Glenn Beck, Geraoldo Rivera and, I would think, other conservatives are trying to assert that Trayvon Martin was responsible for his own death. That either he had it coming because supposedly he was a criminal, or he was wearing a hoodie (which is one step removed from claiming that women brought sexual assault on themselves because of sexy attire.)
Naturally that’s the angle they’d have to take. Because if they blame the gunman, then in the de rigueur discussion of gun control laws which is sure to follow this incident, and which rarely leads anywhere since no one wants to pìšš øff the gun lobby since they’re, y’know, armed, then Beck, Rivera et al risk being portrayed as coming down on the wrong side of this favorite conservative issue. Because you’ll take their guns when you pry them from their cold, dead fingers.
You know…the kind of fingers Trayvon Martin has.
Meanwhile, Kath and I will apparently have to wear our hoodies at our own risk.
PAD
• 
Every time I see right wingers on this board toss up distractions to try and deflect from the simple truth–an armed jáçkášš ignored a 911 explicit instruction, stalked a kid and killed him, which all the citing of a Today show segment isn’t going to change–all it does is reinforce the original point of my posting. If this áššhølë doesn’t have a gun, chances are this kid’s alive.
PAD
As I am the one who brought up the Today show statement, I guess the identity of at least one of the “right wingers” “tossing up distractions” is so obvious even the Sanford DA could figure it out.
Now obviously, my factual denial of any “distraction” motivation will pale compared to completely unverifiable assumptions of my state of mind–if one can’t argue on the facts, attack the motivation–but, for the record, I have no problem agreeing with the pretty clear fact that this particular armed áššhølë would probably not have been able to shoot this kid if he had not had a gun. In fact, I’m sure of it. Does that admission now allow me to legitimately comment on any other aspects of the case?
Sorry if the reality of the case and the subsequent actions of so many on the left and right have muddled up the desired narrative but that’s reality. This has always been a pretty free flowing discussion group but if you want us to focus with laser like precision on the topic of gun control to the exclusion of any other developments in the case, well, it’s your forum, just say so.
“If one can’t argue the facts, attack the motivation”
.
Of course, Bill. It should be obvious that facts don’t matter to certain people – only their desired narrative does. The fact that virtually everyone on this board has brought up interesting points and angles and aspects of the case – from liberals like Craig Ries to Roger Tang to Jerry Chandler – and that this is one of the of the more civil and intelligent discussions on this topic I remember seeing here or elsewhere – doesn’t matter.
.
All that apparently matters is that the desired narrative is followed…and if it isn’t, then those who are pushing it and people’s emotional buttons will feel no sense of justice unless Zimmerman is in jail. And they will feel fully satisfied if their actions and pre-judging results in riots that maker the Rodney King riots look like a weenie roast.
.
Really, it’s like they were there and they know exactly what happened. They might as well have this trial, if there eventually is one, on Cardassia.
I don’t know exactly what happened, I just know that Zimmerman’s version seems very unlikely. And it’s exactly because I don’t know what happened that I want Zimmerman to be charged, investigated, and to get a fair trial. Not the travesty that was perpretated a month ago.
I would also suggest that the original point of the post was, in part, lost when you made the decision to slip in some poorly thought out conservative bashing, even if it took making a gun control favoring, left of center pundit like Geraldo into some imaginary conservative pundit so beholden to the NRA that he had no choice but to smear a dead teenager. Is pointing out that Geraldo has consistently been for gun control just a distraction? Or that it is still an unsupported statement that Beck “asserted that Trayvon was responsible for his own death” (unless “It appears to be that he was shot by a racist. Things are coming out now and phone recordings, et cetera, et cetera, and the guy looks like he just killed this kid, maybe because he’s a racist.” is some kind of code.) I mean, how many facts can you have wrong before we are allowed to point them out? What minimum reality/unwarranted opinion ratio does it take?
This case has taken on national significance and has opened the door to some interesting discussions. I think we should be allowed to explore those areas, especially when the original post was not one of your better efforts, in my opinion. But again, your house, your rules.
(But I’ll slip in that ABC News has just added to the clown car race with first an Exclusive! Video! that showed no injuries to Zimmerman…and, like clockwork, now they released a cleaned up version of the same video that seems to show injuries on Zimmerman. It would have been big news if Zimmerman indeed had no injuries, since that would seriously undercut his story, but why rely on a crappy video to make the claim that they had caught him in a discrepancy? (Especially when there are witnesses and officials on the scene that said there WERE injuries? Given the choice between racist conspiracy and bad video quality why go for the latter?)
I, for one, do not sleep sounder knowing that these crack investigative reporters are out there keeping those in power honest. If a real scandal breaks it will probably be driven by bloggers and internet pundits than by the fading news media. I don’t know if that’s good or bad.
My apologies for the distraction. Regular programming will now continue.
Well, MY narrative is
1) Zimmerman was an idiot for getting himself into a situation where he shot and killed an innocent person. Doesn’t matter if Martin was an angel or a “thug”; Martin was 70 yards from his home/where he was staying. Zimmerman didn’t have the training or smarts to figure out when to intervene and when not to.
2) The Sanford PD has done a horrible, horrible job on this, either through a misunderstanding of the law or extremely bad intent. They should be embarrassed over their performances or fired. Maybe both.
3) Stand Your Ground is a horrible, horrible piece of legislation full of unintended consequences. This isn’t the only example where there could be deadly results; you can easily think of situations where both people could plausibly think of self defense yet be completely innocent of bad intentions.
Also, one could look askance at the performance of the police without invocking racist conspiracies. There could have been a thousand reasons for their incompetence. Very often, one person makes a bad decision, and fellow co-workers don’t want to throw that person under the bus. Soon, the whole corporation is commited to a course that, to an outsider, looks absurd. And there is no conspiracy beyond corporate loyalty.
All that apparently matters is that the desired narrative is followed…and if it isn’t, then those who are pushing it and people’s emotional buttons will feel no sense of justice unless Zimmerman is in jail.
Bull and, may I add, šhìŧ. Justice involves a judicial system. This hideous law circumvents that system. Let him make the self-defense argument in front of a jury. If they buy it and he’s exonerated, then that’s the way that goes.
PAD
“Every time I see right wingers on this board toss up distractions to try and deflect from the simple truth–an armed jáçkášš ignored a 911 explicit instruction, stalked a kid and killed him, which all the citing of a Today show segment isn’t going to change–”
I don’t believe that all of the “right wingers on this board” are tossing out things like the Today Show stupidity as distraction. If anything, it seems like discussing this fall in line with the broader idea in original thread header that was inferred by at least myself and likely others. No, it’s not about conservatives blaming the victim or gun control, but it still falls in line with looking at the way some in the media are reporting this event to fit their narratives.
I don’t see that as a particular bad line of discussion here. We’ve all seen stuff on both sides of this media debate that has had us rolling our eyes; even when it’s on the side we have more or less staked out as “our side” of the issue. If anything, I think looking at and analyzing the media hoopla and bs around this is a good thing; especially when we can find common ground on denouncing stuff that’s total bs or fraudulent no matter what “side” in the issue is throwing it out there.
Certainly no one here so far is trying to throw it out as a distraction from the facts surrounding the event. And, at least so far, no one here has tried to play up the actions of one or two producers on the Today Show staff as being the NBC News Division/MSNBC strategy on the issue or trying to declare that what is known and solid is all just made up stuff.
Is the heart of the matter that Zimmerman had a gun and if he didn’t that Martin might still be alive? I’ll debate you on that. Certainly it’s true, but a lot of people out there, myself included, own guns and wouldn’t act as Zimmerman did. I blame Florida law as much as I do Zimmerman. He knew the law the same as the idiot in Texas knew that the laws had changed to favor him in leaving his home and shooting and killing the two men robbing his neighbors home while they were out. We have laws being passed that make it easy to excuse killing someone for reasons that are so flimsy as to be insane.
Do you really think Zimmerman would have acted from start to finish as he did if he didn’t know that his ášš was covered by this law? Do you really think that the Sanford cops and the local legal system would have acted the same that night if he did act the same if they didn’t have “Stand Your Ground” on the books?
We’ve created laws in a number of states that make it easy to murder someone and get away with it. We’ve made laws in a number of states where we’re empowering citizens (many who should never even be near this kind of power) to go out and be judge, jury and executioner of the death penalty on the streets for the high crimes of walking home in the rain or petty burglary of an unoccupied home.
Guns? Guns ain’t šhìŧ here. Laws that people know (and some admit to knowing) will let them put rounds into another human being? Much bigger issue than the guns here. And right up there with it and the guns? Probably the way the “news” media on both sides plays games to achieve political objectives by pitting one side against the other and, in some cases, playing fast and loose with the truth to create distorted pictures of some events.
So, no, I really don’t see that aspect of the discussion as a distraction. If anything, it should be a welcome thing if some people take it seriously and even more people learn to see past it.
“We don’t need you to do that” does not meet the standard for explicit instruction.
I call this out not to distract from the original point of your posting, but rather to illustrate that if there is to be justice then the details must not be ignored.
Now, as Bill has stated, this is your forum so if you would prefer that we focus on your anti-gun position, please come right out and say so. It would make for a hearty debate.
Now that last paragraph… That’s a distraction. I seriously doubt that anyone wants an angry idiot armed with a gun.
I think this is to the point. From a neighbor of Zimmerman:
I both love it and hate it when these things retreat into absurdity.
Between Geraldo Rivera and his “hoodies” and Mr. Taaffe and his “pants down” it is starting to sound as though someone is suggesting that the self-appointed fashion police should have a license to kill.
Roger, did you pick up on the irony in the piece you cited, specifically the idea of harming those who don’t belong in “our (neighbor)hood?” You know, just like those dreaded black gang kids do? Maybe I’m just reading too much into it at this point.
I’ve been saying for years that far too many people never really leave high school, diploma notwithstanding. In the last few years it seems that more and more people are determined to prove me right. Worse, they’re getting the spotlight.
Looks like the Left’s whole argument that Zimmerman killed Trayvon in a racially motivated attack has been officially blown to smithereens. CNN now admits to manipulating the 911 audio. This just days after NBC admitted to manipulating police footage of Zimmerman in order to create the illusion that he had no head gash.
Stop telling lies, Darin. It only makes your trolling look even more retarded than it normally is. I mean, really, when the best you’ve got is regurgitating the Rush and Hannity talking points and adding your own special spin on them,,, You’ve lost even the ability to be considered a quality troll.
Which part of what I said was a lie, Jerry?
“Which part of what I said was a lie, Jerry?”
Pretty much anything you presented as a “fact” in that post that’s not your name.
CNN has not manipulated the 911 tapes in the way that the Toady Show did or in any other way to imply racist motivations by Zimmerman that weren’t already there. CNN has not said that they did any such thing either. The only thing CNN has done with the audio tapes at all is what everyone else has done with them, Fox News included, and had a audio enhancement expert try to clear up the tapes and try to determine what Zimmerman might have said. Any such presentation on CNN has been done along with informing viewers that the audio has been enhanced and is not the original audio. The result was that the audio expert said that the enhanced audio might have Zimmerman saying “cold” and not “coon” in the tape that’s been aired complete and unaltered since day one.
Hey, not as dumb as claiming he said “goon” in there, but still not very convincing since “cold” doesn’t play in context to what he was saying around that moment.
NBC has not manipulated police footage. NBC has not said that they have either.
You told lies again, Darin. But, please, do make us laugh by providing us links to these “facts” of yours. But, please, do try and link to a news site and not some nutjob conservative blogger who is sourcing another blog that sources an editorial that sources an opinion piece that sources Rush/Hannity/Beck/etc. Do try and source it to an actual news site.
Seeing what you consider news should be quite a laugh. We could all probably use one at your expense right now.
“CNN has not manipulated the 911 tapes in the way that the Toady Show did…”
If that wasn’t a typo it’s brilliant.
*sigh*
Sad to say it’s not brilliance and merely a brilliant mistake via a mundane typo. If it had been intentional, you would have known it. The comment towards them would have been a lot worse and reflected what I think of the Today Show in general and this screw up in particular.
It was stupid to begin with to edit a tape that really didn’t been editing, but what they did really took the cake. NBC News and MSNBC are playing the tape as it was from day one and, days later, the Today Show comes along and does this like no one watching would be bright enough notice. And, double fun, every single conservative leaning twit out there is using this isolated act of stupidity by a Today Show segment producer to declare that NBC News (as in every part of their news arm) is falsifying information in their reporting of the events.
At least they fired the idiot responsible for it.
Uhm…
“It was stupid to begin with to edit a tape that really didn’t need editing,…”
Huh, who knew? Challenge Darin on his trolling about the fact that he’s trolling and he keeps on going. Tell him that he has to back his bs with sources and facts and he disappears like a Quarter Pounder with cheese that’s been handed to a contestant on Survivor.
Who knew that it would ultimately be that simple to make him bug off?
Who knew that it would ultimately be that simple to make him bug off?
Unfortunately, we all know he’ll be back as soon as PAD posts another politically-related blog entry.
Because, after all, he contributes so often (re: once a year) to discussions that don’t involve politics.
Well, George Zimmerman’s attorneys have withdrawn from Trayvon Martin case.
http://news.yahoo.com/zimmermans-lawyers-withdraw-shooting-case-204558850.html
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/10/11124992-george-zimmermans-attorneys-withdraw-from-trayvon-martin-case?lite
Well, there is some doubt if Zimmerman engaged in criminal acts.
But, to my mind, there’s absolutely no doubt that Zimmerman is an idiot. Large whiffs of Keystone Kops coming from him and his family.
(I mean, what sort of non-idiot would use a photo of a vandalized black studies center as a sign of support on his website??)
“(I mean, what sort of non-idiot would use a photo of a vandalized black studies center as a sign of support on his website??)”
Confirmed by both the various news organizations out there and the now ex-lawyers – George Zimmerman.
It appears charges will be filed against Zimmerman this afternoon:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/george-zimmerman-to-be-charged-in-trayvon-martin-shooting-law-enforcement-official-says/2012/04/11/gIQAHJ5oAT_story.html
Good.
That said, I don’t know if there’s enough evidence for a conviction to be possible (and Florida is a funny state where self defense is concerned). But it was more important to me in the larger sense that a competent investigation was undertaken. And from all available evidence, it just seemed to that there was all sorts of probable cause to file charges.
Still think he’s a world class idiot, though.
(and Florida is a funny state where self defense is concerned
Well, that much was obvious with their Let’s Legalize Murder… err, Stand Your Ground… law.
From what I’ve read, it sounds like it won’t be 1st Degree Murder charges, since that would require the grand jury (which they decided to pass on).
Err…Al Sharpton…err, Craig, it’s obvious that you are ignorant about what you are talking about and spouting agenda-driven talking points.
I’d try and figure out what silly comparison you’re trying to make, but it’s apparent that you’re back in your bizarre little world where logic means 1 + 1 = 3.
So, you, like Al Sharpton, can go take a flying leap from the Grand Canyon for all I care.
Bad laws deserve to be struck down, and this law, which is Zimmerman’s primary defense, is a terrible law. Don’t blame people who want good laws, but for once in your life blame people who write and approve of bad laws.
“(and Florida is a funny state where self defense is concerned
Well, that much was obvious with their Let’s Legalize Murder… err, Stand Your Ground… law.”
.
Err…Al Sharpton…err, Craig, it’s obvious that you are ignorant about what you are talking about and spouting agenda-driven talking points.
.
Sadly, as evidenced here and elsewhere, many are exploiting the Trayvon Martin shooting to target self-defense laws, like Stand Your Ground, that PROTECT innocent lives. These laws are designed to protect law-abiding and peaceful citizens. Most importantly, and what everyone from most of the media to you fail to understand, is that STAND YOUR GROUND LAWS ARE NOT TO BLAME IN THIS INCIDENT. Stand your ground laws did not apply in the Trayvon situation, and statements to the contrary are irresponsible and misinformed.
.
Stand Your Ground Laws grew due to the fact that in some states the law imposes a duty to retreat from physical confrontations. Whether in your home or on the street, if you fought back, you might be prosecuted as a criminal.
.
You may disagree, but I find such duties and responsibilities placed on citizens truly at risk has made for terrible laws. To require someone to turn their back on someone invading their home or attacking them on the street is insane. Even if he (or she) doesn’t have a gun to shoot you in the back, if he’s faster he (or she) could attack you from behind, where it is extremely difficult to effectively respond.
.
Some states chose to not impose this absurd rule. To the contrary, other states took a common-sense approach to self-defense. This victory for logic and safety of U.S. citizens was given the imprimatur of the Supreme Court which the in Beard v. U.S., which was decided in 1895. The Court unanimously declared that an innocent person under attack was, “not obliged to retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground, and meet any attack upon him with a deadly weapon, in such a way and with such force as … [he] honestly believed, and had reasonable grounds to believe, was necessary to save his own life, or to protect himself from great bodily injury.”
.
In states that rejected this common-sense approach, one legislative response to the wrongheaded duty to retreat was the Castle Doctrine. The duty to retreat in some states required you to abandon your own home if confronted with an invader, leaving all your possessions to the invader and possibly endangering others.
.
I do not feel that is fair or just or suits the individual citizen or the “needs of the many”.
.
Castle Doctrine comes from the maxim that “a man’s home is his castle.” The idea is that if someone breaks into your home, rather than worry about how much evidence there is that he intends you harm and whether you could prove it in a court of law, that the law presumes you have a reasonable fear of death or bodily harm and can respond accordingly.
.
Castle Doctrine doesn’t apply if you’re in a public place, however, and there is no legal presumption in public that you can reasonably assume someone is trying to kill you. Instead, some states have created a lesser form of protection in public places, called “Stand Your Ground” laws. This is the law that has been mentioned in connection with the Trayvon shooting.
.
BUT THE LAW IS NOT WHAT YOU HAVE HEARD REPORTED BY THE MEDIA. Florida’s SYG law provides that a person under attack can use force — including deadly force — against his attacker if he, “reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm … or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.”
.
Several keys points. First, THE THREAT MUST BE DEADLY. IT’S NOT JUST THAT YOU’RE UNDER ATTACK. You must be attacked with sufficient force to kill you or cause massive bodily harm, including rape.
.
Second, IT’S NOT ENOUGH THAT THE VICTIM FELLS HE IS UNDER A DEADLY THREAT. His belief must also be reasonable, meaning that under the circumstances an objective observer would also conclude the victim could be killed or severely injured.
.
Third, STAND YOUR GROUND LAWS ONLY EXIST TO PROTECT VICTIMS, NOT ATTACKERS. If you’re attacking someone, you cannot claim Stand Your Ground as a defense for what follows.
.
And fourth, IT DOESN’T APPLY IF YOU CANNOT RETREAT. If retreat is not an option, then the situation is governed by ordinary self-defense laws, not Stand Your Ground laws.
Under any version of the facts, FLORIDA’S “STAND YOUR GROUND” LAW DID NOT APPLY IN THE ZIMMERMAN/TRAYVON INCIDENT. If Zimmerman pursued a confrontation with Martin, then Zimmerman was an attacker and cannot claim Stand Your Ground. If Zimmerman’s account is true that he was on the ground and Martin was on top of him, then retreat was impossible, so there would be no duty to retreat anyway. A victim in such a situation can use deadly force, but only if he reasonably believes he is being attacked with deadly force.
.
To my knowledge, that is the law in all fifty states. It was the law before Stand Your Ground statutes were ever passed, and Stand Your Ground did nothing to change it.
.
So why is this not common knowledge after all the reporting on the Trayvon incident?? Tragically, some anti-gun activists are misinforming the public. They are aided by media commentators who failed the public trust by not researching and understanding the Stand Your Ground issue before presuming to editorialize on it.
.
In the end, it is a classic battle of those who believe in the individual’s right to protect his/her own life and those who want people to depend on the state to protect them.
.
The police are usually not at hand when you are attacked by a criminal. The Second Amendment guarantees the right of law-abiding people to defend themselves. And laws like Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground have restored that right in states where it had been eroded, not to take innocent life, but instead to preserve it.
Jerome, I’d be much more relaxed if it was your jurisprudence that ruled over SYG.
However, it does not.
There are cases in Florida that cited this law in dismissing cases where the accused clearly pursued the victim.
Moreover, various Florida lawyers have mentioned that in practice, because of this law, much of the evidence gathering to determine if charges are to be brought cannot be obtained without charges being brought–a legal Catch 22. I will trust them, being in the state of Florida.
Third, the clause for civil penalties is totally unneccesary from a criminal law point of view and acts to de-incentivize bringing charges.
Fourth, your legal analysis assumes perfect information on the part of all parties; it fails when there is imperfect information held by one or both parties. And it also fails because it takes into account only party at a time.
Fifth, the Sanford Police Department specifically used the Stand Your Ground law as a reason not to pursue charges. Rightly or wrongly, that means the law, as it is written, is not serving the purpose that people think it is meant to be serving.
Jerome, here is another piece of common sense: everytime someone is killed violently, the matter must be fully investigated, charges or no charges.
.
I don’t know if Stand Your Ground is to blame, or if the authorities are simply using the law as an excuse to not spend time, money, and effort to investigate certain violent deaths.
.
In any case, something stinks.
Judge Cites “Stand Your Ground” to Clear Greyston Garcia in Little Havana Stabbing
http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2012/03/judge_cites_stand_your_ground.php
Yahoo! put up an article on this case and the “Stand Your Ground” law, and how/when it may or may not apply.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/trending-now/y-big-story-zimmerman-arrest-questions-stand-ground-043707411.html
SANFORD, Fla. —
“A law enforcement official says that the killer in the Trayvon Martin case will be charged with second-degree murder and is in custody.”
http://www2.nbc4i.com/news/2012/apr/11/14/nbc-george-zimmerman-face-criminal-charges-ar-996561/
NOW we can see the beginnings of justice. Whether we all end up agreeing with where it finally goes is anyone’s guess, but at least now we’re actually seeing the justice system work the way it’s supposed to work.
So say we all.
I never thought I’d be considered a race-baiting bášŧárd just because I wanted George Zimmerman to have a fair trial.
.
The right has truly become ultra-radical.