Crisis :: Opportunity

never let a crisis — or a tragedy — go to waste

“If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” Obama said from the Rose Garden, referring to 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, who was killed last month by a neighborhood watch volunteer. “When I think about this boy, I think about my own kids.”

So what justice an individual deserves is based on what he looks like??!

“I think all of us have to do some soul searching to figure out: How does something like this happen?” Obama said.

“So I’m glad that not only is the Justice Department looking into it, I understand now that the governor of the state of Florida has formed a task force to investigate what’s taking place. I think all of us have to do some soul-searching to figure out how does something like this happen. And that means that we examine the laws and the context for what happened, as well as the specifics of the incident,”

And there ya have it. That’s why Justice is so eager to “help” FL local law enforcement “investigate” the incident.

Folks get shot every day in Chicago, Oakland, Brooklyn — all over. The Federal DoJ does not get involved. But this incident is getting built up in the Media — and that started when they began describing George Zimmerman as a “white male.”

Apparently, not so much.

…28-year-old man… The shooter was once a Catholic altar boy [ “Very Catholic . . . very religious,”]— with a surname that could have been Jewish.

His father is white, neighbors say. His mother is Latina. [Zimmerman’s mother, Gladys, [was] an interpreter at the county courthouse [and] was Peruvian] And his family is eager to point out that some of his relatives are black.

Inconvenient, that.

The focus in Florida, where thousands gathered Thursday night in Sanford for an emotional rally, has primarily been on complaints that Martin may have been targeted because of his race.

“May have been” ?!?

Almost as crazy as Jerry Rivers’ comment:

I am urging the parents of black and Latino youngsters, particularly, to not let their young children go out wearing hoodies. I think the hoodie is as much responsible for Trayvon Martin’s death as George Zimmerman was.

*blink*blinkblink*

The law in question is Florida’s “Stand your ground” law. If anyone can find the text of that?


Brad !!!!!

Title XLVI
CRIMES Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

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.
History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27.

Comment by Brad

That sounds pretty reasonable to me. A person has the right to defend their own life.

52 Comments!

  1. PeggyU
    Posted March 23, 2012 at 10:50 am |

    Well, ok … I’ll ditch my hoodies then!

  2. mojo
    Posted March 23, 2012 at 10:51 am |

    Hint: “Stand your ground” does NOT cover chasing down somebody and shooting them.

  3. Posted March 23, 2012 at 10:52 am |

    “Odd that the DOJ knows all about this investigation. But Fast n Furious. Not so much.”

  4. DougM (jackassophobe)
    Posted March 23, 2012 at 10:54 am |

    You’re right about this initially being a “self defense” issue. It was clearly an attempt to derail the momentum of the CCH/personal-defense movement (especially the latest spate of “castle doctrine” updates which usually include a “stand your ground” provision). The shooter was not tried for a homicide, because it originally looked like self defense. Self defense does not, repeat not, include preventing the escape of someone who does not pose a further threat. If he wasn’t defending himself, he needs to serve time. Determining that is what courts of law are for, not mobs.

    If the kid had been shot by another “hoodie,” nobody would’a given this a second thought. But a Neighborhood Watch guy claiming self defense? Cue mob.

    “Stand your ground” generally means that there is no “duty to retreat” (a legal requirement to escape, rather than use deadly force, if you can do so without further endangering yourself). For example, until a few months ago here in NC, you had a legal burden (when outside your home) to consider whether or not you could escape from a deadly situation before defending yourself with deadly force. Now, the law says that, if you have a legal right to be where you are, escape is not a criterion in determining self defense vs homicide. (Of course, escape may well be your best tactical option; and deadly force is always a last resort.) It’s just that the law doesn’t require it. Your life, your situation, your call, without that ambiguity which a prosecutor can drive a truck through.

    I’ll bet there’s more to this than we’ve heard about.
    Again, that’s what a jury’s for.
    Lynch mobs… not so much.

  5. Posted March 23, 2012 at 11:05 am |

    Complete agreement with Doug on this.

    Oops, ADD break,

    “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,”

    Is he saying they all look alike? That’s Rascist.

  6. DougM (jackassophobe)
    Posted March 23, 2012 at 11:11 am |

    ^ Wollf
    He’s just following orders The Narrative™.

    Hmm, wonder if he’d name him “Trayvon.”
    (What? Hey, the left made fun of Track and Trig.)

  7. Brad
    Posted March 23, 2012 at 11:11 am |

    On the Porch, all you have to do is ask.
    Title XLVI
    CRIMES Chapter 776
    JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

    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.
    History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27.

  8. Posted March 23, 2012 at 11:15 am |

    The facts trickle out, but the reaction is a flood.

    I’d like to see the actual information that will be presented to a grand jury. Considering the witness statements of the two men wrestling on the ground before the shooting, there’s no telling what actually happened.

  9. DougM (jackassophobe)
    Posted March 23, 2012 at 11:23 am |

    Brad (7)
    Thanks, the text prompted me to revised a couple of my clumsy words (rather than go back and re-read the NC statues and my CCH-class teaching notes).

    Jess (8)
    Yep, this thing was spring-loaded.
    You don’t suppose the left had a response plan on the shelf just waitin’ to kick off a long hot summer, do ya?
    I mean, a long hot summer just before an election.
    You know, like ’68.

  10. Posted March 23, 2012 at 12:13 pm |

    (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 the part that people might have a hard time with. In legal terms, it says that if you present yourself in a manner that indicates another person is in fear of terrible physical damage, or their life, they can kill you for your actions.

    It seems cruel, but when the police can’t be there immediately, it may be your only chance to continue with your life. It’s a warning that responsibility for your actions can end with your death.

  11. ZZMike
    Posted March 23, 2012 at 12:16 pm |

    I remember back when Obama stepped into the case of the Ivy-League black professor who was arrested.

    The President (a real President, that is) is supposed to be above details. That’s why, f’r'instance, Eisenhower never stepped into the McCarthy hearings (which is an extreme case).

    Other than that, there’s no question that Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter. He called the police, who told him not to follow. He ignored that.

    This seems to be another “ban the gun” moment – but we do not – should not – make laws based on isolated incidents.

  12. geezerette
    Posted March 23, 2012 at 12:18 pm |

    Why was there a need for a neighborhood watch in the first place? Lets go back that far. What was making the residents so fearful that this terrible thing happened? Ask everyone there black or white how many locks they have on their doors and windows— and why/who was making them fearful.
    Do I see another beer summit in the future?

  13. PeggyU
    Posted March 23, 2012 at 1:13 pm |

    It will have to be something bigger than a beer summit. An executive kegger, maybe.

  14. Colonel Jerry USMC
    Posted March 23, 2012 at 1:36 pm |

    For OBoBo and his mfcskers, ANYTHING but gasoline prices and the Pipeline. EVEN “Plugs” declaring that: The 20th Maine on Little Round Top—–pales in comparison to OBoBo`s sitcheashun in the *heat of battle* (…which apparently only *He* felt while looking at a TV screen some elebenty-twelv nautical miles from his *attack position*, which he stealthily shifted from an open fire field on the golf course to cover inside a huge building, that the Joint Chiefs of Staff were ordered to go back and re-title the “CINC line of departure”………..(…advantageous because he had the option of going forward in any compass direction to arrive at the point of contact on the opposite side of the little Blue Marble…) Cunning,——–or————-what———–?

  15. Posted March 23, 2012 at 2:08 pm |

    Doug,

    If Obama had a son, I’m sure he’d follow in the child-naming strategy of the Obama household and name the kid Vladamir.

  16. PatrickP
    Posted March 23, 2012 at 2:10 pm |

    This doesn’t seem like a national issue or even necessarily a civil rights issue. At least not one of national importance. This president is such a fucking busy body.

  17. PeggyU
    Posted March 23, 2012 at 2:27 pm |

    Yeah, Patrick. Where there is political hay to be made, this grandstander will insert himself. He’s worse than Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton in that regard.

  18. dick, not quite dead white guy
    Posted March 23, 2012 at 3:22 pm |

    “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,”
    There he goes – “Its all about meeeee….”
    “Watch meeeeeee fan the burning race fuse try to buy the black vote, distract the public from pipelines, gas prices and the escalating skyrocketing costs of Uhbamacare on its signing anniversary. sypathize with that pooorrr black family who is in New York, not with their grieving family in Florida.
    *Spit*

  19. Joe Band Member
    Posted March 23, 2012 at 3:59 pm |

    We can’t begin to expext anything at all even resembling the truth from a media which daily lies about most everything. I would say that since the local jurisdiction has yet to file charges, that there is much, much more to this than we are allowed to know.

    However that won’t stop the felching media from using this as yet another tool in their quest for the total destruction of America by four more years of the immigrant President.

    Only God can save America.

  20. Joe Band Member
    Posted March 23, 2012 at 4:07 pm |

    When I take a dump, it reminds me of The President.

  21. Posted March 23, 2012 at 4:08 pm |

    If I were a conspiracy theorist, I’d notice an uncanny resemblance between Trayvon Martin and a young Hussein/Ubama. I would think that the whole thing is a set-up. Why? So Ubama can “prove” to the U.N. and the rest of the World that this country is so totally racist that only he – ( Hussein/Ubama ) can fix it. That would be his round-about way of kicking off the race war that he wants so desperately, and still call himself a saint. The man is a tool of Satan and has no human attributes that can restrain his vicious, violent goals. It’s a good thing I’m not a conspiracy theorist, though, because it’s all too far-fetched, isn’t it?………Isn’t it?……..Well, isn’t it?

  22. Posted March 23, 2012 at 4:19 pm |

    I’m not even Gay (I don’t think) butt this makes me want to give this president a solid bare-handed spanking and then fuck him in the ass.

    Would that be so wrong? I mean, it’s what he’s doing to us. Turnabout is fair play, right?

    waiting for the Secret Service to show-up in, oh, about 3… 2…

    I have the right to remain silent. Anything I say can, or will, be used against me. I don’t give a shit anymore. However, not giving said shit does not absolve me from hiring an attorney that can ignite your shorts from about 50 paces away. And that’s just when she’s getting warmed up. Bring it.

    Lovingly,

    Hog Motherfucking Whitman

  23. Posted March 23, 2012 at 4:30 pm |

    Get the feeling that a lynching is just around the corner?

  24. SteveHGraham
    Posted March 23, 2012 at 4:34 pm |

    The “stand your ground law” is not likely to have any relevance once the facts come out.

    Following a person is legal, and it is not the same as approaching them and starting a conflict. In his call, Zimmerman said he was following Martin, but he also said Martin was approaching HIM. There is no indication that Zimmerman approached Martin. He was at a distance until Martin came to him.

    If Martin approached and started beating Zimmerman (as the police concluded he had, after looking at Zimmerman’s injuries and talking to a witness who saw Zimmerman on his back) then there would have been no “duty to retreat,” even under the old law. If someone is on top of you beating you with his fists, you can’t retreat. People cite Zimmerman’s weight (250) as proof he was the aggressor. My response is that obesity is not a martial art. It does not make you a tough guy. Martin was a fully grown athlete whose weight was about the same as that of Floyd Mayweather and Bruce Lee.

    It’s also worth noting that Zimmerman only shot Martin once, and he was carrying a $250 Kel-Tec, which is basically the kind of gun you would get if they came with Cracker Jacks. I’m an exceptional pistol shot, and when I tried a friend’s Kel-Tec at 7 yards, I couldn’t even tell where the bullets went. It’s not a gun for stalking and killing. It’s a tool of desperation, for people who are cornered.

    The prosecutor is going to have to prove that Martin did not attack Zimmerman. So far, the evidence we have does not support those conclusions. It is looking more and more likely that Martin will turn out to be the aggressor. Once that happens, all the well-meaning people who have been goaded by rabble-rousers over the last week may go nuts and riot, causing more deaths, just as they have in other Miami riots. Sharpton will make money, politicians will get a chance to pander, and everyone involved with the “justice for Trayvon” movement will look pretty bad.

    I’m all for fairness, and I know black people get a lot of bad treatment from the police, but this story stunk from day one, and it’s getting worse.

  25. Joe Band Member
    Posted March 23, 2012 at 4:45 pm |

    The usual agitators are revving this up. Calypso Louie is calling for riots.The media frenzy is on the rise. even some of the media idiots are calling for a violent

    This is going to be a very, very violent summer.

    Be prepared.

  26. Joe Band Member
    Posted March 23, 2012 at 4:52 pm |

    Was interrupted by the phone so my last post is a bit ragged, You get the point, I’m sure.

    If it’s like Steve indicates, and it all adds up with no charges being filed, this is still going to explode, even if the truth is told widely, which it damn sure isn’t at this point.

    If Zimmerman was being attacked and was down, he certainly had every right to shoot.

    Praying for the truth to be known.

  27. SteveHGraham
    Posted March 23, 2012 at 4:55 pm |

    I go to a black church in Miami Gardens. I know people who went to classes with this kid. I taught one of his friends to make pizza. I hate to see them led into the ditch by a bunch of fools.

  28. Zipser
    Posted March 23, 2012 at 5:02 pm |

    This is why we have a legal process, to take the emotion out of these events and determine the facts. Let the process work and then decide what to do next. We simply do not have the facts to be jumping to a conclusion and that includes the President. Back off. You’re sticking your nose where it doesn’t belong. Santorum was on Hannity this afternoon and has convicted the guy already.

    On another note, the Rev. Al was seen by more people at that rally than have ever watched his show on MSNBC. Just us, brother Al. Justus.

  29. SondraK, Queen of my domain
    Posted March 23, 2012 at 5:33 pm |

    Helter Skelter at any cost!!!

  30. rustbucket
    Posted March 23, 2012 at 5:54 pm |

    Reason # 2,784,922 why you will never see me without my trusty friend, Mr. Glock.
    I agree, it’s gonna be a long, hot, violent summer. And the DNC is coming to my hometown.
    Oh, joy.

  31. DougM (jackassophobe)
    Posted March 23, 2012 at 7:38 pm |

    Steve (24)
    Amen on your “duty to retreat” point.

    Let’s clarify the relative-size issue, though. The critics have it backwards. There is no legal relationship between size and aggressor/victim status, only on the relative deadliness of the threat. The deadliness of an attack may have a lower threshold, if there’s a significant difference in offensive and defensive abilities (relative size or strength of attacker, young vs old, male vs female, number of attackers, attacker’s martial-arts skill, attacker’s reputation for violence, violent language, repeated blows to vitals or to an undefended victim, choking, etc.). It’s a question of when an ordinary assault becomes a deadly threat as perceived by the victim [updated], and the right to use deadly force in self-defense kicks in.

    The question in my mind about this incident is whether the attack had ended and Zimmerman was chasing Martin. You cannot use deadly force against a fleeing attacker, if he’s no longer a threat. That is not self-defense. That’s called “excessive force” (see: the Subway Vigilante, Bernhard Goetz). If you’re trying to kill a former attacker who no longer poses a deadly threat, you’re not defending yourself, you’re committing a homicide. The thread must be imminent.

    You may use non-deadly force to chase and hold a felonious attacker for the police (lawful restraint is not citizen’s arrest, buuuut it may not actually be the smartest thing to do). If the attacker turns and becomes a deadly threat again, I suppose that allows for the use of deadly force in self-defense again. The problem is, if the original fight didn’t pose a deadly threat, and you tried to restrain the attacker, that could be seen as voluntarily entering a fight involving simple assault, and you have no right to defend yourself with deadly force.

    Yeah, makes my head hurt, too. That’s why they make numbskull lawyers. ;)

    P.S. If you are involved in a shooting, yes, you want a lawyer; and you want one before you make any statement to law enforcement other than “I was defending myself. I’ll be glad to make a statement and cooperate, but I’m sure you’ll understand that I prefer to do that with an attorney present.” or somesuch. Never. say. more. You’ll be taken into custody, no matter what you say, so don’t. say. nuthin’! Just don’t. It will come back to bite you. And, no, you don’t talk to the press. They ain’t your friends, either. Heck, you don’t even talk about it to your friends, except to thank ‘em for their support. You’ll need it. If somebody’s not supportive, ditch ‘em. srsly. Your mental health may depend on it.

  32. Brad
    Posted March 23, 2012 at 10:40 pm |

    Thanks, Claire. I love it when I can contribute…. and get a star!

  33. Spin
    Posted March 24, 2012 at 1:28 am |

    Get the feeling that a lynching is just around the corner?

    From the G.O.C.

    Here comes Al Sharpton and his Traveling Racial Grievance Show. You would think that after the Crown Heights riots, the Freddie’s Fashion Mart arson, and the Tawana Brawley hoax Sharpton would have no credibility, but it doesn’t work that way.

  34. SteveHGraham
    Posted March 24, 2012 at 6:08 am |

    It’s a question of when an ordinary assault becomes a deadly threat

    That’s a common misconception. The standard is reasonable apprehension of death or serious bodily injury, and that includes sexual assault. You don’t have to let someone beat you until you’re seriously injured. You can shoot to prevent it, if the threat appears real.

    You’ll see it in the statute, if you keep reading.

  35. Posted March 24, 2012 at 7:02 am |

    The standard is reasonable apprehension of death or serious bodily injury, and that includes sexual assault. You don’t have to let someone beat you until you’re seriously injured. You can shoot to prevent it, if the threat appears real.

    Does that mean that I have, pretty much, the clearance Clarence to shoot anybody I want? Because I know that most of the wimmins, (and some of the mens’), are always looking at me in ‘that way’.

    In which case, I’m definitely going to have to go buy me some more ammo.

    P.S. How’s about that last sentence structure? Elements of Style be damned!

  36. Joe Band Member
    Posted March 24, 2012 at 7:18 am |

    The local paper (The Gaylympian) has an editorial that lies about the incident, totally leaving out the part where Zimmerman wan knocked to the ground and beaten.

    Why do the filthy bastards have to LIE?

  37. Joe Band Member
    Posted March 24, 2012 at 7:26 am |

    Martin was shot in the chest.

    Because he had Zimmerman down and was beating him.

    Case dismissed.

  38. Claire: barbarian, etc
    Posted March 24, 2012 at 8:38 am |

    Until you mentioned it, I’d not heard anything about Zimmerman’s injuries: *Zimmerman’s “nose was broken, he sustained injury to his nose and on the back of his head; he sustained a cut that was serious enough to merit stitches”

  39. geezerette
    Posted March 24, 2012 at 8:44 am |

    Did the boarder guards family get a call? NO– well than hurumgfh— I’ll be— wonder what the difference is in this case? Anyone know??? How about any other cases of a shooting — how is it– black on black–white on white– black on white– white on black— ??? OR– Is it who ever would be Obama voters?? No– that can’t be—

  40. DougM (jackassophobe)
    Posted March 24, 2012 at 8:58 am |

    Steve (34)
    Well, I wasn’t writing a Law Review article (bein’ an engineer an’ all), but I clarified that phrase in (31) a bit.
    Assault can begin before an actual blow is struck (battery).
    I was trying to get at what the law considers a threshold for the use of deadly force in self defense.
    No, you don’t have to wait until shot or stabbed, but the threat must be imminent (happening right now: no preemption in fear of a future attack, no revenge for past attacks).

    Hog (35)
    You can’t just say you feared for your life. The law says that the circumstances must lead a normal person to agree (i.e. if everybody on the jury says “BS” you’re goin’ to prison).

  41. DougM (jackassophobe)
    Posted March 24, 2012 at 9:09 am |

    Joe (36)
    Why do they have to lie?
    Okay, I’ll say it again:
    They aren’t “lying,” in their minds. They are adjusting reality to fit The Template™ to be consistent with The Narrative™. If it should be true, or if it needs to be true for their fantasy world to work, then it is true. Their ends are so moral to them, that all means used to reach those moral ends are also moral (i.e. the ends justify the means).

    Also, they pay no penalty for lying.

  42. Justin Credible
    Posted March 24, 2012 at 10:37 am |

    DougM (4) It looks like there is more to the story.

  43. Colonel Jerry USMC
    Posted March 24, 2012 at 12:02 pm |

    Crap, Doug just reminded me that I committed a crime back in 1992!

    Before I bought a small(10 acre) horse ranch, I boarded my Appaloosas w a horsegal buddy. One Sunday I went out to see them and while exercising one on a long line rope, I stepped into a deep and froze hole and injured my left (already crushed…) ankle.

    Now Monday at my rental house, I am aching, so in one-piece red long Johns, I lay down in back bedroom for a nap. Woke up to banging on the door that connected the garage to the kitchen. Grabbed a .44 caliber blackpowder Navy Revolver(…Civil War era…) & hobbled to the kitchen. Saw that dead bolt was only thing holding the door as some asshole was trying to break in.

    Cocked my piece and instantly thought to get behind the door & pistolwhip the thief. Natch, just as I hobbled out in front of door, the fucking dead bolt gave way & a bearded, dirty, hobo-lookin dude crashed in and stopped about 1 or 2 inches of his nose to my cocked barrel!

    STG, the bastard screamed in fucking sophrano! He leaped back into the garage (…thus eliminating my option to shoot…) and ran downhill on my 80 yard driveway. With my ankle I could not give chase. A nano-second later I got the bright idea that he prolly could run a little faster, with the *right motivation*!

    So, I fired 2 shots into the dirt just off the driveway on his left—-and 2 more shots to his right, also into the dirt. BY GOD, I was right!!!! Hobo-thief instantly became a fucking Olympic-Class Runner!!!!!!!

    Filed a report with the Hang Town Placerville Sheriff, along w a description. They caught him & turned out he had robbed several homes along Grizzley Flat Road. Neither he nor I mentioned the 100 yard dash training.

    Also natch, some fucking judge gave him probation, and he promptly booked out of the area, never to be seen again, at least as far as I ever knew…..

  44. DougM (jackassophobe)
    Posted March 24, 2012 at 1:03 pm |

    ColJ (43)
    Nah, if you weren’t actually tryin’ to hit ‘im to prevent his escape (unlawful use of deadly force), and if you weren’t firing “warning shots” (not legal here in NC) since the proximity of the muzzle seems to have accomplished the “warning” thing, then you must have been merely assisting him in seein’ the light of his wrongdoin’, motivating him to abandon his criminal behavior, and guiding his path away from danger.
    Reckon I’d call that admirable citizenship, there, suh.

  45. Merovign
    Posted March 24, 2012 at 1:56 pm |

    Re; DougM (41)

    But mostly because they pay no penalty for lying.

  46. Joe Band Member
    Posted March 24, 2012 at 2:59 pm |

    There will be no positive outcome for this.

    It doesn’t really matter what the Grand Jury determines. If they exonerate Zimmerman, there will be a nationwide race riot along with looting, murders, and arson. If Zimmerman is charged, the same.

    The Obamedia wants a national riot to disrupt and generally mess with the November elections.

    We should all be forewarned and well prepared to defend our families and homes when the need arises. Not If.

  47. Lance
    Posted March 25, 2012 at 11:11 am |

    Col. Jerry (43), was your trusty little pistol
    an 1861 Navy, black powder revolver.
    If so I have fired an original, way back in my Navy days in
    Maine! It had the lever assembly under the barrel for tamping
    down the black powder. And little nipples on the aft end of
    each chamber in the cylinder for the percussion caps (?).
    As I bemember it was SA only & firing a round was an event,
    complete with a cloud of smoke, plus that wonderful aroma of
    black powder. Thanks for the memories.
    Should the 1861 Navy become the official sidearm of the
    SondraKistanian Navy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_M1861_Navy

  48. Lance
    Posted March 25, 2012 at 11:24 am |

    Here ya go! The famous Colt black powder revolver replicas by Uberti!

    http://www.uberti.com/firearms/army-navy-and-pocket-navy.php

    Watch the video, “Navy” I think there’s a piccy of Col. Jerry in it!

  49. Posted March 25, 2012 at 11:40 am |

    Colonel Jerry Sir, one of my prized guns in my collection is a Navy BP revolver dug up by my Dad and I from an old outhouse in Gayleyville, AZ. Non functional, but a beauty after cleaning.

    Somebody done something bad with this beauty to have to pitch it.

    Gayleyville is just down the road from my hometown of Tombstone.

  50. SteveHGraham
    Posted March 25, 2012 at 12:23 pm |

    I’m not writing a law review article, either. The law is complicated, and while I’m doing better than the hysterical imbeciles on TV, I am not giving a rigorous treatment anyone should rely on as a comprehensive guide. There really IS a reason lawyers have to go to school for three years. There’s more to it than writing rules and applying them based on their plain meanings.

    I should point out that even I didn’t give the whole picture, regarding what actions, by an assailant, justify the use of deadly force. Yes, reasonable fear of death OR serious injury will suffice. That was true even in England, where our laws come from. But the standard is actually somewhat lower, in “Castle Doctrine” and “stand your ground” cases. If you’re preventing a forcible felony, you can shoot. If someone is beating the crap out of you, that is definitely, irrefutably a forcible felony. It’s all right there in paragraph 3.

    Here in Florida, if you catch a burglar halfway through your window, you can blow his brains out. It may not be a good idea, and for all I know you can still be sued civilly, and it’s hard on the wallpaper, but it’s not illegal.

    The New Black Panthers put a bounty out on Zimmerman, calling for his “capture.” That is probably a felony, in and of itself (see “solicitation”), and if some idiot tries to capture Zimmerman, it will be kidnapping, an offense that can bring a life sentence. On top of that, Zimmerman will have the legal right to shoot the kidnapper in the face. Or wherever else he chooses. So if things go as badly as possible, Zimmerman might end up killing TWO or more people, without breaking the law. If I were Zimmerman, I would already have invested in an AK-47, a thousand rounds of ammunition, several magazines, and a hotel room in someone else’s name.

    Actually, I pretty much have all of those bases covered, except for the room.

    Unless new evidence comes to light, I continue to predict no homicide arrest. If I’m wrong, no homicide conviction. I do think Obama will try to arrest him for SOMETHING, even if it’s picking his feet in Poughkeepsie. I tend to doubt there will be a civil suit, because lawyers feed on money, and Zimmerman has none.

  51. Lance
    Posted March 25, 2012 at 4:29 pm |

    SteveHGraham (50), thank you very much
    for your erudite & comprehensive comments. Yours are the
    first comments that I have felt very applicable to the overall
    situation in Sanford! I’m somewhat stunned by many of the
    otherwise intelligent people I know on FaceBook, getting very
    caught up in the endless speculation & discussion before
    enough real, verified information was available. However,
    it’s taken me quite a few years to learn not to ‘jump to
    conclusions’! What I’m really concerned about in this Martin
    bruhaha is BamBam & company’s agenda in this matter.
    I suspect a trial run for later incidents before elections.

  52. Colonel Jerry USMC
    Posted March 26, 2012 at 5:09 am |

    Yep, that is it Lance. I love black powder shooting. Have 3 rifles (flintlock) and 3 pistols (cap)—one is a Philadelphia Eagle .44 cal derringer/boot pistol…