a week because it lowers health risks hence insurance costs which the government is now controlling under the commerce clause?

      I hope soon. I’m counting on my broccoli stock to pay for my retirement. See my comments to SK on Planning Ahead!

      I have yet to cross a state line to receive healthcare, which I would guess is true for 95% of the people. I so, how can the government classify this as commerce and regulate it?

      Well, maybe because your GUESS IS WRONG???

      Or maybe because – if your guess is right, 5% cross state lines. Ta-Da!

      What percentage has to cross state lines for it to be inter-state commerce?

      • cross state lines doesn’t matter to the federal government, they regulate schools and people can’t cross the state line for that.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Education is regulated not through the commerce clause, but through spending.

          Which raises an interesting question vis-a-vis individual mandates — if SCOTUS rules this unconstitutional, could Congress (assuming there was enough Congressional support for an individual mandate) simply tie the receipt of certain health care funds to the states to a requirement that the states provide for individual mandates?? Hmm….my head hurts….

          • Buckaroo….GREAT question and the answer to that is yes they could provided they changed focus of the Department of Education. I am under the distinct impression that the Government does not mandate educational rules but does have a guideline that the State can operate within. However, just like the government can allocate highway funds on the basis of a “guideline”, I would bet the same could be said for the health care.

            As it stands now, my supplemental health insurance premium rose 26% when Obamacare initiated the 27 year old rule and the existing condition rule. It is rising to the point that I will drop it if it continues upward. I am doing a little research on asking people whom I know have existing health insurance programs. The average premium increase so far is around 20-30% that has been passed directly to the consumer. In addition, I have a very good friend that works for the BC/BS system and he is saying to expect premium increases of another 30% if Obama-care takes full effect.

            Now, the way that I see it, without the deregulation of Health Care, there is NO chance of the premiums falling at all. The Obama administration is in bed with the insurance lobby to the effect that there will be no interstate deregulation of this industry…..even with Obama-care. Why? Because the premiums will go to rock bottom in the free market. Any one with 1/3 of a brain knows this. It will be tied to Medicaid and Medicare funding. It is a scam but going to be a legal scam.

            There is serious talk in Texas of opting out of Medicaid and Medicare and the State taking over its own health industry. It is gaining steam. No federal funding at all. We have opted out of Federal highway funding now except for interstate highways. We maintain our own. We can do the same for health. It should be a state problem anyway.

            • D13, last year our company insurance rates went up 5%. This year the increase was 17%. Our company pays 100% of the premiums but this may change if rates continue to climb like this. Our salaries are naturally a little below norm to compensate some for this total coverage. Deductibles and co-pays have also been rising. Last year co-pays went from $25 to $30 for GPs and $50 to $60 for specialists. Deductibles went from $2500 to $3000. So we are seeing significant increases in insurance costs. (Note, I say insurance costs not healthcare because there is a difference.) I think we would be so much better off if they had strengthened the HSA plans. allowed interstate commerce in policy writing instead of blocking it, cut many of the mandated services, enacted tort reform, etc. When you buy auto insurance, you do not expect the insurance company to pay for routine maintenance such as oil changes, tires and batteries. Insurance should be for the big ticket items not the routine stuff.

              I didn’t have health insurance until I was 30 years old. My parents never had it until they were on Medicare. No bill ever went unpaid nor was government asked to pay for it. Life was simple in the good old days and we were just as happy. Then Buck and Matt will say ignorance is bliss.

  59. Time to put this Zimmerman case to rest. This is nothing unusual and is not the first case a black or a white or a HIspanic or any other race has been singled out and killed. If the man is guilty….fry his ass. If he is not guilty….let him go. Pretty simple. (For the conspiracy crowd….it is a diversion from the political scene and a great way for Obama to grab some votes and headlines.) (For the left crowd….it is more “justification for taking away guns and crying foul on minorities) (For the right crowd….it is a platform for more and greater freedoms of self protection laws and such)

    This case is no different than the dozens of other cases where people have been singled out because of the color of their skin. The color of the skin is not even important. It makes news. This is nothing more than a simple case of a self appointed, uncontrolled, individual, who was pretty stupid. You can’t fix stupid. IF he is guilty…..get him off the streets.

    As to the “hoodie” thing……well, right or wrong, the hoodie and the butt crack pants have been associated with violence and gangs. Wearing baseball caps backwards are subject to an extra look. Certain tattoos signify gangs….( I see them all the time on the border ). Certain hairstyles signify specific behaviors…..like spiked hair or “Mohawk”. People who wear leather jackets and ride motorcycles are always designated as “biker gangs”…..women who ride on the back of said motorcycles are always designated as “mamas”. The same line of thinking goes with those of us who still fly a Confederate flag…it is part of our heritage but considered racist when we may not be racist. It is an association…nothing more. I will always look skeptical at someone walking into a convenience store with a baseball cap lulled low and sun glasses……it fits a description.

    So….in short, if Zimmerman is guilty…burn him. If not…go on down the road.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      But Colonel, the race pimps won’t let it go. It doesn’t matter that the black kid attacked the white guy physically (oh, wait, maybe the police report about the injuries was a forgery, like Obama’s BC, WHaaa Haaa). It’s pure racism to live in a “gated” community, with a breakin problem, and be suspicious of a stranger, but only if he is black, cuz if he’s white he’s OK to just shoot. I know, it’s not OK to just shoot him, but if he was white it would not be a story. This is a travesty, a life was lost needlessly. Poor decisions were made. For the record, if I were living in a gated community with a recent breakin problem, I would have watched him just as closely, that is what should be done, that’s why it’s called neighborhood “WATCH”.

      OH, at some point the Corporate Whore Race Pimp Media will tell everyone that Zimmerman tutored black kids on weekends in math and science, now that’s a real racist if you ask me.

      • Gman….I would be more agreeable if this man was actually a part of a neighborhood watch program. I am under the impression that he was a self appointed guardian…..that changes things in my book some.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Colonel, In my old neighborhood in Youngstown, Ohio, we did not have an organized program either, but we did look out for each other. Sheriff Joe has more evidence against Obama then the cops do against Zimmerman. This whole thing rediculous, left wing bullshit!

    • Buck the Wala says:

      So….in short, if Zimmerman is guilty…burn him. If not…go on down the road.

      I agree. Which is why Zimmerman needs to be arrested, charged and tried — let the jury figure it out.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Why Buck? Because the media and the race pimps have painted a false picture? If the cops had ample evidence, I would agree, but they do not, so why arrest him? That is not how the system should ever work and as a lawyer you should be on the side of the law, not the Left

        • Buck the Wala says:

          There was ample evidence at the scene of the crime (Zimmerman’s own statements notwithstanding) to establish probable cause.

          It was a boondoggle from day 1. And so far, from everything I have seen come out to date, there has been nothing to negate that probable cause.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Yes, there was. Zimmerman’s injuries support his story of self defense. A witness saw Zimmerman under the attacker. Yep, the State has probable cause to prove it was NOT self defense. Really? Please, justice deserves much better than to be affected by race pimps and a Corporate Whore Media looking for ratings. And you know damn well that this is all this is.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Zimmerman’s injuries do NOT support his story of self defense. There is next to no corroboration here. As Todd has pointed out, Zimmerman has both said that Martin attacked him from behind AND that Martin approached him and exchanged words before punching him in the nose. Based on the video, there don’t appear to be any grass stains on Zimmerman and his injuries do not appear to be indicative of being in the fight he claims occurred — broken nose? head smashed repeatedly against the pavement? Based on statements from the funeral director, there were no markings on Martin that suggested such a fight either.

              Look, you weren’t there and neither was I. Based on the facts that we know to be true (read: ignoring Zimmerman’s own statements): Zimmerman followed Martin despite being told not to; there was some sort of confrontation/altercation; Zimmerman killed Martin. Zimmerman is now claiming self defense. Martin, sadly, cannot make any such claims. Justice would require a trial — let Zimmerman make his case, present evidence, etc. and then let the jury decide if Zimmerman’s actions qualify as self-defense.

              • “There is next to no corroboration here.” Supposedly six witnesses. Have to wait for the grand jury to hear how supportive they are. The only way you can make such a false statement is the media have not provided enough corroboration. The problem being the media is not supposed to be conducting a trial here.

                It seems wrong that a funeral director is making statements about the deceased. Code of conduct and privacy laws do not allow this unless the family gave permission. With a possible murder, an autopsy is usually required where medical evidence would be taken and a PROFESSIONAL opinion given to authorities. Normal professional conduct, this information would not be released while an investigation is pending.

              • Here is part of the official report written by the first officer on scene as Zimmerman was being detained:

                “Zimmerman complied with all my verbal commands and was secured in handcuffs. Located on the inside of Zimmerman.s waist band, I removed a black Kel Tek 9mm PF9 semi auto hand gun and holster. While I was in such close contact with Zimmerman, I could observe that his back appeared wet and was covered in grass as if he had been lying on his back on the ground. Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and back of his head…… Zimmerman was placed in the rear of my police vehicle and given first aid by the SFD (Stanford Fire Department).”

                http://www.sanfordfl.gov/index.html

              • gmanfortruth says:

                bamadad, Don’t waste your time stating facts about this. The race pimps and the Liberals have already made up their mind. They can’t grasp “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Besides, they don’t need facts, just emotional pleas for justice where none exists.

              • LOI,

                With a possible murder, an autopsy is usually required where medical evidence would be taken and a PROFESSIONAL opinion given to authorities. Normal professional conduct, this information would not be released while an investigation is pending.

                Was an autopsy performed? If not, that is another sign of sloppy police work and/or a desire to close this case based on Zimmerman’s account of events. I agree the information should not be released, but I haven’t seen anything about if an autopsy was performed.

                But why has so much information been released/leaked about Zimmerman’s account and injuries?
                Why noting about Martin?

                Maybe the information about Martin does not support Zimmerman’s story?

              • G-man,

                bamadad, Don’t waste your time stating facts about this. The race pimps and the Liberals have already made up their mind. They can’t grasp “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Besides, they don’t need facts, just emotional pleas for justice where none exists.

                Yes, don’t waste your time with facts. You’ve already make up your mind…

            • Zimmerman’s injuries do not support his story of self defense. They support that he was in a fight on the ground.

              Many witness saw Zimmerman under the attacker. Yes, but no witness (that I know of) saw the start of the fight. How they ended up on the ground says nothing about the fight.

              If Martin jumped or cold-cocked Zimmerman in the face (as seemingly conflicts reports from Zimmerman indicate), Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense could be true.

              If Zimmerman started the fight, the fact the Martin ended on top and Zimmerman was losing the fight does not give Zimmerman a claim to self-defense.

              • charlieopera says:

                If Martin jumped or cold-cocked Zimmerman in the face (as seemingly conflicts reports from Zimmerman indicate), Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense could be true.

                This is where I was discussing with USW, the law permits the attacked (whether he/she is truly in a life-threatending situation or not) way too much power (to shoot to kill). Self-defense as in life-threatening or self-defense in a fist fight? Does a fist fight (once the guy with the gun figures out he can’t win/is a lousy fighter) constitute life-threatening? The law is way too ambiguous as it stands. In this particular case, it appears as though the Zimster just couldn’t fight (which was another reason he couldn’t leave his house with a gun, I guess) and once he found himself catching a beating (even though the video I saw yesterday doesn’t appear to show it was a very bad beating AT ALL), whether his pride was wounded or he couldn’t wait to play good guy/bad guy, he used his weapon with deadly force … and something tells me that’s not the first time such a situation has occurred in the tripling of deaths since the law was passed in Florida alone. As I wrote USW, I have no idea if the tripling number falls one way or the other (people who saved their own lives vs. people who shot a bit too quick or without justifiable cause), but if Zimmerman’s defense will rest on his being attacked, then it’s one innocent death too many (and, no, in this case, where Zimmerman was told not to pursue and he pursued, his rascist profilign aside, whether he got his ass kicked or not), Martin’s response (and his past history, which to me was pretty friggin’ light, even with attempts to assassinate his character) is irrelevant.

            • G-Man,

              Please, justice deserves much better than to be affected by race pimps and a Corporate Whore Media looking for ratings. And you know damn well that this is all this is.

              No, justice deserves much better than to be affected by right-wing racists who just want to sweep this under the rug.

              But I wouldn’t expect you to understand that.

      • Correct, counselor, arrest and charge the man or let him go. I agree on probable cause…but probable cause does not always warrant an arrest. Whenever we have a shooting on the border, there is always probable cause….a gun and a victim. The perpetrator is always questioned but never jailed unless a litmus test is reached. you do not jail on suspicion but you can hold he/she in interrogation until probable cause is determined but you better be ready to charge or walk within that 24 hour period of time. At least that is what we go through on the frontier. Wonder where the DA is in all of this?

        However, in the case of the grand mother in Houston that shotgunned an intruder in her home and then followed another onto the front porch and shot him while he was running away….did not even draw more than an hour interrogation at her home. I guess the fact that a 77 year old widowed grandmother defending her home and a body on the floor that did not belong there established enough evidence that she was in the right…..except there were some that wanted to get her on chasing the other fellow out of the house and then gunning him down on the front porch…to which she replied words to the effect, “and let him come back and get his revenge? I think not.”

        • Buck the Wala says:

          True, probable cause does not always warrant an arrest.

          But this case is very different from that of the elderly grandmother defending her home. There, the intruder was unlawfully in her house. I may disagree with Texas’ stance on allowing her to shoot the other guy running away, but that is Texas’ position and I’ll support that. Here, there was no intruder; no one was unlawfully present. All you have is a dead kid and the shooter’s claims of self defense. This warrants an arrest and trial, in my opinion.

          • Point made and understood. I did not mean to imply that the example I used was in anyway the same as this case…..just some interesting facts concerning probable cause. I like Texas Justice……it is western to say the least but we do have pride in our individual rights here.

            What you might find interesting, since this is cattle country…..private property includes everything from cattle to cars and trash cans…..and the right to defend all with deadly force. Do not try to steal a car here….if caught you will be shot on the spot whether in a parking lot or your driveway. The only remark the police will make is “nice shot”….what load did you use? Sounds flippant I know, but that is the way here…..HOWEVER……do not become a vigilante. Texas does not allow that either.

          • Reports: Police Pursued Manslaughter Charge In Trayvon Martin’s Death

            Categories: Race in America, National News, Crime

            07:55 am

            March 28, 2012

            by Mark Memmott
            There are reports from The Miami Herald and CBS News that police in Sanford, Fla., were looking to arrest George Zimmerman on a manslaughter charge for the killing of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin on Feb. 26.

            But the local state attorney’s office “held off pending further review,” the Herald says. According to CBS: “On March 12, police gave the case to State Attorney Norm Wolfinger. He told them they needed more evidence to arrest Zimmerman.”

            ABC News adds that it has been told by multiple sources that “the lead homicide investigator in the shooting … recommended that [Zimmerman] be charged with manslaughter the night of the shooting.”

            He has not been arrested or charged with any crime. Another state attorney is now handling the case and will be taking it to a grand jury.

            Martin’s father told CNN Tuesday evening that he’s convinced Zimmerman wasn’t arrested because “the police profiled Trayvon Martin” and concluded that because he was a young black man, he had probably been up to no good.

            Zimmerman, 28, has told police he acted in self defense. The shooting, and what Martin’s family and their supporters say was a lack of follow-up on the part of police and prosecutors, has ignited a national discussion about race and racial profiling.

            In its report, CBS also lays out some of the evidence about what police did in the hours and days after Martin’s death. It reports that Zimmerman was questioned for five hours on Feb. 26, that the next day “detectives re-enacted the shooting with Zimmerman at the scene” and that “for the next two weeks, lead investigator Chris Serino pursued a manslaughter charge against Zimmerman.”

            The Orlando Sentinel also tries today to dispel some “Trayvon rumors” with some facts. It reports, for example, that rumors about key evidence not being collected are not true, according to Sanford police:

            “They took [Zimmerman’s] clothing as well as Trayvon’s and packaged it for crime-lab analysis. A spokeswoman for Special Prosecutor Angela Corey would not disclose Tuesday where the clothing is now, but she wrote in an email that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement ‘is assisting with the processing of physical evidence.’ ”

            http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/03/28/149518721/reports-police-pursued-manslaughter-charge-in-trayvon-martins-death

      • Objection! If you were the prosecutor, I think you just lost the case and he walks free, even if he were guilty. He has to be charged for a crime you can convict him for. It is unlikely with their stand you ground law you get murder or manslaughter based on him shooting Martin. You have to prove by following and exiting his vehicle, Zimmerman intended to provoke or attack Martin?

        You have to investigate first and determine what crime was committed. Then determine if there is enough evidence to obtain a conviction. Else this will go down as the “white” OJ. You only get one shot! He cannot be re-tried for the same crime?charge?

        heh, heh..more legal humor….

        http://freebeacon.com/scalia-likens-obamacare-to-cruel-and-unusual-punishment/

      • gmanfortruth says:

        BUCK, Would you like to have to pay for a high dollar lawyer to defend you because you were charged with a crime you didn’t commit? You don’t want people to go bankrupt because of healthcare costs, but it’s OK to go bankrupt because of being wrongfully accused, nice, very nice.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Sorry, I don’t feel bad for him having to pay for a high dollar lawyer — he SHOT and KILLED someone. This isn’t about being wrongfully accused (we all agree that he pulled the trigger here) — this is about demonstrating that he was, in fact, justified in making that call and killing another.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Buck, Since when do Americans have to PROVE that they are innocent? Zimmerman has not been charged with a crime, therefore, it is safe to say that he already has justified his actions to the authorities, why the hell can’t anyone seem to undserstand that? There is no need for a jury. Why should it go beyond what it already has, because left wing race pimps whine and cry about it. Your a lawyer for God’s sake and should understand all of this. The State must prove “beyond a shadow of doubt” guilt, the evidence is totally against them.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              GMan, you seem to be a bit confused as to how self defense comes into play. In a criminal trial, self defense is an affirmative defense — the burden of proof is not on the state, but on the defendant.

              The state has ample evidence to try and convict Zimmerman — perhaps not Murder in the 1st (Again, I am unfamiliar with the Florida criminal statutes as to which is the appropriate charge to bring given what we know). Zimmerman is then entitled to raise an affirmative defense of self defense, to argue that yes, I did kill Martin, but I was justified in doing so.

              If there are clear facts to prove, that Zimmerman was justified and did act in self defense, let’s have at it. Show me that evidence. I have yet to see it.

              To me though, the facts of this case necessitate a trial — after all, if Zimmerman’s claims that Martin initiated the physical attack are true, was Martin acting in self defense based on Zimmerman’s actions? We’ll never know. This truly is a complete clusterf**k – let’s just have the trial and allow a jury of Zimmerman’s peers decide.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Yes, it’s a bigtime clusterf#%k, LOL. I like D13’s idea, take the evidence to a Grand Jury and let them decide if an indictment is warranted. I’m all for the system to run it’s course. I have been wrongfully accused, spend thousands on a lawyer, went to trial and won easily. I was innocent from the start, had to spend tons of money needlessly, proved my innocence, and will never get my money or time back.

                As for the evidence, the police report for one, however, we are not privy to the forensic evidence at this time. This is what needs to be looked at to determine if charges should be filed (in my opinion 🙂 ). It just seems that far to many people are jumping the gun and not giving the evidence a chance to tell the story. If it tells the same story that Zimmerman told, then why should there be any charges at all?

              • Buck for one who usually argues that one must see all the facts before drawing conclusions, you seem sure that the DA has sufficient evidence to try and to convict Zimmerman of some crime. But does not the DA have the responsibility not to bring a case that he does not feel he can win? His goal should be justice not vengeance. There are plenty of cases of prosecutorial abuse, i.e., prosecutors who withhold evidence or lie to get convictions and advance their careers. They do have a level of immunity from ordinary citizens that we do not enjoy. There was just such a case on 60 Minutes this last week. I for one would be like to see them take it slow, do it right and achieve justice for all.

            • G-man,

              There is no need for a jury.

              Because you have already determined that Trayvon was the attacker and Zimmerman the victim, without any evidence…

              Seems like you’re the one playing “forensic scientist” now. And judge and jury…

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Evidence = police report. You have what? Oh the Corporate whore race pimp media, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. I’ll stick to what is official.

            • charlieopera says:

              Buck, Since when do Americans have to PROVE that they are innocent? Zimmerman has not been charged with a crime, therefore, it is safe to say that he already has justified his actions to the authorities, why the hell can’t anyone seem to undserstand that? There is no need for a jury. Why should it go beyond what it already has, because left wing race pimps whine and cry about it. Your a lawyer for God’s sake and should understand all of this. The State must prove “beyond a shadow of doubt” guilt, the evidence is totally against them.

              Gman … this is why the law is INSANE … it is essentially a license for idiots to kill people without justifiable cause. And I’ talking Idiot (Zimmerman). Imagine how someone with half a brain could use this law for revenge, etc. … the possibilities are endless, my friend.

        • Gman…. I think you know me pretty well….conservative and a rights guy………..in this case, I have to confess that I do not believe all of Zimmerman’s story…….it has more holes in it than my head. I feel that that the right to protect property and one’s neighborhood is paramount however, having these rights must be accompanied by cohesive thinking.

          There is nothing wrong with following someone you think is suspect. Nothing at all. However, if this person is in the exercise of his free will on a public street, even though a gated community, and has committed no crime that you have observed, then you really have no right to confront him and ask him what he is doing here unless you are clearly identified as part of an organized neighborhood watch program. Ok, the guy deserved to be followed because he was wearing things that are “associated” with gangs and such. I disagree with Todd and those that think a “hoodie” does not associate…it does. It is suspect. The lad was black and the number of break ins on record were mostly black generated. That also makes a suspect. But suspicion does not make a criminal. Were it in our neighborhood, we would have watched him and followed him, in a marked vehicle. We have cell phones that everyone in our neighborhood knows and can call. We would not confront the individual at all unless he did something suspect ( peeking over fences, walking up to houses and looking in windows, etc ). You do not confront without probable cause and what I have seen so far, there was not probable cause to warrant a confrontation. The various unreliable news reports, ( I have not seen a reliable one yet), are not in agreement, as have been pointed out by many on here. I also do not see conspiracy issues either. I see or feel that there is an inept police force, combined with a self styled vigilante type, and a dead kid. NO ONE still knows what has happened. Perhaps there is even an inept DA….apparently so. Either arrest and charge him or get an indictment from a grand Jury and then prosecute him…..or let him go and shut up.

          The biggest indictment to me is the ineptness of the police force and the DA…….OR……has this one individual cried wolf so many times, that the cries are now unnoticed. Too many variables….it is a grand jury issue in my opinion.

          Buck is an attorney…he thinks legal and rationalizes legal. Give him that. Looking at it with no emotion, this is what I see.

          Now, I will say, that the bounty issue is another matter and should be dealt with right now and forcefully dealt with.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            The bounty issue has remained rather quiet. So far thats the only real crime that can be proven beyond any doubt at this point 🙂 Where’s the charges? Why aren’t the liberals screaming about that?

            • Buck the Wala says:

              I agree with you here — it is outrageous.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Despite our disagreements on the issue, we can agree that this death was needless and easily could have been avoided. I’m not a big fan of cops lately, it is possible that budgets may have a factor in charges being filed early on. Not all communities can afford a million dollar murder case that they can lose, so they better be right. So do you think that the Black Panther guy will face charges?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Yes, but only if something comes of it.

            • G-Man,
              I agree the bounty is ridiculous, as I’ve posted before, but:

              So far thats the only real crime that can be proven beyond any doubt at this point

              I haven’t seen anything about this recently. Exactly what crime has been proven beyond any doubt?

              • charlieopera says:

                Gman, as I’ve stated before. The bounty isn’t legal or right … that said, if he were my kid, or someone I knew, I’d donate to it (since the law doesn’t seem very interested in handling it).

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Advocating kidnapping (including across state lines) is a Federal crime. Todd, you should take your race pimp glasses off, they are hiding your Obama lover ones 🙂

              • G-Man,
                I don’t think making stupid statements is a crime. If it was, you’d have been in jail a longtime ago.

              • Charlie!!!!

                Tweeting out this man’s address is bad enough-but to tweet his address when other people live there is horrible. If you committed a crime Charlie-do you really believe your family should be put in danger. You are angry because you believe Zimmerman was a vigilante but you are going to sit here and endorse another type of the same, where more innocent people can be hurt. What may I ask, in your support for this evil, makes you any different than what you believe Zimmerman is-the fact that you aren’t gonna actually pull the trigger?

  60. AS to profiling…..it is a way of life and will always be.
    As stated above, you are profiled in job seeking, drinking, driving, smoking, military applications, credit card applications, medicaid and medicare applications, senior discounts at restaurants, r rated movies, life insurance applications, FAA licensing, Government applications, politically……everyone profiles on SUFA…..it is everywhere.

    • And isn’t that why the Israelis have the best security for their airports? They blatantly profile.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Correct, and our idiot politically correct government is wasting time groping old ladies and kids in wheelchairs. Morons!

      • Buck the Wala says:

        El-Al doesn’t blatantly profile so much as they routintely interview EVERY passenger prior to boarding. They understand that profiling along will only get you so far, and can easily mean you miss the guy that doesn’t fit the description.

        • Being familiar with El Al and its security and having sat in on many briefings about same…….it is in the interview process combined with the profiling that makes their system workable. Even as a military person, I was interviewed when there on a training mission. No one is exempt…..even their own citizens. It is a great system but unworkable here.

  61. “Plzz shoot da #mf dat lied 2 u!”

    This tweet, retrieved via the social analytics website PeopleBrowsr.com, shows the late Trayvon Martin tweeting a message that read, “Plzz shoot da #mf dat lied 2 u!” He was using the handle “T33ZY TAUGHT M3” near the end of 2011. (PeopleBrowsr/Twitter)

    It’s unclear who Martin intended the message for, or whether he intended it to be taken literally.

    The photo Martin chose to represent himself on Twitter as “T33ZY TAUGHT M3″ depicts him in a black Polo cap, looking into the camera and extending his middle finger. The photo’s file name on Twitter’s server indicates that it was taken on the afternoon of June 17, 2010.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/29/second-trayvon-martin-twitter-feed-identified/#ixzz1qW6o8wFk

    What was that comment, “if I had a son, he would look just like him?” To be fair, the first picture released were of a younger, smaller Martin.
    He has a friendly, innocent, happy look. But it was not the young Martin who was shot. Does the president still identify with that Martin, with the tattoo’s, the gold laminated teeth, the harsh language in his tweet’s, the pot and burglary tools?

  62. gmanfortruth says:

    OH Geez,, Obama is on TV again lying to the sheeple 👿

  63. It has been reported that Zimmerman had called and reported suspicious behavior 40 + times in the last year and that the people were always African-American. But when reading this article and one or two others-it has been stated that he has made 40 + calls over the last 11 years and they were not all African-American. I do not know which reports are true but I do know that these types of reports are being used to create the idea that the man is a racist and that this is a hate crime. I personally don’t much like cases tried in the court of public opinion-although I do believe that if one feels a case is being handled in an irresponsible or questionable way -people have the right to raise an alarm to insure their complaints are being looked into.

    But when a case is being handled in the public arena to the point that members of Congress are crying racism and hate crime-justice is being perverted not promoted.

    In Trayvon Martin case, a complex portrait of shooter emerges
    Neighbors and acquaintances of George Zimmerman say he’s helpful and involved in the community. But there have been incidents of violence.

    By Richard Fausset, Los Angeles Times

    March 28, 2012, 5:20 p.m.
    SANFORD, Fla. — For many Americans, George Zimmerman has become the face of barbarous vigilante justice.

    For Olivia Bertalan, he was the face of compassion: a neighbor of consummate graciousness and low-key gallantry.

    About six months before Zimmerman shot and killed an unarmed black teenager in his town house complex, he was standing in Bertalan’s doorway, asking what he could do to help her.

    A group of young men had just broken into Bertalan’s town house as she and her infant cowered in a locked bedroom. The intruders took a $600 camera and a laptop. After police had come and gone, the doorbell rang, and there was Zimmerman: 5 feet 9, in a shirt and tie, his body a little doughy, his demeanor gentle.

    He introduced himself and gave her phone numbers at which she could call him anytime. He gave her a heavy-duty lock to bolster the sliding-glass door that the men had forced open. He told her she could stay with his wife down the street if she ever felt scared again.

    “That first impression was really sweet,” Bertalan, 21, said this week. “It really does break my heart how they’re portraying him as a coldblooded murderer.”

    This is the impression of Zimmerman shared by a number of neighbors and acquaintances, one that only compounds the complexity and tragedy in the case of Trayvon Martin, whom Zimmerman gunned down Feb. 26 in a suburban side yard.

    Zimmerman, who claimed self-defense, has not been arrested, and outraged observers have impugned the 28-year-old neighborhood watch captain, and the justice system, as racist. Friends and family have said that Zimmerman, who is half-Peruvian, has black friends and even family members, and was not motivated by prejudice.

    A portrait is emerging of a man whose life, though pocked with allegations of aggressive behavior, was also marked by the kind of neighborhood-level engagement — he helped plan block parties — that social scientists have argued are key to combating the atomization and alienation of suburban life.

    One crucial and unresolved question, however, is whether Zimmerman, who made more than 40 complaint calls to local police since 2004, finally took his engagement a step too far on a rainy Sunday night in February.

    Zimmerman grew up in suburban Manassas, Va. His father, he has said, was a magistrate judge, his mother a deputy court clerk.

    A decade ago he moved to Lake Mary, Fla., just north of Orlando, and into a home his parents purchased in Huntington Ridge, a subdivision of handsome, though not ostentatious, houses.

    The teenager enrolled in Seminole State College of Florida, where, according to the school, he received an insurance agent’s certificate in 2003. He impressed some as mature for his age, planning a Fourth of July celebration with the head of the homeowners association.

    “I don’t think he’d ever intentionally hurt anybody,” said a neighbor who asked not to be identified because she received a threatening phone call directed at the Zimmermans.

    But there had been trouble. In 2008, in correspondence to the local sheriff’s department, Zimmerman said he was involved three years earlier in an “altercation with an undercover officer that was taking part in a … sting for underage drinking” near a university. He was charged with battery of an officer and resisting an officer with violence. Court records show the charges were reduced to a misdemeanor of resisting an officer without violence. A judge ordered him to a pretrial diversion program.

    Court records also show that a woman filed a petition for an injunction against Zimmerman that same year, citing domestic violence. According to the Miami Herald, the woman, who was his ex-fiancee, said they fought and engaged in a pushing match. Zimmerman also filed a petition, and a judge ordered the couple to keep away from each other for a year.

    By this point, he had already begun repeatedly calling police — to report potholes, aggressive drivers, neighbors who left their garage doors open.

    In June 2007, he reported two Latino men and a white man with a “slim jim,” a device used to jimmy open a locked car. Police determined the men were locked out of their car.

    In April 2011, after he had moved to his most recent residence in Sanford, he called to report an African American boy, about 7 years old, walking down a busy street. The report states that Zimmerman was concerned for the boy’s well-being.

    Zimmerman reportedly worked in the insurance industry, but he was also deeply curious about law enforcement. In 2009, he completed a 14-week course by the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office called the Community Law Enforcement Academy.

    Meanwhile, Zimmerman’s neighborhood, the Retreat at Twin Lakes, was proving not to be much of a retreat at all. Olivia Bertalan’s ordeal was just one of a rash of break-ins in the area: Police records show at least seven burglaries from July through February.

    The police told the Bertalans to get a gun and a big dog. They passed that advice along to Zimmerman, who, she said, got a Rottweiler. It is unclear when he received his permit to carry a concealed weapon; the Florida agency that grants such permits cannot, by statute, reveal such details.

    Neighborhood watch efforts were doubled and Zimmerman spearheaded the initiative. Some of the suspects were young black men, but Bertalan said he never uttered a racist word.

    The Bertalans, sick of the crime, moved out Feb. 15. Eleven days later, Zimmerman was headed to a grocery store when he spotted Trayvon Martin walking in the neighborhood in a dark hoodie. He called 911.

    Since August, he had called four other times to report what he considered to be suspicious black males in the neighborhood.

    “This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something,” he said.

    He told the operator that the teen was coming to check him out: “He’s got something in his hands. I don’t know what his deal is.”

    A moment later, he said, “These ass— always get away,” and reported that the young man was running.

    The operator asked whether Zimmerman was following Martin. Yes, he said. The operator told him not to do so.

    A lawyer for Martin’s family would later assert that the boy was on the phone with his girlfriend. Martin told her a man was following him. She suggested he run.

    What happened next is unclear. The Martin family attorney says the girlfriend heard Martin say, “Why are you following me?” and a man’s voice reply, “What are you doing around here?”

    Police concluded that Zimmerman lost sight of Martin and was walking to his SUV when the youth appeared in his path, confronting him and punching him.

    Numerous 911 calls reported two men scuffling. In a recording, an anguished male voice cries out in the background repeatedly. Then there is a single sound, sharper than a hand clap.

    Sanford Police Officer Timothy Smith rushed to the scene, describing it later in his report.

    Zimmerman told the officer he had shot Martin, and was still armed.

    Smith cuffed him and removed a black Kel-Tec 9-millimeter semiautomatic handgun from his waistband.

    He noticed that Zimmerman had a bloody nose and blood on the back of his head. Zimmerman was placed in the back of a squad car.

    “I was yelling for someone to help me,” the officer overheard Zimmerman say, “but no one would help me.”

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-zimmerman-profile-20120329,0,2331809,full.story

  64. Profiling

    Walter E. Williams
    Walter E. Williams

    Mar 28, 2012

    Profiling

    Right now, there isn’t enough known about the circumstances surrounding the fatal shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, a black, by George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old part-Hispanic, during his neighborhood watch tour in an Orlando, Fla., suburb. If evidence emerges that Zimmerman’s actions were not justified, he should be prosecuted and punished; however, there’s a larger issue that few people understand or have the courage to acknowledge, namely that black and young has become synonymous with crime and, hence, suspicion. To make that connection does not make one a racist. Let’s look at it.

    Twelve years ago, a black Washington, D.C., commissioner warned cabbies, most of whom were black, against picking up dangerous-looking passengers. She described “dangerous-looking” as a “young black guy … with shirttail hanging down longer than his coat, baggy pants, unlaced tennis shoes.” She also warned cabbies to stay away from low-income black neighborhoods. Did that make the D.C. commissioner a racist?

    In some cities, such as St. Louis, black pizza deliverers have complained about having to deliver pizzas to certain black neighborhoods, including neighborhoods in which they live. Are they racists? The Rev. Jesse Jackson once remarked, “There is nothing more painful for me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery — (and) then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.” Does that make the reverend a racist?

    The former Charleston, S.C., black chief of police, Reuben Greenberg, said the problem facing black America is not racial profiling. He said, “The greatest problem in the black community is the tolerance for high levels of criminality.” Former Los Angeles black police Chief Bernard Parks, defending racial profiling, said: “It’s not the fault of the police when they stop minority males or put them in jail. It’s the fault of the minority males for committing the crime. In my mind, it is not a great revelation that if officers are looking for criminal activity, they’re going to look at the kind of people who are listed on crime reports.” Are former police Chiefs Greenberg and Parks racist?

    According to the Uniform Crime Report for 2009, among people 18 or younger, blacks were charged with 58 percent of murder and non-negligent manslaughter, 67 percent of robberies, 42 percent of aggravated assaults and 43 percent of auto thefts. As for murder, more than 90 percent of the time, their victims were black. These statistics, showing a strong interconnection among race, youth and crime, are a far better explanation for racial profiling and suspicion than simple racism.

    Black Americans have spoken out against racial profiling by police. They’ve been insulted by store personnel who might give them extra scrutiny. There’s the insult of the sound of a car door being locked when a black approaches. It’s insulting to have taxi drivers pass up a black person and pick up white people down the street. In a similar vein, I’m sure that a law-abiding Muslim is insulted when given extra scrutiny at airports or listening to Fox News reporter Juan Williams, who was fired by National Public Radio in 2010 for publicly saying that he gets nervous when he sees people on a plane with clothing that identifies them as Muslim. Blacks and Muslims who face the insults of being profiled might direct their anger toward those who’ve made blacks and crime synonymous and terrorism and Muslims synonymous.

    God would never racially profile, because he knows everything, including who is a criminal or terrorist. We humans are not gods; therefore, we must often base our decisions on guesses and hunches. It turns out that easily observed physical characteristics, such as race, are highly interconnected with other characteristics less easily observed.

    For most blacks to own up to the high crime rate among blacks is a source of considerable discomfort. Beyond that, it creates suspicions and resentment, which are destructive of good race relations, and it’s devastating to the black community, which is its primary victim.

    http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2012/03/28/profiling/page/full/

    Does anyone remember the names Newsom and Christian?-goggle them-it is the worse case of a hate crime I can remember-yet it wasn’t deemed a hate crime or even considered a racist crime-at least not legally-so I have to admit a certain amount of irritation when I keep hearing these words come from the left and the black community whenever a black person is hurt or killed by a white person-if that makes me racist -so be it-but I look at it as a double standard that is getting wayyy out of hand.

    • I do remember the Newsom and Christian murders. Gruesome and yet the media was mostly silent. It didn’t fit their agenda. Disgusting.

  65. gmanfortruth says:

    Colonel (and anyone else), Is there a good explaination for this:

    ATK announced that it is being awarded an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) agreement from the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (DHS, ICE) for .40 caliber ammunition. This contract features a base of 12 months, includes four option years, and will have a maximum volume of 450 million rounds.

    ATK was the incumbent and won the contract with its HST bullet, which has proven itself in the field. The special hollow point effectively passes through a variety of barriers and holds its jacket in the toughest conditions. HST is engineered for 100-percent weight retention, limits collateral damage, and avoids ovWe’ve also learned that the Department has an open bid for a stockpile of rifle ammo. Listed on the federal business opportunities network, they’re looking for up to 175 million rounds of .233 caliber ammo to be exact. The 223 is almost exactly the same round used by NATO forces, the 5.56 x 45mm.

    er-penetration.

    “We are proud to extend our track record as the prime supplier of .40 caliber duty ammunition for DHS, ICE,” said Ron Johnson, President of ATK’s Security and Sporting group.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Thanks Kathy 🙂

      A perfect example of the early stages of Liberalpsychosis Schitzaphrenia. Sad when it makes you look like a fool, but it’s rather common these days.

  66. charlieopera says:

    The beauty of Obamacare (which was a half-assed attempt to insure) being crushed by the SC is that the decision will ultimately speed the course to Single Payer Health Care … it’s all a matter of timing …

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Ah Charlie, I’ve come to the same conclusion myself!

      Still not entirely convinced the law will be stricken, but this could be a wonderful thing .

      • Yes, you guys are probably right-except for that wonderful thing part-they may decide that the Federal can’t penalize us for inaction but they sure don’t have any problem with taxing us to death.

        Just another reason for all those sitting out there claiming voting doesn’t matter-it matters-unless you want a completely left SC. Can you imagine 9 like Ms. Ruth Ginsburg.

  67. Buck, serious question..could you explain the differences between these three..ACA as it stands..public option..and single payer..I can’t seem to understand the difference so keep it in Insurance for Dummies please. 🙂

    • Buck the Wala says:

      ACA = mandate to purchase private insurance on the open market

      Public Option = option to purchase a government-run insurance policy

      Single Payer = no private insurance; every single American is covered through the government

      • ACA = no one knows for sure

        Public Option = another unsustainable social program on top of the other unsustainable social programs which the dems. refuse to even attempt to make sustainable

        Single Payer = nationalizing and completely taking over the heath care industry

        • I like your answers better V 😉

        • Buck the Wala says:

          ACA = everyone knows that it does inclue an individual mandate at the very least

          Public Option = it would have been made perfectly sustainable if passed as originally presented by the Dems; the GOP worked hard to make it unsustainable and then refused to include a public option because it would be unsustainable. Admittedly a great political maneuver by the GOP!

          Single Payer = I would push for a system of public finance but private delivery of services.

          • ACA- No truer statement has been made-At the VERY LEAST!! I actually think ACA is worse than nationalizing the healthcare industry/it’s like slowly strangling someone to death instead of just shooting them in the head.

            Public option-they all start out sounding like they are sustainable and then they GROW, not to mention we are already broke-but you don’t buy into slippery slope arguments-yet-look at all the other programs and tell me my statement isn’t based on factual evidence-that is not a slippery slope argument.

            Single Payer-Push for whatever you want-your still gonna end up with governmental control of the health care industry-and the government can’t even run the Postal service.

      • Cool thanks, now I get it. It still sucks 🙂 But now..

        ACA.. if I get caught with no ins, I can purchase Blue Cross and be good to go, right? Or will they offer a (cheaper) govt ins plan to purchase?

        Public Option.. govt run poilcy…who pays for this? Is this where we pay up front for a couple years to get the pot full, then the plan goes into effect?
        Will every taxpayer have to pay into the pot..or only those with no insurance?

        Single Payer..Everyone pays or IRS comes knocking, right? Where does this “fine” come in? ..here or with ACA, or both?

        • Buck the Wala says:

          ACA = no, there is no cheaper gov’t plan for you to purchase because the GOP wouldn’t support a public option

          Public Option = it would have been a self-sustainable program funded by insurance premiums

          Single Payer = no separate payment whatsoever; it would be paid for and funded from tax dollars. Under single payer, there would be no requirement for anyone to have private insurance (though in most systems individuals can purchase private insurance to cover ‘extras’). The ACA is what imposes a fine for those who do not purchase private insurance.

          • Thank You Buck the Explainer

          • “Public Option = it would have been a self-sustainable program funded by insurance premiums”

            … *double take* …

            Wait a minute. If this were true, why isn’t the current system sustainable? Do you really think that the reason for premium increases are totally due to insurance company profits? Isn’t the cost of HEALTH CARE rising? Unless the insurance premiums are just as high with a public option than they are now, I can’t see how this would sustainable. People still wouldn’t be able to afford it. Unless of course it becomes heavily subsidized by taxpayers or runs a deficit (like every other government social program…).

  68. Oh, look-we have a new open mic page.

  69. charlieopera says:

    VH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! what are you talking about? I was talking about donating to the Black Panther bounty (if the kid killed was my son or a relative or someone I felt close to) … yes, it would be wrong, but I’m talking about getting the killer not the address (I think you’re referring to Spike Lee’s dopey tweet).

    I don’t tweet …

    I have a hard enough time doing the FB thing (only way to communicate with my kids it seems) …

    and please remember, I was a criminal … I don’t have many problems with of what is regarded as criminal by our courts (drugs, for instance … should be legalized … and so long as banks can pull the moves they do with fine printing jacking up credit card rates, so should so-called loan sharking be legal … you want to privatize everything, then go for it. This is where BF and I actually agree … I just don’t happen to believe a free market won’t produce another government like the one we have. I’m all for bounties … if we’re going to have laws like “stand your ground” and a police force that ignores the situation the way it did, why not? People will have to seek their own justice, it seems to me. Without all the protesting over this case, it obviously would’ve been swept under the rug.

%d bloggers like this: