Open Mic

Advertisements

Comments

  1. 8)

  2. The United States is number one, but this achievement is nothing to celebrate.

    As of April 1, the United States has the highest corporate tax rate among developed economies after the previous holder of the top spot, Japan, reduced its rate.

    Reaching a milestone of this magnitude — number one in the world — often requires hard work, but in this case, it was easy. The United States didn’t have to do anything. Our top corporate tax rate has hovered at 35 percent for years. Meanwhile, other countries have gotten the message that lowering corporate taxes encourages growth. Canada has engaged in a series of cuts, ultimately reducing its corporate rate to 15 percent. Great Britain recently announced it will drop its corporate tax to 24 percent next month and then 22 percent by 2014.

    As other nations take steps to improve their competitiveness and attract investment, the United States has stood still. As a result, we’ve placed ourselves at a significant disadvantage in the global economy.

    Manufacturers in particular feel the brunt of our policies. It is 20 percent more expensive to manufacture in the United States than it is among our major trading partners — excluding the cost of labor — according to a recent study by the Manufacturing Institute and MAPI. Corporate taxes are the primary driver of this cost differential.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/30/were-number-one/#ixzz1qc0kHPUv

  3. The short-term cost of the Obamacare law is $2.6 trillion, almost triple the $900 billion cost promised by Obama and his Democratic allies, said Sessions.

    The extra $17 trillion gap was discovered by applying standard federal estimates and models to the law’s spending obligations, Sessions said.

    For example, Session’s examination of the health care law’s “premium support” program shows a funding gap $12 billion wider that predicted.

    The same review also showed the law added another $5 trillion in unfunded obligations for the Medicaid program.

    “President Obama told the American people that his health law would cost $900 billion over ten years and that it would not add ‘one dime’ to the debt… this health law adds an entirely new obligation—one we cannot pay for—and puts the entire financing of the United States government in jeopardy,”

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/30/another-17-trillion-surprise-found-in-obamacare/#ixzz1qc1WQEl1

  4. And here is yet another one.

    At what point do we quit calling these green energy start-ups and call them out for the money laundering schemes that they are? Looks like you were doubled-dipped on this one, Anita. Your good money that you donated to the feds and your good money that you donated to your state. But remember, they know better than you how to spend your money! How dare you think you could use it on building your cabin – they have other ideas!

    http://michellemalkin.com/2012/03/30/eco-scams-are-as-easy-as-a123/

    • I know, I know..I have to claim that dimwit J GranHORN!. I knew this whole battery business was going to end up a joke, but I’m in union territory here and everyone was gung ho about Granholm saving the auto industry, bringing the unemployment number down in Mich, blah, blah, blah..
      There are rumors of a recall Gov Rick Snyder (R)..he’s trying to get Detroit under emergency management and hoo boy! it’s not pretty around here right now. We have a Shabazz right here in Detroit who has threatened to burn the city down before allowing an emergency manager. Jesse Jackson was even in town yesterday to oppose it. It’s the tea party’s fault… Check this out:
      http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2012/03/29/jesse-jackson-tells-carol-cain-tea-party-wants-to-sink-ship-to-destroy-captain/

  5. Love it! Standing on your principles; something PP obviously couldn’t do with their keeping the name hidden from those working on the project. Yeah for those Texans!

    http://www.therightscoop.com/sub-contractor-walks-off-job-after-discovering-he-was-building-planned-parenthood-facility/

  6. charlieopera says:

    Stop your whining … here’s the deal (the real deal) … from my the orthopedic Dr. (Lombardi–I don’t go to nobody else).

    The Fat Man hits the daily double … cervical arthritis and arthritis an inch above my right Achilles. Knockout and anti-inflamatory pills (for pain & swelling), a collar (for my neck) and arches (for my shoes) … all for just a $25.00 co-pay. What a deal! What a country! How ’bout those Buffalo Bills!

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Be careful LOI ! If you don’t agree and walk lockstep with the Corporate Whore Media and the liberal race pimps, you too will be called a racist 😆

      • To late for me G!, I’ve offended everyone at one time or another.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          THanks, Todd hurt my feelings and I was feeling lonely 😆

          • Well, we’ve all been there before….. Todd has been moody, even for him. Must have gotten a splinter in a painful place with his tree-hugging….

            • gmanfortruth says:

              AWE, poor guy. Maybe Buck can help him get it out, unless mathius has an objection 🙂

            • LOI & G-Man,

              Ignorance and stupidity are the “splinter” in my ass. And it’s very hard to eradicate them from here…

              • gmanfortruth says:

                We know about your two afflictions that you are stuck with and we try not to remind you of them. We don’t want to hurt your feelings, so we just let it go. Everyone seems to do the same, and I would imagine that there is much sorrow that you suffer from these terrible mental afflictions. Please forgive us for reminding you 🙂

              • What can I say Todd, we know you’re out there………..

    • Ninety-seven percent of the bus and train operators at the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority are black, with only six white women out of more than 3,000 drivers, according to Metro documents — a lack of diversity at one of the region’s largest employers that has led to an acknowledgment of failure in affirmative-action documents and spawned a series of lawsuits.

      Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/29/metro-derailed-by-culture-of-complacence-incompetence-lack-of-diversity/#ixzz1qdAOqT6e

      • Yeah, was watching the McDonald’s All American game the other night – the elite talent of the high school seniors. Majority by far black. I have a problem with that. Diversity is good for all right? Why not in sports? All universities must offer equal number of white/black/minority scholarships.

        Watch the howling begin!

  7. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan defended the expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare today by arguing that “It’s just a boatload of federal money for you to take and spend” and concluding “It doesn’t sound coercive to me.”

    Kagan made her comments at today’s Supreme Court hearing while questioning attorney Paul D. Clement who was presenting an oral argument on behalf of 26 states seeking to have the federal health care law declared unconstitutional:

    Mr. Clement: “Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the court. The constitutionality of the act’s massive expansion of Medicaid depends on the answer to two related questions. First, is the expansion coercive? And second, does that coercion matter?”

    Justice Kagan: “Mr. Clement, can I ask you as just a matter of clarification; would you be making the same argument if, instead of the federal government picking up ninety percent of the cost, the federal government picked a hundred percent of the cost?”

    Clement: “Justice Kagan if everything else in the statute remained the same I would be making the exact same argument.”

    Kagan: “The exact same argument so, so that really reduces to the question of: why is a big gift from the federal government a matter of coercion?

    “In other words, the federal government is here saying: we’re giving you a boatload of money. There are no, is no matching funds requirement. There are no extraneous conditions attached to it.

    “It’s just a boatload of federal money for you to take and spend on poor people’s healthcare. It doesn’t sound coercive to me, I have to tell you.”

    • And where does the federal government get it’s money to dole out at a 90 or 100% rate?
      Ooops, not relevant.

    • I heard about this. This is the Dean of Harvard Law talking. She is supposed to be smart. This is why I say the Ivy League institutions are creating ineptitude, the acedemics, if it can still be called that, is so far removed from reality as to be completely worthless and wrong. Its like an excercise in being taught to do mental gymnastics to believe stuff that is so retarded as to be unbelievable. I have NO respect whatsoever for institutions of higher learning based on their results.

    • Oh Boy!!!!! I reckon if you actually believe that the government owns everything including you-just because you live here-this makes sense-but how about all those other countries we interact with-I wonder how long they’re gonna believe in our mystical money.

    • “a big gift….”

      OMG!

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      Everyone of the lefties on SUFA, with the exception of maybe…splinter in butt, Todd, are far more qualified to be a SC Justice than Kagan is. Where do they find these nitwits? “A half a loaf is better than none”……….. Arrrgghhhh!

  8. Racial opportunists? Why does that strike a cord?

    • Top Democrats — including President Barack Obama’s re-election team — are now keeping their distance from the Trayvon Martin uproar, as each day reveals more facts about the teen’s slaying.

      “As more facts come out, it’s more confusing for folks,” Sharon Gilpin, a Democratic political consultant, told The Daily Caller.

      “There was a pretty intense rush to judgment … [but] it is important to get all your facts before you cement your feet in the sidewalk,” said Gilpin, who has worked on numerous Democratic campaigns and ballot initiatives.

      “As tragic as this death is, there obviously is another side to the story,” former Democratic Rep. Artur Davis told TheDC. “We would all do well to wait for the facts to emerge.”

      At today’s White House press conference, spokesman Jay Carney dismissed the only question about the controversy. He was asked about Obama’s response to Rep. Bobby Rush appearing on the House floor wearing a hoodie. Rush represents an African-American district in Obama’s hometown of Chicago.

      “I haven’t discussed that with him,” Carney said, six days after the president amplified a media firestorm by using a Rose Garden event to announced that “if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”

      After Carney dismissed the question, the reporters focused on Obama’s renewed — and routine — demand for higher taxes on oil companies.

      Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/29/obama-democrats-lay-low-as-martin-story-shifts/#ixzz1qdKN23sL

  9. Oh Gman! I’m really not even looking for these – they just drop in my lap(top)! Add NYC DoE Chancellor Dennis Walcott to your list:

    http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2012/03/30/nyc-dept-of-ed-publishes-its-list-of-50-forbidden-words/

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Don’t you just love seeing first hand the dumbing down of America happens. Let’s just remove everything that is reality and we can brainwash them into good little Liberals. Sadly, we’ve been discussing the results of our educational system the last few days.

  10. Just A Citizen says:

    Hello SUFA

    I see you were all a little wound tight this past week.

    Catch UP.

    Item One: Zimmerman v Martin. The result is what you get when two irrational men hyped on testosterone stand toe to toe but only one is armed.

    Tragedy it is. Zimmerman could be charged with “negligent homicide” as it was his negligence that leads to the confrontation. Negligent because he was warned to stop.

    Item Two: SCOTUS and Obama Care, in particular Buck and the rest of the left’s arguments. Their claims are based on BAD interpretation of the Commerce Clause made by prior courts. This of course creates an irrational conclusion. But not one that is inconsistent with the legal profession in general or the SCOTUS in particular.

    For the record, “Commercial Activity” is NOT what COMMERCE meant when the Constitution was written. Not even close.

    The claim that an activity could “substantially affect commerce” is Bull Shit created from thin air by SCOTUS.

    Just like the “your rights are sacred UNLESS Govt can give a compelling interest in ignoring your rights”.

    • Woohoo.. JACs back..look out!

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Anita

        And how are you these days my dear.

        Still playing at the lake?

        For me, I spent the last two days driving against a 50 mph cross wind with driving rain and finally snow.

        Our WARM spring break in the desert turned out to be more about Global Cooling… 😦

        Was thinking of SUFA though as I made my way across SW Idaho and Southern Oregon.

        Gadsen Flags flying high and proud throughout Cow Country. Along with a plethora of “Ron Paul for President” signs.

        • I’m good JAC. Glad you’re back. Buck and Charlie and Todd have been bad! 🙂

          Our summerlike temps feel more like fall temps suddenly. Mother Nature kept me home from the lake this weekend 😦 We had a hailstorm today..more hail than I’ve ever seen before. I swear I’m gonna get out west asap. I’m jealous of all your roadtrips in God’s country.

    • But, but, but JAC,

      “Zimmerman could be charged with “negligent homicide” as it was his negligence that leads to the confrontation. ” If his story is true, Martin had evaded him and came back to confront/attack him. Is it OK to attack everyone you think is following you? I mean I just happened to be walking in the same direction as you, (circling the block three times is a religous rite I practice before I enter a dwelling)

      I think Zimmermans failure to identify himself as neighborhood watch will be the key. Provoke or defuse a situation. “I’m with the neighborhood watch and have called the police”,
      “who are you and what are you doing?”

      SCOTUS, “Cruel & unusual punishment”!

      • Just A Citizen says:

        LOI

        The negligence is because he was warned to not follow. He decided to anyway. This eventually leads to a confrontation and a death.

        It has nothing to do with Martin initiating “violence”.

        A negligent ACTION will cause a REACTION. The REACTION could be justified under self defense, but it is triggered by the ACTION.

        Take away the warning and you just get two guys with big attitudes and the inevitable result.

    • Welcome back old chum. 🙂

  11. You guys will LOVE this!!

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-helliwell/happiness-report_b_1391510.html

    Some of my favorite parts:

    * The four happiest are all in Northern Europe (Denmark, Norway, Finland and the Netherlands) (And all SOCIALIST countries!!)

    * People who care more about other people are also themselves on average happier.

    * Other things equal, people who single-mindedly chase higher incomes are less happy.

    * And psychologists and neuroscientists can now show that training in altruism increases a person’s happiness.

    • I assume you are being sardonic.

      It may surprise you (though it shouldn’t) but I would say many (most?) people here would say altruism is a much better thing than greed. The problem is when you use force (gov’t) to impose what some bureaucrats decide is altruistic rather than allowing people to freely choose for themselves.

      By the way, those 4 countries you mention have economies that are nowhere near the size of the US’s. Apples and oranges?

      • JB,
        No, I’m not being sardonic.

        And you’re wrong, the only people here that have expressed altruistic views are those from the Left, and they have been mocked by everyone on the Right.

        No one on the Right as expressed any support for altruism.

        If government is involved, it’s not altruism.

        They didn’t compare the entire countries, they interviewed individuals.

        You can make up all the excuses you want, but many people on the Right here seem pretty unhappy.

        The Left, not so much…

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Todd

          This is TRUE.

          The left become absolutely ecstatic when stealing other people’s money and telling the inferiors how to run their daily lives.

          Only to a leftist would the “sacrifice” of the individual for the sake of the collective be considered rhapsody.

        • The only people expressing altruistic views here are on the left? BS dude, you just arent listening.

          It government is involved it really isnt altruism, not at all. Not the way you mean it. In some senses of the definition it is, but in the positive definitions, the ones associated with charity, government involvement just messes it all up and destroys most of the positive aspects.

          As far as people here, many do seem unhappy, but that is because they are unhappy with the government, which is what this discussion venue is all about. You cannot judge the happiness of people by how they sound when venting on a certain subject. Honestly, in general, most people here seem happy to me except for a few who complain about their lives a lot. I have a lot that I could be unhappy about if my happiness came from material stuff, but fortunately it does not. I am happier with my life in general than I ever have been, just not with the path my country is on.

          • Jon,

            The only people expressing altruistic views here are on the left? BS dude, you just arent listening. It government is involved it really isnt altruism, not at all. Not the way you mean it. In some senses of the definition it is, but in the positive definitions, the ones associated with charity, government involvement just messes it all up and destroys most of the positive aspects.

            Since JAC is back, I’ll let him take this. The last time we talked about altruism, he was very adamant about using the classical definition, so I don’t think you can just change it to suit your needs.

            And my definition of altruism does not include government.

            As far as people here, many do seem unhappy, but that is because they are unhappy with the government, which is what this discussion venue is all about. You cannot judge the happiness of people by how they sound when venting on a certain subject. Honestly, in general, most people here seem happy to me except for a few who complain about their lives a lot. I have a lot that I could be unhappy about if my happiness came from material stuff, but fortunately it does not. I am happier with my life in general than I ever have been, just not with the path my country is on.

            If you’re unhappy with your government, and it has such a large impact on your daily life (as many here claim), that drags down your level of “happiness”. The study wasn’t about just the parts of your life you’re happy with. If it was, we’d all be “above average”!

            • Granted, I recall the discussion with JAC about the classical definition, and granted I was using a presumed definition that was not the same as the classical one. Not sure which one was used in the study, however. It seemed to be referring more to charity than a classical definition of altruism.

              I get that the study was an overall view, my reaction and explanation was in reference to your statement that “many people on the Right here seem pretty unhappy.” This was not collected in the same manner as the study, but more in an anecdotal way, based almost solely on the writings here, where the overall happiness of people is not discussed, but more their views on government specifically. I was not saying we should discount discontent with government, I was saying we should not gain all of our information about life from a place where only one aspect of life is discussed, government in this case.

        • “the only people here that have expressed altruistic views are those from the Left, and they have been mocked by everyone on the Right… If government is involved, it’s not altruism.”

          I’m not sure how you can justify these two statements, Todd. Many of the arguments that I assume you are referencing in terms of altruism are about providing goods and services to the poor, but these are always in the context of government programs. Isn’t that, by your definition, not altruism?

          Perhaps the sentiment hasn’t been expressed by the right because this is primarily a political blog. I would be careful in claiming that people on the right are less inclined to altruism. For example, statistically conservatives have a much higher tendency to give to charity.

          I can’t speak to what other people feel, but I for one am very happy. I would guarantee that my household income is below everyone here who has a career, yet I am perfectly content. I also give regularly of my time and money. Sorry if I burst your bubble of expectations of us evil, greedy capitalists…

    • * The four happiest are all in Northern Europe (Denmark, Norway, Finland and the Netherlands) (And all SOCIALIST countries!!)
      Ignorance is bliss. 🙂 Also, I would like to know what is the measure of happiness? And, would, if the populations traded places, the same hold true? Would, if we traded places back, would it still be true?

      * People who care more about other people are also themselves on average happier.
      Asolutely! This is why charitable people are so happy. Socialists, on the other hand, at least American ones, are dismal and depressed and negative. I don’t even like being around them. The happiest people I see in this country are giving people, and they are productive and innovative people. It is they who care not what comes, because they do not depend on stuff for happiness. Socialists are all about material things, they believe that material things are the measure of equality, and of value, and of worthiness of a person. It is the inventor and the thinker that is truly happy.

      * Other things equal, people who single-mindedly chase higher incomes are less happy.
      Of course. Socialists chase those with higher incomes because they are mad that they have more, and are upset at that. Like yourself, Todd. Also, those who chase after income, running the rat race do not get the point of freedom or the free market, they are caught up in the rat race and the keeping up with the Joneses. Also, those who seek happiness from material things will always be less happy, because happiness does not come from those things, whether you get them or not. Free market people, the real ones, do not care about material things, even tho they pursue them. They could lose it all and often do, yet they just keep working, because they know they are the source of happiness and strength and ability and opportunity, not the stuff they create.

      * And psychologists and neuroscientists can now show that training in altruism increases a person’s happiness
      Sure, because it releases the mind from the trap of accumulation of stuff. Also, it opens the mind to the beauty of charity and helping other people. These are wonderful things. They are wonderful things STOLEN by those who would place the government in the role of the Good Samaritan and the philanthropist. It robs people of happiness and destroys a society. It steals the benefits of charity, not only from the giver, but from the receiver. The receiver gets material things only from the government. They get trained into the chasing of material things and stay depressed and hopeless and dependent. If they get it from loving and caring and charitable people, they get material things, but they get hope and love and an example to follow and a goal to reach that is not related to material stuff. They get to see that they are not alone in their struggles, and that material things are just tools to reach the real goals of life, not the goals themselves. The giver gets to feel the joy of altruism and charity, to feel the exhileration of helping others. To feel the fulfillment of assisting a person in being productive and self-sustaining and ultimately a benefit to all. They see an increase in total productivity and the health of the society, both economically and culturally/psychologically. They learn to part with material things and see that they are indeed tools to be used, not hoarded, and that the real joys of life lie in the care of others. The rat race fades for both, material importance fades for both, class warfare fades for both, the real things in life emerge. Equality is measured as it should be, as equal rights and freedoms and opportunities, not an equal amount of stuff or income. The very lines between employer and employee blur and people are more likely to work together. All of this is possible, but it is only possible in the absence of force. It is only possible in a world where charity is a personal choice, not a matter of law or force. Force only breed violence and resentment, it destroys every benefit I have mentioned. Socialism is not evil, force is evil. The free market is not evil, tho individuals may be. Both concepts can end well, so long as both are not corrupted. Either can be corrupted by seekers of power and lead to evil. It is those who seek to fix the problems of the world by wielding power that expand this corruption. You cannot force people to be better. You can only open the door to a better world.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Did I fall into another dimension on the trip home? Or perhaps a time warp. It now seems I am living in 1984:

        “And psychologists and neuroscientists can now show that training in altruism increases a person’s happiness.”

        The obvious next step is for Govt TRAINERS to help us all become more HAPPY. After all, we must be HAPPY or else!!!!!!!!!!!

      • Jon,

        Ignorance is bliss.

        Can you fill me in on what you’re referring here? Cause otherwise it will just be bliss for me.

        Also, I would like to know what is the measure of happiness?

        Well, the article has an overview and the study has the details.

        And, would, if the populations traded places, the same hold true? Would, if we traded places back, would it still be true?

        I’m not really sure how this is relevant. It’s a hypothetical question that can’t be answered.

        Charitable people are happy. Yes. But the “general” philosophies expressed here are self-interest and social Darwinism, not anything near altruism.

        I’m not sure how you draw you conclusions about “American Socialists” vs the “productive and innovative people.” Do you think you have better data than the study? The “(And all SOCIALIST countries!!)” comment was my little joke, because so many here lump all of Europe into a “Socialist Cesspool” generalization. These countries are all very similar to the US with mixed economies.

        Much of your reply seems to hinge on Socialists being the greedy ones and Capitalists being all wonderful and giving. I think you have that backwards, especially when you try to lump me into that category. I can’t count the number of times I’ve been accused of “wearing rose colored glasses”, or that “Ignorance is bliss” 😉 because I don’t agree with the opinion of many here that America is going to collapse into chaos.

        Similarly to JB, you seem to be expressing support for altruism that I don’t remember seeing before. Why as that? Or did I miss you past support?

        And as I said to JB, if government is involved, it’s not altruism.

        But I do hope you’ll continue to explore and support altruism. Maybe America will work it’s way up the Happiness ladder.

        • “Ignorance is bliss.”
          “Can you fill me in on what you’re referring here? Cause otherwise it will just be bliss for me.”
          I was referring to much of what I have seen in surveys and studies out of some of the socialist scandinavian countries before. Things along the line of more happiness among those whose choices were limited. There was an article a while back on the stress of choices, pointing out that those who never had an option of 100 types of liquor and had to choose from 6 or 7 were happier. That may not be a realistic representation of life in those happy countries, but it has been brought forth by socialist supporters before.

          “Also, I would like to know what is the measure of happiness?”
          “Well, the article has an overview and the study has the details.”
          Indeed, yet you compared it to the happiness of those you saw here in a far less scientific way. Happiness is not an easy thing to measure, and the methods are VERY easily manipulated to make the numbers look like anything you want. Not saying that is the case, I am just a suspicious sort (but I am happy in spite of that).

          “And, would, if the populations traded places, the same hold true? Would, if we traded places back, would it still be true?”
          “I’m not really sure how this is relevant. It’s a hypothetical question that can’t be answered.”
          So are many things mentioned here, including the real source of happiness. For all I know the reason European countries are more happy is because they are allowed to get high. There are too many factors involved to really make a proper comparison. But if, in fact, people are unaware of a better life, and their life is better than those they see around them, then they will be happy. If they could experience something even better, but then have to return to where they live now, would their happiness remain? This assumes that their life is not as good, which may not be the case, but that is why it is a question, not a postulation of a theory.

          “Charitable people are happy. Yes. But the “general” philosophies expressed here are self-interest and social Darwinism, not anything near altruism.”
          So say you, and so say you in the realm of a political discussion. Of course charity is discussed little here, because it has no place in a political discussion. Charity and politics do not mix. In fact, most of the time they are at war.

          “I’m not sure how you draw you conclusions about “American Socialists” vs the “productive and innovative people.” Do you think you have better data than the study? The “(And all SOCIALIST countries!!)” comment was my little joke, because so many here lump all of Europe into a “Socialist Cesspool” generalization. These countries are all very similar to the US with mixed economies.”
          I make the distinction based on the fact that I have not hung out with many European socialists, nor have I been in those countries. Thus, I will not say socialists because I do not presume to know the mindset there. I only know what I see here. Socialists here seem to have lost sight of the philosophy of socialism and, instead, seek the mandated implementation of socialism, not even as an ideal, but as a means of combatting capitalism. Worse still, the capitalism they fight against is also not aligned with the true philosophy, it is not really capitalism at all, but a poorly disguised form of mercantilism that should, indeed be fought. In fact, the socialist and capitalist powers in the MSM and government are based in tyranny and control and abuse of power, not anything that could possibly be counted as philosophically honest. As for having better data, I am sure I do not, but I may have a better interpretation of the data they gathered. Or not. But I do not put blind trust in studies such as this one.

          “Much of your reply seems to hinge on Socialists being the greedy ones and Capitalists being all wonderful and giving. I think you have that backwards, especially when you try to lump me into that category. I can’t count the number of times I’ve been accused of “wearing rose colored glasses”, or that “Ignorance is bliss” because I don’t agree with the opinion of many here that America is going to collapse into chaos.”
          Wrong, Socialists are not greedy, they are materialistic. They have lost sight of what matters. Many capitalists, especially in this very non-free-market system, are indeed the more greedy. The real producers, however, are not of that mindset, they are not caught up in materialism at all. As for lumping you in that category, I only base that on the seemingly strong emphasis you place on class and income distribution versus other factors. You are far less guilty of this than other liberals here, like Charlie, for instance, but still, you seem to focus a lot on material things for someone who cares so little about it. As for the ignorance comments pointed at you, I do join them in questioning your understanding of economics and the math behind it. Perhaps the doomsayers are too pressing and fanatical, but to think that we can sustain the sort of government-run altruism you seem to favor without economic consequence is naive in my opinion. It would behoove you to at least open your mind to that line of thinking, if for no other reason than to form a better argument against opponents like myself.

          “Similarly to JB, you seem to be expressing support for altruism that I don’t remember seeing before. Why as that? Or did I miss you past support?”
          I think you missed past support. I have written whole articles on this subject, tho I am not sure if they were displayed here, might have been written in my earlier blogging days. Still, I have posted a lot on the benefits of charity and the separation of genuine charity from governmental safety nets.

          “And as I said to JB, if government is involved, it’s not altruism.”
          This was a misunderstanding, I thought you were criticizing most here for presuming that if government was involved it was not altruism. If you were, in fact, also stating that this is true, then I apologize or the misread.

          “But I do hope you’ll continue to explore and support altruism. Maybe America will work it’s way up the Happiness ladder.”
          I hope all explore voluntary altruism. It is a good thing. It is only the forcing of it, the use of an idea to gain power and control, corrupting it to the core and destroying its value. Such corruption is no better than any other religion, and is a result of using law to enforce morality. Morality is no place for law. Many laws may overlap matters of morality, but the true purpose of law is to protect the rights and freedoms of people, not to make them moral or “improve” them.

    • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

      Why does anyone out there feel compelled to equate us, that’s us as in U.S. with western Europe? We have proved, time and time again that we are not them. As a matter of fact, we left them.

      They are happy because basically, they are stupid sheep. Their nanny states give them oodles of false freedom but little real freedom.

      On the downside, while we took the best, we also took the worst. Whenever somebody talks about something like health care in this country, they conveniently forget the scope of fraud. NY State alone has an estimated 15 Billion, with a B dollars worth of fraud in a year.

      When I was a boy, I remember watching newsreels in the movies with my dad. We would see these 1950’s newsreels about people in Britain still “queuing” for various things. Since dad had spent years in England during the war I asked him what a queue was. He explained how patient the English were and how they still had shortages since the war (10 years before). I asked him why we didn’t have such things. His answer, “Americans wouldn’t stand for it”. So the European sheeple can continue being as happy as possible having been saved twice from the depredations of the Hun in one century and allowed to continue not paying for national defense against the Soviet Union because they merrily lived under our umbrella bitching and moaning all the time.

  12. And you thought your vote “counted”

  13. charlieopera says:

    This should get the ball rolling again …

    Stand Your Ground … Ward Churchill & Genocide … Barry Graham … Drumming fool …

    http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/2012/03/stand-your-ground-ward-churchill.html

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Charlie, Good Day to You and the Family 🙂

      I do, however, respectfully disagree with you opinion on the Stand Your Ground law. All people have the unalienable right to self defense, screw any stupid law that says otherwise. This law allows people to defend themselves against attackers, which could include theives, rapists, serial killers and any other degenerate.

      I’m going to teach my female cousin to shot hew new handgun and help her get a conceal carry permit. She has the right to defende herself, and yes, I will teach her to shoot to kill. If the bad guy doesn’t want his heart blown out, he should find another line of work or get a better hobby. I hope that you never find yourself mourning the death of a loved one because they did not do everything they could to help themselves.

      Other than that, a good read, I enjoyed your book reviews, I may check them out 🙂

      • charlieopera says:

        G-man!!!!

        I’m not against people defending themselves …and I believe they have that right WITHOUT a law that facilitates unjustifiable shootings. One person’s “life threatening situation” may be another person’s “big deal” … I doubt anyone in a true life threatening situation would worry about any law on the books. They’d protect themselves first without thought of what happens next … but with this law, you have to admit, an awful lot is left to interpretation. God forbid your female cousin were faced with another female she found threatening, but had no more than skittles and an iced tea, I could only hope she’d either avoid shooting the person or shoot to wound rather than kill. Do you see where I’m going with this? The Zimmerman situation, if anything, proves the law can be abused and if not for the public outcry, it seems it would’ve been ignored.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          I do see your point. I’m not even sure Pa has this law, but it wouldn’t matter to me anyway. Keep in mind, I only feel that self defense is allowed after beind physically attacked or threatened with a weapon. I don’t believe the law facilitates action, but rather inaction for the most part. The story with Martin is that he physically attacked Zimmerman as he was walking “back to his SUV”. At this point, any pursuit was over. However, both can be blamed for poor judgement, sadly one acted violently and was shot. At least that is the story being told.

          For the record, it is likely that the same thing would happen in my part of the country. Strangers would be asked what their pyrpose is. Folks up here would introduce themselves and explain things, and do so happily. Trespassing is not liked up here, I get permission on a regular basis to ensure I’m in agreement with the local landowners. It is highly unlikely I will ever run into a teen with a hoodie in these parts, but we do watch out for each other, and we are all armed, all the time.

          Let’s say that Zimmerman’s story is true and he was attacked as he was walking back to his SUV. At this point it should have been over. To me, the law is a great deterant for those who know about it. I’m sure a lot less people will be attacked in Florida now. So while it’s a tragedy, it’s also a lesson to those who want to harm others.

          If Zimmerman is arrested and charged, he will be aquitted. This will be nothing more than a circus to appease the loud mouthed race pimps. They are a joke.

          • charlieopera says:

            Oh, G-man, I try so hard to stay with you on these things … you make it difficult, my man.

            If Zimmerman was “attacked” on his way back to his SUV (after essentially being told to mind his own business and to wait for law enforcement), his shooting a kid with skittles and an iced tea doesn’t fit my idea of “life threatened” … and if the only model is “threatened” then you made my point.

            But you really need to quit the race pimp stuff, my man. It’s ugly.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Sorry Charlie, but the race pimp designation stays. It is what it is. I know that you and others have been ignoring whats been put up for public scrutiny. I canm’t fight that, it is what it is. Let me begin by saying that the innocent looking kid in the pictures mostly shown are far different than the 6’3″ young adult who was shot. Yes, these pictures are just part of the emotional pleas that the race pimps want everyone to feel. I say bullshit.

              I would see this the same way, regardless of the skin colors involved. Then again, most people don’t act like the race pimps do under similar situations. 👿

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Charlie

          As usual you can’t seem to connect the dots properly.

          The LAW does NOT allow or “facilitate” unjustified killing.

          You can not show us where this is true. You say you support self defense. This is ALL the law does. It prevents prosecution for legitimate self defense.

          You should ask why these laws are in place. If self defense was so “self evident” then they would not be necessary would they.

          But thanks to folks like you, and Buck of course, people were being prosecuted for murder when defending themselves. Because they “could have run” instead.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            I often wonder what liberals think and how they came to the conclusions that they have. Maybe it is a new affliction called Liberalpsychosis 🙂

          • charlieopera says:

            JAC, as usual, you’re a moron.

            Let me clarify that. A MORON.

            If there have been 3 x’s as many deaths from “self-defense” situations since the law was enacted in Florida, how can you be so sure they were all righteous self defense? Zimmerman alone kind of ruins your perfect record on that one. He’s using it as a defense, you idiot. Do you really think he was justified in killing this kid? If so, well … what’s the point?

            As I debated with USW, there’s no way to know how many of the tripling murders were righteous or not … but this one case certainly reeks of anything but self defense.

            Unless you’re into shooting black kids for wearing hoodies in your neighborhood (which wouldn’t surprise me, quite frankly), but that’s another discussion for another day.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Charlie

              An imbecile throwing around the term moron seems a bit like a child playing with a loaded gun to me.

              • charlieopera says:

                I wish you were close enough to smack in the chops, jerkoff … but you’re not. I’ll just let it slide … and do my best to ignore you in the future.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              charlie

              Longer version:

              If there has been a 3x increase in “self-defense” then obviously the law was needed. This could mean that these people would have been prosecuted for “self defense” prior to the law being passed. Or has been mentioned by someone else the other day, it means that more people were now “empowered” to defend themselves, THANKS to this GOOD LAW.

              It is not necessary for ME to know whether each of these were “righteous” nor for them to all be “righteous” to evaluate the NEED for, the BENEFIT of, or the UTILITY of such a law. No man or woman should be required to abandon their rightful occupancy of space just to avoid prosecution by the law for their own defense.

              Zimmerman is irrelevant, except to those who want to use him as a poster child for their irrational argument. Whether he claims this as his “defense” is equally irrelevant to whether the law is good or not. A JURY will determine whether his “defense” is rightful or not.

              As for whether this case is self defense or not that has nothing to do with whether the law is “needed” or a “good” law with respect to protecting innocent people from prosecution.

              As for this comment of yours: “Unless you’re into shooting black kids for wearing hoodies in your neighborhood (which wouldn’t surprise me, quite frankly), but that’s another discussion for another day.” It shows me that once a bully always a bully. Just because you now use words instead of a club doesn’t change the nature of your intent and methods.

              Since you raised the whole “hoody” issue again just let me say this. If I go to the Wild West Show and see a bunch of “brown men” with feathers in their hair and paint on their faces charging at me with a spear, I laugh and applaud.

              If a “brown man” with feathers in his hair and paint on his face comes charging by my house on his horse waving his spear, I get my gun and take chase to eliminate the threat. The outcome will depend on how both he and I react once I catch him.

            • USWeapon says:

              Zimmerman alone kind of ruins your perfect record on that one. He’s using it as a defense

              That is my point Charlie, Zimmerman does no such thing. Zimmerman still has the onus of proving that it was in fact self defense. If he can do so, then the law protected an innocent man. If he cannot, the law will prosecute a guilty man. The “perfect record” of the law itself doesn’t get impacted at all.

              He’s using it as a defense

              If I shoot someone in the parking lot at work and then claim the castle law as a defense, does that somehow mean that the castle law is wrong as well? Regardless of my claim the facts have to be investigated. The investigation will show that I didn’t live in the parking lot at work, therefore my claim was baseless. But that doesn’t make the law wrong, does it? Of course not. In this case, the investigation may show that Zimmerman’s claim of self defense was baseless, but that doesn’t make the law wrong either. It really isn’t much more than a small critical thinking exercise to see that your use of Zimmerman as an example of the law being wrong doesn’t make logical sense. I hope you understand that I don’t say that to be ignorant or demean you. I am simply following logical debate formula here…

              And let’s be clear, the law has resulted in 3 times as many justifiable homicides. That statistic says nothing of how many times the law was claimed as a defense and then thrown out when the facts were presented.

              You have made some good points here this week that have caused me to look deeper into a few things and re-evaluate (which I love when people do). However, I think that you have to dis-associate this Zimmerman case from the evaluation of the Stand Your Ground law. The only relevant issue to the existence of this law to the case is if we can prove that Zimmerman was aware of the law and only decided that it was OK to shoot this kid because of that. Otherwise, the law and this case do not impact each other at all. It matters not what he claims, unless the law, as written, somehow allows him to go free when he would not have otherwise. Until that becomes the case, you must stop linking the case as an example against the law.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                USW

                And I would argue that even if Zimmerman had prior knowledge and decided it was OK to shoot this kid because of his “knowledge” or “understanding” that is STILL NOT proof of a BAD LAW.

                It is proof of a person’s irrational beliefs relative to that law.

                I think the problem folks are having with this is it places the “burden of proof” on the STATE where it should be. It the STATE cannot prove he had intent, the law protects the shooter.

                But heaven forbid that we should be presumed innocent UNTIL PROVEN guilty.

              • JAC

                I completely agree, but I was more addressing the stance that Charlie has taken that the law itself causes people who otherwise would not use deadly force to do so.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I think the problem folks are having with this is it places the “burden of proof” on the STATE where it should be. It the STATE cannot prove he had intent, the law protects the shooter.

                But heaven forbid that we should be presumed innocent UNTIL PROVEN guilt

                USW and JAC,

                This has been my biggest complaint with the Race Pimps and the CHM, along with some that I have been discussing with. It is up to the STATE to prove guilt, not for the accused to prove innocence. The liberals have it all backwards (nothing new here). When people abuse a law, they will likely get caught, let the evidence be a deciding factor, not misplaced emotions. Between the Black Panthers, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, it has delved into a circus that could lead to race riots at some point. Or worse!

              • charlieopera says:

                Zimmerman still has the onus of proving that it was in fact self defense.

                Only because in this case there was public outrage. Until this thing went public in a big way, he walked out of a police precinct after the lead investigator (allegedly) was overruled (he wanted Zimmerman arrested). Doesn’t sound like there would have been an inquiry at all. And there’s no way of knowing how many of the many more deaths that have come under the law since its inception were not life threatening situations. “Threat” is way too vague. As it stands, up to each individual to determine for themselves, it is a license to make a big mistake. And let’s face it, the more money behind the defense team, the better the chances of the shooter to walk.

                Regardless of my claim the facts have to be investigated.

                See above answer. In theory, yes, they have to be investigated. Does it appear the police in Sanford were doing that to you? It took an absolute nationwide uproar (what G-man refers to as race pimping, I guess) for anything to be done and so far nothing has been done. Zimmerman hasn’t even been charged with anything.

                But that doesn’t make the law wrong, does it? Of course not. In this case, the investigation may show that Zimmerman’s claim of self defense was baseless, but that doesn’t make the law wrong either. It really isn’t much more than a small critical thinking exercise to see that your use of Zimmerman as an example of the law being wrong doesn’t make logical sense. I hope you understand that I don’t say that to be ignorant or demean you. I am simply following logical debate formula here…

                Logical thinking under the best of conditions, which (going back to our constitutional law vs. reality debates). Again, see above. The law invites bad decisions (because we are all fallible, some more than others (physically, mentally, etc.) … one person’s “threat” is another’s “big deal”. The investigations shouldn’t have to take place is the point, USW. You’re ignoring the victim once again in these scenarios. The law takes the side of the person “defending themselves” without concern for the person who is shot. “Threat” is way too vague a definition for way too many people. The investigations (as in this case) are subject to incompetence, corruption, negligence, you name it. And again, if the shooter has money, his chances of a successful defense go up dramatically (no matter the circumstances).

                However, I think that you have to dis-associate this Zimmerman case from the evaluation of the Stand Your Ground law

                I disagree (with extreme prejudice) … the Zimmerman case, no matter the outcome, has proved the law (for me) to be an invitation to future such scenarios (if there hasn’t been precedent in the past). For the reasons stated above (“threat” is too vague a concept across an entire population AND if not for a public outcry, this case was adjudicated the minute they let Zimmerman walk out of the precinct.)

                It was good arguing this one with you, USW. I respect your opinion.

                G-man, I respect your opinion as well, but the letting it go on race pimps and hardass city attitude (or however you termed it) … come on, man. That’s just bad.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Charlie, I respect your opinion as well. I may not always agree with it, but such is life. “but the letting it go on race pimps and hardass city attitude (or however you termed it) … come on, man. That’s just bad.”

                Yes Sir, it is bad, life tends to be that way. I do not pretend that there is no racism out there, on both sides of the color scheme. I’m not concerned if folks want to ignore reality, they will ultimately suffer from it, I won’t. The inner city youth hardass attitude is very real, maybe I’m not putting it in terms that is best understood. How about ” Rotten, drug infested, gang mentality no good rotten mother fuckers”. Does that work better? I was trying to be nice ya know 🙂

                I watched a city fall into this, I experienced this, in person. Like may others in larger cities like Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh and on and on. Charlie, sadly, only the strongest will survive the coming years. I don’t need laws to act morally correct, sadly, the bad guys need them to stay in business. Thats the problem, let people handle things and get governemnt out of our lives, life would be much better, at for those who get it! 🙂

  14. Just A Citizen says:

    The antithesis to the notion that Govt should manage society for the Greater Good, or Happiness.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/on_restoring_american_individualism.html

  15. Just A Citizen says:

    Happy people don’t need to use CASH. They can use the Govt Approved Happy Debit Card.

    Make sure you read to the end to see what the definition of money is to those who understand.

    http://lewrockwell.com/salerno/salerno11.1.html

    • gmanfortruth says:

      JAC, Do you do much bartering in your neck of the woods? I have noticed it is becoming much more common, but mostly in rural areas. The value of a 5th of homemade brandy is growing as well. I’m stockpiling, having just shelved my 120th bottle. This weeks flavor is red plum! 🙂

      I have also been hitting an online auction where I have picked up some silver and gold jewelry very cheap (I’ve had it appraised by a reputable jeweler) and can easily double my money today. I’ll hold and see how devalued the dollar gets late this summer. I’d hate to see gas at 6 bucks a gallon, but that’s where it may go!

      Hope today finds you and the family “Happy” 🙂

      • Just A Citizen says:

        gman

        I don’t do that much bartering myself. But many do, even around here in Loony Leftyland. Its the holdovers from the 60’s. 🙂

        They even have computer networks, sites where you can “trade” to “borrow” equipment or other things you might need but not own. Like the use of a tractor, power washer, boat and crap pots, etc, etc,. You can trade use of another item or even the item itself for the “rent”..

  16. charlieopera says:

    JAC barters with reality every day, Gman.

    6’3″ and a hoodie AND SKITTLES AND AN ICED TEA? Well, now that changes EVERYTHING.

    Come on Gman … you can’t be serious.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I guess he should have just took his hoodie, skittles and iced tea and went home. Instead he physically attacked a man and paid with his life. His inner city hardass mentality cost him his life.

      Now, if a magic video comes out that says otherwise, that is the official story in a police report. If they can prove wrongdoing, Zimmerman would have been arrested and charged. the evidence doesn’t support your theory or the race pims theories. Until that changes, I stand on the side of self defense.

      • charlieopera says:

        Well, G, that’s about as ignorant as it gets … I’m sorry for you, brother.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          No Charlie, it’s not ignoragnce, it’s reality, which brother, is on my side. I will not close my eyes to the problems of this country, and it’s not all about race and color, it’s about mentallity and education. The inner city mentallity of young people today = invincibility. Our education system sucks and parents are not teaching these kids right from wrong. Innocence and invincibility do not go together. With your street prowess, you should know this.

          Now, I will say this clearly. If one initiates violence, and escalates it beyond self defense (as in climbing on top and slamming head into concrete) then he should expect to be shot. Once on top, it’s an attack, not self defense, ask any cop.

          Sorry Charlie, I’m a realist who sees things for what they are. Following the race pimps and the Corporate Whore media…… well, that is ignorant.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            gman

            You point out just why the Stand Your Ground laws were needed.

            “Once on top it is an attack and not self defense. Ask any cop.”

            Now I know you were talking about the person you consider the attacker, but the point is that the cops and the prosecutors would turn this on the victim. If the victim was to gain the “top” position then kill or injure the attacker, they would argue the victim was the attacker “because” he had secured the superior position.

            This was done in many states, ignoring the nature of a continuous struggle between victim and attacker.

            Same reason that “Castle” laws were passed. Victims prosecuted for protecting their family and homes “because they should have run”.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              I agree JAC, that’s why I carry, there will be no mistake who the attacker is. I did think of the attacker on top, that is based on everything I read about the Martin case. It is possible, sans a gun, that it could have turned around. My belief is simple, if someone is willing to attack, he is willing to die (or she).

          • charlieopera says:

            Ah, the reality issue … because it’s not like money gets a better defense than the poor … or that the law treats the poor with less regard than the wealthy … or that investigations (like the Martin case) are fouled up or worse (remember how little you respect corruption, G?) … so let’s deal with reality … a white guy told not to pursue pursues anyway and likely gets his ass kicked and then shoots the black kid and somehow that is self defense.

            And if not for the race pimps, et al … what? Zimmerman goes on patrol again …

            That’s reality, brother. Black kids are legal targets in these situations because of this law (not that people will say, “Wow, i can go shoot a black kid, especially if he’s from an inner city and has a hardass attitude, etc.” No, because there’s now a law on the books that gives them a legal out).

            In the meantime, the world awaits this great big investigation to end … some want to know why Mr. Z had no marks on him in the video (his life was threatened, don’t you know) … not an ounce of blood on his clothes (yes, they “May” have cleaned him up in the EMS wagon, but I doubt they did his laundry).

            The law is bad … it is terrible.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Charlie, As usual, your affliction with Liberalpsychosis hyperemotionalizes the whole thing. At least you got one thing right : a white guy told not to pursue pursues anyway and likely gets his ass kicked and then shoots the black kid and somehow that is self defense.

              Yes Charlie, it is self defense. The white guy did not attack anyone, he was following a STRANGER in his neighborhood. The color of skin isn only an issue for the race pimps. Had this been a black man following a white kid and the same thing happened, I would feel the same way.

              Let’s see if charges are filed, then wait for the trial. Do you really think the State can prove guilt based on emotional pleas and assumptions? Then we can compare this trial to the OJ trial or maybe the Casey Anthony trial. That would be fun! 🙂

              • charlieopera says:

                G-man. I’m taking Todd’s road on this … out of here. The few of you who believe the nonsense you’re spewing (not about the law, the racism inherent in your argument your “reality” blind you with) is just too absurd to try and reason with.

                Good luck with your war on the real world, brother …

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Good Luck Charlie 🙂

                I hope you two don’t trip over each other trying to walk lockstep with the liberal race pimps. I’m used to being called a racist, seems that’s the only argument the left can use anymore. On a better note, if there is justice to be given in the Martin case, I hope it gets done because of evidence, not assumptions and emotional appeals (or pathetic threats).

                Peace!

  17. gmanfortruth says:

    Charlie, this might help! 🙂

  18. Just A Citizen says:

    Wow, what a basketball game. Sorry Ohio State but ya gotta make the shots to win.

    My prediction for Monday.

    Kentucky.

    • Was a great game…. not sure about some of the foul calls down the stretch, though. No foul called and that one guy was bleeding pretty badly from the shot in the mouth.

      But…. that’s the game. I don’t know that anyone can beat Kentucky. And I think it is bad for college basketball. What is your take on that, JAC? The following article sums up what I am afraid of:

      The Kentucky Wildcats are huge favorites to win the 2012 NCAA Tournament and have looked absolutely dominant all season long. They just need to get past Louisville and the winner of Ohio State vs. Kansas to finish the job.

      This a good thing for people that love college basketball and the unpredictability, Cinderella stories and many other incredible things that make the sport unique.

      What it signifies is that UK coach John Calipari’s system of recruiting the top-rated prospects to his basketball factory for one year of play—basically a glorified purgatory between AAU ball and becoming a first-round NBA draft pick—is the best, and soon possibly only, way to win in modern times.

      Chuck Klosterman penned a great piece on this issue entitled “Kentucky’s Death March” for Grantland the other day and provided some great insight on the subject.

      He wrote that Calipari’s upfront and unapologetic professionalization of college sports will have, for many who love to watch the game, a disastrous outcome that will finally reach critical mass if and when they win the tournament.

      Calipari’s scheme will become standard at a handful of universities where losing at basketball is unacceptable: North Carolina, Syracuse, Kansas, UCLA, and maybe even Duke. These schools already recruit one-and-done freshmen, but they’ll have to go further; they’ll have to be as transparent about their motives as Calipari is (because transparency is the obsession of modernity). If they resist, they will fade. And the result will be a radical amplification of what the game has already become: There will be five schools sharing the 25 best players in the country, and all the lesser programs will kill each other for the right to lose to those five schools in the Sweet 16.

      This sounds improbable, but giving it some thought, Klosterman is absolutely right.

      Since there are only a handful of highly touted recruits that can impact a game like the freshmen on Kentucky do right now, it’s going to become rare for them to choose lesser schools that would limit their exposure and possibly hurt their draft stock.

      The NBA and their forced rule-change back in 2005 brought this upon themselves, and men like Calipari are simply taking advantage of it because they almost forced to do so—as it’s best for themselves and the young men they are recruiting.

      Without diving into the socioeconomic factors, it’s clear that many of the top high school basketball players have plenty of drive to turn professional as soon as possible and ink the largest contract they can get.

      Programs like Kentucky facilitate those motives and offer these young men a chance at collegiate glory, an improvement to their projected draft position and massive amounts of hype—all during a one-year period between high school and the NBA.

      This isn’t going away anytime soon, and as long as the one-and-done rule is in place, powerhouses such as Kentucky are going to keep winning, keep reloading and change college basketball, for the worse, forever.

      http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1124032-ncaa-bracket-2012-why-kentucky-winning-title-is-bad-for-college-basketball

      • Just A Citizen says:

        USW

        I agree on the fouls………..not called. I thought a little to Kansas’ way, especially the pushing and hooking away from the ball. There is a reason Ohio didn’t get as many rebounds in the 2nd half.

        But OSU had the open jumpers and simply missed. Two threes fall and so does Kansas.

        I agree with the editorial. The NBA should go to a Junior draft, but the NAACP would throw a riggin’ fit.

        I have been wondering how much longer Duke would try to hold to the old ways. Well I should say, old new ways. They used to recruit and keep 4 year players, then they dropped to two and an occasional three.

        I have thought for some time that a real discussion is needed about “paying” college athletes so they stay in school. It wouldn’t be millions but they should get something for all that money they bring the Universities. And then maybe some of these kids might actually get an education. Instead of speech lessons so they can sound coherent in front of a TV camera.

        By the way, a Portland, Oregon kid will be playing for Kentucky on Monday. Oregon, Oregon State, Washington and Stanford couldn’t keep this kid in the west. So that fits the gist of the article quite well I think.

        I watched a little of the McDonalds High School all star game the other day. Couldn’t help but think I was watching most of the players that would be in the final four next year.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        USW

        Let me offer solution number two. The one I would prefer was implemented, but cold day in hell….

        Eliminate the money in College Sports……….all together. That includes Athletic Scholarships. I know that can still be gamed but it would be harder to play the game at the large scale. Especially when the athletes can’t read or write.

        Of course other restrictions could be used, like the military academies use…….. limiting total practice time, etc.

        It is time that Basketball and Football ran their own “minor leagues” like Baseball. College athletes should be there for an EDUCATION FIRST.

        • USW, JAC,

          I gotta ask, what would the free market solution be?

        • YOu can do it now, JAC……glad I am out of college. I had a full athletic scholarship but I graduated with a BBA 3.65 GPA….not basket weaving or swimming pool management. My sport? Not football….not basketball…..not baseball………..it was…………………….golf. I was going to play professional golf but the Vietnam War interrupted that and changed everything….especially after a plethora of high speed projectiles decided that golf was not in my future. (Knees do not hold up well to small fragments of exploding 122 mm rocket rounds moving at mach 1).

          • Just A Citizen says:

            d13

            Good morning, er Afternoon, Colonel.

            Yes, I feel much better offering this solution now that I have used up my scholarship as have my two oldest. 🙂

            However, I have a feeling you and I would have done just fine under the Academy system.

            I do wish I had been introduced to Golf at that age, although I don’t remember them offering any scholarships for it then.

            Hope all is well in Texas my friend.
            Best to you and yours this fine Sunday.

            JAC

  19. charlieopera says:

    @G:

    Yes Sir, it is bad, life tends to be that way. I do not pretend that there is no racism out there, on both sides of the color scheme. I’m not concerned if folks want to ignore reality, they will ultimately suffer from it, I won’t. The inner city youth hardass attitude is very real, maybe I’m not putting it in terms that is best understood. How about ” Rotten, drug infested, gang mentality no good rotten mother fuckers”. Does that work better? I was trying to be nice ya know

    Talk is cheap, Gman, you should know that. Generalizing city kids in that way (never mind Treyvon Martin) is kind of foolish. What so bothers you about him? That he had the nerve to question why someone was following him? I’m trying really hard not to see the inherent paranoia in some of your statements. Under this law, by the way, you’d probably get away with killing black kids in hoodies hanging around your neighborhood without much explaining (unless, of course, those “race baiters” get involved).

    As to ignoring reality, you do realize that the country is becoming one big city, I hope. More and more migration to suburbs, etc.

    I watched a city fall into this, I experienced this, in person. Like may others in larger cities like Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh and on and on. Charlie, sadly, only the strongest will survive the coming years.

    More paranoia, G … and ultimately wrong (as regards the strongest surviving). The numbers will overwhelm the strong, my man. They always do.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      OH Charlie, your so the bleeding heart liberal lately 🙂 “Under this law, by the way, you’d probably get away with killing black kids in hoodies hanging around your neighborhood without much explaining ” Yes, I could. But I don’t tend to shoot people who are not attacking me or threating to cut my heart out. Actually, it would be much more enjoyable to lead them into the forest and then leave. They would be fine for a few days, then I would lead them out and get them some medical treatment. Humbleness comes in many forms for many reasons.

      As to ignoring reality, you do realize that the country is becoming one big city, I hope. More and more migration to suburbs, etc.

      Charlie, only about 15% of our country is populated, you really need to leave Jersey once in awhile.

      For the record, I’m not paranoid, I am prepared, big difference.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        A little old guy is walking around in a supermarket calling out, Crisco, Crissssssscoooo!’

        Soon an assistant manager approaches and says, ‘Sir, the Crisco is in aisle 3.’

        The old guy replies, ‘Oh, I’m not looking for the cooking stuff. I’m calling my wife. She’s in here somewhere’

        The clerk is astonished.

        ‘Your wife’s name is Crisco?’

        The old guy answers, ‘Oh no, no, no. I only call her that when we’re out in public’

        ‘I see,’ said the clerk.

        ‘What do you call her at home?’

        ‘Lard ass.’

  20. charlieopera says:

    G: Pay attention to the bartender at the end of this piece …

    Give us all a break.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I actually know people who talk the same way. Very opinionated. Peter Boyle played the role perfectly. I laughed thinking about Archie Bunker living in todays world, geez would he be bad!

  21. gmanfortruth says:

    As I thought from the very beginning, it’s all bullshit Corporate Whore Media motivating the race pimps. Their story is going to come unglued and make fools of them and their pathetic followers.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/he-looks-black-nbc-launches-internal-investigation-into-selective-editing-of-zimmerman-police-tape/

    • New NBC motto: All the news we can manufacture, film at 5:00

      Will we see the results of the investigation on 60 minutes? Will Steve Kroft ambush the editors? Inquiring minds want to know.

      • charlieopera says:

        Irrational thought … responsibility … he “attacks police officers” …

        Maybe it’s me, but when I saw the Rodney King video, I saw 4 cops beating the shit out of a black man while he was on the ground … and just like the zimmerman case, it took a social uproar to have the federal government step in. (So USW’s claim that the shooters would have to justify their action legally isn’t exactly the case … not without G-man’s “race baiters”.

        “Rodney didn’t happen to kill anybody” … but old George Z sure did.

        This is a GREAT movie … and some here could stand to watch it a few times … try not ignoring the second half of the movie, please.

    • charlieopera says:

      Boy, the Blaze is really on top of things. I heard that on the recording 2 weeks ago. Maybe it’s time to crawl out under from the rock … unless, of course, as you “thought from the very beginning, it’s all bullshit” …

      The only story that seems to be coming unglued is Zimmerman’s … did you notice all the blood from his broken nose and back of the head gash on his clothes in the police video (taken 34 minutes after he whacked somebody in self-defense because he feared for his life)? Do you really think he didn’t anything about this law (being a wannabe, apparently, his entire life)? Do you really think he didn’t consider for a moment that carrying a gun and shooting to kill because he may (or may not have) been getting his ass kicked in a fight he provoked was legally protected by “stand your ground”? Was it reality you were discussing earlier? Oh, right, he was 6’3″ and therefor even more menacing than just being a 17 year old black kid carrying skittles and an iced tea …. AND wearing a hoodie!

      G, I didn’t think it before today, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like one, it’s probably a duck … so if people are inferring you may have a bit of racism beneath all that paranoia … maybe you need to seek some help with that. I say that respectfully … everybody can change, my man.

      • Charlie, this plays into the point I was going to make to you perfectly.

        The primary misuse of the law was done by the police in the Zimmerman case. At best, they were incompetent at seeing the questionability of the case, or in not understanding the law, and at worst they were complete racists who ruled the way they did due to prejudice rather than police work.

        The Rodney King case was similar, only it was obviously the latter issue, not a matter of incompetence. Was there a law used improperly in the Rodney King case? No, it was just a bunch of abuse of power. Members of the police force are sometimes corrupt or racist or power-hungry, etc. This is not a failure of law, it is a failure of humanity. When those who are to uphold the law fail or abuse that power, then it is up to people to call them on it. This is not an issue of a bad law, it is an issue of bad people in a governmental role. Stop making it about a law. The law is in place to keep people from going to prison for legitimate defense. The police are in place to make sure that those who violate laws pay the penalty. When things don’t go to plan, you have to make sure something is done about it. Of course that something has to be within the bounds of law as well, not countered with equivalent acts of abuse of power or racism.

        • charlieopera says:

          When those who are to uphold the law fail or abuse that power, then it is up to people to call them on it. This is not an issue of a bad law, it is an issue of bad people in a governmental role. Stop making it about a law.

          Jon, I understand your point, but anyone involved in defending their life does NOT need an extra law to defend themself. If you’re only concern is that their reputation may be ruined in the process or that they will bear the financial burden of a legal defense, what is the difference between defending one’s life with or without the law? The difference, as I see it, as it appears to be enacting itself out, is people are more likely to “defend” themselves under the new law. Now, if they were all actually defending their lives and you could prove that, it would be one thing. But that isn’t the case and we now know that from this Zimmerman case (that isn’t even a case yet).

          I’m sure Zimmerman knew of the law (or why did he use it with the police before his lawyer was present)? The law simply invites all kinds of “threat” definitions that may or may not actually be life-threatening.

          As to the racist comments made here by a couple of SUFA’s own, it was pretty tough to swallow and sorry, I do feel (with all sincerity), there was some racist diatribe going on here. Perhaps it was garnered from some overly paranoid feelings of inner cities and those menacing kids in hoodies, but you can’t argue it isn’t pretty much what the two videos portrayed. To me, it’s racist speak. It’s ugly. And stupid.

          And while the police may be responsible for a cover-up or negligence, incompetence, whatever, it doesn’t change the fact that they were confronted with the situation, most likely, because there’s now a law on the books that invites “self defense” shootings where the shooter gets to plead “self defense” no matter what the circumstances. I don’t know how you ignore that.

          • People were pleading self defense in all situations before, and there was an investigation, and then guilt was determined. The issue is that there are cases of a person being found guilty for shooting an attacker when an escape route was available. This is even more the case when the attacker did not die. I am not ignoring anything, there should have been an investigation here as well, that there was not is an issue of the application of the law, not the law as written. As for reputation ruining and legal defense costs, how about add to that prison time for shooting someone who attacked you because you fought back instead of running? An innocent person counted as guilty under the law. THAT is the reason I support the stand your ground law. I will defend myself despite the law, it is the aftermath that bothers me. If I go to prison because I killed an attacker, how is that justice?

            • charlieopera says:

              If I go to prison because I killed an attacker, how is that justice?

              And if you kill an attacker “you believe” was life threatening and later learn you made a terrible mistake, where’s the justice for the poor bastard you killed? You may (or may not) go to jail for taking a life … obviously in some cases (Zimmerman sure comes to mind), a lot depends on how that (your) definition of life threatening is perceived. Sorry, it’s an invitation to terrible mistakes and worse. Much worse.

              • It is no more an invitation than having so many laws in place that protect attackers that they feel they can do as they wish. There are cases where attacks succeeded because people were afraid to defend themselves, especially in cases of rape.

  22. charlieopera says:

    Yep, the “story” is unravelling at the speed of light … Mr. Zimmerman has some ‘splainin to do …

    http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/01/10963191-trayvon-martin-case-audio-screams-were-not-george-zimmermans-2-experts-say

  23. charlieopera says:

    This is before or on March 16 … it’s April 1st today …

    This is why the law stinks … the “investigations” seem to be tainted … what good is it to Treyvon Martin?

    • You act like a different law would have prevented the death. There is no basis for that.

      • charlieopera says:

        Not at all, Jon. What I’m saying is there already is a right to defend oneself when one’s life is threatened. It is a common sense law. Why invite definitions of “life threatening” circumstances when crap like this can occur? And remember, if not for the so-called race baiters in this case, nothing was going to happen. The police (for whatever reason, legal, incompetence or racist) weren’t bothering with an investigation. A prosecutor allegedly overruled the lead investigator’s decision to arrest Zimmerman. what about cases where This kind of public outcry never sees the light of day?

        • THERE IS NOT A RIGHT TO DEFEND YOURSELF according to the law in many states. Now, there is a right to do so, and I would do so despite the law, but lives have been destroyed, not by an attacker, but by the legal aftermath of stopping an attack.

          http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_news/133341/grandfather_gets_arrested_for_holding

          • charlieopera says:

            IN Jersey, where I live, the castle rule doesn’t even apply. I can live with that. If I ever feel my life is threatened, I’ll do whatever I have to do to protect myself. That’s more than good enough for me.

            Now there is a right to shoot without concern of whether the definition of life threatening applies … that’s just asking for unjustified killings across the board. If you admit you’d defend yourself with or without the law, what purpose does the law serve other than to justify needless killing? None.

            • It legally justifies justifiable killings and serves as a warning to criminals, they they are not protected from forceful response to their attacks.

            • USWeapon says:

              If you admit you’d defend yourself with or without the law, what purpose does the law serve other than to justify needless killing? None.

              It serves to protect someone who protects themselves from having their lives ruined because some idiot tried to attack them. You are correct, many of us will protect ourselves regardless of the law. So what purpose does eliminating this law serve other than to justify ruining the lives of the potential victims?

              • charlieopera says:

                You are correct, many of us will protect ourselves regardless of the law.

                So why do you need it?

                So what purpose does eliminating this law serve other than to justify ruining the lives of the potential victims?

                I suggest asking the Martin family. Their son was killed, probably because this law gave an idiot the idea he could get away with shooting someone wearing a hoodie.

              • USWeapon says:

                So why do you need it?

                Because if I act justly, I don’t believe I should have to lose my job, spend time in jail, and spend everything I have to defend myself simply because I happened to be the target on that particular night. I think you are all twisted up on this one Charlie. I understand your frustration with some of the opinions here at SUFA, but you are losing sight of what the law actually says and instead assuming that the existence of the law somehow is causing deaths as opposed to protecting potential victims. But we don’t have any evidence that this is the case…

                I suggest asking the Martin family. Their son was killed, probably because this law gave an idiot the idea he could get away with shooting someone wearing a hoodie.

                As noted earlier, you are assuming that this incident occurred simply because of the existence of this law. In fact you are downright stating that this law was what caused Zimmerman to think it was OK to kill Martin. While I understand that such a statement would bolster your position, I have found nothing that suggests there is any merit to that claim, and neither have you. So the emotional ploy of “ask Martin’s family” is really wasted here 🙂

                Why don’t we just stick to the facts of what happened instead of basing our position on what we are assuming was in the heads of the people involved. We will get further that way…

  24. Just A Citizen says:

    Perhaps we should consider the actual law when trying to evaluate its purpose and affect.

    Florida

    2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[18]

    776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

    (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
    (2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

    776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—

    (1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

    (a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
    (b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

    (2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

    (a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
    (b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
    (c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
    (d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

    (3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

    (4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

    (5) As used in this section, the term:

    (a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
    (b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
    (c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

    776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

    (1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

    (2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

    (3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

    776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

    (1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

    (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

    (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
    (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

    Seems to me the law is perfectly fine and addresses the very issue of the Zimmerman case.

  25. Just A Citizen says:

    Less Poverty equals MORE Happiness.

    But now what was the cause of a reduction in Global Poverty?

    http://reason.com/archives/2012/03/29/toward-the-conquest-of-world-poverty

  26. Just A Citizen says:

    Words of truth from a blogger named “Dennis”.

    “Amity Schlaes’s book, THE FORGOTTEN MAN, presents an eye-opening account of those who were captivated by Mussolini “because he made the trains run on-time” – How simple it is to get people to give away their freedoms for a little convenience.”

  27. charlieopera says:

    @Jon:

    It is no more an invitation than having so many laws in place that protect attackers that they feel they can do as they wish.

    Ah, but here is where you err big time. What law specifically defends criminals, my friend? If you’re referring to due process, that isn’t a law defending criminals. When you let the shooter define what he or she (especially in the case of rape) determines “life threatening” then you’re opening a can of worms that often has but two sides of the story, except one is already dead. You’re only convincing me further the law is a terrible one.

    None of you, by the way, have dealt with the issue of “life threatening” in the stand your ground law … I find that interesting. You immediately go to the courts for adjudication of the issue, after the fact (someone has been killed). Let the judicial system sort it out … a judicial system so racked with inequity, incompetence and corruption (the likes of which in the Martin case), suddenly you’re all so trusting of the government.

    Interesting, interesting, interesting ….

    • Gun control laws, specific limitations on places and situations that can be considered legitimate self defense or where a potential target is restricted from having the means to defend themselves. Any and all laws of that nature are well known to criminals. They don’t just ignore laws, they use them to their advantage. Nothing increases the boldness of a criminal like being in a place where all of the law-abiding citizens are disarmed. I am not talking about due process at all. I am talking about real life. Laws only prevent actions in people who care about the laws. Other than that, they are only effective as part of the process of pursuing and punishing those who have already committed illegal acts.

      As for “life threatening”, I do think I have dealt with it. I have said repeatedly that Zimmerman should have been able to handle the situation without deadly force. In terms of the stand your ground law, it specifically denies the right to use deadly force against non-deadly force. Zimmerman, according to the stand your ground law, was out of line, short of some proof that Martin could, and would, have beaten him to death. Bringing my to my previous point: this was handled poorly by the cops. That Zimmerman claimed self-defense is meaningless. You have said yourself that there is already a right to self-defense in this country, why is his claim rooted to the stand your ground law? From what I see, whether he knew of it or not, he would likely have acted the same way and made the same claim.

      I have no trust whatsoever for government, which is not to say I distrust law. I distrust the implementation of law, and I prefer laws which create more freedom, not less. Laws which place the decisions on the individual, which expand the power of the individual rather than the state, are laws which I consider good. It is BECAUSE of my distrust for government that I have this position.

      You say that this will open the door for more errors or for the malicious to use the law to kill without consequence. This is possible. However, errors get made either way, I do not see how more errors will be made based on the text of this law. The malicious find ways of killing now, tho most murdering types do not respect law enough to care about it to begin with, they certainly do not respect life or rights. You are basically saying the attacker, who has already shown themselves to be willing to violate the rights of another should have protection from the innocent person because the innocent person is probably a racist killer at heart? Please, you cannot distrust people, and distrust government, and seek government protection of people from other people, picking the dead person as the innocent one all the time. In fact, if it were not so easy to prosecute people who defended themselves without deadly force, some would not seek the death of the attacker so readily. It is laws that allow defense without the use of deadly force that will save lives.

      The reality is that even if you could prove that some errors are made because of this law, it does not change that many other errors will be corrected by it. Further, the extreme case of a completely innocent person being perceived as an attacker is immensely rare compared to the number of real attackers. As for real attackers, I have little pity for them, they have already chosen to violate the rights of another person, and as such void their own rights. Who is it you think is a good judge of self-defense? If not the individual, how is it decided? Who is qualified? Who, in the instance of an attack, gets to decide if the attack is really worthy of being defended against? The police are not there, and based on the handling of the Zimmerman case, I don’t see how you would trust them. So who decides? Almost everyone here has already agreed that this case needs a trial to make sure it really was a case of self-defense, and that the wording the stand your ground law does not justify his actions unless CPD of deadly force can be determined on the part of Martin. Further, it has been pointed out that even if CPD can be shown, Zimmerman still could have prevented the situation by following the recommendation of the 911 dispatcher. So, pray tell, if a victim or potential victim cannot decide, then who can? What specifically about the law is it that makes you so against it? What is it about the idea of self-defense that you find so deplorable?

      • charlieopera says:

        In terms of the stand your ground law, it specifically denies the right to use deadly force against non-deadly force.

        Except it still leaves the interpretation to the individual involved (who feels “threatened”) and I think we’ve established there is no single definition EXCEPT life threatening.

        So, pray tell, if a victim or potential victim cannot decide, then who can?

        EXACTLY, Jon, so why do we need a law that invites mistakes?

        What specifically about the law is it that makes you so against it? What is it about the idea of self-defense that you find so deplorable?

        Oh, you know us bleeding heart liberals … we can’t imagine a violent world …

        • Because without it, we invite mistakes of a different type. The law was passed to correct mistakes. It opens the door for different ones. I prefer mistakes made by individuals to mistakes made by government, as the individual ones tend to have less consequence and, more importantly, the individual tends to be wiser than the government. Far less evil in this world has been perpetrated by individuals than by governments and concentrations of power.

          • charlieopera says:

            I prefer mistakes made by individuals to mistakes made by government, as the individual ones tend to have less consequence and, more importantly, the individual tends to be wiser than the government. Far less evil in this world has been perpetrated by individuals than by governments and concentrations of power..

            Jon, I’m trying to decipher this in light of the Martin case. “less consequences” … a kid was killed for no justifiable reason under the sun. “far less evil in this world, etc.” … governments made of men, correct? Or are there robots I’m unaware of?

  28. charlieopera says:

    Riddle me this, defenders of the law:

    A petite woman sees a big white man coming her way (use me, I’m big and ugly). It is dark and she is in an unfamiliar area. The big man appears menacing to her. She pulls her gun and tells him to keep his distance.

    Does he now have the right to shoot her?

    Does she have the right to shoot him should he make a sudden movement (like raising his hands)?

    A petite woman sees a big black man coming her way (a black version of me). It is dark and she is in an unfamiliar area. The big man appears menacing to her. She pulls her gun and tells him to keep his distance.

    Does he now have the right to shoot her?

    Does she have the right to shoot him should he make a sudden movement (like raising his hands)?

    If none of you can see the danger of the situations above, it’s because you don’t want to see them. You’re sticking to your guns (so to speak) because it empowers what you perceive to be “innocent victims” even before you know the facts of the case (since you don’t know what’s going to happen in any case prior to it happening).

    Using the judicial system after the fact seems a bit irrational (if you don’t mind my using the term). The dead person (guilty of being a big white or black man who appears menacing to some petite woman (for the hypothetical used above) doesn’t get to have his say, does he? It’s the woman’s POV ONLY. God forbid the big man (white, but especially black) has a prior arrest record or two dozen. The fact he may have been returning from work or a bar or bring his grandmother a few bucks so she doesn’t have to eat cat food the next week is irrelevant.

    Seriously, you all have to be kidding defending this license to kill legislation. Maybe it’s why there’s only a dozen or so of you here defending this law (or pretty much anything right wing).

    • USWeapon says:

      A petite woman sees a big white man coming her way (use me, I’m big and ugly). It is dark and she is in an unfamiliar area. The big man appears menacing to her. She pulls her gun and tells him to keep his distance.

      Does he now have the right to shoot her?

      No, not unless she starts taking actions that show she intends to do harm rather than what she has done, which is simply told him to keep his distance.

      Does she have the right to shoot him should he make a sudden movement (like raising his hands)?

      Not unless he starts taking actions that show he intends to do harm rather than showing an empty hand and moving away. If she shows a gun and says keep away from me, and he moves towards her, she is justified in protecting herself.

      A petite woman sees a big black man coming her way (a black version of me). It is dark and she is in an unfamiliar area. The big man appears menacing to her. She pulls her gun and tells him to keep his distance.

      Does he now have the right to shoot her?

      Does she have the right to shoot him should he make a sudden movement (like raising his hands)?

      Same answers as above. What purpose did changing the race have asking the same questions again. What does the race of the big scary guy have to do with it?

      If none of you can see the danger of the situations above, it’s because you don’t want to see them. You’re sticking to your guns (so to speak) because it empowers what you perceive to be “innocent victims” even before you know the facts of the case (since you don’t know what’s going to happen in any case prior to it happening).

      I am unsure what you mean. I see danger for both parties involved here. If she acts rationally and he meant no harm, the situation will end well. If she acts irrationally or if he does intend to do harm, it will not end well. If it doesn’t end well, whoever does the damage will be forced to justify their actions. If they can do that, why should they have their lives ruined?

      Using the judicial system after the fact seems a bit irrational (if you don’t mind my using the term). The dead person (guilty of being a big white or black man who appears menacing to some petite woman (for the hypothetical used above) doesn’t get to have his say, does he? It’s the woman’s POV ONLY. God forbid the big man (white, but especially black) has a prior arrest record or two dozen. The fact he may have been returning from work or a bar or bring his grandmother a few bucks so she doesn’t have to eat cat food the next week is irrelevant.

      And what you completely ignore in this situation is the sheer number of people who end up dead when the big guy DOES mean to harm the little woman. The statistics are overwhelmingly in my favor here Charlie. Far more innocent people are killed by bad people when the innocent person cannot defend themselves than the very few that you are attempting to champion here. If this were a happy world where there weren’t so many people who DO mean to do harm, we wouldn’t need this law to protect potential victims. So long as the world is what it is, I don’t think we are wrong to have laws to protect those who are targeted to be victims and act to not become one.

      Seriously, you all have to be kidding defending this license to kill legislation. Maybe it’s why there’s only a dozen or so of you here defending this law (or pretty much anything right wing).

      Is this really where you want to go, Charlie, claiming that the site has a small readership because people here defend positions on the right? Perhaps it is because I do nothing to advertise or attract new readers to the site. There was a time, when I had time to work at it, that this site had thousands of unique visits a day, despite the leanings to the right. It is this kind of caustic comment that upsets me the most. I don’t degrade your site because of your views. I don’t point out the limited readership of your site and claim it is because of your positions. You have made comments similar to this in the past and I have attempted to let them go. That people have different opinions doesn’t make them wrong, crazy, or anything else. It simply means they see the world differently than you do. You would do well to venture out of your own box and try to learn from other opinions rather than dismissing whatever you don’t believe as crazy or whatever else. I often don’t agree with people here and elsewhere, but I sure try to understand them, even you and even when you are berating both me and the site that I created.

      Perhaps in the larger media you will apply the same standards? Are you also claiming that Left wing media is so batshit crazy that every attempt to enter into the talk radio world ends up in a flaming inferno and bankruptcy? Do you make that comment about your own position, or do you only use this line of reasoning when you wish to degrade those who disagree with you? Are you willing to say that since true socialism is something accepted as sane by the smallest percent or the population, then obviously it must be crazy? After all, those that believe that the best path forward is what you believe are actually a smaller percent of the population than those that believe what BF believes. That doesn’t make the socialists opinions any less valid, unless of course you apply the same rationale to them that you do to SUFA…

      • charlieopera says:

        No, not unless she starts taking actions that show she intends to do harm rather than what she has done, which is simply told him to keep his distance.

        She’s pulled a gun, USW. A gun can kill. Isn’t the big man now justified to pull a gun on her? It all seems “life threatening” enough to me. Others, you obviously, don’t think so. And this is the point I’ve been making. It is too difficult to define and therefore puts innocents at risk.

        Not unless he starts taking actions that show he intends to do harm rather than showing an empty hand and moving away. If she shows a gun and says keep away from me, and he moves towards her, she is justified in protecting herself

        Even if, say, he stumbles forward? She whacks him and then what? She’s justified? I don’t think so.

        Same answers as above. What purpose did changing the race have asking the same questions again. What does the race of the big scary guy have to do with it?

        Ask Gman and JAC. I’m pretty sure it’s been proven a thousand times over how people react to white vs. black men, big, small or wearing hoodies. The point was obvious. You’re ignoring it.

        If she acts rationally and he meant no harm, the situation will end well. If she acts irrationally or if he does intend to do harm, it will not end well. If it doesn’t end well, whoever does the damage will be forced to justify their actions. If they can do that, why should they have their lives ruined?

        Ration vs. irrational … interesting. You fear the backlash of someone having to defend themselves without the law, but yet you expect people to act rationally when (one has to assume) they’re scared enough to shoot somebody? This is why some of us believe “rational thought” kills the soul.

        And what you completely ignore in this situation is the sheer number of people who end up dead when the big guy DOES mean to harm the little woman.

        How can you possibly know that before something happens, USW? Just stating that proves someone should shoot first (because they perceive danger where it may well not be at all).

        The statistics are overwhelmingly in my favor here Charlie. Far more innocent people are killed by bad people when the innocent person cannot defend themselves than the very few that you are attempting to champion here

        Again, how can you possibly know this (from either side of the equation) as a fact?

        I don’t degrade your site because of your views. I don’t point out the limited readership of your site and claim it is because of your positions

        Degrade away. I have no problem with it (criticism of any kind). This morning you had a couple of what I consider genuine racist comments here (for whatever reason). I didn’t notice anything outside of that until you joined the debate later in the day. And I could care less if there is a smaller percentage of socialist supporters in America that out and out anarchists or Tea Partiers … it means nothing to me. I know socialism will win out for obvious reasons, capitalism cannot sustain itself in America much longer. Without getting into that argument again, I’ll simply restate what I already said. The only people who seem to support this law are those on the right. This is a conservative site, USW. So why should pointing that out offend you?

        As to my site and objectivity. Trust me, as many on the so-called liberal side of the coin are offended by my constant attack on the democratic party and its president than are those on the right for my doing the same to their collection of clowns.

        • USWeapon says:

          She’s pulled a gun, USW. A gun can kill. Isn’t the big man now justified to pull a gun on her?

          Yes, she has pulled a gun. And assuming that she is legally carrying a gun, she has been through training to identify what she deems as a threat to her life and what is not. You are presenting this as if a little old lady who has never handled a gun is suddenly empowered. That isn’t a realistic scenario. VERY few people actually go through the carry concealed training only to pull out a gun later “on a whim”. You are attempting to paint a picture here, but let’s make a real picture, not a hypothetical one meant to support your position.

          And no, he isn’t justified in pulling a gun on her. She has identified herself as no threat. She clearly stated he needs only to stay away from her. Common sense should rule the day in this situation.

          Sorry for the delays in responding. I am jumping on and answering in between making dinner for a sick wife and watching the Bruins/Rangers game.

          It all seems “life threatening” enough to me. Others, you obviously, don’t think so. And this is the point I’ve been making. It is too difficult to define and therefore puts innocents at risk.

          No, life threatening isn’t difficult to define. But even if it were, let’s keep your scenario despite its flaws. Her ability to assess what is and is not life threatening is not in any way impacted by the Stand Your Ground law. She either will react rationally or she will not, but the law will not impact her decision. The law will only impact whether she has her life ruined while the authorities determine whether she was or wasn’t right in her actions

          Even if, say, he stumbles forward? She whacks him and then what? She’s justified? I don’t think so.

          I don’t think so either. And neither would law enforcement. But again, how does the law in question change this? Does the law say that if he stumbles then she is free to go?

          Ask Gman and JAC. I’m pretty sure it’s been proven a thousand times over how people react to white vs. black men, big, small or wearing hoodies. The point was obvious. You’re ignoring it.

          I am not ignoring it. But do you think anyone other than an admitted racist would answer that the situation changes because he is black? Are there racists? Of course! Is the law racist? No, and because of this, the authorities will have to determine whether they fired because it was a black man and act accordingly. The law itself doesn’t give any more or less justification for shooting based on color of skin. You are upset that some comments here were deemed racist by you (I haven’t had the chance to read them all yet), but how does that enter into the debate over this law?

          Ration vs. irrational … interesting. You fear the backlash of someone having to defend themselves without the law, but yet you expect people to act rationally when (one has to assume) they’re scared enough to shoot somebody? This is why some of us believe “rational thought” kills the soul.

          What? I fear a victim of a potential crime having their lives ruined because they were the intended target. I do not expect that people will always react rationally and didn’t say so. What I said was that if she acts rationally all will end well. If she doesn’t she will most likely go to jail.

          As for rational thought kills the soul…. not sure what is meant by that. Rational thought certainly gets in the way of many debates, though.

          And what you completely ignore in this situation is the sheer number of people who end up dead when the big guy DOES mean to harm the little woman.

          How can you possibly know that before something happens, USW? Just stating that proves someone should shoot first (because they perceive danger where it may well not be at all).

          I can know that because the statistics say so Charlie. We don’t know that before something happens. However, as noted in the statistics we have discussed. there are far more murders and homicides in the state of Florida than there are homicides ruled justifiable. Therefore, “the sheer number of people who end up dead when the big guy DOES mean to harm the little woman” is a completely accurate statement. Thousands of innocent people are killed every year in the United States by people who mean harm. Put that up against the vastly smaller number of justifiable homicides and I believe you have a very clear case in favor of having a law that allows the potential victims to protect themselves. AGAIN, that some people abuse the law and claim self defense when it wasn’t is not a statement about the law. It is a statement about the honesty of the person doing the shooting.

          You continue to make the case that people are ACTING differently because of this law. I have yet to see you provide anything that backs up that claim.

          The statistics are overwhelmingly in my favor here Charlie. Far more innocent people are killed by bad people when the innocent person cannot defend themselves than the very few that you are attempting to champion here

          Again, how can you possibly know this (from either side of the equation) as a fact?

          Because far more homicides happen than justifiable homicides happen. FAR MORE. So it is a fact that far more innocent people are killed by bad people when the innocent cannot defend themselves. Do you not understand what I am saying here? It seems obvious to me that this is a fact, but perhaps I am not being clear enough or wording it correctly.

          Degrade away. I have no problem with it (criticism of any kind).

          That you are willing to have me degrade your site is not justification to degrade mine. I don’t do it because it isn’t warranted, not because I am unwilling to be degraded myself.

          This morning you had a couple of what I consider genuine racist comments here (for whatever reason). I didn’t notice anything outside of that until you joined the debate later in the day.

          Are you saying that I made racist comments or that there wasn’t anything other than racist statements until I joined the conversation? As I said, I haven’t had time to read back through everything yet, so perhaps that is why I am confused

          And I could care less if there is a smaller percentage of socialist supporters in America that out and out anarchists or Tea Partiers … it means nothing to me. I know socialism will win out for obvious reasons, capitalism cannot sustain itself in America much longer. Without getting into that argument again, I’ll simply restate what I already said.

          I don’t imagine that you care. But that wasn’t the point. The point was you don’t apply the same rationale to your position that you do to others. You say that SUFA sucks on readership because we are presenting the fringe that no one agrees with. But less people agree with your position and you don’t apply that same measure to your position. It wasn’t a statement against socialism from me here, just me pointing out that the small readership here doesn’t say anything about the strength or weakness of the conservative beliefs in America, which is what you claimed. I merely pointed out you don’t claim the same in other situations.

          The only people who seem to support this law are those on the right. This is a conservative site, USW. So why should pointing that out offend you?

          I am not offended that you point out that many people here at SUFA lean conservative. How did you get that from what I said? I was offended because you insinuated that conservative thought was fringe and that is the reason why SUFA has a low readership.

          As to my site and objectivity. Trust me, as many on the so-called liberal side of the coin are offended by my constant attack on the democratic party and its president than are those on the right for my doing the same to their collection of clowns.

          Charlie, I don’t have an issue with your site. And I understand that you piss off people on both sides. I do, too, at times. My point was your degradation of SUFA, not a statement on your political leanings or the objectivity of your site.

  29. charlieopera says:

    @USW … you shocked me with the UK figures on violent crime (although it wasn’t so with homicides) but …

    I have found nothing that suggests there is any merit to that claim, and neither have you. So the emotional ploy of “ask Martin’s family” is really wasted here

    Why doesn’t the fact that Zimmerman claimed self-defense pursuade you? That’s what he told the cops, yes or no? What else do you need? Is it plausible that such a wannabe who’s been involved with 911 calls several times in the past would not know of such a law? If so, why’d he use it?

    • USWeapon says:

      Again you are assuming to know what Zim knew and didn’t know. As for why did he use it? My son beat up a kid when he was in the 2nd grade. HE claimed self defense. Zimmerman didn’t claim protection under the Stand Your Ground law, he claimed self defense, the same claim a 2nd grader would make. That has nothing to do with the law.

      • charlieopera says:

        How hard is it to assume what he knew when he claimed self-defense? Was it a coincidence? The basis of the law is self-defense, yes or no? Come on, brother, you’re reaching pretty far now.

        • USWeapon says:

          Nonsense, Chaz… You are ignoring the obvious. That law doesn’t even exist in my state, but if I shot someone in self defense and claim self defense, or even if it wasn’t self defense and I claim it was, how does that prove the law is faulty? You claim that his claiming self defense is proof that he knew the law and acted because of it.

          Can you point out a situation to me in the last ten years when someone was pinned as the shooter and they DIDN’T claim self defense, whether the law existed in their state or not? According to your logic here, no one in NC will claim self defense because the law doesn’t exist here. That the law existed there and the person claimed self defense in no way means that they claimed self defense because they knew of the law or because they took the action they did because of it. I am willing to admit that the possibility exists that he knew the law and it influenced his decision, even though there is no evidence thus far showing us that. But you, on the other hand, seem unwilling to entertain the idea that you are dead wrong on the plethora of assumptions you are making about this case.

          • charlieopera says:

            That law doesn’t even exist in my state, but if I shot someone in self defense and claim self defense, or even if it wasn’t self defense and I claim it was, how does that prove the law is faulty?

            For one thing, in Florida (where it does exist), he gets to go home and plan a defense from there (much easier to do than when in custody, poossbily remanded). The law lets him walk until the “investigation” is concluded and I think you’ll admit this investigation wasn’t even going to happen until Gman’s race baiters and media whores got involved.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Charlie, I’ve been following along here and there today, and this is precisely the area where this law is so dangerous — the immunity from prosecution section. This places a much larger burden on the state to even make an arrest and prosecute. I don’t think anyone here is against allowing for self defense. But the problem with this law is in first, expanding the ability of one to use deadly force, but second (and more importantly to me, granting an immunity from prosecution following the use of said deadly force. This provision opens the door for what happened here.

              That being said, even under this law as written Zimmerman should have been arrested and charged as probable cause existed to believe his use of deadly force was not warranted. As Charlie has been arguing all day long — the law allows for too much interpretation at the expense of justice being served (not to mention a dead body).

              • charlieopera says:

                Buck for PRESIDENT!

              • Buck, the police made their decision based on Zimmerman’s testimony alone, despite it being contradictory. The failure to press charges and proceed with an investigation in this case is the incompetency, laziness, and/or corruption of the police in the case, not the wording of the law. Even the immediate observation of the situation combined with the wording of the law calls in question the use of deadly force. Combine this with the actions of Zimmerman before the confrontation and there is clear probable cause even under the wording of this law. This is a case of, at best, lousy police work. The “open to interpretation” argument is crap, this law opens the interpretation up, but without it person legitimately defending themselves or another can be legally destroyed because they did not choose to run, whether such a thing was truly a good idea or not. To strike this law is to show distrust of the citizenry in exchange for a bunch of lawyers and cops and judges who have done little, if anything, to earn a greater level of confidence in their decisions.

              • “Buck for president”

                Oh great, another lawyer turned politician!

                😛

              • Buck the Wala says:

                God no — I wouldn’t have the stomach for the BS that goes along with it.

            • USWeapon says:

              For one thing, in Florida (where it does exist), he gets to go home and plan a defense from there

              So what?

              (much easier to do than when in custody, poossbily remanded)

              So your problem is that OTHER people have to muster defense from jail. Then are you willing to allow ALL people charged with ALL crimes to do so from home? After all there are innocent people in there who could muster a better defense from home. For the record, I would be OK with ALL criminals mustering their defense from home, where it is easier to do. Until they are proven guilty, I think that should be their right. The only time someone should have to remain in jail while they prepare their defense is if they are a flight risk.

              The law lets him walk until the “investigation” is concluded and I think you’ll admit this investigation wasn’t even going to happen until Gman’s race baiters and media whores got involved.

              I don’t have a problem with him “walking” until the investigation is concluded. In a country where innocent until proven guilty is the standard, that is how things should be. I will admit that it looks like this investigation wasn’t going to happen. That, my friend, is a failure of the system, not the law itself. As I have said previously, because the police incorrectly applied the law is not a statement on the law itself. Lots of New York politicians have gotten to “walk” over the last 50 years, but that wasn’t through the fault of the laws they violated, it was because of corruption or ineptness. The same is true in Sanford, Florida.

              • charlieopera says:

                So your problem is that OTHER people have to muster defense from jail.

                Could you swim further upstream, USW? My “problem” is that this case occurred, the one single case I know of (ever heard of under this law) … where one guy killed another for no other reason than his racist profiling (which apparently, this law protects as regards an absolutely ambiguous fear of threat vernacular; he has the backing of a law that facilitates more such shootings.

                In a country where innocent until proven guilty is the standard, that is how things should be

                There’s a great line in the Godfather where MC tells his wife to be how naive she’s being regarding politicians having people killed vs. mobsters. In a country where you’re innocence more often depends on the defense you can afford and where minorities are prosecuted and doled out more severe penalties (including the death penalty) more so than whites, it is amazing how much faith you have in this system, USW.

                Lots of New York politicians have gotten to “walk” over the last 50 years, but that wasn’t through the fault of the laws they violated, it was because of corruption or ineptness. The same is true in Sanford, Florida.

                Couple that with a law that invites shootings and you have a real mess.

              • USWeapon says:

                where one guy killed another for no other reason than his racist profiling (which apparently, this law protects as regards an absolutely ambiguous fear of threat vernacular; he has the backing of a law that facilitates more such shootings.

                Again, do you not see the hypocrisy in making an assumption about Zimmerman based on what you have read vs. those you berate making an assumption about Martin based on what they have read. And again, what do you have to offer as any sort of proof that this law facilitates more such shootings? By your own admission, you have knowledge of a single case, and that is concrete enough for you to make an assumption about hundreds of other cases that you have no idea about…

                In a country where you’re innocence more often depends on the defense you can afford and where minorities are prosecuted and doled out more severe penalties (including the death penalty) more so than whites, it is amazing how much faith you have in this system, USW.

                So are you arguing that this law is the problem or that the money and race are the problem? One I agree with, because there are facts to support such a claim. The other, I haven’t seen any presented yet. If my faith in the system is the problem, then what do you care which laws are or are not in place. If the system is rigged against the poor and minorities, then it doesn’t matter what laws are in place.

          • charlieopera says:

            Can you point out a situation to me in the last ten years when someone was pinned as the shooter and they DIDN’T claim self defense

            Irrelevant straw man argument. Zimmerman is a certified wannabe. The likelihood he knew the law vs. he didn’t know it is pretty obvious. It’s been around since 2006 (and the numbers of self-defense killings have tripled since then) … if I had to bet (and I was a bookmaker), I’d bet he knew the law inside out.

            But that is playing to your straw man … the bottom line is the law facilitates unjustifiable shootings (whether they result in deaths or not).

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Bullshit! Bullshit twice because you have nothing to back up your pathetic liberal bullshit opinion! 👿

            • USWeapon says:

              Can you point out a situation to me in the last ten years when someone was pinned as the shooter and they DIDN’T claim self defense

              Irrelevant straw man argument.

              No it isn’t! You are using that he claimed self defense as proof that he both knew the law and acted because of it. I have pointed out to you that self defense is claimed by everyone and therefore isn’t proof of anything. It is only irrelevant because you are choosing to ignore it.

              Zimmerman is a certified wannabe.

              Probably so. But again this proves nothing in regard to his knowledge of the law or his actions being a result of the law.

              The likelihood he knew the law vs. he didn’t know it is pretty obvious.

              Is it? Or is it only when you jump to conclusions about what was in his head when this shooting happened? Can you imagine if we prosecuted every case in America based on what someone thinks may have potentially been in the defendant’s head? You are simultaneously calling G-Man a avowed racist because he claims to know what was potentially in the head of Martin, yet find it completely acceptable that you get to claim you know what was potentially in the head of Zimmerman. Do you not see the hypocrisy in this?

              It’s been around since 2006 (and the numbers of self-defense killings have tripled since then) … if I had to bet (and I was a bookmaker), I’d bet he knew the law inside out.

              And Martin was making tweets about doing drugs and having two .40 caliber handguns. He had tattoos and gold teeth. If I had to bet, I’d bet that he was on the prowl looking for someone to do violence against. Hell he probably only bought the ice tea so he could make a bong out of the can when was done.

              Now I am 100% sure that you see the ridiculousness of the statements I just made and I, for the record, do not believe them at all. But that you feel it is OK for you to come to conclusions based on the knowledge you have regarding the character of Zimmerman while lambasting others for doing the same thing about Martin is ridiculous, Charlie, and I hope that while reading this you will realize that.

              (and the numbers of self-defense killings have tripled since then)

              Let’s be clear and honest about this fact Charlie. The number of killings have NOT gone up. The overall number of killings have gone down in Florida. What has changed is the number of those killings that were ultimately ruled self defense under the law. We can debate what that means, but you don’t get to just throw that stat out there without qualifying the facts behind it.

              But that is playing to your straw man … the bottom line is the law facilitates unjustifiable shootings (whether they result in deaths or not).

              There is no straw man. The bottom line is that the law protects potential victims from having their lives ruined simply because they were targeted. The law does not, as we have facts to claim that it does, cause people to be more or less likely to shoot someone.

              • charlieopera says:

                I have pointed out to you that self defense is claimed by everyone and therefore isn’t proof of anything

                You’ve made a statement. I haven’t agreed. It is irrelevant because we’re talking about a specific set of circumstances where laws already exist (self-defense). Why do you so need another law that only encourages mistakes or outright murder?

                Or is it only when you jump to conclusions about what was in his head when this shooting happened?

                Once again, I’m going to go out a limb here and assume Mr. Z knew full well the law and I feel pretty confident he knew to use it soon as the police arrived.

                There is no straw man. The bottom line is that the law protects potential victims from having their lives ruined simply because they were targeted.

                You mean like Treyvon Martin? Do you not see the hypocrisy in that?

                The law does not, as we have facts to claim that it does, cause people to be more or less likely to shoot someone.

                What facts do you have? You have a dead count that has tripled since the law’s inception and while there’s no way to know one way or the other how many shootings were legitimate or not (except to accept the law’s non-prosecution — HELLO, TREYVON MARTIN!!!!!) … sorry, this is a no brainer. The law is a powder keg set off 6 years too late. Hopefully, as has been called for across the country now, it will be repealed across the board. I doubt it will happen in the red states (as they sure seem to favor shoot first and claim self defense later), but it won’t see the light of day states living in the 21st century.

              • USWeapon says:

                You mean like Treyvon Martin? Do you not see the hypocrisy in that?

                If Treyvon had killed Zimmerman, I would be saying the same thing, he has a right to defend himself and if he did so rightfully, I don’t believe he should have his life ruined because of it.

                The law does not, as we have facts to claim that it does, cause people to be more or less likely to shoot someone.

                What facts do you have?

                Sorry what I meant to type was: The law does not, as we have no facts to claim that it does, cause people to be more or less likely to shoot someone. What facts are you looking for from me?

                You have a dead count that has tripled since the law’s inception

                No sir, we DO NOT have a dead count that has tripled. We have a dead count that has gotten lower. We have a tripling of those within that dead count that were ruled as justifiable homicide. But as the overall count has gone down, it is awful hard to say that law is killing more people than it is saving.

                and while there’s no way to know one way or the other how many shootings were legitimate or not (except to accept the law’s non-prosecution — HELLO, TREYVON MARTIN!!!!!)

                Well, despite what might have happened, Martin isn’t ending up as a case where non-prosecution will free an innocent man. Can you point to any cases where someone was set free despite the fact that they were not justified in killing, or are we just operating on the “assumption” that because the Sanford PD screwed up this one case that obviously there are a slew of others where innocent people were murdered with no justice as a result of this law?

                I hope that you are beginning to see that you are operating from a point of conjecture and supposition of facts rather than actual facts that prove your point.

  30. gmanfortruth says:

    On a short road trip, so I have now caught up. Charlie, I’m not going to call names or be disrespectful, but I will explain some things. I do not care what color a persons skin is, I do care what is their heart and mind. The reality is that the media, as I expected from the beginning started all of this mess. I have no problems from an investigation occurring in this matter. Until then, Zimmerman is an innocent man.

    You often refer to the past about our nation and slavery and the indians, which is fine. maybe you need to read about the witchhunts as well. Now that the race pimps and the corporate whore media are involved and making fools of themselves, this has turned into nothing more that a witchhunt.

    Sorry Charlie, your no better than those you hate.

    • charlieopera says:

      The reality is that the media, as I expected from the beginning started all of this mess.

      G, you’ve mostly been respectful with me and I’ll do my best with you, but some of what you stated this morning, whether it was to stir the pot, ruffle feathers or whatever, was a bit offensive (in general), not to me specifically. That said, the media in this case, was VERY slow to react. It was social networking that brought it to the country’s attention … and had it not done so, this absurd killing would have gone away as if nothing happened (perhaps those types of deaths make up some of the tripling number of such deaths since the law’s inception).

      You often refer to the past about our nation and slavery and the indians, which is fine. maybe you need to read about the witchhunts as well. Now that the race pimps and the corporate whore media are involved and making fools of themselves, this has turned into nothing more that a witchhunt.

      Oh, brother … I guess I should’ve read this first …

  31. My, My, MY,-I wonder what this will lead too. Whiteman kills blackman-automatic guilty verdict.

    House Dems eye policy responses to shooting death of Trayvon Martin
    By Mike Lillis – 04/01/12 12:20 PM ET

    In the wake of the slaying of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin, House Democrats are drafting legislation designed to prevent similar tragedies in the future.

    http://thehill.com/homenews/house/219385-house-dems-eye-policy-responses-to-shooting-death-of-trayvon-martin

    The lawmakers want to adopt tougher rules for neighborhood watch programs, eliminate certain state gun laws, rein in racial profiling and require an examination of racial disparities nationwide.

    The Democrats behind the legislation – all members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) – say the steps might have prevented last month’s fatal encounter between Martin, 17, an unarmed African-American walking home from a convenience store in Sanford, Fla., and George Zimmerman, 28, a Latino neighborhood watch volunteer carrying a 9mm handgun.

    Zimmerman, who was not arrested, says he acted in self-defense after Martin attacked him. Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law allows deadly force in some cases of self-defense.

    The outcry from black leaders and civil rights advocates has churned a weeks-long public debate over racism, gun reform, law enforcement and vigilantism. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has launched an investigation into the episode, but some Democrats on Capitol Hill say Congress also has a responsibility to intervene.

    On Friday, CBC leaders did just that, introducing a resolution urging the repeal of “Stand Your Ground” laws in Florida and any state with a similar statute.

    The resolution – sponsored by CBC Chairman Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) and Florida Democratic Reps. Corrine Brown, Alcee Hastings and Frederica Wilson, all members of the CBC – refers to Martin’s killing as a “crime,” condemns “the inconceivable fact that his killer remains free” and claims “racial bias led to the use of deadly force.”

    The non-binding resolution also “condemns unfounded reliance on Stand Your Ground laws to protect actions that extend far beyond historical use of self-defense … [and] urges any State legislature considering Stand Your Ground legislation to reject such proposals.”

    There’s more legislation to come.

    Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), another CBC member, is crafting a proposal requiring members of neighborhood watch groups to be registered before taking to the streets under a watchman’s badge.

    And Wilson, who represents the district where Martin lived, is working on legislation to create a national commission “to study race-based injustices, health disparities and economic disparities affecting African American men and boys,” in the words of the congresswoman.

    The commission would be charged with examining racial disparities on topics ranging from crime and incarcerations to education and healthcare, and making policy recommendations to Congress on how to fix any imbalances it finds.

    “I am tired of burying young black boys,” Wilson said Tuesday during a Capitol Hill forum on hate crimes and racial profiling. “I have buried too many, cried too many tears, attended too many funerals and it is unnecessary.”

    The CBC members are also pushing a bill, sponsored by Rep. John Conyers (Mich.), senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, designed to fight profiling within the nation’s state and federal law-enforcement agencies.

    Conyers said Tuesday that his bill would help ensure that individuals don’t “use race, ethnicity, religion or national origin in any way shape or form as enforcement criteria.”

    Zimmerman’s attorney, Craig Sonner, has rejected the notion that race played a role in the shooting, telling CBS’s “This Morning” that the confrontation “was not a racial issue.”

    “I don’t believe there is any racial motivation on behalf of George Zimmerman,” Sonner said.

    Martin’s parents disagree, maintaining their son was targeted because he was African American. Benjamin Crump, the lawyer representing Martin’s family, argued this week that tougher racial profiling laws might have prevented the tragedy.

    “We honestly believe,” Crump said, “that Trayvon Martin is dead today because he was racially profiled.”

  32. Some background on Zimmerman: George Zimmerman Was ‘Jekyll And Hyde,’ Former Co-Worker Says

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/30/trayvon-martin-case-george-zimmerman_n_1392591.html

    “Usually he was just a cool guy,” said the former co-worker, who the newspaper didn’t name. “But it was like Jekyll and Hyde. When dude snapped, he snapped.” The Daily News said Zimmerman earned $50 to $100 a night for the parties. He was fired for being too aggressive with patrons.

    “He had a temper and he became a liability,” the newspaper quoted the former co-worker as saying. “One time this woman was acting a little out of control. She was drunk. George lost his cool and totally overreacted,” he said. “It was weird, because he was such a cool guy, but he got all nuts. He picked her up and threw her. It was pure rage. She twisted her ankle. Everyone was flipping out.”

    This combined with Zimmerman’s comment from the 911 tape show how he reacts:

    “these assholes, they always get away”

    Zimmerman thought Trayvon was a threat from the start, and approached the entire situation in that frame of mind. Zimmerman is fine with people he knows, no matter what their race. But anyone who acts up or fits his description of a trouble maker is a target.

  33. There is also Charlie’s link about the voice analysis that says the screams for help were not Zimmerman’s. On the 911 tape, the screams stop as soon as the gun shot is heard.

    It doesn’t make sense to me that Zimmerman was yelling for help as he pulled the trigger, and then immediately stopped yelling after he pulled the trigger.

    There’s also this:

    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/03/trayvon_martin_george_zimmerman_basics.php?ref=fpa

    7. Only One Witness To The Altercation Has Gone On The Record

    There are several people the media has identified as witnesses to the shooting, but none actually saw the gunshot and only one person has gone on the record to say he saw some sort of altercation before the gun went off. That witness is a 13-year-old boy named Austin McLendon.

    McLendon told the Orlando Sentinel he was walking his dog in the rain when he heard someone screaming for help. When he went to get a closer look, McLendon saw someone lying on the ground. The person was wearing a red shirt, he said. According to the newspaper, he did not mention seeing another person.

    Before McLendon could get closer, he said, his dog escaped. He turned to catch it, but a few seconds later, he heard a gunshot. McLendon ran back to his home, where he and his sister called 911.

    In its story, the Orlando Sentinel said McLendon’s story backed up Zimmerman’s because the gunman was wearing a red jacket when police arrived. In other words, it was Zimmerman that McLendon saw on the ground. But a few days later, the boy and his mother told the Huffington Post that his comments were twisted. He believed Martin was the one who was in trouble, not Zimmerman. McLendon’s mother also told HuffPo she believed the police investigator who talked to her son tried to lead him to provide information he really didn’t have.

    • A witness identified only as “a long-time teacher” said police corrected her when she said she heard the teen crying for help. The officer allegedly told her it was Zimmerman, not the teen, who was yelling for help. [ABC News]

    • Two women who came upon the altercation moments after the shooting said Zimmerman had his hands pressed on Martin’s back and didn’t try to render any aid. [NBC News]

    This seems to point to shoddy police work at best, or police trying to get facts that support Zimmerman’s story and justify their actions that night, at worst.

    The boy’s account – no matter who the one individual he saw lying on the ground was – suggests that Zimmerman and Martin were not engaged in a struggle right before the gun shot.

    The boy’s and his mother’s comments from “a few days later” seem to be disjointed. I’m not sure how they can draw that conclusion if the boy only saw one person.

  34. Good Morning, Counselor……….what gives in your State of New York…..first you are banning words from standardized tests like Halloween and birthdays and such………………I just saw an interview on the news where there is supposedly a movement in Brooklyn (that is New York, right?)….to ban ice cream vendors from parks and recreation areas because it causes kids to want ice cream? In addition, since ice cream supposedly causes obesity and a kid wanting ice cream yells and throws a fit until he/she gets ice cream, that somehow, it is not the parents inability to say no to the kid…..it is the vendor’s fault for being there to sell ice cream. In addition, at the very least they want the mobile ice cream vendors to silence their musical trolleys because it is causing kids to run out of their homes?( I might mention that the person being interviewed was over weight, drinking a soft drink from a McDonald’s container ).

  35. @ JAC…….a gracious good morning, sir……I was introduced to the golf world at the tender age of 5. I was actually pretty good at it. Good enough to have a “cocky tude” and could NORMALLY back it up….(there were times I have had my hat handed to me)…Was recruited out of high school to play. It was fun. Went through the PGA qualifying school in Palm Beach Gardens and qualified….then the war and that was that. Still love the game but have now deferred to playing disc golf..(do not laugh until you try it)…My son and I are members of the PDGA (no laughing here either) and it is something that we get to do together at this late date. ( He is 40 now and we are having an absolute blast playing the PDGA circuit as doubles partners. ) LOL…….go figure….so now I play “ball golf” and “disc golf” and neither one helps the other.

    So, welcome back to the life of SUFA…….I have been following along on this Zimmerman case and offered my ideas some time back and I guess I did not ruffle the left side because they either think me a blithering idiot not worthy of response or my common sense approach was something they all agreed with on both sides. I am not in support of Zimmerman at all. He lost me on three different topics….First, he is a “chicken Little” sort of person with 911 calls it seems, second, he appears to be a “self appointed” guardian of the neighborhood association, and third, he did not back off pursuit when told to do so. I agree with Buck that the minute he pulled the weapon and used it…probable cause “COULD” be established. I disagree with him in that it IS established. The simple pulling and using of a weapon does not immediately establish cause for arrest although It does call for an immediate investigation to see if probable cause for arrest is warranted.

    Charlie, my Plutonian Cannoli Meister friend, seems to be hung up on the “Castle Law”. Ok, by me if that is his position. I am so glad that Texas is different. ( I sent a link on the Statutes governing same ). No one had heart burn over it. The good counselor, Buck the Walla Man, disagrees with how Texas handles its own but he supported the fact that we have our position and have a right to it, We are rather to the point here and have defined the right to protect life and/or property on or off the premise, with deadly force. We still carry the Western mentality here and it serves us quite well. But that is ok. We deal with problems that most of the North East does not…..rustling of livestock, trespassing on posted property, cutting of fences, car theft (pretty universal but do not do it here…a car is looked upon as a horse and we hang horse thieves, in the vernacular). We have very active Neighborhood watch programs and work hand in hand with the police in administering our programs. We are actually another set of eyes….but along with our rights to bear and carry arms…..comes the responsibility of doing it correctly.

    The Zimmerman case seems. to me, to be a disaster from the beginning. First, the Neighborhood program did not identify and establish a procedural method, Second, Zimmerman simply did not use the privilege of Castle Law within reason…..BUT…this is my opinion… you you know what opinions are……like assholes….everybody has one.

    So welcome back..and have a bodacious day.

  36. So where’s the outrage?
    Where’s the media coverage? (It’s not on FOX anyway)
    How about an ObamaCall?

    http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/03/31/2-dead-12-hurt-in-mass-shooting-in-north-miami/

    • gmanfortruth says:

      LOI, There will be no outrage. This is common news in cities theses days, blacks killing blacks does not equal ratings for the Corporate Whore Media and the Race Pimps can’t make shit up to feel relevent in our country. If not for racism (or the perception of such) of whites against blacks, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would be on welfare or in prison. I doubt either has worked a real job their whole lives.

      • G! You are throwing that corporate whore media (CWM) label around a lot. Lets see, the difference between a slut and a whore is one does it for free, the other gets paid for the service they perform….. And Sharpton and Martin have shows on news networks, and are assumedely paid for that….yep, whores works pretty well.

        “If not for racism (or the perception of such) of whites against blacks, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would be on welfare or in prison. ” you don’t know that, they might have made fine lawyers or used car salesmen.

        “I doubt either has worked a real job their whole lives.” I doubt that, he has some real anger, maybe for having to work when he was young instead of just being given what he thinks he deserves?

        Hi, I’m Bill O’Reilly. Thanks for watching us tonight.

        Is the media now inciting racial violence? That is the subject of this evening’s “Talking Points” memo. It was pathetic last night watching the prime time cable opinion programs whip up the Trayvon Martin case to dangerous levels. As “Talking Points” has been reporting the media is exploiting the terrible death of 17-year-old Trayvon by convicting the man who shot him, George Zimmerman, of wrong doing on television.

        Now let’s step back for a moment. What if the Florida special prosecutor decides there is not enough evidence to prosecute Mr. Zimmerman? What if that happens? It could because of Florida’s complicated “Stand Your Ground” law which has muddled the case.

        MSNBC and CNN to some extent have a vested interest in seeing Zimmerman punished because they’ve already found him guilty on the air. So they are not going to respect any verdict but guilty. Therefore those entities will tell the American public that racial injustice has been done if there is not a conviction and that could very well lead to violence as we saw in the Rodney King case.

        Those riots in 1992 and I was right in the middle of them led to 58 people — 58 being killed and a billion dollars worth of damage. That absolutely could happen in the Trayvon Martin case. Leading the charge to convict Zimmerman is Al Sharpton.

        (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

        SHARPTON: This is not about self-defense. This is about a man deciding somebody based on who he was, was a suspect and that he would take matters in his own hands.

        (END VIDEO CLIP)

        O’REILLY: Sharpton as you know has a daily one hour program on MSNBC and as I said has already found Zimmerman guilty on the air.

        The same thing with CNN commentator Roland Martin.

        (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

        MARTIN: They gave George Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt because of who he is and they simply saw Trayvon Martin and I guarantee you in their minds they probably saying oh, young black kid, wearing a hoodie George has got to be right.

        (END VIDEO CLIP)

        O’REILLY: All right, so you can seen the racial animus is already being stirred up on national TV. Now that’s flat out dangerous. And the media companies responsible should be held accountable if any violence breaks out.

        Now it is perfectly legitimate for the parents of Trayvon Martin to say whatever they want to say. If your son was dead you would certainly want justice and aggressively campaign for it. I have no problem with Trayvon’s parents and the lawyers representing them demanding fair play.

        I also have no problem with Mr. Zimmerman, his friends and family defending him on television. His life hangs on the balances.

        But again, pundits who have no blanking idea what happened that night are putting innocent people in danger by commentary based on emotion not facts.

        And that’s the memo.

        Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/03/31/bill-oreilly-media-now-inciting-racial-violence#ixzz1qtQRkSuE

  37. charlieopera says:

    The problem with the stand your ground law is this: threat of life is subject to each individual’s perception (there can be no standard, except for the one that already exists – when your life is threatened). Self-defense is a valid defense, already on the books. Stand your ground invites millions (or however many people populate the states where the law exists) definitions of what already exists.

    In my hypothetical to USW, see how answers.

    The hypothetical: A petite woman sees a big white man coming her way (use me, I’m big and ugly). It is dark and she is in an unfamiliar area. The big man appears menacing to her. She pulls her gun and tells him to keep his distance.

    Does he now have the right to shoot her?

    No, not unless she starts taking actions that show she intends to do harm rather than what she has done, which is simply told him to keep his distance.

    Me: She’s already pulled a gun on him. USW assumes she is the victim because HER perception is she’s in danger. Next frame, please.

    My answer to him: She’s pulled a gun, USW. A gun can kill. Isn’t the big man now justified to pull a gun on her? It all seems “life threatening” enough to me. Others, you obviously, don’t think so. And this is the point I’ve been making. It is too difficult to define and therefore puts innocents at risk.

    USW: Not unless he starts taking actions that show he intends to do harm rather than showing an empty hand and moving away. If she shows a gun and says keep away from me, and he moves towards her, she is justified in protecting herself

    Me: Even if, say, he stumbles forward? She whacks him and then what? She’s justified? I don’t think so.

    The hypothetical situations were posed with a big white man and a big black man vs. a petite woman. I should’ve added petite white woman. But I can go a lot further. Petite white woman brought up to believe, as many here do, that blacks have been spoiled by government, etc., etc. That is NOT meant as a derogatory remark for anyone here, but it is, as so many of you like to point out, a FACT OF LIFE (that such prejudice exists). People have different opinions and points of view (such as here). So how do we determine which is a real threat vs one that is just fear (rational or otherwise) or worse?

    We don’t. And to suggest that the stand your ground law protects the reputation and bankbook of people who defend themselves a) ASSUMES they are defending themselves and b) is absolutely unnecessary since the friggin’ self defense law already exists. Opening up “threat” to interpretation is absolutely inviting unjustifiable shootings (whether intentional or not).

    The Zimmerman situation rejects all of your defenses of Stand Your Ground. The new law certainly hasn’t helped his reputation and it was totally subject to Zimmerman’s definition of life threatening situation (which may well be he didn’t like a 6’3” black kid in his neighborhood).

    None of you have dealt with the interpretation issue, which as Buck pointed out yesterday, is the crux of the problem. It is not to say killers are going to use the law to practice their trade, but it is a vehicle for people to take the law into their own hands (i.e., Zimmerman) and for someone innocent to be killed.

    Any defense of the law pointing to the failed system (vs. the law) is inherently flawed (for one thing, there’s already a self-defense law nationwide); the system has always and will always treat minorities differently (sometimes better, most times much worse) than if shooter and victim are the same ethnicity. In this case, the system has failed miserably thus far and had not the media become involved (even though it came in very late and ONLY because of the social media), another black family grieves the loss of their son and Zimmerman is on patrol again (with a gun and a law that protects his definition of a “threat”, no matter how biased it may be).

    Now I don’t have any more time to dedicate to this but I do look forward to seeing how much longer this “investigation” takes …

    • Charlie…..it seems that you are from the department of redundancy department here. Unless I am misreading you, which is entirely possible (you know how us retired old Colonels who know nothing are), you are saying that the right to self defense is already on the books so why have another law……so, if the right of self defense is already on the books, isn’t the definition of “self defense” still subjective? Forget the media, forget Zimmerman, forget everything except the right of self defense.

      If it exists, and I “perceive” a threat…..is not that perception subjective reasoning? Does not matter whether I have a gun, knife, rocket launcher, or a 4th degree Black Belt, right? No matter the tool I choose to use….gun or feet or nuclear device….the decision of a threat is still subjective….or am I wrong here?

      • charlieopera says:

        If it exists, and I “perceive” a threat…..is not that perception subjective reasoning?

        The stand your ground law’s is a much broader definition, Col. Apparently, one is not only not required to retreat where one suspects danger, one gets to pursue …

        But in practice, Florida courts have allowed a Stand Your Ground defense in cases where there have been chases and pursuits

        http://www.npr.org/2012/04/01/149805129/fla-cases-test-stand-your-ground-laws-limits

        See above, Col.

        • Hmmmmmm….pursuit issues are inserted here…..but Ok, I will go with it. The details in the article seem to revolve around arguments and reactions to same.

          However, I would argue against any retreat law. I will not run from anybody….and if they insist, will protect myself. (but that is me). Ok..to your point….once an argument is prevalent…I would personally handle it in a manner that allows the perpetrator to make a decision. Something like….” Ok..you made your point and I am not going to argue with you. I will not turn my back on said individual because my lack of arguing will likely spur him to action against me…so I will probably say something to the effect of…back off friend or make your choice.” It is pointless to argue in these situations. If my family were with me, I would not take my eyes off the perpetrator and send them to safety. I do not back down to anybody….UNLESS…I am wrong. Then I will admit a mistake and if an apology is warranted….extend same.

          But pursuit in Texas is pretty standard. The Houston woman, for example. Two intruders in her home….shoots one with a shotgun and pursues the other outside and shoots him. Perfectly justifiable. The gentleman from San Antonio who sees two individuals breaking into his car in his driveway. Walks out on the balcony with his rifle, shoots one and then shoots the other trying to dive into a getaway car. The rancher seeing a pickup on his property killing and stealing cattle, shoots two and then pursues the pickup and shoots the rest. All justifiable in my opinion. So, I guess that is also subjective.

          In a neighborhood watch program, pursuing someone who has done nothing……..great point.

          • charlieopera says:

            I’m with you, Colonel (as is usual, anything but free market):)

            But this from the same article and I think it makes the point I tried for with FACTS.

            “He came from a position of safety and pursued this person,” Hoague says. “The real issue is what happened at the time that they actually came together. But certainly it wasn’t a situation where our dead person attacked him.”

            In her order, Judge Beth Bloom wrote that Garcia was, “well within his rights to pursue the victim and demand the return of his property.”

            There have been other Stand Your Ground cases where a chase or pursuit didn’t stop the judge from dismissing the charges.

            In 2009, a judge dismissed assault charges against a Miami man who bolted out of his home and fired his rifle at two electric company employees. That same year, in another case, a high-speed chase involving two armed motorists ended with one of the drivers dead from gunshot wounds.

            In that instance, a judge dismissed the charges because of Stand Your Ground.

            In the Garcia case, Hoague believes the pursuit is evidence the defendant wasn’t acting in self-defense. But generally speaking, she says the mere fact that there is a pursuit doesn’t rule out using a Stand Your Ground defense.

            “You could have a situation where you’re pursuing someone and, when you finally catch up with them or the confrontation finally occurs, what if this person completely overpowers you,” she says. “There are all kinds of things that can happen.”

      • Just A Citizen says:

        d13

        Good morning Sir.

        Furthermore, the standard is NOT just that person “feels” but that they have a “reasonable belief”. This is no different than other laws involving “homicide” where in someone else must judge whether a person’s motivations were “premeditated”, “reasonable” or the like.

        “However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

        (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or”

        The arguments here have also ignored the fact that the Stand Your Ground Laws are simply a Govt Law that codifies much of the Self Defense doctrine established by Common Law. These laws were created because of those who have been trying to undermine that Common Law.

    • Charlie, you are not listening. Let me deal with this point by point and please try to hear what is being said:

      “The problem with the stand your ground law is this: threat of life is subject to each individual’s perception (there can be no standard, except for the one that already exists – when your life is threatened). Self-defense is a valid defense, already on the books. Stand your ground invites millions (or however many people populate the states where the law exists) definitions of what already exists. “

      Any self-defense situation is subject to the individual’s perception. The standard for lethal defensive force is a threat to life, sure, but stand your ground opens it to threat to your life or anothers. It does not change the basic standard of “threat to life”. The only additional thing it opens up is non-lethal defensive force against a non-lethal attack. So the standard does not change, only the location. The perception issue also has not changed. The only significant changes are: 1) that I can defend myself instead of running, running is often a bad option, but the existence of that option according to a court has lead to convictions before in cases of true self-defense because the threat was not considered “lethal enough” or the victim “could have run”, despite the fact that there was a confirmed violent attack. 2) That I can defend myself when not on my own property. 3) That I can defend myself and claim self-defense in non-lethal vs. non-lethal cases.

      “In my hypothetical to USW, see how answers.

      The hypothetical: A petite woman sees a big white man coming her way (use me, I’m big and ugly). It is dark and she is in an unfamiliar area. The big man appears menacing to her. She pulls her gun and tells him to keep his distance.

      Does he now have the right to shoot her?

      No, not unless she starts taking actions that show she intends to do harm rather than what she has done, which is simply told him to keep his distance.

      Me: She’s already pulled a gun on him. USW assumes she is the victim because HER perception is she’s in danger. Next frame, please.

      My answer to him: She’s pulled a gun, USW. A gun can kill. Isn’t the big man now justified to pull a gun on her? It all seems “life threatening” enough to me. Others, you obviously, don’t think so. And this is the point I’ve been making. It is too difficult to define and therefore puts innocents at risk.

      USW: Not unless he starts taking actions that show he intends to do harm rather than showing an empty hand and moving away. If she shows a gun and says keep away from me, and he moves towards her, she is justified in protecting herself

      Me: Even if, say, he stumbles forward? She whacks him and then what? She’s justified? I don’t think so.”

      No, she would not be justified. USW also agreed she would not be. Furthermore, this law would not justify her. It is not, as you claim, a license to kill just because you think someone is “scary”.

      “The hypothetical situations were posed with a big white man and a big black man vs. a petite woman. I should’ve added petite white woman. But I can go a lot further. Petite white woman brought up to believe, as many here do, that blacks have been spoiled by government, etc., etc. That is NOT meant as a derogatory remark for anyone here, but it is, as so many of you like to point out, a FACT OF LIFE (that such prejudice exists). People have different opinions and points of view (such as here). So how do we determine which is a real threat vs one that is just fear (rational or otherwise) or worse?

      We don’t. And to suggest that the stand your ground law protects the reputation and bankbook of people who defend themselves a) ASSUMES they are defending themselves and b) is absolutely unnecessary since the friggin’ self defense law already exists. Opening up “threat” to interpretation is absolutely inviting unjustifiable shootings (whether intentional or not).”

      Pointing out that racism exists is irrelevant, since such things could possibly come into play under any self-defense case. Further, it has been pointed out that it is not just reputation and bankbooks, but actual prison sentences for victims that this law is in place to prevent.

      “The Zimmerman situation rejects all of your defenses of Stand Your Ground. The new law certainly hasn’t helped his reputation and it was totally subject to Zimmerman’s definition of life threatening situation (which may well be he didn’t like a 6’3” black kid in his neighborhood).”

      It has been pointed out REPEATEDLY that the Zimmerman case is an error on the part of the police and that nothing in the stand your ground law justifies his actions, thus this case has no bearing on the legitimacy of that law in particular. Zimmerman’s assesment should have been called into question, and because of the outcry of the public, it is. The police dropped the ball. Period. And good for those who made this a big enough deal to get the proper due process going.

      “None of you have dealt with the interpretation issue, which as Buck pointed out yesterday, is the crux of the problem. It is not to say killers are going to use the law to practice their trade, but it is a vehicle for people to take the law into their own hands (i.e., Zimmerman) and for someone innocent to be killed.”

      It has been dealt with several times. Interpretation is up to the individual in any self-defense case. As has been pointed out, many people will ignore the law in a life-threatening siutation. Attackers are already ignoring laws, whether their intent is to kill or not. Laws do not change the confrontation itself. Laws might change the legal rammifications, but there is potential error on either side. I will err to the side of the individual over the government, and more importantly, I will err to the side of making sure innocent people are not jailed.

      “Any defense of the law pointing to the failed system (vs. the law) is inherently flawed (for one thing, there’s already a self-defense law nationwide); the system has always and will always treat minorities differently (sometimes better, most times much worse) than if shooter and victim are the same ethnicity. In this case, the system has failed miserably thus far and had not the media become involved (even though it came in very late and ONLY because of the social media), another black family grieves the loss of their son and Zimmerman is on patrol again (with a gun and a law that protects his definition of a “threat”, no matter how biased it may be).”

      Any defense of your position based on this case is flawed since this case is NOT within the jurisdiction of the stand your ground law.

      “Now I don’t have any more time to dedicate to this but I do look forward to seeing how much longer this “investigation” takes …”

      Is this your way of claiming the “last word”?

      • USWeapon says:

        THANK YOU, LOI… for adding the fact that I responded to the last “even if he stumbled forward” question with a firm no she would not be justified. I immediately recognized that Charlie conveniently left out that little bit at the end which made it appear that my position was different than actually stated…

        • ???? Me? was off being a racist or something. I do have a (RRFR) rant ready for review.

          • USWeapon says:

            I took an initial look at it last night. Hopefully time to take a better look tonight.

        • charlieopera says:

          THANK YOU, LOI… for adding the fact that I responded to the last “even if he stumbled forward” question with a firm no she would not be justified. I

          Not the point, USW. Even I would ASSUME she is the victim in the scenario I provided. The point is once she shoots, the guy is dead and justified or not (TRY REALLY TO GET THIS POINT), she believed she was. Did you see the article I linked for the colonel … this law has taken self-defense to pursuit and after deadly shootings away from the original scene, judges have dismissed the cases.

          This law has gone (in my mind) from bad to IN-FUCKING-SANE.

          • You know Charlie-I think you make some valid points-and maybe the law needs some tweaking or the authorities need a better interpretation of what the law is actually supposed to do-but the reason we have the law is that the interpretation WITHOUT IT had gone IN_F##king Sane in the other direction.

            But I must say that it is a common sense law-and if a common sense law is being abused it isn’t the fault of the law.

            • charlieopera says:

              VH, there was a common sense law already in place. Why make it broader in interpretation? A kid steals a bike (as a prank or because he’s a little thief), but under this INSANE law, the owner of the bike (or perhaps his parent), can shoot the kid in the back while he’s fleeing the scene. Property vs. life … not a very good equation. There’s no defending this law as it stands. Perhaps it could be tweaked (I’d be open to seeing how), but as it stands, it’s a license to kill, pure and simple.

              • Quite simply, because the legal system failed to employ common sense, themselves. They disregarded the common sense factors of too many cases, siding with the attackers, thus the electorate pushed for new laws that offered more protection. If the courts had not been ruling against would-be vicitms in self-defense cases, there would be no need for this law. As it stands, there is a need for it.

              • Do you disagree that the interpretation of self defense was being scued too much in favor of the criminal before this law was passed?

          • Sorry Charlie, in my opinion, it’s a return to sanity. There have been laws that made self defense illegal. Heller in DC and another in Chicago went to the SCOTUS because they chose to prosecute people who had defended themselves for owning a gun. The UK & Australia banned guns and have made most forms of self defense illegal, or at least leave the public afraid to defend themselves for fear of prosecution. If they break in and attack you with a knife, can you defend yourself wit a baseball bat or golf club?

            I think this is a push back to liberal overreach. And like now, when the “government” cannot protect us from gang and mob violence, the “people” will react.

          • That exact scenario was possible before the stand your ground law.

  38. Interesting….from the Wall Street Journal. “Spending a great deal on health care does not result in a healthier population. Of 34 OECD member countries, only three that spent the most per person have citizens that live the longest. The United States spends more than any other country but only has the eighth-lowest life expectancy in the OECD. Japan, meanwhile, spends $2,878 per person — about $5,000 less than the U.S. — and has the highest life expectancy among developed nations. According to OECD chief media officer, Matthias Rumpf, health care spending does not result in better treatment. In countries that spend more, he says, people opt for expensive tests and elective procedures that drive up costs. To discourage excess in Germany, for example, citizens are penalized if they see a specialist without first consulting their doctor.”

    • Yes, and I think we spend the most on education too. Gets back to my point that “Americans” are different. The fraud in the Medicaid and Medicare system is unbelievable. There is no way of preventing it because, like Campaign Finance Reform, a way will be found around safeguards. We “always” find a way. that’s why we are Americans.

      Education wise, its a mixture of a constantly increasing uneducated lower class with language difficulties no less coupled with a mistaken notion that teachers can replace parents. Teachers according to Libs and Conservatives alike, Gov. Walker, Christie and Cuomo are at fault. It is NEVER the parents, NEVER the students. It is either the old schools, bad teachers, or poverty. Anybody who can access a history book about education in the first half of the 1900’s knows this to be total BS.

      The solution, is to give up! Triage. let those who want to learn, learn. Have manual labor training programs for those that want to go that route. Let the rest stand on the street corner until the drugs or the hustle get them. Do the rest of us a favor.

  39. I wonder if Charlie would feel the same if he lived in Detroit:

    The people of Detroit are taking no prisoners.

    Justifiable homicide in the city shot up 79 percent in 2011 from the previous year, as citizens in the long-suffering city armed themselves and took matters into their own hands. The local rate of self-defense killings now stands 2,200 percent above the national average. Residents, unable to rely on a dwindling police force to keep them safe, are fighting back against the criminal scourge on their own. And they’re offering no apologies.

    Detroiters are arming themselves with shotguns and handguns and buying guard dogs. Anything to take care of their own. And privately, residents say neighborhood watch groups in Detroit are widely armed.
    Read more:http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/take-no-prisoners-self-defense-killings-in-detroit-spike-to-2200-above-national-average-justifiable-homicide-up-79_02102012

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Holy Cow Anita, I know we don’t always agree with Charlie and Todd, but let’s not push them to a heart attack. 🙂

      • But why don’t the good Reverends come here to preach about black on black killings? That’s right..it’s not racism that way 👿

        • October 6, 2009
          Black Leaders Ignore Black-on-Black Crime

          http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/black_leaders_ignore_blackonbl.html

          • Derrion’s murder does not fit the black liberation narrative. As one civil rights leader said to me, “If we focus on black on black crime, we let white folks off the hook.” Never mind that the leading cause of death among black males ages 18 to 24 is homicide by other black males.

            Mhmm…so now we get to the bottom of it……..

            • Or they blame everything on guns instead of the hate filled attitude’s of the troublemakers, please note this young man wasn’t killed by a gun. The truth is most of the black population is intimidated by the criminal elements in their neighborhoods. What are those words “there’s nothing worse than being a snitch”-that’s a threat and it is directed at the high majority of decent people in the neighborhood.

              • That must be the southern interpretation. Around here it’s SNITCHES GET STITCHES 🙂

            • Attorney General Holder recently addressed the question of affirmative action, and for how long it would be required. He answered, stunningly, that reverse discrimination has only just begun: “Affirmative action has been an issue since segregation practices,” Holder said. “The question is not when does it end, but when does it begin[.] … When do people of color truly get the benefits to which they are entitled?”

              Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/holders_revenge.html#ixzz1qtilzngk

    • What happened with Obama uniting us and easing racial tensions??? I don’t remember so much mob violence under Bush…

      http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/03/31/mpls-police-ponder-8-p-m-curfew-after-youth-mob-attacks/

      • charlieopera says:

        No, what we got under Bush (and I’m not defending Obama) were two absurd wars that did nothing but cost us in lives and gelt and worldwide respect.

    • Now if guys like Clint Eastwood would just stop making movies like “Gran Torino” everything would be ok. The biggest mistake Detroiters ever made was allowing Coleman Young to retire. As long as he was Mayor, no matter how bad things ever got, It was somebody else’s fault. As long as it was somebody else’s fault, the reality could be safely ignored.

      Aachen, Dresden, Berlin and Hamburg in ’45 looked better than Detroit.

    • charlieopera says:

      Anita, my love … it’s a weak argument to point to vigilantism as something good. The local rate of self-defense killings now stands 2,200 percent above the national average.

      This statistic is NOT (and should not be) an endorsement of stand your ground.

      How would you feel (sincerely) if one of your kids were to make the mistake of “jokingly” hop on someone else’s bike and the parent or the kid himself gave chase and shot your kid in the back and killed him/her? You knew it was a joke (a prank, say … everyone knew it–it was a dare from another kid, etc.) … but the kid whose bike was taken just had a rough patch of burgleries (or being bullied, etc.) … and he picked up a gun and did what HE PERCEIVED WAS A THREAT.

      bad, Bad, BAd, BAD law …

      • charlieopera says:

        Anita, my love (part II) … assuming the above … and that the “system” does a perfect job and somehow convicts the kid who irrationally (from frustration, fear, whatever) charges him with manslaughter and he is convicted … is that really going to make you the parent of the dead child feel any better?

        The law as it stands is a tragic one.

      • Its not an endorsement. What it is is a glaring reference to another possible reason for the increase in self-defense killings you keep crying about in Florida. Anita brings up another state, where, in the same time span, self-defense killings have increased even more, yet no Stand Your Ground law was implemented. How do you explain that? Granted, Michigan is harder hit than Florida, but all states have felt a pinch. quick cherry picking your stats.

        The situation is a tragic one, the law is just an attempt to return power to the people, instead of leaving with with a bunch of lawyerly beaurocrats who were not in the situation nor saw what really happened.

        • charlieopera says:

          Yes, Jon, I’m “crying” … native Americans “whine” …

          Frustrated, are we?

          A guy robs a bike and gets shot in the back after a three block chase. Great way to handle the situation. Let’s hope one of his shots doesn’t go astray and clip some poor bastard getting in his or her car to go to work by mistake.

          The wild, wild west … great idea, Jon. Then we can pick off all the minorities we can no longer us as slaves becuase of that pesky amendment precluding slavery.

          It is a bloodlust law … and dumb.

          • Charlie,
            Nothing in my post had anything to do with your made-up scenario about a stolen bike, or with the plight of the native americans. It had to do with your reference to Florida statistics and Anita’s reference to Michigan statistics. Your response makes no sense at all. I admit frustration, but not from losing an argument. I am frustrated by your inability or unwillingness to comprehend what anyone else says in response to you, and with your nearly nonsensical responses.

            Almost everyone here agrees with you about the Zimmerman case. I came across something I missed before for the people that have an issue with Martin’s hoodie. It was friggin raining. I don’t care if I am in a warm climate, if I have a hooded sweatshirt on, I will put my hood up in the rain. I also did not realize that the reporting of the 911 call from NBC left out the part where the 911 dispatcher asked for the race of Zimmerman’s suspect, Zimmerman did not just volunteer it. Of course, they also left out the part where Zimmerman assumes Martin is “on drugs or something”. Clearly there was an attempt by the media to spin this stuff, and clearly there were a lot of false accusations made by Zimmerman that were baseless. In all of this, 90% here agree that the case was mishandled by the police and that justice needs to be served and that it is reprehensible that social media had to make this thing happen because the regular media and the justice system dropped the ball. Yet you are still acting like we are all fighting you, like the Zimmerman case is something we are all ignoring. You do not listen. Why? What does closing your mind and your ears and repeating yourself accomplish? It makes you sound like a kid with his fingers in his ears spouting gibberish because he does not want to hear something he does not like. What gives?

  40. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Global sea ice update:
    Northern Hemisphere -0.183 million square kilometers (well within 1 std. deviation of “normal”)
    Southern Hemisphere +0.369 million square kilometers (also within 1 std. deviation of “normal”, and ABOVE normal)
    Total global sea ice as of 4/1/12 +0.186 million square kilometers (above normal, statistically within 1 std. deviation of “normal”)

    As of April 1st, this is statistically tied for the maximum arctic sea ice extent of the year, making it about 16 days later than the usual peak arctic sea ice. It is very unusual to be at peak arctic sea ice this late.

    Meanwhile, you can find all kinds of articles screaming about “rapidly declining sea ice” all over the web…. (???)

    By the way, my data come from the NSIDC (National Snow and Ice Data Center) so this isn’t some Heritage Foundation data or whatever, this is THE national source for data that even the “scientists” use.

    • One of ABC’s chief global warming alarmists Bill Blakemore was at it again Sunday.

      At the network’s Nature and Environment website, Blakemore actually wrote, “America’s Prestige Damaged by Its Climate Denialism”:

      One of the world’s most widely known and respected senior scientists tells ABC News that current denial about the basic daunting realities of manmade global warming is “just foolishness.”

      He also reports that the rest of the world has now “pretty well given up” on its hope for U.S. leadership in dealing with global climate change.

      Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/04/02/abcs-bill-blakemore-america-s-prestige-damaged-its-climate-denialism#ixzz1qtZ7p4DV

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        The sad reality is that science itself has been badly damaged by the whole “global warming” thing. Anytime dogma and ideology masquerade as science, science itself, and often humanity, get in big trouble.

        100 years from now people will be saying, “What the hell were those fools thinking?”

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Peter

          It is a problem with all “environmental sciences”.

          We call ourselves scientists and various groups claim “science” on their side, but the FACT is that MUCH of the environmental science does not lend itself to the rules of HARD SCIENCE investigation.

          So the more we claim “scientific proof” of some “environmental” issue, the greater the chance we make “science” look bad, eventually eroding the public confidence in its utility.

          This of course leaves us entirely at the mercy of the “politicians/lawyers”, “voodoo peddlers” and “witch doctors”.

        • Progress is when we learn from history and stop repeating the same mistakes. This is as big and foolish as the universe revolving around the earth or the earth being flat. But they had better milk it for all it’s worth. Doesn’t this sun cycle peak in 2013? Then the global cooling crisis starts…..

          • gmanfortruth says:

            LOI, The next ice age was a joke, and now global warming has been destroyed. The liberal enviro nuts will next claim that the gravitational force of the earth is sucking in the moon by 1 millionth of a millimeter ever century and we have to pay trillions of dollars to build a bomb to blow up the moon 🙂

  41. Just A Citizen says:

    Republicans are discussing the need to restore EARMARKS.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/02/house-gop-earmarks_n_1396368.html

    Time for the TEA PARTY folks to wake the hell up.

    It is time to be WIDE AWAKE.

    Bwhahahahhaahaa

  42. Watched the Bourne Ultimatum – the whole trilogy is a plot exposing an assassination squad that ends up targeting US citizens.

    The assassinations of non-Americans does not bring down the antagonists (only generates the ire of Bourne) but it is the killing of Americans on orders of a Star Chamber that brings them down.

    Today, the President -for real – can convene a Star Chamber and assassinate Americans.

    There is no scandal, no one is going to jail, no one sees the Bourne Trilogy alive and well – without a hero.

    How the movies sometimes warns us … twice: first, what is fantasy at times becomes real, and second, it only ends if it is a scandal, otherwise, it will grow worse.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      BF

      Hell, this President was CREATED by a Star Chamber.

      I thought we weren’t supposed to waste time worrying about FEDERAL problems…. 🙂

    • Funny how these anti-gun Hollywood types make so many films with all the gun violence.
      And there’s no scandal because it’s a greater good president that has killed Americans, not a war-monger Republican.

  43. Mathius says:
    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mathius

      Seems to me he should stand behind his comments.

      She is just another tool of the Progressive DNC. Don’t back away from the Truth Joe.

      Seems you are falling for the old VETS are OFF LIMITS political game there Mathius.

      • Mathius says:

        Actually, I have no idea. I just was throwing it out to see who chomped at the bait.

        But, I ask you, would there be a media fire storm if it had been a democrat who said something like this? Remember “with us or against us”? Remember “it’s unpatriotic to critisize the President in a time of war”? Remember “dissent against the President is giving aid and comfort to our enemies”?

        It seems to me that there’s a real double standard with regards to a wartime republicans and wartime democrats.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          You are correct about a double standard.

          The MEDIA hasn’t said a word about the American dead in Iraq or Afghanistan since Mr. Obama took office.

          No reporting of the dissent among his General Staff, etc, etc,.

          You guys get all tied in knots over a few comments about providing comfort to the enemy when such comments did not even come close to a “media fire storm”.

          Would Fox and the Conservative/Republican blogs squeal? Yep, you bet they would. And I would put as much stock in their flapjawing as what I see here from HuffPo, thinkprogress and the other DNC media outlets.

    • The Dems are supporting a candidate because she’s a wounded vet? What is the world is going on?

  44. Buck the Wala says:

    Anita and VH:

    The other day we were going back and forth on the differences between the ACA, single payer and public option. Found this handy guide for you:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/02/1079148/-Health-care-glossary

    🙂

  45. charlieopera says:

    @ LOI (regarding the SCOTUS situation, rape, etc.

    How’s that USW refrain go again? That’s a misfunction of the system, not the law …

    It seems to me common sense wise, someone should have intervened …

    • Charlie, Charlie,

      The system IS the problem. Call it misfunction, unintended consequences, etc… When government uses force to prevent you from defending yourself because they say the government will protect you. And that government controls the education system, where kids are taught to trust and rely on said government to provide. And finally that government says you have no right to expect or demand the government do as it said it would.

      And it’s not just a one time mistake.

      http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1976377/posts

  46. charlieopera says:

    @ VH (no room up top to respond). I honestly don’t know that was the case, but I suspect it ALL has to do with where the situations occurred; where they are adjudicated (liberal vs. conservative). You’ll notice most of the states using this law (or similar ones) are red states. Not a condemnation of the states, but politics definitely plays a roll in pretty much everything. I don’t have any knowledge of self-defense law statistics, except I know how easy stats can be manipulated. I think it’s common sense that when a person truly believes their life is in immediate danger, they should respond with whatever force they deem necessary (and if their defense need to be sorted out in court later, so it goes). But to allow people to pursue someone they deemed to be a threat and then kill them, that seems to be going way overboard.

    • I also don’t believe the law as written allows one to pursue.

      • charlieopera says:

        Judges have already dismissed cases using the law as it is written (fact).

        But here’s the law itself (and then another hypothetical).

        A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
        (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

        My hypothetical: A wearing biker spandex shorts and no t-shirt (in the sunny state of Florida) sees a woman (or man) riding a bike. He wants that bike and tries to forcibly take it (grabbing the bike and demanding the man/woman get off, but at no time does he physically harm the man/woman). The man (or woman) bike owner has a weapon and shoots the bike thief.

        I’d argue that showing the gun is enough to back the thief off, but let’s stretch this baby some. The bike owner flashes the gun and at THAT POINT, the bike thief feels HIS/HER life is in danger and manages to take the gun away from the bike owner and then shoots him/her. Guess what? The law still applies. insane or not? I’d vote yeah, very insane.

        • Okay-this statement “A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force.”

          Followed by “or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or” seems to contradict each other?????

          • Okay-I read this again-the second part uses the words imminent and felony which narrows a persons option of using deadly force. I don’t believe stealing a bicycle qualifies as a felony.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              VH, we have been arguing with a Communist wannabe. The ultimate ideaology of theft and murder. Historically proven. Yet Charlie cries about unneeded deaths. Communism cannot happen as long as people can defend themselves, so, by virtue, Charlie would prefer we cannot defend ourselves. Sorry Charlie, I’m not playing your race pimp game.

              • charlieopera says:

                Go get’em G-Joe …

              • Well G-I certainly don’t agree with Charlie’s communist views and there has been a huge amount of race baiting in the Trayvon killing. But in this case I do believe that Charlie simply believes that the law makes the self defense plea too broad. Personally, I think there has been a little too much personal attacks the last few days. But I guess this issue is a major bone of contention with all of us.

                I pointed out before that if one listens to the tape-it seems to show that Zimmerman stopped following Trayvon-I read this today-seems someone else agrees with me-but everyone just keeps talking like it is a foregone conclusion that Zimmerman ignored the dispatcher telling him to stop following him.

                http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/02/911-call-shows-zimmerman-stopped-following-martin-after-dispatchers-request-corroborates-story/

            • charlieopera says:

              $1,000 in property value is usually a felony … but let’s make it easier … he’s trying for a Rolex (mine is several (about 25) years old and cost $1500 when I stole … uh, I mean, bought it.

              A watch vs. a life …

              • You know, Charlie, we can all come up with “what if’s” the point is we have the right to defend ourselves. And whether you have the statistics or not-it seems clear to me, after reading story after story of innocent people being put through hell because they confronted a burglar in their home or place of business that the self defense laws are being diluted to the point where we don’t have that right wayyyy to often.

                But I’ll put up my own scenario-What if a burglar is breaking into my neighbors home-do I have the right to stop them or must I stand around and wait for the cops to show up and my neighbors are possibly dead..

              • charlieopera says:

                V.H. I appreciate your civilized tone (big time). My contention, after reading up on this today, has changed somewhat (more forceful against the law because of the pursuit issue (which, now that it has been established as precedent, certainly gives individuals a sense of righteousness along with their legal defense to kill—even when the threat has clearly been removed). When someone can chase someone two blocks and stab them 19 times (until they are dead), it seems to me that a) the threat of an imminent life threatening situation was removed (or why is he giving chase) and b), did they really have to “kill” the person?

                Unless you’re into the bloodlust aspect of this, I don’t see how it can be justified.

                Then again, a commi (and 42% of me, according to Joe and “maybe” Gman, is gay) and don’t forget I’m still “crying” over all the people killed since the Florida law was enacted.

                And let’s not forget that Treyvon Martin was 6’3″ (something very important to G-man) … 6’3″, wearing a hoodie (maybe because it was f—-g raining?) … and he was a black kid in a white neighborhood … my god, he had to have been a criminal deserving of death. Those skittles can be used like slingshot pellets and then the iced tea can … cut it in half and you have a weapon, no doubt.

              • Maybe I missed something but I find it hard to believe someone chased someone for two blocks and stabbed them 19 times and walked away without some type of guilty verdict-if a judge accepted this-surely the ruling was overturned.

                Who the heck is Joe?

                And stop complaining-several people have been attacked the last few days-and I’m getting a head ache 😦

            • Correct:
              a forcible felony includes aggravated assault, mayhem, aggravated murder, murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, and aggravated kidnapping, rape, forcible sodomy, rape of a child, object rape, object rape of a child, sexual abuse of a child, aggravated sexual abuse of a child, and aggravated sexual assault as defined in Title 76, Chapter 5, Offenses Against the Person, and arson, robbery, and burglary as defined in Title 76, Chapter 6, Offenses Against Property.
              (b) Any other felony offense which involves the use of force or violence against a person so as to create a substantial danger of death or serious bodily injury also constitutes a forcible felony.
              (c) Burglary of a vehicle, defined in Section 76-6-204, does not constitute a forcible felony except when the vehicle is occupied at the time unlawful entry is made or attempted.
              (5) In determining imminence or reasonableness under Subsection (1), the trier of fact may consider, but is not limited to, any of the following factors:
              (a) the nature of the danger;
              (b) the immediacy of the danger;
              (c) the probability that the unlawful force would result in death or serious bodily injury;
              (d) the other’s prior violent acts or violent propensities; and
              (e) any patterns of abuse or violence in the parties’ relationship.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          charlie

          You ignored the rest of the law. It does not protect you if you initiate the crime.

          So the bicycle thief is not protected from prosecution just because he/she felt threatened by the gun of the bike owner.

          • charlieopera says:

            Does the bicyle thief deserve to be killed?

            What if it was a prank? What if the bicycle owner had no weapon, then ran back in the house and gave chase for two blocks and stabbed the thief to death? That’s already been adjudicated (the stand your ground rule accepted as a justified killing in Florida). That is now precedent for future situations. It isn’t the only chase (see the article above somewhere, it offers a few chase situations. All I’m trying to point out is that it gives way too much scope to the definition of self defense. and I’m sorry, but that does (it has to) give people a sense of legal power to shoot to kill, whether the situation calls for it or not. To my mind, chasing someone two blocks and stabbing them 19 x’s seems a bit over the top. The court allowed it (again, a very loose precedent). If the law isn’t there, the system can’t screw it up.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Charlie

              I didn’t know the bicycle thief so I have no way of judging whether they “deserved” to die.

              Do you not have a right to try and get your property back?

              When the guy chased down the thief did the thief then turn on and attack the bike owner?

              You also seem to want to deliberately equate a Judges inability to apply the law strictly with a problem in the law itself. Yet you don’t apply that same standard to Judges ruling in ways YOU prefer, regardless of the laws “actual wording”.

              Second Amendment for example.

              First Amendment for another example.

              • charlieopera says:

                JAC, glad we’re back on speaking/typing terms.

                I didn’t know the bicycle thief so I have no way of judging whether they “deserved” to die.

                Why would that have anything to do with anything? As a kid growing up, sometimes we’d prank each other by stealing each other’s bicycles (of course giving it back later). Sometimes we’d go off our block and do it to someone we knew but not as friends (yes, giving it back later). suppose the bike owner had a really bad string of luck with bikes and thought the theft was genuine? A good kid doing something dumb shouldn’t get whacked over a bike (say it’s worth a grand for arguments sake).

                Do you not have a right to try and get your property back?

                Depends. Kill over a watch? Not if the guy doesn’t have a weapon, no. That isn’t “My life is in imminent danger.

                When the guy chased down the thief did the thief then turn on and attack the bike owner?

                It was a hypothetical (the bike part) … the chase and stabbing actually occurred.

                You also seem to want to deliberately equate a Judges inability to apply the law strictly with a problem in the law itself. Yet you don’t apply that same standard to Judges ruling in ways YOU prefer, regardless of the laws “actual wording”.

                Yes, because it is now a precedent in the state of Florida that that particular law can apply to something so absurd as chasing someone 2 blocks and stabbing them to death. To death, is the 2nd issue. The chase is the first. No charges. That’s way overboard, both instances.

                Not sure what you were driving at with the 1st and 2nd amendments.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Charlie

              One more thing, which is key to the arguments back and forth.

              You seem to condemn this law because it expands the concept of “self defense”.

              I think it is a good law because it incorporates Castle Doctrine, Self Defense, and Protection in one place. I happen to think that you should be able to defend yourself against serious injury, death and theft of your property.

              I also am glad the Law only drops the protection for shooting law enforcement officers. The IRS guys should be fair game, they are thieves after all.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      WHY????

      If they threaten my life and then run, is it not reasonable to expect them to threaten the life of someone else?

      I have every right to pursue them.

      But notice that under the Florida law I DO NOT have the protection of this law if I simply pursue them and shoot them. They must pose a “reasonable” threat to my safety.

  47. To Vet:
    to appraise, verify, or check for accuracy, authenticity, validity,

    Perhaps this is the Dems issue? They don’t understand this concept? Or does it just not matter? Listen to this one; it is hilarious. (head shot warning)

    http://thehopeforamerica.com/2012/04/02/wasserman.php

  48. Mathius says:

    Every time I come here, the same thing goes through my head:

    Well I don’t know why I came here tonight,
    I got the feeling that something ain’t right,
    I’m so scared in case I fall off my chair,
    And I’m wondering how I’ll get down the stairs,
    Clowns to the left of me, (charlie)
    Jokers to the right, (flag, LOI, etc)
    here I am,
    Stuck in the middle with you. (Buck, Todd)

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Something tells me that we’re not in the middle so far as the majority of SUFA is concerned.

    • LOL!

      Cause I’m a Joker, (but not a smoker), I’m a midnight drinker…I sure don’t wanna hurt no one….

    • Correction. Buck and Todd are definitely clowns. Charlie is dragging them along.Flag and Peter are dragging all of us. D13 is stuck in the middle. JAC is king fo sho! You’re coming along just fine with DPM’s help. Stick around long enough and you’ll be a joker too..that’s our ulterior motive.

    • Poor, poor Matt. You think you are in the middle? HA! ( I’m Ok with the joker label though)

      • Mathius says:

        You think you are in the middle? HA!

        I AM in the middle. Center-left. You, my friend, are so far out on the edge, you can’t even tell where the center is anymore. I’m afraid you’ve gone crraaaaazzzzzyyyyy.

        • Depends, the middle of what?

        • I did not say or agree that I’m in the middle, just said you are not. I did agree with me being a joker. So why is it everyone “thinks” they are middle ground? Everyone thinks they are normal, sane, good drivers, etc…

          I think I’m over by the right edge, you are there on the left edge. The biggest difference is the footing is a lot sounder over here. LOL

  49. charlieopera says:

    Me to Matt & Buck:

  50. charlieopera says:

    Monday with Momma Stella …

    MS: Don’t forget the sfogliatelle Easter Sunday.
    Me: (animated) Oh, with the sfogliatelle already! How many times you gonna tell me?
    MS: Make sure, you pain in the ass.
    Me: Remind me again so I can blow my brains out.
    MS: Just don’t forget. And get the other pastries, too. Like when we went to Aunt Fran’s for Thanksgiving.
    Me: Forgetaboutit. That place was in Staten Island. I’d have to spend the night before on line.
    MS: Well, don’t forget the sfogliatelle.
    Me: Ma, you want sfogliatelle for Easter?
    MS: (animated) What the hell did I just say?
    Me: I forget. What?
    MS: (very animated) Oh, Jesus Christ, this kid. Don’t forget the fucking sfogliatelle!
    Me: What kind of sfogliatelle?
    MS: Go home! Now! Go.

    I love my Mommy!

  51. gmanfortruth says:

    Are Liberals really the modern day slaves?

    But what are the signs of this unconscious desire for collectivism and control? What makes a slave do what he does? Here are just a handful of explanations to consider…

    The True Slave: The true slave is not a person who has been shackled, beaten, tortured, and made to comply under threat of death. As long as that poor soul has the spirit of rebellion and is ever seeking freedom, they are not imprisoned fully. The true slave is a person who enjoys their subservience, who is weighted with fear by the very idea of independence from the system, and who would actually fight and die to maintain the establishment which enslaves them. The true slave is not able to imagine living any other life beyond his micro-managed existence.

    The Facts Lose Value: The worst flaw of the slave is not necessarily his ability to overlook the truth, but his ability to see it, comprehend it, and then shrug it off anyway because it is contrary to his mission to fulfill his private delusions. For the slave, the truth exists, but is no longer useful. Lies make his universe turn, and facts are a tool to be used or cast aside at his leisure.

    The Obsession With The Law: The slave mentality, though illogical and psychotic, still requires a certain foundation to hold it together. The laws of governments tend to suffice. These laws may go completely against the force of inherent conscience, but because the slave has already abandoned listening to his inner voice of reason, this does not bother him much. If you have ever wondered why modern tyrannies always feel the need to put their horrific enforcements in writing first, THIS is why. Oligarchs understand that the law provides the slave with a means to rationalize his participation in the crimes of the state. After all, if some gut-bloated bloodthirsty elitists in government etch their mad inbred ramblings into law, then we have no choice but to follow them, right?

    The Need To Be Accepted: A slave seeks harmony not within, but without, even when that “harmony” is with a system that is designed to destroy him. The viciousness of collectivism lay in its ability to comfort converts with atrocity. As long as the slave feels as though he is a part of the machine, and accepted by the group, he cares not what the machine does to others. Common arguments include; “We all have to live together, and so we must sacrifice our selfish individualism for the greater good…” or “Governments are here to protect us and we should do everything we can to make their job easier…” Rarely if ever do they question if the system is legitimately helpful or harmful. The system just “is”, it fulfills their need to be coddled, and that is good enough for them. For all their talk of “unity” and the “greater good”, collectivist are for the most part deeply selfish. They do not support or participate in the collective for the sake of others. They do it to satiate their personal desires.

    The Need For Control: I suppose it’s ironic, but the average slave loves tyranny because it affords him a perceived seat at the table of power, perhaps for the first time in his entire life. Collectivist slaves are often people who have felt weak and inadequate since childhood. While honorable human beings fight this personal uncertainty by strengthening themselves physically and mentally, and improving upon their own character, the slave takes the easy route by joining with bureaucracy and living vicariously through its conquests. Through the state, the hollow, cowardly, and stupid, have the ability to “show the world who’s boss”, and get revenge for a life filled with meaninglessness.

    The Need For Structure: An individual takes responsibility for himself, learning over time to provide his own structure which works at his pace and serves his unique needs. A slave does not have the energy or the drive to do that, and so, he asks the establishment to tell him how he should live. He will hold at face value the word of nearly anyone in a position of petty authority. When confronted with those who go their own way, or who rebel against the cookie-cutter template for social participation, the slave sneers in disgust. Independent rebellion is abhorrent to him, because the system provides him with his very identity. To insult the fabric of the system is to insult who he is. It’s pathetic, but common…

    The Need For Vindication: Sometimes it is not enough for certain people to have their own world view. The slave seeks approval for his world view at every turn, even if that world view is twisted by bleary eyed logic, and will go so far as to force others to agree with it so that they can feel safer in their beliefs. It is natural for people to seek out others with similar views and ideals, but, it is not natural or healthy for those same people to use the government apparatus as a weapon to frighten the rest of us into submission just so they can become more confident in their ludicrous slapdash philosophies. Slaves want a world without contradiction. Laughably, everything they do is a contradiction.

    What I have seen in a number of the reactions to the honest activism of Sgt. Gary Stein is a knee-jerk bias that reeks of the slave mentality, but it offers us a window in gauging the leanings of the general public. Now that the once theoretical dangers of federal fascism are breaking the surface of the water and circling the American sinking ship, the great test is to watch closely where the masses place their priorities. Will they take the path of the individual, admit to the laboratory mutation that our government has become, and try to make things right again? Or, will they take the path of the slave, forget their past follies and empty arguments, and jump on the totalitarian bandwagon? Certainly, it is not as if the cheerleaders of the state usually get out of the tumult with all their limbs intact. In most cases, they are lucky to get out alive once the smoke clears. One might think that the lessons of history would be guide enough, but then again, the average slave has taken every conceivable measure to ensure that his particular fantasy land is magical enough to withstand substantial examination. The system is their drug, and the upheaval that free thought brings is such a buzz-kill…

  52. gmanfortruth says:

    @VH,

    I agree with the whole of your last post. I have been guilty of some personnal attacks. I will not stand buy and watch anymore of the race pimp crap go on without a good fight. If they want to call everyone who don’t agree with their bullshit a racist, then so be it. But it won’t come to pass without a price! 👿

    • charlieopera says:

      Gman, i just shit my pants.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Well Geez Charlie, clean yourslef up. It’s hard enough arguing with you without the thought of you sitting there with your pants full of crap. Your a big man, call 911 before the fumes kill you 🙂

        • charlieopera says:

          G, my 42% permits me to shit roses. Don’t you know that?

          • gmanfortruth says:

            I thought you were a devout 99%er! How did you get cut in half? I didn’t do that and you can’t blame me either, 🙂

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Remember, it was not long ago that shooting a Dem politician was the fault of a conservative (or Sarah Palin’s) What a joke that turned out to be. THe Liberals can piss and moan and stomp the little socialist feet all they want, it shows their true mentality.

      • charlieopera says:

        God bless America …

        Stand beside her, and guide her …

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Charlie, This movie is from Hollywood, who are primarily left wing. On a side note, I gain 25 lbs since I quit smoking.

    • OH yea-the screams of racism-make me real damn angry too-especially when I read statements where liberals use terms like this :”modern-day lynching” or accuse the right of being guilty of Trayvons death when the dems. voted for the “stand your ground” law too. They always seem to just ignore these types of facts when they start their crap. And then they accuse conservatives of being racist for saying-wait for it-State rights or take our country back and heck even Constitution.

      • charlieopera says:

        VH … before you jump on the “I hate liberals” bandwagon … think about this (the facts). Until some one white person went to the social media with the Martin case, the media was ignoring it the way it ignored the guy who ran two blocks and stabbed someone 19x’s. It was a non-issue. Once the media was involved, there was movement regarding the case itself (i.e., without the media, no matter their particular agenda (or what you believe their agenda to be), George Z had NOTHING to worry about. He was released the night of the shooting and that was it. HE was allowed to recreate the crime scene the following day with the Sanford police. The dead kid remained in a morgue until the parents were notifed 36 hours after the kids death (even though he had a cell phone on him the police had in their possession and his father made several calls to the phone looking for the kid). The father was informed after 18 hours that his son was a john doe in the morgue. TWO FULL WEEKS passed before this story broke nationwide.

        Frankly, attacking the media for this one is pretty damn silly. They’ve already admitted they were way behind on it. Yes, they have made it a celebrity cause now, but think of how unjust that is for the family of the slain boy. Could you imagine being in their position and NOT claiming racism (as far as the police “investigation” goes)? I sure can’t.

        • I don’t hate liberals-there are a few liberals I love like family because they are family-I also don’t equate all liberals as race baiting jerks. I rather like our lefties on here and my family and friends who have gone to the dark side 🙂

          I also don’t know that this case wouldn’t have gone any further-all I know is that the cops finished their report, supposedly recommended a charge, and the DA said they didn’t have enough evidence to take the case to court. Does this mean it is over or the police needed to do some more work? I don’t know

          I feel terribly sorry for the parents and can’t imagine any excuse for not telling the parents sooner. I pray for the Good Lord to help them with their grief and I condemn them for nothing -they have a right to demand this be looked into.

          Now maybe you are right, maybe they wouldn’t have pursued it further-but it doesn’t take the over the top BS that has been going on-to bring attention to this case. Even the NAACP is calling BS with some of the stuff that has been going on. Congressmen screaming hate crime and using racial baiting words like a modern day lynching-taking it this far does not promote justice Charlie-it cannot just be ignored-lets at least agree on that.

          • charlieopera says:

            VH, absolutely I agree there are “some” using this for their own platform. I think I’ve stated here a number of times I’ve never forgiven Sharpton for Tawana Brawley. That doesn’t discount his attempt to gain justice for the family (even if his own agenda for self promotion and legitimacy is why he’s really doing this–I don’t know that, I’m just assuming so becuse he never goes anywhere without a camera) … See the case I just linked to regarding the chase scenario … that one gives anyone an incredible amount of discretion to kill without justifiable cause. Frankly, I can’t believe it wasn’t blasted all over the place (probably because the victim was a repeat offender, but that has nothing to do with the guy chasing and then stabbing him 19x’s).

            • Yes, it does discount his attempts to get justice-it shows that his attempt is to promote racial hatred, not achieve justice. There were plenty of people out there protesting-no one needed the over the top race baiting. It leads to riots and more innocent people getting hurt.

  53. charlieopera says:

    Sorry, right wing lunatics … but here it is … and no matter how much you want to live in denial and blame the application of the law, it is now on the books in the state of florida that to kill, even after chasing someone, is just fine and dandy. In this instance it’s a car thief. Did the guy have to stab him 19 x’s? Did he have to kill him? The law obviously now states: Sure, no problem.

    And please don’t tell me what a menace to society a car thief is … irrelevant in the case at hand.

    http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/21/2706789/miami-judge-stabbing-in-the-back.html

    If yous don’t think this is license for overkill, then you don’t want to think it. It’s as simple as that.

    • I didn’t read where he stabbed him 19 times-but whatever-from what I read and a quick search this is a weird situation-the guy took his truck, swung a bag of stolen radios at him, which the judge said amounted to lethal intent, which supposedly justified him stabbing the guy. then the guy who was robbed went home, hid the knife and sold two of the radio’s. Strange indeed-but this only happened 5 days ago-lets wait and see whether or not this is overturned or more information comes out.

      • charlieopera says:

        Not five days ago … in January.

        From the link: The incident took place on Jan. 25, when Roteta and another youth were behind Garcia’s apartment at 201 SW 18th Ct. According to police, Roteta was stealing Garcia’s truck radio.

        Garcia, alerted by a roommate, grabbed a large knife and ran downstairs. He chased Roteta, then stabbed him in a confrontation that lasted less than a minute, according to court documents.

        The stabbing was caught on video. Roteta was carrying a bag filled with three stolen radios, but no weapon other than a pocketknife, which was unopened in his pocket and which police said he never brandished.

        After initially denying involvement in the man’s death, Garcia admitted to homicide detectives that he attacked Roteta even though “he actually never saw a weapon.”

        Garcia claimed Roteta made a move that he interpreted as a move to stab him — so he struck first.

        Prosecutors and police have argued since the Stand Your Ground law passed that it would give vigilantes free rein to strike first and ask questions later.

        In the Garcia case, prosecutors argued that the law did not apply because the truck was not “occupied” and the suspected burglar had run away.

        Once Roteta ran off, prosecutor Jennie Conklin wrote in a motion, Garcia “no longer needed to use deadly force to protect his home or unoccupied vehicle.”

        • Okay sorry-it was posted 5 days ago and I thought it said car theft. If this is the full story-it is crazy that he was let off-a car radio does not a felony make-but I still would need to know how close that bag of radios came to hitting him-because the guy had the right to go after his property-but killing this guy-I have a real problem with that-unless there is more information-I think this will be overturned and it does make me question-what the reality of this law will produce if the judgement stands based on this information. But either way something has to be done to protect people who are being falsely accused of murder. Because there are pro’s and con’s with and without the new law.

          • charlieopera says:

            VH but I still would need to know how close that bag of radios came to hitting him-

            He doesn’t give chase, there’s no bag of radios to get hit with … the law now lets him give chase (he was upstairs when he saw the truck being stolen) … he chased the guy almost 2 blocks … the guy had a knife but it was unopened in his pocket …

            Nothing to consider here … the judge let him off.

            • I’m confused did the guy steal his truck or his truck radio?

              • charlieopera says:

                I’m not sure. I think he was called a car thief (which suggests the truck), but it may have been radios (if he had a bag of them). Either way, shooting him to me was out of the scope of the law (his truck was in danger, not him). But assuming he’d blown a gasket and shot the guy from the window, that “might” be easier to swallow. Chasing him … then killing him? No way.

            • USWeapon says:

              So let me get this straight…. now you want the law to also demand that we simply stay up there and watch someone steal our vehicle? And if we in any way attempt to prevent said criminal from committing said crime, we lose the right to self defense if said criminal tries to attack us.

              I am not speaking of this case specifically, but to what you are saying here about his giving chase to someone stealing his car automatically rules out his protecting himself as legal…

              • charlieopera says:

                Read on, USW. See below (or above) … how I answered Gman. A guy is stealing you car … give all the chase you want … but no, you don’t get to kill the guy.

                How ON FRIGGIN’ EARTH is his stealing your precious car endangering YOUR LIFE?

              • USWeapon says:

                It isn’t…. but he should understand that stealing my car is endangering his. I am not callous, nor cold. But you don’t get to steal from me indiscriminately.

              • I’m gonna make this last point and then I’m out of here for the night. I don’t see where the Stand your ground law is even a part of this equation until the pursuer catches up with the thief. Before that he is a man chasing someone who has stolen his property-does one have the right to pursue a thief-I think most people would say Yes. Might think it was stupid but still ones right.

                What happens next -might or might not-lead to an interpretation of self defense based on this law.

                Night

              • How does stealing a car endanger my life?

                I have 1 car. I depend on that car for a significant portion of my income, many other depend on their completely. That car is paid for, so I have liability only insurance. I do not live near a bus line, and I do not commute to a standard job, so car pooling is out. I do not have the money nor the credit to replace my car. Is my life endangered if you steal that car? Absolutely.

                My girlfriend has 1 car. It is an RV. She also has an enclosed trailer. In that trailer is her life’s work. The RV is our house at the moment, it also is the only vehicle we have that will pull the trailer. Someone steals that rig, they take her home, her means of transportation of herseld and her gear to work, her 100k worth of sound equipment that took her 12 years to build up, her entire livelihood, etc. If someone steals that they are taking her whole life. And they are taking their lives in their hands, because, law or no law, she would chase them down and empty at least one clip into them and sleep like a baby that night.

                Theft is not a prank. It is not ok. It is not unworthy of retaliation or stoppage through use of force. Sure, if a guy steals some food or something minor, it might not be worth his life or my soul for engaging in violence, but there are cases where it is a big deal. A few years back, my girl had started a second business, something for daytimes and slow times. She has a great eye for photography and had bought a $3k camera rig on credit. She was just getting known, and had enough weddings lined up to pay off the camera. Someone broke into the truck she had at the time and stole her camera and a very expensive GPS radio. She had to cancel her gigs, and never has gone back into photography, because we have not, since then, had the money to buy another camera like that. Maybe stealing is ok to you, but to some people its more than just some stuff that some punk stole.

              • USWeapon says:

                Very well put Jon

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Charlie, Based on the story as written, I agree that this is overkill. I didn’t see the 19x stabbimgs in the article, but none the less, he chased him down and killed him. We both know that the cops cannot stop crime, and Garcia’s actions here were wrong, based on everything I read. Now, had Joe Blow caught someone stealing and just shot him instead of all this chasing and stabbing crap, it would be much easier to accept.

      I can see how your point of view can happen, and likely does happen. Basically, in Florida, if you even show a slight propensity to hit or strike someone, you can be killed. Could this happen to an innocent person, it sure could. So in some ways I can agree with you. However, If being a criminal somehow starts to lean toward paying with your life and crime is dramatically reduced, then the law is working as a great deterent.

      Forget laws for a moment. people will defend themselves and people will make mistakes, it’s human nature. My premise lies with being physically attacked, not chasing someone down. If I’m attacked, I will shoot. I will not chase someone down, cuz frankly, I’m too old and bullets are faster 🙂

      • charlieopera says:

        Gman, you’ve seen the light! I’m proud of you, sir!

        And I agree, had he shot the guy at the moment he saw him stealing the truck (even though I think that’s going too far), it would’ve been much easier to swallow (an instand response rather than something you have time to think about). And all I’m saying overall is that this law now permits people to do things way out of line with self defense. There was already a self defense law on the books. Why expand it?

        Also, to the point of worrying about criminals. If you don’t think organized criminals have examined this baby (the law), you’re ALL KIDDING YOURSELVES. It will no doubt be the defense of some clever killers to use when it’s convenient to their purpose. Just like the chase case AND the Zimmerman situation, the only person who gets to give their side of the story is the guy left standing. In the chase case there was a video … and he still got off with it; that broadens the scope of the law to an incredibly dangerous degree (and that’s my point).

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Let me play the devil’s advocate for a moment 🙂 Guy breaks into my truck and steals a very expensive radio, along with breaking the window. So (a younger me) gives chase with a gun in hand. The thief tires and stops running, turns and faces me. He has three choices, give up, lay down and wait for the cops (the smart choice), give back the radio, hope for a moment of distraction and keep running, or attack in some form.

          Now, I’m a well trained marksman and could have shot him in the ass to begin with, chose not too! His first two choices likely leaves him unharmed, the last leaves him dead of a bullet to the chest and one to the head.

          Why is any of this wrong in your mind? Why should I not pursue a thief for my property? Since you have put out some what if’s, I’d appreciate your opinion on mine 🙂

          Peace!

          • charlieopera says:

            I have no problem with you chasing him … no problem with the scenario at all, G. But if you shoot for any of the three reasons (including he attacks you), I can understand shooting him in the leg (if you’re that good a marksman) so he has NO CHANCE to harm you. But if he’s say 20 yards from you and starts coming towards you and you clip him in the head, I’d say you were guilty of reckless endangerment (at the least)/manslaughter more likely.

            My guess is you put one in the air and he stops dead. You put one in his leg, he has no choice but to stop. You put one in his head, you went to far (since you didn’t have to give chase and could had other options to protect yourself).

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Charlie, thanks for your opinion. Now, for what I taught in my younger days. 1. There are no such things as a warning shot. The bad guy knows I have a gun. If he’s dumb enough to come at me, he’s needs to die for being that stupid. That is the attack scenario. I would not shoot him in the first two that I wrote. My problem with your opinion is you seem to give a pass to the criminal, when it comes to making a decision. Maybe you are biased because of your past, I don’t know.

              My take is this, the bad guy made two bad choices, broke into my truck and stole my property, then he ran when confronted. That’s 2 strikes, all based on his/her choice. I have not shot one bullet at this point (i’m younger, remember!) Now the bad guy/girl is going to make a 3rd bad choice, sucks to be him/her. I have given them every chance by the time I pull the trigger. The laws should protect me, not them! What say you Frenchy? 🙂

              • USWeapon says:

                1. There are no such things as a warning shot. The bad guy knows I have a gun. If he’s dumb enough to come at me, he’s needs to die for being that stupid.

                That is murder if you have the ability to stop him without killing him. Being stupid isn’t a thing worth killing over 🙂

              • gmanfortruth says:

                USW, If the bad person see’s a gun and keeps coming, I empty a clip and reload. If need be I empty # 2. Think of this for a moment, neither of us want to really shoot anyone, but here comes a person, not likely acting very nicely either, knows you have a gun. He is either very stupid, on drugs, thinks he’s superman or all the above. This type of person stays down, 4 ever.

                THis is all hypethetical of course and most people will not know how they will react. How accurately can one shoot under those circumstances? Not everyone has my training and can hit a knee, in the nighttime at 15 yards or more. Actually, I can say with a great deal of certainty that the average person will not kill with the first shot in most cases.

                Marksmanship is a learned art that requires a lot of training and constant practice. Shooting in a combat type environment requires 10000 x that training. And that still may not be enough for most people.

                Let’s quit giving the bad guys a pass and let them know their actions can get them killed, then we may not have to ever shoot! 🙂

            • USWeapon says:

              This sounds more reasonable than I am not allowed to pursue someone stealing my property.

            • USWeapon says:

              but what if I am not a crack shot and he is 3 feet away, and swings a very heavy bag at my head that could kill me if it connects? And I fire at him blindly as I duck the menacing bag?

              What if I chase him and he disappears (because I am in my 40s and out of shape, and he…. isn’t)…. only to reappear behind me with that bag of radios swinging at my head? Do I have the right to shoot him then?

              It is easy when you have a clean cut scenario, but these things usually aren’t that clean cut.

              • charlieopera says:

                No, they aren’t usually that clear cut (which is why I denounced your “rational thought” process in an earlier argument). These things are usually way faster and adrenaline fueled than any of us can imagine.

                But let’s face it, USW, you don’t give chase and report the theft to 911, you dont’ put yourself in danger. It’s a friggin’ car, for Christ sake! Who cares? call your insurance agent. But to give chase and take the chance you kill him (or a stray shot kills someone else, since you’re not a crack shot)?

                And now that it is on the books as precedent, it’s an established defense to go WAY beyond the scope of the law. If you agree with the judge who okayed that killing, then you don’t want to see it any other way. There is no defense of that killing. It is an absurd justification. It proves the law goes way beyond the “life threatening situations” it is supposedly intended to deal with.

  54. charlieopera says:

    It isn’t…. but he should understand that stealing my car is endangering his. I am not callous, nor cold. But you don’t get to steal from me indiscriminately.

    Well, at least you came back down to earth with the fact the car isn’t worth your safety … as to the macho aspect of your answer … I hope it doesn’t include kiling someone over a car you observe being stolen from an upstairs window. How about you pick up your cell and dial 911? Or maybe give chase and try to gather help along the way? Or give chase and fire a shot in the sky? You whack him after your life was NEVER in danger, you’re a killer, end of story.

  55. charlieopera says:

    Let’s quit giving the bad guys a pass and let them know their actions can get them killed, then we may not have to ever shoot!

    I have no problem with YOU doing that Gman. It likely will put you safely behind bars for a while.:)

    But to be serious for a milisecond … that kind of thinking may well have been what was on Mr. Z’s mind when he shot an innocent kid for no other reason than racial profiling (or he never calls the 911 operators and ignores what she tells him). So, you didn’t kill a bad guy. You killed an innocent kid. The chase scenario makes it even easier for your blood lust. You can shoot somebody for stealing your car (or car radio) … chase him down and whack him … and you don’t even need a gun! You get to see all the blood from knife wounds. How cool is that?

    Yeah, it’s a great law … if you’re out of your mind.

  56. charlieopera says:

    Okay, boys, I’ve got to get back to my real life now … I’ll try and stop in over the next few days (it has been a compelling and intruging discussion–all seriousness) … and while I don’t expect to win you all over, I do hope you see my point about the stand your ground law going way beyond the scope of its original intent. The more I read on this thing, the more convinced I am it was not well thought out legislation and more probably a knee-jerk response to some heinous offense. The problem is there is already a self-defense law on all the books … stand your ground is totally unnecessary and nothing more than a powder keg that has just begun to explode. As to defending the law itself … now that a judge has ruled in favor of pursuit without a life being in imminent danger, pandora’s box is wide open. If you don’t think drug cartels and other organized crime guys with a little more cleverness than the average Joe won’t use it, you’re kidding yourself big time. “Bad guys” (as Gman calls them) now have a green light to setup street assassinations like Earl Sheib does paint jobs.

  57. @ Charlie…. I am never around when you all get into these discussions…..darn.

    Charlie asked “Does the bicyle thief deserve to be killed?” D13’s answer….yep. ANY thief deserves to be killed. Do not steal. IT is not ok.

    I take it then, that you do not agree that it is ok to protect private property with lethal force. This is not a macho guy saying anything……do not steal from me at all. It is not ok……try to take my car, you have put your life in danger by doing so….I will not hesitate to shoot over my car or my radio flyer. I do not call 911. The litmus test is NOT if my life was ever in danger….my litmus test is that you do NOT have the right to theft from me and I have a right to stop you by any means at my disposal.

    • USWeapon says:

      I like the cut of your jib, sir…

    • charlieopera says:

      The litmus test is NOT if my life was ever in danger….my litmus test is that you do NOT have the right to theft from me and I have a right to stop you by any means at my disposal.

      Well, there goes Stand Your Ground … since it is supposedly written to protect life … self defense …

      It took a grand total of two days to prove this law goes beyond “self defense” and that the system (at least in Florida) supports a MUCH broader than “life threatening” situation. That’s me sitting at my computer and googling. God only knows how many of the tripling number of deaths resulting from this law in so-called “self defense” cases are as overkill if not more so.

      It is an absurd law. Nothing more than a bloodlust law.

      The rights you speak of, Colonel are macho man rights (and nothing to do with self defense) … shoot away.

      USW likes the cut of your jib … proving this has much more to do with macho men at work (or a bloodlust fantasy) than justice. You do realize it’s a bit beyond eye for an eye, I hope.

      • USWeapon says:

        @Charlie… pulled from last article forward

        Well, there goes Stand Your Ground … since it is supposedly written to protect life … self defense …

        No, it was written to protect potential victims from being falsely prosecuted when they stand their ground.

        It took a grand total of two days to prove this law goes beyond “self defense” and that the system (at least in Florida) supports a MUCH broader than “life threatening” situation. That’s me sitting at my computer and googling. God only knows how many of the tripling number of deaths resulting from this law in so-called “self defense” cases are as overkill if not more so.

        Well, apparently, only God and Charlie Stella know.

        It is an absurd law. Nothing more than a bloodlust law.

        Each is entitled to their opinion.

        The rights you speak of, Colonel are macho man rights (and nothing to do with self defense) … shoot away.

        No, it isn’t about macho. It is about protecting my personal property. You propose that a criminal has a right to take my property unmolested so long as they don’t threaten my life while doing so.

        USW likes the cut of your jib … proving this has much more to do with macho men at work (or a bloodlust fantasy) than justice. You do realize it’s a bit beyond eye for an eye, I hope.

        I despise thieves. So does D13. That was what I was referencing. See how wrong you can be when you decide that based on one small statement you have the ability to ascertain what is in another man’s heart? This entire position that you have taken hinges on your ability to divine the thinking of another human being. That is why you are wrong. And you provided a perfect little example of your belief that you can do so here at the end…

        • charlieopera says:

          No, it was written to protect potential victims from being falsely prosecuted when they stand their ground.

          You’re sure of that, huh? Here are some more facts for your version of life.

          The Texas version: He was among 13 who voted in 2007 against the law that made it easier for homeowners to claim self-defense when shooting an intruder. The law means that Texans are no longer have a “duty to retreat,” in the home or elsewhere, before using deadly force in self-defense situations.
          http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Texas-law-similar-to-stand-your-ground-3451418.php

          Ohio: This would allow a person to use deadly force is he or she feels threatened outside the home. “What we want to do is give an extra tool to the crime victim to allow them to stand up and defend themselves legally,” said Jim Irvine, a lobbyist for the Buckeye Firearms Association.
          http://woub.org/2012/04/02/ohio-grapples-stand-your-ground-law

          If someone breaks into your home or vehicle in Ohio, you have the right to use deadly force if you feel that your life is in danger.

          And here’s a general Republican take on the law (notice how there’s no mention of what you believe it to be USW): Yes, “stand your ground” laws are good and appropriate. These laws, on the books in nearly half our states, affirm the right of self-defense. “Stand your ground” laws do not exist to allow ordinary citizens to live out Dirty Harry fantasies. Nor are they in place to return us to the O.K. Corral. Rather, states are turning to these measures to uphold the principle that our laws must protect the innocent over the criminal, the peace-loving over the violent, and the law-keeper over the law-breaker. In a situation where a citizen is under attack, it cannot be incumbent upon that individual to take extraordinary measures to avoid the conflict that he or she did not initiate …

          http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/are-stand-your-ground-laws-a-good-idea/stand-your-ground-laws-protect-the-innocent

          Funny, no where do I read or see anything referring the law the way you interpret it: “it was written to protect potential victims from being falsely prosecuted when they stand their ground.”

          Well, apparently, only God and Charlie Stella know.

          I do have the glow about me, don’t I?

          As I said, contrary to the Republic above, it is an absurd law. Nothing more than a bloodlust law (as was proven in Florida twice – the only two cases I ever heard or read about – imagine what else is out there).

          Each is entitled to their opinion.

          And yours has been proven wrong, but you’ll never admit it.

          No, it isn’t about macho. It is about protecting my personal property. You propose that a criminal has a right to take my property unmolested so long as they don’t threaten my life while doing so.

          No, but if you’re only option is to shoot, than modern technology has obviously passed you by (telephone call – 9-11)? You seem to believe that shooting the criminal is the only way to go. That’s just absurd, my man.

          I despise thieves. So does D13. That was what I was referencing. See how wrong you can be when you decide that based on one small statement you have the ability to ascertain what is in another man’s heart?

          You’re way too dramatic for me, USW. I happen to believe that anyone who insists on shooting someone has a blood lust, but I could be wrong. Then again, “thieves” can be defined very broadly (i.e., some here think the government steals from them with taxes). Whether you feel some kind of relief in shooting a guy for clipping a car or not, it doesn’t change the fact that that in itself oversteps the stand your ground law (which is what this discussion was about).

          This entire position that you have taken hinges on your ability to divine the thinking of another human being. That is why you are wrong. And you provided a perfect little example of your belief that you can do so here at the end…

          I hope you genuflect when referring to me. I may be wrong about your dramatic hatred of thieves, USW, but I am spot on regarding the law you’re clinging to when common sense and Florida precedent tells you it has nothing to do with imminent danger or to “protect potential victims from being falsely prosecuted when they stand their ground”.

          And on that note, bless you, my son.

          • USWeapon says:

            And here’s a general Republican take on the law (notice how there’s no mention of what you believe it to be USW): Yes, “stand your ground” laws are good and appropriate. These laws, on the books in nearly half our states, affirm the right of self-defense. “Stand your ground” laws do not exist to allow ordinary citizens to live out Dirty Harry fantasies. Nor are they in place to return us to the O.K. Corral. Rather, states are turning to these measures to uphold the principle that our laws must protect the innocent over the criminal, the peace-loving over the violent, and the law-keeper over the law-breaker. In a situation where a citizen is under attack, it cannot be incumbent upon that individual to take extraordinary measures to avoid the conflict that he or she did not initiate …

            http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/are-stand-your-ground-laws-a-good-idea/stand-your-ground-laws-protect-the-innocent

            Funny, no where do I read or see anything referring the law the way you interpret it: “it was written to protect potential victims from being falsely prosecuted when they stand their ground.”

            Do you really not see that what I said is precisely what the paragraph above says, only in a more concise version?

            Each is entitled to their opinion.

            And yours has been proven wrong, but you’ll never admit it.

            No, I will admit it when it has actually been proven wrong.

            No, it isn’t about macho. It is about protecting my personal property. You propose that a criminal has a right to take my property unmolested so long as they don’t threaten my life while doing so.

            No, but if you’re only option is to shoot, than modern technology has obviously passed you by (telephone call – 9-11)? You seem to believe that shooting the criminal is the only way to go. That’s just absurd, my man.

            Where did I say that shooting the criminal is the only way to go? Talk about making up a position. A telephone call is great if you can get the criminal to agree to wait 5-10 minutes for the authorities to arrive. What I believe is that if someone is stealing from me I have the right to stop them from stealing my property. There are potentially situations where this could escalate into my shooting the criminal. But there are far more situations that will not end up this way. The most likely ending is that I will end up keeping my property and the criminal will end up in the custody of the police who arrive to find me holding the suspect for them, or will end up with an ambulance ride because I did what was needed to stop them from harming me or someone else.

            I despise thieves. So does D13. That was what I was referencing. See how wrong you can be when you decide that based on one small statement you have the ability to ascertain what is in another man’s heart?

            You’re way too dramatic for me, USW. I happen to believe that anyone who insists on shooting someone has a blood lust, but I could be wrong. Then again, “thieves” can be defined very broadly (i.e., some here think the government steals from them with taxes). Whether you feel some kind of relief in shooting a guy for clipping a car or not, it doesn’t change the fact that that in itself oversteps the stand your ground law (which is what this discussion was about).

            Again, where did I say that shooting someone for stealing a car was my preferred path? Where did I say that I insist on shooting someone? D13 despises thieves. I also despise thieves. That is the extent of what my “jib” comment was referencing. But you do continue to amaze me with your inability to realize the hypocrisy of you stating how many things you are claiming to know about me from a few words in reply to D13. If my “jib” statement was enough for you to determine that I am OK with shooting someone for stealing regardless of circumstances, then it is no wonder that you are willing to convict anyone based on the very little you know of them. You know everything about me from a few statements. You know everything about Zimmerman and his mindset and motives based on the limited information you have about him. But at the same time you lambast others here for divining similar levels of information from limited facts about Martin. Do you really not see the hypocrisy there, my friend?

            • USWeapon says:

              all those conclusions jumped to about what I believe and he says I am the one that is dramatic…

            • charlieopera says:

              In a situation where a citizen is under attack, it cannot be incumbent upon that individual to take extraordinary measures to avoid the conflict that he or she did not initiate …

              USW … I don’t know, brother … this against the case in discussion (the chase and kill) … it sure seems to me the guy initiated the dangerous situation by giving chase when he could’ve dialed 911. If anything, it seems to me he took extraordinary measures to create a conflict that never existed.

              I don’t know how you walk that one back, my brother.

              I’ll get to the rest eventually …

  58. Could I ask-what good does it do to deport all these people(if they are actually deported-although some of them need to go straight to jail) if one doesn’t close the borders?

    Here’s hoping we talk about something besides the Trayvon case tomorrow. 🙂 Now I really am gone.

    ICE Arrests Over 3,100 Illegal Aliens in Nationwide Sweep

    Posted on April 2, 2012 at 10:00pm by Becket Adams Becket Adams

    WASHINGTON (AP/The Blaze) — The White House said Monday it arrested more than 3,100 immigrants who were illegally in the country and who were convicted of serious crimes or otherwise considered fugitives or threats to national security.

    The arrests were the result of an intense six-day nationwide sweep, the third and largest of its kind, codenamed “Operation Cross Check.”

    Watch Operation Cross Check — Boston (via dvidshub.com):

    “The results of this targeted enforcement operation underscore ICE’s [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] ongoing commitment and focus on the arrest and removal of convicted criminal aliens and those that game our nation’s immigration system,” ICE Director John Morton said in a release.

    “Because of the tireless efforts and teamwork of ICE officers and agents in tracking down criminal aliens and fugitives, there are 3,168 fewer criminal aliens and egregious immigration law violators in our neighborhoods across the country,” he added.

    ICE Arrests Over 3,100 Illegal Aliens in Nationwide SweepICE agents escort a criminal alien after arrest in Los Angeles.

    U.S. ICE said the sweep included every state and involved more than 1,900 of the agency’s officers and agents.

    The sweep comes nearly a year after ICE pledged to focus on deporting illegal immigrants with serious criminal histories and those who posed national security threats, while going easier on many who stay out of trouble.

    Officials said most of those arrested had entered the country illegally. Others had violated the terms for legally being in the United States and were subject to deportation.

    More than 1,000 of the people arrested had multiple criminal convictions. The most severe cases included murder, manslaughter, drug trafficking, and sexual crimes against minors.ICE Arrests Over 3,100 Illegal Aliens in Nationwide Sweep

    “These are people we do not want roaming our streets,” Morton said at a news conference, according to Reuters.

    The totals included an estimated 50 gang members and 149 convicted sex offenders. The cases of at least 204 of them were referred to federal prosecutors for a variety of serious charges, including illegal re-entry after deportation, a felony that can carry up to 20 years in prison.

    Watch Operation Cross Check — Los Angeles (via dvidshub.com):

    Morton issued guidelines in June that suggested the agency would ease up on illegal immigrants who are military veterans, elderly, in the United States since childhood or had relatives who were citizens or legal residents. In August, the Department of Homeland Security announced a review of about 300,000 cases in the nation’s clogged immigration courts aimed at giving reprieves to the lowest-priority offenders.

    Latinos and other immigrant communities have eyed the pledges warily as the Obama administration has removed record numbers of illegal immigrants – nearly 400,000 in each of the last three years, according to the Associated Press.

    ICE Arrests Over 3,100 Illegal Aliens in Nationwide SweepICE agents take a suspect into custody as part of a nationwide immigration sweep in Chula Vista, Calif., on Friday

    The agents participating in last week’s sweeps typically knock on doors early in the morning before people go to work.

    The sweep included 116 different nationalities and represented the third such sweep under the program called Operation Cross Check. The last sweep resulted in the arrest of about 2,900 people.

    Watch Operation Cross Check — Detroit (via dvidshub.net):

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ice-arrests-over-3100-illegal-aliens-in-nationwide-sweep/

    • Just A Citizen says:

      V.H.

      My dear V. Has it occurred to you that the Govt is just PRACTICING on the poor Mexicans?

      🙂

  59. Just A Citizen says:

    Very Interesting Article on the “REAL” Political Parties in the USA.

    This explanation comes much closer than most to my views on the splits within the parties. Although I am not sure I would use Identity and Individualists as the two major splits, but the terms do apply to some extent.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/the_nature_of_the_conservative_divide.html

  60. @ Charlie…..I expected you to not agree with me which is ok….

    But a legit question because inquiring minds want to know, You understand that I am not criticizing you on your stance at all. It is admirable that you are consistent. But a legit question….in mind, Your answer to me indicates that you would rather someone sit idly by while a theft of personal property is being perpetrated as long as your/my life is not threatened. It seems to me that you are suggesting that it is ok to let a thief walk and that stealing is not worth the “taking” of a life. Ok, I get it. And if that is your choice, fine. I choose not to let a person get away with it. For clarification, if I walk up behind somebody in my garage stealing my bicycle, I will not just bang away….I think you know that. I will try to subdue said individual with a well aimed butt stroke to the noggin. But if I walk in on a burglary or robbery and he runs, I will shoot his knees or legs to try to stop him if I am able to do so. I will NOT simply say..oh look a robber and I scared him away. This is no deterrent to coming back.

    It is not simply taking a life with me Charlie. It is NOT blood lust to protect your property. It is a right. You and I are simply cut from a different cloth. You would protect your family to the death, I bet. So it is not that you would not kill yourself, your bar is set differently to determine your level of protection. But that said, my Plutonian friend, I digress this debate and we are on the opposite ends of the spectrum on this issue and that is ok. Remember, I think Zimmerman deserves to be charged and tried.

    • Colonel,

      Charlie asked “Does the bicyle thief deserve to be killed?” D13′s answer….yep. ANY thief deserves to be killed. Do not steal. IT is not ok.

      But if I walk in on a burglary or robbery and he runs, I will shoot his knees or legs to try to stop him if I am able to do so.

      The problem with your attitude is “what happens if you’re wrong?”

      This “bicycle thief” is actually your neighbor’s cousin. They’re playing hide-n-seek and he didn’t understand the property boundries and hide in your garage.

      You surprised him, so he ran.

      And then you shot him.

      Hopefully only in the legs (which can still be crippling or deadly), but maybe in the chest. Most of you talk about “you don’t shoot to disable – if you decide to “pull the trigger”, you aim for the center of the body.

      So now you have a injuried, cripppled, or dead – innocent kid. What’s next?

      • Hiya Todd and good morning…..I think I could tell the difference between a hide and seek child and a thief. However, your point is well taken. If I walk into my home and someone who does not belong there is there……it is no mistake. If I look out my window and someone is taking my lawn mower or breaking into my car…..it is not by accident or happenstance,,,,it is intentional.

        My point being, this Zimmerman case is not the norm. I am a true believer in my right to protect myself or my property with whatever force I deem necessary. I am fortunate that I live in a state that allows this. As I stated before, Zimmerman was an idiot, He was not rational. My life does not have to be in danger to protect what is mine. I think that the reall issue is not innocent being shot…it is the mentality that it is ok to be a thief and not ok to deter the theft with violent force…deadly if necessary.

        I do not know about you but you cannot get into my backyard uninvited, much less my garage. If I saw a kid hiding in my bushes i the front yard, I would not pull the peacemaker and blow him away….It is a kid and probably playing. BUT at 2 am if someone is in my hedges under a bathroom window looking in…..goodbye. THAT is a threat. I do not have to wait until something happens…so with carrying a firearm goes responsibility, as I said before…..just do not steal. When you steal, all bets are off and the thought does not cross my mind if the theft is worth a life. It is an attack upon me and my property.

        However, your points of innocence are well taken and correct but I think the normal person knows the difference between a thief and a child playing hide and seek.

    • charlieopera says:

      Your answer to me indicates that you would rather someone sit idly by while a theft of personal property is being perpetrated as long as your/my life is not threatened. It seems to me that you are suggesting that it is ok to let a thief walk and that stealing is not worth the “taking” of a life. Ok, I get it.

      Good morning, Colonel! I sent you cannoli from heaven this fine day. If you send me your (or any address), I’ll send you a Junior’s Cheesecake.

      First let me apologize if my comments even remotely suggested that I think you’re looking to kill people. Not what I tried to put forward.

      But let me answer your question. No, I do not think one should watch a thief. I probably would react in some similar way (if not outright chase, although I stand about as good a chance at catching someone as someone in a wheelchair). But I would not, if I had a gun on me, shoot someone for stealing a car (UNLESS that person was physically attacking me or someone else and I believed I/he/she were in danger of being maimed or killed (i.e., if he had a knife and attacked with it, etc.)

      But if I walk in on a burglary or robbery and he runs, I will shoot his knees or legs to try to stop him if I am able to do so. I will NOT simply say..oh look a robber and I scared him away. This is no deterrent to coming back.

      You have the skill to do so, I can live with that. I don’t know that the law should live with it if you don’t have to shoot, but if you shoot a thieve’s leg out you do run the risk he bleeds out, etc. Still, I can deal with that much more than if you whack the guy, but if you had to give chase, no, I don’t agree it should be legally okay to do so. If you have to give chase and you catch him, unless he’s physically attacking you, no way.

      It is NOT blood lust to protect your property

      This was my mistake, Colonel. My bad … apologies to you and USW (if he can handle it). I meant to convey that the law itself is a blood lust law.

  61. charlieopera says:

    @ Jon

    Is my life endangered if you steal that car? Absolutely.

    Jon, I think you’re mixing apples with coconuts. No, sir, your life is absolutely not in danger (of loss of life, which is what the statute is supposed to protect—your physical life, not your ability to earn unless it relates to physical harm you might suffer from the stolen car—but remember, our hypothetical is taken from the actual case in Florida—the guy saw someone stealing his car from his upstairs bedroom window).

    If someone steals that they are taking her whole life. And they are taking their lives in their hands, because, law or no law, she would chase them down and empty at least one clip into them and sleep like a baby that night.

    See above, the law is not meant to protect your ability to earn. As to your castle, if they are inside the place where you’re living or just sitting, that presents an entire other enchilada and the law “may” apply, but if your girlfriend sees someone stealing her RV from a second story bedroom and decides to give chase and shoots the thief, no, the law should not apply. No one is asking the thief to wait 15 minutes (isn’t amazing how USW puts words on someone’s mouth/can read their minds … or maybe he just doesn’t understand the hypothetical?) … as to her emptying a clip, etc., then she’d been brought up on charges (and rightfully so UNLESS her life was in imminent danger, not her future income). Sorry.

    Maybe stealing is ok to you, but to some people its more than just some stuff that some punk stole.

    I used to engage in some of that thievery myself (no wonder he’s so worried about the victims …) … not to worry, I didn’t waste my time on small potato cameras, but I digress.

    If you must know, I stole from revenge. It was dumb (because of the risks I took) but I was young and proving myself.

    That said, no, it isn’t “Okay to steal” (please try and refrain from USW’s incessant habits of putting thoughts in someone else’s head) … and if someone came into your house and you had a gun, I couldn’t fault you for shooting them. But chasing someone from a distance when YOUR LIFE WAS CLEARLY NOT IN DANGER is a much different scenario. So, no, taking someone’s life because they stole your property, no matter how valuable (emotionally or otherwise) is not cause enough for killing someone (and sometimes it may well be justified—when one’s LIFE is in danger). We all may feel like killing someone, but under the circumstances in the Florida case, that was insane.

    • So starving to death because someone took everything I had is not a threat to my life? I know I am taking and extreme position here, but to act as tho it is ok for a person’s life to be ruined rather than endanger a thief’s life is incomprehensible to me. I am not talking about killing because I am angry, I am talking abou self-preservation. If I was a diabetic and you stole my insulin, is that more justified? What is the difference? If I am poisoned and you poisoned me and you have the anti-dote, but the poison will take a year to kill me, can I shoot you then, or is that not imminent death enough? Do I have to let you walk and hope the cops get you and that someone can make an antidote before my time is up?

      As for my girlfriend, I never said she would kill the guy, just empty a clip in him and get her damned stuff back. 😛

      Seriously tho, they are not just stealing an ability to earn, they are stealing years of her life, both past and future. That sort of evil, if its not worthy of death, what is it worthy of?

      • charlieopera says:

        I know I am taking and extreme position here, but to act as tho it is ok for a person’s life to be ruined rather than endanger a thief’s life is incomprehensible to me. I am not talking about killing because I am angry, I am talking abou self-preservation. If I was a diabetic and you stole my insulin, is that more justified?

        I can’t help but be reminded of so many here who stated (paraphrasing so USW, don’t get your draws in a bunch) how past cultures, societies, races of entire people were destroyed (killed off, enslaved, etc.) and how we had to “get passed it all” … this is a side note, not a response to your questions, Jon.

        Now to your question: It is horrible, I agree, but even the diabetic cannot (should he/she view the theft from a second story window if the insulin was in the car, say), does not have the right to kill (he/she, in the time it takes to chase and kill and recover the insulin, can surely go to a hospital). Now, I too am using an extreme here, and believe me, I do understand where you’re coming from, but once you allow for something broader than “life threatening”, the door swings wide and anything goes.

        What is the difference? If I am poisoned and you poisoned me and you have the anti-dote, but the poison will take a year to kill me, can I shoot you then, or is that not imminent death enough? Do I have to let you walk and hope the cops get you and that someone can make an antidote before my time is up?

        If I poisoned you, that is a direct threat and MUCH DIFFERENT than I robbed your insulin/car, etc. Assuming, of course, you saw me poison you.

        As for my girlfriend, I never said she would kill the guy, just empty a clip in him and get her damned stuff back.

        Seriously tho, they are not just stealing an ability to earn, they are stealing years of her life, both past and future. That sort of evil, if its not worthy of death, what is it worthy of?

        And that sucks. But what about white collar crime. Trust me, I’d volunteer to be the executioner for someone like Bernie Maddoff (wouldn’t lose a second’s sleep—my blood lust), but I also understand it would be morally wrong and against the law (because he stole money and didn’t put my life in imminent danger).

        I do understand your frustration with my tree-huggerness on this one, but it’s really about how bad things can get once an absurd decision like the one in the Florida chase case becomes precedent. Although I do NOT know what is in George Z’s mind (USW gets the nod on this one) … I am more and more convinced that he probably did know how broadly the scope of self-defense has become in his home state. Whether that convinced him to kill the kid or not is irrelevant. So long as the law is interpreted that broadly, one can tend to feel a certain amount of support once something as absurd as the chase was tossed by a judge.

        • A very rational response. In the case of the insulin, a trip to the hospital might not be possible, especially if it was sans-vehicle, but it does not change the overall point. In reality, I do agree that theft is not a killable offense. This diatribe was mostly to impress on you just how destructive, even to life itself, a theft can be. However, I also agree that a thief has chosen to ignore the rights of another, and may just as easily ignore my right to life as my right to property. So, I have no problem with a confrontation that ended up being deadly for the thief. I have no pity on thieves. I would not pity Maddoff if you iced him either, tho, again, I do not support revenge killings, even when I understand them.

          As for self-defense, it should remain self-defense. Pursuit-related self-defense situations only possibly apply when the pursued is deemed likely to return and cause harm when he has the advantage, and there had better be clear evidence of that, not just a feeling.

%d bloggers like this: