Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: conservative, right-wing policies that are to blame” for Trayvon Martin‘s death

Posted 2 years ago on March 30, 2012, 11:36 a.m. EST by Jflynn1964 (-206)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

AFL-CIO Executive Vice President Arlene Holt Baker told The Daily Caller that it is “conservative, right-wing policies that are to blame” for Trayvon Martin‘s death.

Martin was a black teenager shot and killed by an Hispanic neighborhood watch volunteer. The shooting, and the police department’s decision to not arrest the suspect, George Zimmerman, has caused an uproar in Florida and across the country. (RELATED: Full coverage of the Trayvon Martin shooting)

“The same folks who want to kill workers’ rights in the work place are the same folks who want to kill voters’ votes … and now they are literally supporting legislation that is literally killing our children.”

Baker told TheDC that conservative policies, like Florida’s “stand your ground” law — which states that an individual has the right to defend himself if he feels that his life is in imminent danger — are to blame.

“When you look at whose behind it, you find that the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a very conservative think tank comprised of corporations and very conservative representatives at the state level are behind this.”

188 Comments

188 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (19198) 2 years ago

This is a great op-ed piece by Paul Krugman that outlines ALEC's connection to Trayvon Martin's death:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/opinion/krugman-lobbyists-guns-and-money.html

[-] 1 points by badreadnaught (55) 2 years ago

Isn't it awful that young Mr. Martin's death is trivialized by including things like what Ms. Baker told The Daily Caller?

[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

jewish is a religion, not a nationality, not a race.

[-] 1 points by brochomsky (208) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Judaism is a religion that has a closely related ethnicity. There is a distinct group of people that bred throughout the ages that can clearly be defined as Jewish. There are even different strains of the Jewish ethnicity, like Ashkenazi and Sephardi.

[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

there are black jews in ethiopia. jewish is a religion, not a race, not a nationality.

[-] 1 points by brochomsky (208) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

"The Jews (Hebrew: יְהוּדִים‎‎ ISO 259-3 Yhudim Israeli pronunciation [jehuˈdim]), also known as the Jewish people, are a nation and an ethnoreligious group, originating in the Israelites or Hebrews of the Ancient Near East. The Jewish ethnicity, nationality, and religion are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation. Converts to Judaism, whose status as Jews within the Jewish ethnos is equal to those born into it, have been absorbed into the Jewish people throughout the millennia."

I think Wikipedia is an acceptable source in this case.

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

wikipedia is not an acceptable source.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

it's actually both.....there are Jews who are not religious, and Jewish Faith followers who are not Jew's (Hebrew)

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

wrong, race has nothing to do with religion.a religion is not a race or a nationality.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

that's not what I said......There are Jews by birth, and there are Jews by conversion...one is a religion, the other a "race"

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

the black jews of ethiopia have been jews for centuries. they are jews by "birth". jewish is a religion NOT a race , not a nationality.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

forget it, you're obstinately stupid...no point in arguing with you...stay stupid, if you so choose....

your "mongoloid, caucasoid and negroid" was dismissed by science long ago.... "race" is largely sociologically determined.....with physical features becoming homogenized over time

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

3 races , with sub catagories. the most obvious distinction is skin color. jews are of all races , many nationalities.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

according to the Supreme Court they are a race.

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

there are 3 distinct races, mongoloid, caucasoid and negroid, there are sub groups and variations. a person can be jewish and be black or mongoloid or caucasion. jewish is a religion. saying jewish is a race is like saying that christian or shinto is a race.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

boot camp have been describes to using mantras like "kill hajji"


"THE GROUND TRUTH" : The Human Cost Of War.

Sometimes the greatest act of courage is to tell the truth ...

In the opening scenes of Patricia Foulkrod's powerful documentary, we're introduced to a number of young soldiers who speak candidly and powerfully about the motivations that led them to join the military. As their stories unfold, we hear their surprised reactions to boot camp and combat training as they were taught to dehumanize their enemy, to "kill hadjis and ragheads."

"The Ground Truth" - is a documentary film, that should be watched by everyone who has a friend, relative or loved one who's served - or is about to serve - in Iraq and Afghanistan.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-ground-truth-the-human-cost-of-war-sometimes-t/#comment-682274

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

It is said by some that Zimmerman is half Jewish and half Hispanic. Obama is half black, half white. How do we decide which half to ignore? Which half is responsible?

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

If Zimmerman were black - would we even be talking about this case?

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I would be, you suit yourself. I am not sure that a system where all survivors are innocent and all of the dead are guilty, takes us where I want to go,

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Freewillnotfreestuff (-5) 2 years ago

No, not at all. Reality is that blacks are 9x as likely to be killed by another black than by a white. Think too about how many blacks have been murdered by other blacks just since this case broke. The victimologists like Sharpton and they're friends in the media won't be bringing it up.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

Reason is apparently not on the way but rather on it's way out in your head circling Universe Mr. Un-Reasonable.

Understanding requires reason which you severely lacko.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I don't think that answers my questions. Why is Zimmerman white (the Jewish part?)? And why, then, is Obama black instead of white?

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Because that is what OTHERS define him to be. Race is a social construct.

[-] 1 points by brochomsky (208) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Why does Jewish mean White? Have you really never met a non-white Jew? Have you really never met a White Latino?

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by CCNN (8) from Walla Walla, WA 2 years ago

True. And thatis as far as they are capable of seeing it.

[-] -3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

We let ALEC decide for us?.....................LOL

[-] 3 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Because ALEC knows what is best for us ...to do for our masters.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Why do you hate Hispanics?

[-] -1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

Me? I love hispanics. Talk about a people that have all of the right qualities - hard working, religious, family oriented, moral, ethical. This is one group that thrives in the US and makes it better. They get it.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Yeah, we have all heard "my best friend is a hispanic" argument before.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

I have two of them!!!

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Copper12 (9) 2 years ago

Without a credible witnesses and having no evidence it wasn't then they could only detain you. It is against the law to arrest someone without probable cause but they can detain, it's the law and not the conservatives fault understand the law then you can run you're stupid liberal pussy mouth

[-] 0 points by ancientmariner (275) 2 years ago

"War is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength."

  • George Orwell.

This is the motto of Jflynn and all the other apparatchiks of the 1% on this forum.

[-] 2 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

You want to capture power and send it to Washington to remake society and business into some idealistic concept. All levers of power should emanate from you and your henchman. You want to take away freedom, liberty and any concept of individualism. Forget religion as we all bow to the powers in Washington with their administrations and acronyms.

Keep the minorities down by putting them in buckets and refusing to address what the realities are. The majority in America knows exactly what I am talking about regarding self defense and the perception of criminals.

You just don't want to see the elephant in the room. Who is going to get hired first - the clean cut person wearing a suit or the person with long hair, unshaven, tattoos and a hoodie? You tell me?

[-] -1 points by ancientmariner (275) 2 years ago

Me and my henchmen are called citizens.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

or dictators.

[-] 2 points by Recycleman (102) 2 years ago

This is all a snow screen. OWS is the reason we are here. This has no bearing on OWS.

The news programs are just feeding the profit train

Let it go. get back to OWS

[-] 1 points by ancientmariner (275) 2 years ago

A citizen dictatorship is called a democracy.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

When a few dictators can steal money and goods from one group of people to give to another it is not called a democracy, it is called a dicttaorship.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

Yeah, it's called the dictatorship of the board of directors of the fortune five hundred, gov't is just their lap dog. Oh, my bad, I thought you guys were describing the status quo's dictatorship.

But since you are talking about "what ifs and woopty do's," Who would you rather be ruled by, the will of a few, or the laws of the many?

Remember though, those laws have to be enforceable on all. Unlike it is now, where once you break a mill you are no longer below the law but above it, the laws of the many seems like a better prospect than the whims of a few.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

You mean the board of directors that is elected by the shareholders who invest their money in the company. Imagine that, people who have something at stake having the ability to vote and run the company. How dare they.

The government is there to do protect the people and provide services which an individual cannot do on their own, a la national defense. Everybody should be treated the same. Not one law for one person and another law from another.

Jus because you are mad and jealous that Steve Jobs has done better than you doesn't give you the right to steal from him.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

Guilting people into submission may work where you lay your hat, but seriously, it is lame.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

You lost me.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

You said just because i'm mad and jealous my interpretation of what gov't is tasked with doing is wrong. That is a tactic used to challenge my honor or make me feel guilty. It is a cheap, low down, dirty trick, and it is a little juvenile if you ask me.

Also, if you don't know the the wealthy get away with crimes that should be as deplorable to society as murder, then you ain't been paying attention. You probably had you mouth too firmly set on the bit you were chewing to notice. Your bad.

Everyone should be treated the same by lady justice, but because we are ruled by the wealthy, only we are judged by her tilted scales.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

I am not trying to make you feel guilty, that's the truth. Why else would you want to take money from one group and give to another. As to your honor, I don't know you so I can't even say.

Many people get away with crimes, both wealthy and poor. I can't change that but that doesn't mean the rules and laws shouldn't be the same for everyone.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

Easy because they abused their right to that money when they used it to buy my nation's democracy. You know you defend the rights of the wealthy like a terrible parent defends a spoiled child. Not only do you make excuses for them but you poke fun at their accusers. No wonder this nation has one foot in the grave, none of its people hold any of their industry leaders up to any type of standards. tisk, tisk.

[-] -1 points by takim (23) 2 years ago

its called obama & co.

[-] -2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

If I'm building a doodad, or sitting in a cubicle, what the hell is it to you what I look like?

You only want to hire the pretty slaves?

You only want your customers served by those who meet your visual standards?

How could you even say that and not understand?

You're the tyrant. You're the dictator.

Talk about an elephant in the room. You must be GOP, that pachyderm is so big.

[-] 1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

This is laughable, so you want to avoid the data? Why is the black unemployment rate higher than others?

Who gets hired first and fired first and why?

Of course you want customers served by only those who meet a professional standard. Have you not seen all of the studies that show this?

[-] -3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

The laughable part, is the simple fact that you didn't address a single question posed to you.

Not a one.

And then you repeat yourself.

You've answered all your own questions.

You are a tyrant and a dictator and you like it that way.

[-] 2 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

Ok, here you go:

If I'm building a doodad, or sitting in a cubicle, what the hell is it to you what I look like?

Answer: I don't care what you look like if you are the best in your class. But we are not talking about the 1% of kids who are the elite. They will always get hired. We are talking about the median and yes, for those kids to get hired, it matters what they look like, even if they are sitting in a cube.

You only want to hire the pretty slaves?

Answer: it has been proven that pretty people and slim people are hired over ugly people and fat people. That's reality.

You only want your customers served by those who meet your visual standards?

Answer: absolutely, there are professional standards as to how people should dress and personal cleanliness. There is a reams of data and studies on this especially in Japan. Much of it comes from the original Deming work on quality.

How could you even say that and not understand?

So what am I missing?

[-] -2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

What are you missing?

Objective thought?

You just repeated yourself , yet again.

Quoting subjective studies to legitimize your tyranny and dictatorial thinking.

Your refusal to admit that you think that way.

You want to shove your employees into a box.

You want to be a social engineer.

I certainly hope you never expect them to think outside of the box you want to "force" them into.

That is tyranny, doncha' know.

[-] 2 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

What are you talking about, objective thought? This is reality. At the end of the day you have to make payroll. Have you ever run a company and know what it's like to have the burden on your shoulders of paying hundred of people?

These studies aren't subjective, there numerous scientific works and empirical studies that prove these points.

Go live in la la land but keep your hands off our liberty. The world is moving towards more free market capitalism as the people are demanding it. When you see what happened in China yesterday that should tell you where its going when even they realize they have to become more free.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

The libe(R)ty to be a tyrant is all you desire.

You are your own private dictator.

As usual you ignored most of what I posted, and devolved to insults.

You actually hate individual liberty, and desire to quash it wherever and however you can.

You should stop using the term, since you don't understand it.

[-] -3 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

I'm not the one backing the dictators, you are. And now your man in DC is trying to tell the Supreme Court how to act. If George Bush had done that you would have been all over him. Why aren't you protesting how he killing many more people than Bush ever did in this war and doing it illegally?

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

I don't think Obama using the bully pulpit to remind the judges what an activist court looks like is anywhere near dictatorship. At least he ain't threatening to pack the court with a few more justices.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

It's unprecedented for a President to comment on Supreme Court rulings especially prior to a ruling. It makes you if Sotamoyor didn't leak something to him.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

Do you believe anything he said is going to sway the decisions and philosophies of life long serving justices. I believe he did it more for the electorates ears than for the ears of any gov't official. He is pandering to his base and showing the electorate who to blame when ,and if, the justices rule against the law. Besides, I think it is healthy that the electorate see that activist judges don't just carry liberal credentials. As to whether it is unprecedented, I again refer you to the new deal era.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

Yeah, you ar probably right on both accts.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You are the dictator!!!

Geeze you get lost so easy.

Then you change the subject, and throw in a pile of what ifs???

In denial much?

You are the tyrant!

A President with the balls to challenge a SCOTUS as off the wall as this one?

I commend him.........................:) Just to answer your subject change.

If the roles were reversed, you would too, so shut up about it already.

[-] -1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

Weak, and you lost the argument.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

It wasn't an argument. It wasn't opinion.

It was fact.

You are your own little tin pot dictator.

[-] 0 points by Cweiss (-8) 2 years ago

He's kinda right, you know?

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Really? He's also kinda wrong. You know?

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

How many blacks are killed every year by blacks? Answer: well, far, far more than are ever killed by whites. And everybody seems to think that's just fine and dandy. Ok. So, Cool.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

This shouldn't be a racial issue it should be an issue of a young boy dying and why is it happening over and over again in most major cities in this country.

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

I don't believe it should be an issue at all - a matter of some concern perhaps - but not an "issue." That's the point.

[-] -1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

True

[-] 0 points by Copper12 (9) 2 years ago

The police had no right to formally arrest him in this situation becaus sit was a clam of self defense, and since Zimmerman had cuts, other minor injuries they had no just cause to arrest him, only to detain him. So don't go spurting how it is the evil conservatives till ou get the whole story you left wing ass.

[-] 1 points by iamausername (119) 2 years ago

really? so if i shot you, then said "it was self defense" they couldn't arrest me? i understand he had cuts and injuries possibly, but some of the footage show him not.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

The asshole who pulled the trigger is responsible.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

And the failure to prosecute him is the law's fault. And the encouragement of the behavior to shoot first is the fault of those ALEC and NRA shill legislators who pass "Stand Your Ground" laws, especially at a time when violent crime has been trending downward for 2 decades.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

Trayvon Martin is to blame for his own death, rather than politely asking why Zimmerman was following him, and explaining why he was there, he chose to physically attack Zimmerman, and subsequently to bring about his own demise......

Civil discourse is a two way street, if you begin the conversation by punching people in the face, you deserve the medicine you are given for that action.....Period...

[-] 5 points by beautifulworld (19198) 2 years ago

First of all, Trayvon Martin was 17 years old. Second of all, no one has any idea what conversation ensued between them. You can't possibly think the boy should have said: "Gee sir, may I ask why you are following me and why you have that gun in your hand?" How absurd.

[-] -3 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

he was over six feet tall (four inches taller than zimmerman) and only 20 lbs lighter.....his age is really immaterial for the discussion.

asking why he was being followed should have been his FIRST response, not a physical attack....

[-] 5 points by beautifulworld (19198) 2 years ago

He was 17 years old. What Trayvon should have done, in order to stay alive was suck-up and surrender to the lunatic following him with a gun. Yes. That's true. That might have given him a chance at life, but that might not have worked either. Zimmerman may have shot him anyway. And, how do we know Trayvon didn't actually try to reason with his stalker at first. This is something we'll never know. Trayvon's dead and cannot tell his side of the story.

[-] 1 points by Recycleman (102) 2 years ago

We know the results of the tactics Treyvon used. So yes being more submissive might have resulted in living. Understanding, insight, education are some of the other areas that might help also.

if he would have understood that George was there to protect. Insight into a situation, middle of the night. Education by his father about the areas crime problems and how they effect the protection of person and property.

Violence get violence

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (19198) 2 years ago

No. Say it like it is Recycleman. What Trayvon's father failed to do was educate him about how, being a black boy, he needed to walk the streets in his own country with fear and worry because there are crazy racists, like Zimmerman, at every turn.

You make me nothing short of sick. George wasn't there to protect. He was their to bully and murder.

[-] 1 points by Recycleman (102) 2 years ago

Yes, would you ever not teach your children things that would save their lives regardless of race.

That is based on this being a crime of race. They were both minorities.

And yes they should have taken more caution. I walk with fear because i understand crime is not blind. If i was white and walked down a street across the street from a black man. Who is more likely to be robbed.

Should a white man tell his kids that he is against crime but don't fear walking down the street where they have had multiple crimes recently.

Wake up.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (19198) 2 years ago

So, you say, teach racism. "If i was white and walked down a street across the street from a black man. Who is more likely to be robbed." Do you understand that that is a racist comment? I'm not sure you do. Try to stop living in fear. Live with love, not fear.

[+] -4 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

he wasn't following him "with a gun" he was talking to 911 and reporting a suspicious person in his neighborhood......

the police report from that night listed 6 witnesses, and one of them was interviewed the next day and said he saw Martin attacking and beating Zimmerman on the ground and that he told them to stop and that he was going to call the police, he heard and saw Zimmerman scream for help....

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (19198) 2 years ago

That has all been refuted about the fight on the ground. What have you been smoking, slammers?

The 911 operator told Zimmerman NOT to follow Trayvon Martin, but he continued to do so as Trayvon told his girlfriend on his cell phone about how he was being stalked. Zimmerman was carrying a gun. So, Zimmerman was FOLLOWING Trayvon while carrying a GUN.

[-] -1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

actually,........zimmerman was going back to his car when dacron attacked him.

[-] 5 points by beautifulworld (19198) 2 years ago

That is up for big time questioning. No one knows that for sure. What we do know is that Zimmerman was following Trayvon with a gun, told his girlfriend, was walking, trying to get away from Zimmerman, was afraid of him. Trayvon's dead. Shot. Zimmerman, well he seemed fine after the incident, was walking around, just fine, after his arrest.

[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

try looking at www.wagist.com you'll get the timeline, on overview of the area and where zimmerman and dacron were.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (19198) 2 years ago

This case should be decided by a trial. Zimmerman has the right to that and so does Trayvon.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

if by just fine you mean with lacerations in his head and a busted nose.....

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (19198) 2 years ago

See response to po6059. There is nothing else to say. That is what trials are for.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

the fight on the ground refuted? where are you getting your information...

you might want to try here:

http://sanfordfl.gov/investigation/trayvon_martin.html

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (19198) 2 years ago

The Sanford government investigation? No thanks!

[-] -3 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

the 911 calls, in their entirety, are their.....and the preliminary reports, as well as the follow ups....

so...you just want to make it up as you go, and whatever you "think" is what actually happened?

interesting....

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (19198) 2 years ago

Yup, that's right. You know me, making it up as I go along. I've heard the 911 tapes and the content of the preliminary reports made by a completely incompetent police department. Please. No. I don't want their sources. I'll wait for the FBI and for a trial. A trial is what really should happen here.

[-] 0 points by Recycleman (102) 2 years ago

you mean the edited tapes on the news

[+] -4 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

where do you think the FBI is going to get their information.....are they going to hire psychics?

they have the original investigation and witnesses.....

they also likely have the testimony from the Sanford Fire Department responder who treated Zimmerman at the scene, the medical records from the doctor he saw the day after, they have the testimony of 6 witnesses, including one eye-witness who saw and heard Zimmerman scream for help, and who told the two of them while fighting, to stop and that he was going to the police......

My guess is the grand jury will dismiss the case and there will be no trial....

then they'll release all the information...

[-] 5 points by beautifulworld (19198) 2 years ago

Why would you assume the innocence of this Zimmerman character? This was a blundered case. The D.A. wanted Zimmerman arrested. In fact, he was arrested and mysteriously released. That you blame Trayvon for his own death really shows no compassion on your part, but we've discussed this lacking quality before. You are taking the wrong side, here. Let the facts come out in a trial.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

no...the DA did not want Zimmerman arrested it was the lead investigator, and not for murder, for Homicide/Negligent Manslaughter/Unnecessary Killing to Prevent Unlawful Act.... Which means they understood Martin was committing an unlawful act....

and investigators don't issue charges, prosecutors do, and the prosecutor didn't think there was evidence to make the charge...

When the Grand Jury makes it's determination we'll know the parts we don't now know

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

It's not like he's the only one killed by the color of his skin, or the sound of his voice.

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/3/29/killed_at_home_white_plains_ny#.T3rl2s3_X-E.twitter

As far as the Martin case? The FBI is on it. We won't know what they do for a while.

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

"...rather than politely asking why Zimmerman was following him..."

If a guy was following me around in a car in my neighborhood, being polite would be the furthest thing from my mind. And if Trayvon was the guy in the car following you, it would be the furthest thing from your mind, too. You're trying to excuse vigilantism because you can't deal with the (OMG, news flash!) revelation that cops might falsify records to cover up an obvious crime. This is the most gullible and specious argument on this issue yet. Polite!

And of course, all this discussion about the particulars of this case obscure the larger point: the stand your ground law is dangerous and has already led to multiple homicides that went were never prosecuted. The right to self-defense is enshrined in law everywhere in the U.S. Stand your ground simply legalizes vigilantism. And the only story we'll ever know in circumstances like this is the one told by the survivor. You'll never know who the real criminal is but as long as it's black kids doing the dying, the establishment doesn't want to know. And neither do you.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

"stand your ground" has NO bearing on this case......if you're on the ground being assaulted there is no "retreat", even the worst of the laws requiring a victim to flee would find such a situation to be justified in defending oneself....

Your assertion of vigilantism is nonsense.......Zimmerman wasn't a vigilante, he saw something suspicious (someone walking around in the middle of the night, between houses) and he called 911 to report it, and he tried to keep track of the location of the person while speaking to police on the phone.....

Nice insertion of "black kids" at the end, as though that is an issue in this situation.....how come there was no mention in the news of the 10 people killed in Chicago, including a 6 year old black girl, in a weekend following the Zimmerman/Martin incident? or any of the other interracial homicides that have occurred before and since, including one not too far from this incident where a black kid executed two british tourists while attempting to rob them at gunpoint?

YOU don't want to admit that the only time the race pimps care about black deaths is when a white person is involved and they can spin it, and whip up an emotional frenzy to appear relevant .....

The Duke Lacrosse incident and Towanna Brawley are two incidents where they were wrong, just like this one.....

Let's hope the illegal bounty on Zimmermans head by the Black Panthers doesn't end in his death before the grand jury finds him not guilty of any crime.....just like the prosecutor in FL did.......

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

""stand your ground" has NO bearing on this case..."

Wrong. Zimmerman wouldn't have been as confident that he could pull the trigger without it.

"Your assertion of vigilantism is nonsense.......Zimmerman wasn't a vigilante..."

You don't know that or anything else about Zimmerman. Nice try.

"Nice insertion of "black kids" at the end, as though that is an issue in this situation"

Don't like it. Don't be it.

"YOU don't want to admit that the only time the race pimps care about black deaths is when a white person is involved and they can spin it, and whip up an emotional frenzy to appear relevant ....."

Nope. Racism is common in the general populace. We expect better from the police. You keep striking out, General Lee.

Towanna Brawley!? Talk about reaching!

The illegal bounty on Zimmerman's head was put out by the "New Black Panthers," who have been denounced by the NAACP and all other mainstream organizations. They have zero impact on American life, except for feeding the paranoid delusion of frightened white conservatives. Now let's see if you can find a way to work ACORN into the story.

PS - Violence against abortion doctors is on the rise, too. Methinks the reactionary right wing is feeling its oats a tad too much these days. Could it have something to do with a black man in the White House? Nah! That's just crazy talk!

What a rube!

[-] 0 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

nice job ignoring facts and spinning nonsense......you are a useful idiot...

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Sucks to be you, Mighty Mite. Just sucks to be you.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

I don't see any evidence at all to back up this scenario of what happened. Where the hell do you get this stuff? Ah, I know, from the right-wing lie factory.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

I guess you're not looking then......who called 911 to report a suspicious person.....if Martin thought Zimmerman was a threat, why did he come back to where Zimmerman was, instead of just going home......in the "actual" full version of the 911 call, it is obvious that Zimmerman stopped following Martin when the dispatcher suggested he didn't need to, and was making arrangements to meet police at his vehicle when they arrived.....and according to the funeral director, there were no bruises on Martin, and yet Zimmerman had a broken nose and lacerations on the back of his head....and was treated by the SFD at the scene, why would he need treatment, if...as alleged by some, there were no injuries?

The preliminary police report mentions both the injuries and the treatment......

What evidence would you like....a note from his mother?

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Yes, I guess Trayvon Martin has been tampering with the evidence.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

what "evidence" are you talking about? The doctored 911 tapes that NBC edited to give an incorrect version of what was said?

all the "evidence" was reported and noted the night of the incident, and the 6 witnesses, including an eye witness, were all questioned and there statements taken the night of the shooting......

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Forensics experts confirmed that the voice doing the screaming on the 911 tapes was Trayvon's. Several witnesses who came forward immediately have indicated that police weren't interested in their version of events because it didn't fit with their assumption of Zimmerman's innocence. And another, who came forward to CNN anonymously (out of fear of his ginned-up racist neighbors) said he saw Zimmerman walk away immediately after hearing the gunshots and there wasn't a scratch on him.

Is all that conclusive? No. Neither is any other evidence in the public sphere at this point. All we do know is that Zimmerman has a history of calling 911 on black people, that he disobeyed a direct, lawful order issued by a representative of law enforcement and that Trayvon Martin is dead. Your insistence that Zimmerman is innocent and Martin is guilty says a whole lot more about you than anything else.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

no, they confirmed it was only a 48% chance that it was Zimmerman.....NOT that it was Trayvon Martin, and they used the 911 call as there "control" not a recorded scream track of Zimmerman.....

as for the injuries, there will be a witness/treatment trail, and that will come out of the grand jury.....the SFD person who treated Zimmerman at the scene, and the doctor who he went to the following day (according to accounts of the father and brother) will, likely both testify, or be deposed as to the nature of Zimmermans injuries...

there were not "gunshots" there was a single gunshot.....

He was NOT "ordered" by law enforcement.....he was told "we don't need you to do that".....NOT....."Do not do that", and there is evidence that he stopped following Martin when it was suggested it was not necessary by the 911 operator...who BTW is NOT an official authority as a representative of law enforcement.......

I "insist" nothing....I just put together the available evidence......IF Martin had continued to walk home after Zimmerman lost sight of him (as recorded in the 911 call) there would have been no incident, and had he explained why he was where he was instead of attacking Zimmerman he might be alive today.....

and again you add "black people"...I think you are a racist yourself, as you keep bringing up racial issues in a discussion that really has no bearing on race....

The anonymous CNN witness didn't see the details of the altercation and saw zimmerman from a distance walking toward him, and said he "appeared" to be hispanic...have you seen the pictures of zimmerman, he is CLEARLY hispanic, and he didn't claim there wasn't a scratch on him, he said he didn't "appear" hurt.......a broken nose would not "show" immediately with bruising.....and if he was walking toward the "witness" the back of his head would not be visable......

There was a witness interviewed by the local television station who claims to have SEEN Zimmerman and Martin fighting and SEEN Zimmerman cry for help and this witness told the men that they should stop fighting and that he was going to call 911.......

You need to catch up on this story before you draw all these assumptions....

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

"You need to catch up on this story before you draw all these assumptions...."

...says, Mr. Trayvon-is-Guilty-Zimmerman-is-Innocent-and-that's-a-FACT.

Good night, little prince.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

time will tell......

[-] -1 points by BanTheGOP (1) from Los Angeles, CA 2 years ago

If Martin is not charged for murder or, at the VERY least, first degree manslaughter, there will be riots in the street. The republican Party will be ONE HUNDRED PERCENT responsible for all damage that results, for all deaths, and for all the actions that are caused. The GOP needs to be destroyed, pure and simple.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Interesting you blame republicans and the GOP. On what basis do you blame them?

George Zimmerman, the man who fired the gun is a registered Democrat. Jeff Triplett the Mayor of Sanford is a Democrat. Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee is a registered Democrat. The City Council is made up of Democrats. The County is run by Democrats. The area (FL 17th district) is represented in congress by Democrat Frederica Wilson.

So please explain how it is that the Republican's party is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT responsible.

[-] -1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

they cant explain it because it doesnt fit their template.

[-] -2 points by GumbyDamnit (36) 2 years ago

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hee har.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

Charging Martin for murder might be hard, since he's the one that's dead. Zimmerman pulled the trigger.

Riots, looting, mayhem in the streets will only reinforce the idea some people have that Trayvon Martin may have provoked Zimmerman into shooting.

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

martin dead,..........you're so confused.

[-] 0 points by e2420 (-28) 2 years ago

help me out here. which political party was responsible for the deaths of James M. Cooper and James Thomas Kouzaris?

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

You hate everyone not you. So what's you're fucking point?

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

"If Martin is not charged for murder or, at the VERY least, first degree manslaughter, there will be riots in the street. "

You have given us two outcomes when there are other possible outcomes. For example, there may not be riots in the street - there may be peaceful protests. There may be Florida (and other states) legislators taking a second look at the law that allowed Zimmerman to not be charged and revising it so that this tragedy never happens again.

"The republican Party will be ONE HUNDRED PERCENT responsible for all damage that results, for all deaths, and for all the actions that are caused."

Not quite accurate. You have offered up a Complex Cause - one The Logical Fallacies. The Republicans who served in the Florida Legislature in 2005 were not the only ones who voted for the Stand Your Ground law. In fact, NOT ONE Democrat voted against it. The Senate vote was actually 39 -0 (with one Democrat not present and therefore not voting).

Of the 15 states with similar laws, EIGHT of the bills were signed into law by Democrat Governors - these were:

Kathleen Blanco of Louisiana,

Jennifer Granholm of Michigan,

Brian Schweitzer of Montana,

John Lynch of New Hampshire,

Brad Henry of Oklahoma,

Phil Bredesen of Tennessee,

Joe Manchin of West Virginia

and

Janet Napolitano of Arizona – now the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security.

Further, should people decide to riot and cause property damage and deaths and any of the other "actions" that are caused, they will bear their own responsibility for choosing to become violent instead of peacefully protesting and demanding that the law be given a second look.

(A thank you to the person who posted the link to The Logical Fallacies - I intend on using it as much as possible : )

http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/complex.htm

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

To avoid the fallacy, I blame it on ALEC and the NRA.

What might be of note, yet is missing info in the Democratic signings, is how and who brought the bill up in the first place.

[-] -1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Why not blame the guy who fired the gun?

Why do you want to blame ALEC for everything shooz?

He might have killed him with a knife, golf club or baseball bat should we ban them as well? He might have run him over with his car, should we ban them?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Leave it to you to go on an absurd rant.

Truth is, that in some places, it IS illegal to use those you've cited, but legal with a gun. That IS the doing of ALEC and the NRA.

Then there's ALEC and profiteered prisons.

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/how-alec-changed-policies-allow-corpo

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

LOL,

I bet you could find a reason to blame ALEC for the Giant's winning the Super Bowl.

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

Like how you Conservatives blame everything that is wrong in the world on Obama?

"Its raining today... Blame Obama!"

I wonder how much less furor there would be over that one person if Obama was white...

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Actually I am not a conservative nor am I liberal.

I actually have a hard time agreeing with most conservatives. Santorum disgusts me. He reminds me of that kid I hated in HS.

I find that conservatives and liberals are both very judgmental groups of people and neither group would ever admit it.

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

No, its completely true. We are a more partisan society than ever before. I think its because the media pumps us full of reasons to attack the other side.

I, personally, would love to see things called "compromises" take place in Congress, the courts, etc. The Republicans have never and are never going to do that in the foreseeable future, so I guess we just have to pick the side that matches up closest to what we want and hope they win.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Neither side matches up for me. I would say I am for fiscal responsibility and social liberty.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

It's not like ALEC doesn't actually do these things.

I don't believe anyone still supporting them ever followed a link and read about their shenanigans.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Which true to your form, has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted.

It only insinuates.

[-] -1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

Ah but I could argue that perhaps you have entered into another fallacy in the attempt to avoid the first one......

Slothful Induction....

The evidence is that Democratic Governors - who could have vetoed the bills in their states - did not do so.

The evidence is that Democratic Legislators - who could have voted NAY on the bill - did not do so.

You appear to seek the absolution of the Democrats because ALEC and the NRA drafted the Castle Doctrine and seek additional information on which legislator submitted the bill to the body.

The proper conclusion is that the Democrats are equally as responsible for the Stand Your Ground laws across the nation as the Republicans are - yet you deny their responsibility.....

: )

Oh, and by the by, ALEC admitted to drafting the Castle Doctrine which is included in the Florida Law as well as in all the other states - the Florida Legislature which included all the Democrats who voted for it (39 of them in the Florida Senate) broadened the language on their own..........making it so that "retreat" is not needed before one defends oneself....

But even the two sponsors of the Florida Law say that George Zimmerman should NOT be let go based upon the law - IF in fact he pursued Martin, he is not protected by the Stand Your Ground - even in its "no need to retreat" aspect....

"BAXLEY: Well, simply because if you carefully read the statute, which most of the critics have not, and read the legislative analysis, there's nothing in this statute that authorizes you to pursue or confront other people. If anything, this law would have protected the victim in this case; it could have."

Jeb Bush has also said that the Stand Your Ground law doesn't apply.

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/20/2703579/state-senator-calls-for-hearings.html

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Conjecture does not supply the missing info.

Nor do you even attempt to explain the libe(R)tarian connection with ALEC.

[-] 0 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

Yet another fallacy....of distraction.

The evidence is that Democratic Governors - who could have vetoed the bills in their states - did not do so.

The evidence is that Democratic Legislators - who could have voted NAY on the bill - did not do so.

The distraction is ...you don't know who submitted the state bills therefore it must be true that the Democrats are not responsible. The fact that you don't know who sponsored the state bills does not make the fact that Janet Napolitano - now in the Obama Administration - and other Democratic Governors and state legislators did not veto/vote nay.

And you can look up the members of ALEC on your own....

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ALEC_Corporations#For-Profit_Corporations

Castle Doctrine - 3. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place [other than their dwelling, residence, or vehicle] 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.

Florida's version:

(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.

Again, Jeb Bush and the two co-sponsors of the Florida Law have all said that Zimmerman should NOT be protected under this law if he pursued or confronted Martin.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

The real fallacy, is that you still haven't provided the info that I asked for.

You avoided it completely. That's not very concerned of you.

[-] 0 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

You mean this?

[-] 0 points by shooz (5412) 17 hours ago

What might be of note, yet is missing info in the Democratic signings, is how and who brought the bill up in the first place.


Where is the part where you asked me to provide you that information?

Here is a question for you....why can you not look for that information on your own? Are you incapable of real fact finding? Are you concerned that it might not support your opinion that the Democratic Governors who signed the bills and did not veto them and the Democratic Legislators who vote AYE instead of NAY might not be so innocent of wrong doing?

Or perhaps you mean this....

[-] 1 points by shooz (5412) 13 hours ago

Nor do you even attempt to explain the libe(R)tarian connection with ALEC.


Again, where is the part where you ask me to supply this information for you? I even provided a link to the folks who are a part of ALEC to aid you in your quest for information on that alleged Libertarian connection to ALEC. Are you unable to support your own argument/position? You want me to do it for you?

As already pointed out, you do not avoid "fallacy" by requesting more and more information - you are again....using the "fallacy of distraction".

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I'm just asking YOU to qualify your argument.

You're wiggling around trying to avoid it.

I still stand by my simple yet honest statement.

ALEC and the NRA are responsible for this ill thought law.

[-] 0 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

I don't need to "qualify" anything. I gave you the facts...

Which remain the following:

I initially responded to the following:

"The republican Party will be ONE HUNDRED PERCENT responsible for all damage that results, for all deaths, and for all the actions that are caused. The GOP needs to be destroyed, pure and simple."

I pointed out the following: The Republicans who served in the Florida Legislature in 2005 were not the only ones who voted for the Stand Your Ground law. In fact, NOT ONE Democrat voted against it. The Senate vote was actually 39 -0 (with one Democrat not present and therefore not voting).

Of the 15 states with similar laws, EIGHT of the bills were signed into law by Democrat Governors - these were:

Kathleen Blanco of Louisiana,

Jennifer Granholm of Michigan,

Brian Schweitzer of Montana,

John Lynch of New Hampshire,

Brad Henry of Oklahoma,

Phil Bredesen of Tennessee,

Joe Manchin of West Virginia

and

Janet Napolitano of Arizona – now the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security.

Therefore, first statement (that the Republicans were 100% responsible) was shown to be false by the presentation of facts.

To which you responded in part "I blame it on ALEC and the NRA." Note that you did not qualify your own argument. I followed that by pointing out the fallacy in your position. To which you responded with another fallacy...because you completely disregarded the fact that Democrats had voted for the laws and/or signed them. To which you responded with yet another fallacy - an attempt to distract by then bringing in the alleged "libertarian" connection to ALEC.

I don't need to support my argument.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Good for you!!!

Basing an unexpressed opinion, based on incomplete information!

There is no alleged libe(R)tarian connection to ALEC, the connection is quite real.

You just "choose" to ignore it.

[-] 0 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

And yet you provide nothing to back up that alleged "connection".

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Practically every CEO and backer of ALEC, will tell you they have libe(R)tarian leanings, no matter which of the two parties they appear to back.

Neoliberal economics is libe(R)tarian at it's core.

Neoliberal economic theory is why we are where we are.

Now that that is out of the way, would you please provide the DATA I originally asked for, instead of continually changing the subject?

[-] 0 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

[-] 2 points by shooz (5433) 4 hours ago

You changed the subject several times, ignored my last post, typed a lot and still managed to avoid the question I asked in the first place.

Indeed, you lied about the question I asked.

Plus your response avoided pointing out that the law was written by ALEC, although you did manage to mention Obama.

I guess you're just not that concerned.


Hey shooz....do me a favor and point out where you actually asked a question...............


[-] 1 points by shooz (5433) 1 day ago ---I don't see a question here......

Conjecture does not supply the missing info. Nor do you even attempt to explain the libe(R)tarian connection with ALEC.


[-] 1 points by shooz (5433) 1 day ago ---I don't see a question here either...

The real fallacy, is that you still haven't provided the info that I asked for. You avoided it completely. That's not very concerned of you.


[-] 1 points by shooz (5433) 1 day ago - ----no question here either...

I'm just asking YOU to qualify your argument. You're wiggling around trying to avoid it. I still stand by my simple yet honest statement. ALEC and the NRA are responsible for this ill thought law. Good for you!!!


[-] 1 points by shooz (5433) 23 hours ago ----nor a question here.....

Basing an unexpressed opinion, based on incomplete information! There is no alleged libe(R)tarian connection to ALEC, the connection is quite real. You just "choose" to ignore it.


[-] 1 points by shooz (5433) 22 hours ago --- Now, there is a question in this one but it questions a question that - as you can see from the above - was never asked in the first place...........

Practically every CEO and backer of ALEC, will tell you they have libe(R)tarian leanings, no matter which of the two parties they appear to back. Neoliberal economics is libe(R)tarian at it's core. Neoliberal economic theory is why we are where we are.

Now that that is out of the way, would you please provide the DATA I originally asked for, instead of continually changing the subject?


[-] 2 points by shooz (5433) 4 hours ago ----as already established there was no question "asked in the first place".....so just who is it who might be lying here?

You changed the subject several times, ignored my last post, typed a lot and still managed to avoid the question I asked in the first place. Indeed, you lied about the question I asked. Plus your response avoided pointing out that the law was written by ALEC, although you did manage to mention Obama. I guess you're just not that concerned.

Now, let's take a look at your accusations..........

a) "avoided answering the question first asked ----as already established above there was no question "asked in the first place".....

b) "lied about the question" -----there was no original question therefore the second question - which implied there was a first question when there was in fact none - was irrelevant.

c) ... " avoided pointing out that the law was written by ALEC....." Sorry, but you are wrong as evidenced below.....

[-] 0 points by Concerned (454) 1 day ago

Castle Doctrine - 3. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place [other than their dwelling, residence, or vehicle] 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.

Florida's version:

(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.

This is fun.....shall we keep going?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Sure go "right" ahead.

You still didn't answer the question. Didn't even attempt to address it.

Got yourself so lost you can't even find it.

Carry on. I enjoy watch you spin in circles.........:)

[-] 0 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

Let's be clear here. You want me to do your research for you. You'd like for me to find the sponsors of every single Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground Law....

a) because you are unwilling or unable to do your own research and rely on others to help you form your opinion on issues.

b) because you seek to absolve any Democratic Governor who refused to veto these laws and to absolve any Democratic Legislator who did not vote NAY on these bills.

I'm not doing your research for you because you can't accept the fact that these laws may have had Democratic support because of actual circumstances at the state levels.

I will however give a taste of what I have found out about Arizona's stand your ground law - the one signed into law by Janet Napolitano - President Obama's Home Security head from an article written in 2006 at the time it became law.

""The "Burden of Proof" amendment addresses a truly grave situation facing any Arizonan who is forced to act in self-defense. Because of a change to the self-defense laws that was passed with little fanfare in 1997, citizens who act in self-defense are currently presumed guilty until they prove their innocence in court. This defies the age-old principle of "innocent until proven guilty." This leaves good citizens vulnerable to wrongful prosecution and conviction for simply defending themselves and their loved ones from violence. Arizona is one of only two states in the country that places the burden of proof in self-defense cases on the citizen instead of the state. This is simply wrong and must be corrected this year before more abuses occur."

The Law was put into place with an emergency clause to go into affect immediately because of the trial of Harold Fish.

http://www.haroldfishdefense.org/sb1145chron.htm

Now, go do your own research.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You changed the subject several times, ignored my last post, typed a lot and still managed to avoid the question I asked in the first place.

Indeed, you lied about the question I asked.

Plus your response avoided pointing out that the law was written by ALEC, although you did manage to mention Obama.

I guess you're just not that concerned.

[-] -3 points by GumbyDamnit (36) 2 years ago

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.... and republicans are responsible for all the garbage signed by the government nic......

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Unbelievable! You actually lost even more of what little mind you possessed.

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

Sure, way to avoid responsibility. That is what is happening to our society. Why do you think people live behind gates.

[-] 2 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

"Sure, way to avoid responsibility."

You ARE talking about Zimmerman & co., right?

[+] -4 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

No. How is the Republican Party responsible for this?

I won't comment on the merits of the case until the trial since who knows what happened here.

[-] 3 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

How is the GOP responsible for passing a law that makes it legal for people with no training, no law enforcement powers and no danger or legitimate justification of self-defense to commit murder? You're kidding, right?

[+] -4 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

An individual has a right to defend themselves:

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;

[-] 5 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

We already had a right to self-defense. Two instances that I know of would already qualify as "cruel and unusual punishment:" a robber was chased down and stabbed to death while fleeing and two burglars were shot dead by the next door neighbor. Both killers were not charged as a result of this law. Would you be in favor of the death penalty for petty theft? If so, then this law is for you. But if you think it's a mistake to allow ignorant slobs to be judge, jury and executioner, you should start waking up real fast. Any one of us could be next.

[+] -5 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

I personally am against the death penalty. I can't comment on this case as I don't know all of the facts.

I think you are saying that the guard who shot the boy was the ignorant slob. I don't know him and only read a little bit.

I will wait until the police investigation to find out what happened.

[-] 3 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

If the shoe fits. But I was actually talking about anyone who thinks they can be judge, jury and executioner because the law allows it. It doesn't matter if a crime is being committed or anything. Two people arrive at the same spot on Earth with no other witnesses. One walks away. The only story we get is the survivor's. So even if the survivor was the original criminal, he gets off scott free due to this law. That's the issue. We already have the right to protect ourselves. This gives us the right to murder with impunity, as long as we can scrub the scene well enough. You could be the dead guy next. And the murderer will be protected by this law. You comfortable with that?

[-] -1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

This law strengthens a defenders right to protect himself. Since the strengthening of this law, the criminal knows that when he attacks somebody there will be strong retribution and response. This should deter further criminal activity.

In your case, yes the criminal could get away with it. But the next time he tries it he probably won't because he will come up against somebody who responds. Either way this criminal will attack until he is stopped.

Sure I could be the next dead guy. i could be that anyways.

[-] 3 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

"In your case, yes the criminal could get away with it. But the next time he tries it he probably won't because he will come up against somebody who responds."

Ah, the tough guy talk rears its ugly head. I suppose it makes you feel like a big man to suggest I can't or won't defend myself. But I wouldn't have survived this long in the densest city in America without a few skills, creampuff. Anyone can talk tough and get himself killed. I wish I knew your real name, just to keep an eye on the obits. ;-)

So this imaginary criminal comes upon you, in all your take-no-prisoners glory and you think, piece of cake. This guy is going down! But you forgot about his buddy in the parked car coming up behind you or his kid who comes around your house a few years later and kills you and your entire family in your sleep. Perhaps you didn't realize he was an undercover cop and he kills you first. You must think police training is just a load of crap because you already know how to be cop all by your lonesome.

So, in answer to your previous question, I guess, when I said "ignorant slob," I was talking about people like you.

[-] -1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

This is my real name - John Flynn. I don't hide behind pseudonyms.

I am not suggesting you, personally, won't defend yourself. I would assume you would. And that's the point if the criminal knows that there will be a response, then he will be less likely to attack.

Your imaginary scenario could happen right now without tougher defense laws so what's the point?

I see that you have a lot of respect for the police by using the slang term "cop" Where did you go to law school?

You can call me names if that's what you want - that seems to be de rigueur here - but that doesn't change thee fact that the majority of Americans believe in the right to defend themselves against criminals.

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

My name is real, too, so we're on even ground. Your phrasing made the implication but if you didn't intend it, then I withdraw my remark. I would suggest you be a tad more careful in sentence construction if you didn't really mean what you implied. I'm not being "grammar cop," just saying I read it that way and I don't think it's my fault.

Anyway, what's wrong with "cop?" Cops call themselves cops.

Any imaginary scenario can happen right now, the point is the incentive. This law gives people cover for the intention of committing a crime. The criminal now knows that he can get away clean if there are no other witnesses around. And who spends more time thinking of ways to avoid witnesses, the average law-abiding citizen or the average criminal? You're assuming that the "good guy" will always come out on top. That is a dangerous way to think.

[+] -6 points by F350 (-259) 2 years ago

Yo Genius,Martin is Dead,why should he be charged with murder?

The responsible people are the Leftist/Liberal Activists that target people and try to destroy them personally and professionally. And some of you whack jobs even make death threats.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Yes, the Left is responsible for reckless murderous gun use because it wants to have reasonable regulations about gun possession. And black is white and up is down.

Do you even believe the shit you write?

Go fuck your sister, again. And if she objects, tell her it's the Left's fault for favoring women's rights.

[-] -2 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

Where have you been, I missed you? Great to have you back and your brand of invectives. You really have a sex problem don't you?

No comments on black on black murders that happen everyday. Why aren't you and Jessie and Al out in Oakland and Richmond stopping that from happening? Because there is no political gain in it.

Good job by your man Obama in front of the Supreme Court. He really knows his constitution.

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

So not nice to have you back, shithead. I didn't miss you at all, hoping you had choked on the feces that comes from your brain.

[-] -1 points by iamausername (119) 2 years ago

ah, good ol' american politics!

disclaimer THIS IS SARCASM- I AM NOT STALIN-

[-] -2 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

There's the old epa1nter I know with a mouth straight out of the sewer.

Nice job by your man Obama to bring racism into this Travon Martin. According to you, we can't talk about racism and he now is the one to bring it up? How does this work.

Maybe he should have listened more when he was in law school because he sure screwed up the health care bill.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

The Stand Your Ground legislation is entirely based on racial fears and profit making.

And considering how you yourself are a bigot, I'm sure you don't understand that at all.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

I don't think its based on racial fears, its based on defending yourself and keeping criminals out of your area and home. There is nothing wrong with that.

Obama should be the one telling his people to stop killing each other and stay in school. Stop getting tattoos and take off the hoodies and they will be able to get jobs. But he won't do that, why not? How many people black kids have died in Oakland YTD?

[-] 4 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Self defense laws already existed and they worked. These new laws do not have anything to do with self defense, they have to do with encouraging vigilantism.

Hoodies (associated with young African Americans in the public racist imagination, especially yours) and tattoos have NOTHING to do with anything. Encouraging people to shoot each other does. DUH.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

People have the right to protect themselves and their property. This is basic.

People who have tattoos and wear hoodies are not perceived as well as people who don't.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

People already had that right. THese laws don't add anything to that right. they only act to make sure that people do not feel compelled to retreat first, but have the choice of shooting first without repercussions. All decency and respect for human life is thrown out the window by these new abominations. And they were inspired by nothing that corresponds to reality: the reality is that violent crime has been decreasing, and were doing so for two decades BEFORE these laws were passed.

They were passed because ALEC and the NRA stoked racist fears of Blacks and especially Hispanics (most specifically Mexican immigrants). THose fears meant more sales for guns, and these laws made getting guns more attractive.

Whenever there is a terrible shooting incident, right wingers and politicians talk about everything except whether the tragedy could have been avoided if the gunman had not been allowed to carry a firearm. Common sense regulation and reasonable laws regarding self defense are never talked about. Hoodies become the issue. It is misdirection to the extreme, and the consequences are more tragic shootings.

Another thing never discussed is who is bankrolling the suppression of reasonable gun control and self defense laws, and why they are pushing for less public safety. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/opinion/krugman-lobbyists-guns-and-money.html?ref=columnists

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

The law just strengthens the right to self defense. There are many people who are concerned about their safety. Why do you think so many people live in gated communities?

I can't comment on this shooting specifically since I don't know all the facts. But I do know that the hoodie issue is absolutely ridiculous. I am scared when I see somebody with a hoodie on or a tattoo. And I would bet that most of America agrees with me.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

People walking around with guns bother me a lot more than any hoodie I've ever seen.

Do body piercings also frighten you?

How about redheads?

Yeah, people walking around with guns are a hell of a lot scarier.

You have some pretty mixed up priorities.

[-] -2 points by GumbyDamnit (36) 2 years ago

You should be afraid of the cops, many of them are much more intelligent than you and know you're vermin.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I have no idea why some people live in gated communities. Some enjoy being separate for ordinary people, some have unreasoned fears, some just found nice houses there. There are probably a whole host of reasons, but without a poll or survey, neither you nor I know the answer: only conjecture and myth, which is all you right wing assholes ever come up with.

You get scared when you see Angelina Jolie? She's got lots of tattoos. BUt your infantile fears of certain fashions have nothing to do with these laws. They did not strengthen self defense laws: they were already as strong as they needed to be for the purpose of self defense. Violent crime has been going DOWN FOR TWO DECADES!!!!!!!!!! Previous laws did nothing to curtail self defense. They discouraged people from not looking for solutions other than gunplay in order to defend oneself, and did not restrict, in any way, the use of lethal force if there was no other reasonable or alternative. Even in the presence of alternatives, if the mere PERCEPTION of a lack of one was operating, lethal force was still permitted. All these new laws do is create a contempt for human life and the fucking cowboy vigilante attitude of shoot first, ask questions (about any alternatives) later, if ever.

Fuck you and your flip dismissal of any human values.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

More people have been working? Really? Ever hear of the recession? Ever hear of falling wages since Reagan? You just call the gas you fart truth, but it doesn't stink less to the rest of the world, who actually value truth. People live in gated communities because of falling crime? Really? Prove it. Show some real data instead of declaring fact-free conjecture. You get invective hurled at you because you are a liar, a racist, an idiot, and value money and power above human life. You are a worthless piece of shit. You see that every time you look in the mirror. The breath you exhale pollutes the world. No vulgarity can come close to matching the obscenity is that is you. Go shoot yourself in defense of the universe.

Yeah, you are a real believe in human values. Keep it up. You have no idea what you are talking about. Poverty is only up during the recession and your man is clueless in trying to fix it.

Thank goodness, people don't believe this socialistic nonsense you speak of. Your man needs to go back and read the constitution.

By the way if you are so smart, how come you are on this board and not making policy?

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

Don't you dare spit your nonsense about human values to me. You spew out your vulgar speech and your hatred is obvious. Take you hunger for power and go home. You want to back your corrupt system and take away our liberties. Sorry, no way. Go back your corrupt union leaders and inept teachers. All they want to do is stay on the dole.

People live in gated communities because they are concerned about violence. That's the point.

Yes, I know that violence has been declining. It's because more people have been working due to free market policies. Reagan started it. You should give him credit.

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

More people have been working?

Really? Ever hear of the recession? Ever hear of falling wages since Reagan? You just call the gas you fart truth, but it doesn't stink less to the rest of the world, who actually value truth.

People live in gated communities because of falling crime? Really? Prove it. Show some real data instead of declaring fact-free conjecture.

You get invective hurled at you because you are a liar, a racist, an idiot, and value money and power above human life.

You are a worthless piece of shit. You see that every time you look in the mirror. The breath you exhale pollutes the world. No vulgarity can come close to matching the obscenity is that is you. Go shoot yourself in defense of the universe.

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Telling whose people?

I'm sorry are we not all Americans here?


0 points by Jflynn1964 (175) 26 minutes ago

I don't think its based on racial fears, its based on defending yourself and keeping criminals out of your area and home. There is nothing wrong with that.

Obama should be the one telling his people to stop killing each other and stay in school. Stop getting tattoos and take off the hoodies and they will be able to get jobs. But he won't do that, why not? How many people black kids have died in Oakland YTD? ↥like ↧dislike reply permalink

[-] -1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

He is the one bringing racism into it.

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

So - What you respond with it? What is this kindergarten? But teacher he did it too.

[-] -2 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

He is the President and his comments matter and are heard by many. He is the one attempting to make a political issue out of this, when he should be relying on the justice department and local police force.

His comments are very egregious.

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

That's your excuse to being racist?

[-] -2 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

I'm not racist. This is the problem, you don't want to talk about reality. The reality is there is a tremendous amount of black on black crime, an above amount of incarceration rate and an above average unemployment rate in black communities. That's real.

You can't get a job with a tattoo, wearing a hoodie, and a gangster attitude. This isn't a fairyland, that's real.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Your comments on other threads alone demonstrate your bigotry beyond any question.

Your OP on this one only confirms it.

You are completely self-unaware, and are a stain on the planet.

[-] -2 points by F350 (-259) 2 years ago

"reasonable regulations about gun possession"

There's your Leftist code speak again.

Translation:

The Govt. will decide who or if they can own a gun

I know you believe the shit you write,that's the problem. Psychosis like yours and other Leftist Drones is only consumed and digested through the indoctrination of Academe and the Left that controls it.

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

That's right, the government will decide if convicted felons, schizophrenics and psychotics, and people on the terrorism watch list should own guns or not. They also get to decide if people can be allowed to own and use rocket propelled grenades, Stinger missiles, tanks, and dirty nuclear bombs. After all, the second amendment says "arms" not simply semi-automatic hollow armor piercing round filled hunting Ouzies.. How very unreasonable!

[+] -6 points by F350 (-259) 2 years ago

You've just showed me that you don't want to discuss the reality of so called "reasonable regulations about gun possession".

You cite ridicules examples and are now spewing real hyperbole.

You are a sophomoric amateur,I'm surprised your not actually just playing video games and watching MTV,cause you sure don't have a clue about this topic.

[-] 6 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

No, you moron, that's exactly what I mean. The lack of background checks insures that everyone I cited has legal access to weapons. The Bradey law that banned 33 round semi-automatic clips was allowed to lapse. ANd terrorist watch listed people can still, by law, get guns. The 2nd Amendment provides no limits on arms.

ALL of these issues have been, at one time or another, been defended by the NRA, who pressured Congress in to letting the Brady law lapse, fought hollow points in the courts (and won!) have consistently ooposed background checks and made sure they needn't be applied at gun shows, and refuse to allow any limits on the types of weapons to be protected with fanatical absolutism. "They are for hunting. They are for self defense" Bullshit.

They helped co-author, along with ALEC, these monstrous "stand Your Ground" laws that create an atmosphere of acceptable vigilantism. And their motivations have to do with profits, not constitutional protections.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/opinion/krugman-lobbyists-guns-and-money.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

It is disgusting. And you right winger morons just go right along, buying into the myths that these SYG laws are necessary when violent crime is going DOWN (and has been for 2 DECADES), but appeals to racial fears and xenophobia. You have been completely hoodwinked by what these corporations are telling you and are so stupid as to believe that they aren't selling you a bill of absolutist "constitutional" goods exclusively for the sake of their bottom line.

[+] -6 points by F350 (-259) 2 years ago

Look I get that you're a conspiratorial type Lefty,however.....

There is nothing wrong or unreasonable about buying,owning an "assault" type weapon.

Nothing unreasonable about buying,owning a 33+round magazine.

Nothing unreasonable about buying any of these things at a "Gun Show'.

There are tons of laws and instant background bullshit in place nation wide already.

Stand your ground laws are there to protect your right to defend yourself.

The NRA and ALEC are patriotic entities and should be praised for their efforts in preserving the 2nd Amendment from the constant onslaught of attacks from people just like you.

Citing Krudman is akin to committing suicide for any point you're trying to make.

[-] 5 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Hahahahahahaha

HAHAHAHA HAHAHAHHAhahahahaha!!!!!!!

hahahahhhahahhaha