…and the ongoing media lies and insanity about it. It’s also part of the Left’s war on blacks (as always) ostensibly in the name of blacks.
57 thoughts on “The War On Self Defense”
Comments are closed.
…and the ongoing media lies and insanity about it. It’s also part of the Left’s war on blacks (as always) ostensibly in the name of blacks.
Comments are closed.
Self defense by members of the Oppressor Class be raciss.
But of course. If the kulaks are armed, you can’t use the standing mob of unemployed ‘youths’ to intimidate them. Witness that the biggest and most violent “Saint Trayvon” mobs have happened in the most (legally-owned) gun free areas.
There is a fantasy ideology wherein liberty is orthogonal to danger. Advocates of this ideology have been actively working to surgically remove danger from civilized society for well over a century, and in the process have been curtailing liberty.
There is a fantasy ideology wherein liberty is orthogonal to danger.
I think you can successfully make that argument. With more liberty, the risk of someone taking advantage of that freedom to do something that puts you in danger probably does increase. However that increase, needs to be weighed against what you have lost in the attempts to protect you from that risk. And sadly most of the attempts don’t really have you welfare in mind.
Danger, risk, dangerousness, these are all things that are very much tied together with empowerment of the individual and personal liberty.
Freedom is about being able to take personal risks: to drive a car, climb a mountain, jump out of a plane, eat a cheeseburger, etc.
It’s also about the ability to indulge in personal pursuits which can provide knowledge and training that make one more dangerous. Chemistry, engineering, metal work, firearms, backpacking, flying, automotive repair, etc.
Knowledge is dangerous. Knowledge married with hands-on experience is even more dangerous. Who would you rather make an enemy of, a brute who spends all his time at the gym or the unabomber?
Only the powerless are incapable of being dangerous. And increasingly that is the sort of model that a certain segment of society would like to see become the norm. Not the self-reliant individual who carries a knife everywhere or maybe even a gun and is capable of not just self-defense but self-rescue from many different adverse situations. Instead the sort of person who needs the assistance of the authorities in any emergency if for nothing more than to provide guidance and comfort.
The “Left” isn’t against self-defense. The left thinks that Zimmerman chased Martin down and picked a fight. They don’t see that as self-defense because it obviously isn’t.
The left no more has a problem with reasonable doubt than the right did when OJ Simpson was found not guilty of murdering his ex-wife.
What an insane comparison.
The jurors in the Zimmerman case followed the law. The jurors in the OJ case were morons (and many of them were racist).
Cut poor Chris some slack. His side tried as hard as they could to get that Zimmerman guy lynched, doing everything from ‘creatively editing’ the 911 call to actually lying in public about the facts of the case… and failed. That’s gotta hurt, when you lie as hard as you possibly can with full backup from the press and the elected liars… and fail like a fool. Worse, Chris’ side failed all the way out in public: nobody has to guess about the trial; it was livecast, any interested party could watch it themselves and see how weak and corrupt the prosecution’s case was.
It’s enough to make a good, obedient Leftist into a real sad panda, it is.
You are actually correct.
They’re against self-defense for the hoi polloi. They hire bodyguards, duh.
Just to be clear, you’re defending all the lies that the media has repeatedly told in this story (Zimmerman is a racist, Trayvon was seven-years old, etc.)?
Rand – no, I’m not and have never claimed that Zimmerman was a racist and I’m not aware of anybody claiming Martin wasn’t 17. So, no, I’m not defending anybody who is making those claims.
I’m saying you and McArdle have misdiagnosed at least some of the causes of the uproar in this case. Some of the uproar is from a disbelief of Zimmerman and a dislike of the idea that somebody can pick a fight on a public street and legally shoot their way out of it.
OJ is exactly relevant – the glove, after all, did not fit.
and – no, I’m not and have never claimed that Zimmerman was a racist and I’m not aware of anybody claiming Martin wasn’t 17
So you’ve been paying no attention.
Some of the uproar is from a disbelief of Zimmerman and a dislike of the idea that somebody can pick a fight on a public street and legally shoot their way out of it.
There was zero evidence presented that that happened. Following someone is not “picking a fight,” and all of the evidence presentedby the prosecution indicates that it was that it was Martin who was the aggressor.
OJ is exactly relevant – the glove, after all, did not fit.
My god, how stupid can you be?
No one knows whether or not the glove fit, because no one tried to get it on him other than OJ. The evidence against him was overwhelming.
No, Rand, nobody (except Zimmerman) saw how the fight started. Jeantal presented ear-witness testimony that contradicts Zimmerman’s version, but you discount that.
Your response to this whole case is that of an absolute fanatic. You take as Gospel whatever Zimmerman says, even if it contradicts common sense. (Do you really believe that Zimmerman told Martin “I don’t have a problem with you” after calling the cops and following him?) Isn’t it at least possible that Zimmerman wasn’t the meek and passive man he claimed to be?
I too think OJ killed his wife. Obviously the evidence wasn’t overwhelming to a jury. Perhaps they were using your standard, which was if nobody saw OJ do the killing then they must acquit.
Perhaps they were using your standard, which was if nobody saw OJ do the killing then they must acquit.
That is not my standard. My standard is that the prosecution must present a case for the prosecution. OJ’s prosecution did. Zimmerman’s prosecution presented the case for the defense.
Jeantel said Martin used racist and homophobic slurs directed toward Zimmerman and probably threw the first punch. According to you she was on the phone for the whole event, so she wouldn’t need to make this assumption.
As usual you keep making up scenarios that are not supported by any of the evidence or testimony. Even bringing up Jeantel shows you didn’t even listen to what she said.
Obama and the Democrats should be ashamed for lynching a man and his family in the media and trying to get a mob of racist Democrats so enraged they riot in the street and beat random white people as revenge.
Chris Gerrib said:
Then what the left thinks does not correspond with the facts as determined by the testimony given and evidence admitted in the court during the trial. (E.g. reality.)
I also dislike this idea. Based upon testimony given and evidence admitted during the trial this has no resemblance to what actually occurred. (E.g. reality.)
But, of course, the left is the reality based community, and the right is delusional and living in a fantasy world.
Then what the left thinks does not correspond with the facts as determined by the testimony given and evidence admitted in the court during the trial. (E.g. reality.)
Since when has truth or reality ever been a consideration for the Left? As in the Duke Lacrosse (non) rape story, “The narrative is right but the facts are wrong”, so they stick to the narrative.
Except we did have evidence to contradict Zimmerman – Jeantal’s testimony. You may not believe her testimony, but we know for a fact she was on the phone with Martin up until the start of the fight. (Weird – starting a fight with a guy your size while you’re on the phone.)
We know Zimmerman was following Martin – that’s what he told the police dispatcher at the time. (It was only later that he needed to get out to find the street address while at the corner of two of three streets in his own subdivision.)
a) Jeantel’s testimony was all over the place and impeached multiple times (e.g., she couldn’t even read the statement that she initially claimed she had written) and b) nothing in her testimony as to what actually happened (as opposed to her opinion) indicated that Zimmerman started the fight. That is, there was no credible evidence that Zimmerman started the fight, except to people who desperately wanted/needed to believe that.
“Jenteal’s testimony”
So you’re basing your arguement on the witness who admitted being coached by the prosecution, who admitted that she coudn’t read her own “handwritten” affidavit, and who said that Trayvon threw the first punch because he wanted to gaybash Zimerman?
Sad, sad little panda.
Jeantal couldn’t read a letter to Martin’s mother that she had dictated because she wanted it sent “looking nice.”
In any event, are you arguing that only literate people can serve as witnesses at trial? She wasn’t testifying as to what she read, she was testifying as to what she heard.
In any event, are you arguing that only literate people can serve as witnesses at trial?
No. Pathetic attempt at a straw man.
I don’t recall that it was disputed (during the trial) that Zimmerman was following Martin. Regardless, that is not directly relevant to the verdict. I looked at the testimony of the other witnesses including the investigating officer, as well as Zimmerman’s and Martin’s injuries. All of it seemed consistent with Martin being “on top” and Zimmerman being “on his back on the ground”. I don’t recall hearing any testimony or seeing any evidence that contradicts this scenario. Up to this point both individuals had exercised poor judgment it is true, but none of these poor choices are really relevant to the verdict. If Zimmerman was indeed “on his back on the ground”, and was indeed “in fear of death and/or serious bodily injury”, then the not-guilty result is the correct one. These are the only two facts that are relevant, and the rest of the evidence and testimony is only useful so far as it helps to judge the truth of those two facts.
” If Zimmerman was indeed “on his back on the ground”, and was indeed “in fear of death and/or serious bodily injury”, then the not-guilty result is the correct one.”
Just the plausible possibility that this scenario was true was enough to create reasonable doubt. Chris forgets about innocent until proven guilty and no amount of crazy conspiracy theories using doctored tapes or trying to create a white racist out of a Hispanic non-racist were enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Watching Chris and his fellow travelers actions during this trial creates more then enough reasonable doubt in the narrative they created.
Just to be clear, are you really saying that you would have voted to acquit OJ?
No, I would have voted to convict OJ, and was in fact shocked when the verdict came out.
And you would have voted to convict Zimmerman? Or not?
I have a day job and so did not watch every minute of the trial. I certainly have no reasonable doubt but that Zimmerman started the confrontation, so that puts me in the manslaughter camp.
You have unreasonable doubt, and have from the beginning.
At least watch Jeantal‘s full testimony. You’re basing your entire resistance based off of this one witness – and have only snippets of an idea of what she actually said.
Her full testimony plus the actual at-the-scene photos of Zimmerman’s head would be enough for me.
You’ve spent more time here telling everyone off than it would take to form an actual opinion based on the actual evidence as opposed to repeating like a parrot.
“I certainly have no reasonable doubt but that Zimmerman started the confrontation…”
Say WHAT?!!! Zimmerman was the defendant. You have to believe he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict, not that he was innocent beyond a reasonable doubt in order to not convict.
This is really scary, that a US citizen could have gotten the very foundation of his nation’s laws so upside down and bass-ackwards.
I believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman initiated a confrontation. That confrontation ended up in Zimmerman shooting somebody. One would think that would equate to manslaughter.
The only “confrontation” that Zimmerman initiated was for Martin to ask why he was following him. The evidence indicates that Martin initiated the the true confrontation (i.e., physically attacking Zimmerman) that resulted in his being shot. Martin didn’t have to attack Zimmerman just because he was being followed. That was entirely his choice.
I believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman initiated a confrontation.
Then you haven’t actually listened to Jeantal.
Then one would be wrong. Who initiated the confrontation is not relevant in this case, but rather how it escalated, who escalated things and when. Up to the point that Martin was (as it seems most likely) on top Zimmerman, neither was in fear of death or bodily injury therefore would not have been justified in using deadly force. Once Zimmerman is on the ground with Martin on top of him, Zimmerman is now legitimately in fear of serious bodily injury and is thus justified in using deadly force. Not only that, but Zimmerman is now incapable of fleeing, so the stand your ground statute does not come into play at all.
Also, I do not know who initiated the confrontation, as there was no direct testimony as to who spoke to whom first, or who initiated the first physical contact. Jenteal only spoke of Martin becoming aware of Zimmerman’s presence and of some of Martin’s theories about Zimmerman’s motives and what Zimmerman might be up to, but that is all. The remainder of her testimony seemed to be more of a character witness for Martin.
In your opinion, why did the jury voted to acquit? Do you think the jury didn’t clearly understand the law as they were asked to interpret it? Do you think the jury was racially biased against Martin or towards Zimmerman? Do you think the judge was biased against the state or in favor of the defense and ruled according to these biases? Do you think the prosecution was incompetent and failed to present relevant evidence and/or testimony? Do you think the prosecution deliberately “threw” the case? What other possibilities might there be?
The “Left” isn’t against self-defense. The left thinks that Zimmerman chased Martin down and picked a fight.
Wrong. Holder has been visiting various leftist organizations arguing for changes in “Stand your ground” laws across the country. “Stand your ground” has nothing to do with the Zimmerman case, but it has everything to do with the right to defend yourself rather than flee/retreat if capable.
Gerrib, might believe Zimmerman chased Martin, but if that’s the case; it too has nothing to do with “Stand your ground”, unless he means Martin’s assault. If he does mean Martin’s assault, then perhaps Gerrib is also upset with Holder wanting to take away Martin’s right to defend himself from a potential rapist? Or as the linked article suggests, make the ability to claim self-defense tougher?
Otherwise, it is most certainly the “Left” (or if you prefer, statist or Democrats) pushing for tougher standards for self-defense and ending “stand your ground” laws.
The language of the stand-your-ground statue was used in the jury instructions and stand-your-ground was cited by the Stanford PD as to why Zimmerman wasn’t initially charged.
Stand-your-ground has everything to do with this case.
The case had nothing to do with stand your ground. It was self defense.
That the judge provided stand your ground in the instructions is judicial misconduct, since the defense didn’t claim it.
The defense also didn’t object to it being in the jury instructions. Regardless of that, it was in fact in the instructions therefore it was in fact a factor in this case.
Did any of the jurors say it was a factor?
Are you and the people who think like you going to apologize to all the white people who suffered revenge for trayvon hate crimes?
Is Obama going to give a speech asking for his followers not to go beat the crap out of random white people or will he and his followers continue to ferment racist hatred and violence?
This case had nothing to do SYG and everything to do with the racism of the Democrat party.
Wodun – Obama said If I see any violence, then I will remind folks that that dishonors what happened to Trayvon Martin and his family on top of his statement calling for calm after the verdict. What more would you like?
How about not helping organize the anti-Zimmerman protests in the first place?
I don’t care about the words coming out of Obama’s mouth. I care about the actions of his administration and minions in the political industry.
If Obama really cared about the safety and well being of Zimmerman and his family, he would be giving them security or going after those threatening death to Zimmerman and his family.
The speech you link was telling of Obama’s character. He continued to link Zimmerman to racism of the Democrat KKK Jim Crow days. And Obama seems to make up things about the case just like you do,
“On the other hand, if we’re sending a message as a society in our communities that someone who is armed potentially has the right to use those firearms even if there’s a way for them to exit from a situation,”
Not sure in what world short pudgy Zimmerman could have out ran someone starting on the hs football team, or why Obama thinks Martin’s attack on Zimmerman was justified,
“And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman, who had followed him in a car, because he felt threatened?”
No Mr Obama, the use of deadly force is not acceptable because someone followed you or asked you a question or isn’t the same skin color as you. Even in that last paragraph Obama is race baiting by alleging that Zimmerman was acting out of Martin’s skin color.
The defense also didn’t object to it being in the jury instructions
Why would they bother? It was to their benefit. That doesn’t mean that it was actually relevant. Did any juror say that it was the cause of their vote to acquit? I don’t think so. They didn’t need it.
You’re moving the goalposts. “Stand your ground” was relevant because it was used by various parties at various points in the proceedings.
It wasn’t used by the defense. Point to me a juror who claimed it was a factor.
So a factor is only relevant if a juror used it?
The fact that the City of Sanford and the judge used it make it irrelevant.
So a factor is only relevant if a juror used it? ‘
Yes.
The fact that the City of Sanford and the judge used it make it irrelevant.
Yes. The former wasn’t part of the trial, and the latter was judicial misconduct.
The fact that the City of Sanford and the judge used it make it irrelevant?
Do you even know who Christopher Cervini was? How would you have voted in that case?
I had not heard of Cervini before. Based on your link, it sounds like self-defense. Of note, the deceased was actually doing something criminal, unlike Martin.
Because aggravated assault isn’t a crime if the other guy has a holstered weapon and is white.
And a little Googling tells me that the shooting occurred on Scott’s property, and that their were witnesses. Scott did not chase anybody. The case was immediately referred to a grand jury.
In short, the facts of this case are wildly different from Zimmerman’s case. Facts matter, especially in courtrooms.
So, it’s really not killing you’re against, it’s insufficient respect for personal property lines, for which death is the penalty?
Bart – no, I’m against chasing people down for the crime of walking on a public street while talking on a cell phone. I’m against random Joes with a gun stopping people and hassling them.
I’m all for self-defense – I own guns myself. But my dad told me “never go chasing after somebody with a gun.”
“I’m against random Joes with a gun stopping people and hassling them.”
I’m cool with that. However, if you confront someone who is hassling you and start beating the crap out of him to the point where he fears for his life, then you better hope he isn’t packing. If he is, you gambled and lost.
Similarly, if you start ripping off a guy’s car and he catches you in the act and you rush toward him, you are taking the same chance.
Both of these cases were tragic. Neither of the young men involved deserved to die. But, the choices you make have consequences.
Chris Gerrib said:
I saw no testimony or evidence showing this to be an accurate description of what occurred between Zimmerman and Martin. All we know is that at some point Martin became aware of Zimmerman and told Jenteal, speculating as to Zimmerman’s plans. What happened between that time and when Martin was on top of Zimmerman we don’t know. Certainly there was no evidence or testimony that ZImmerman chased Martin down at any point, nor is there any evidence or testimony that Zimmerman stopped Martin. We do not know who initiated any spoken words, and we do not know who initiated any physical contact.
It seems clear to me that you believe the verdict to be an incorrect one. What do you believe caused the incorrect verdict? A jury who didn’t understand the law clearly? A jury that did understand the law but chose to apply it in a biased manner? An incompetent prosecution team? A prosecution team that threw the case? Incompetent investigators who tainted evidence such that it could no longer be used in the trial? A biased judge who gave the defense team an unfair advantage? A Florida statute that should be written differently such that Zimmerman would have been in violation of it?
I saw no testimony or evidence showing this to be an accurate description of what occurred between Zimmerman and Martin
Chris isn’t interested in evidence, or facts, or reality. All he cares about is that he is sure that Zimmerman lied, because that is what he “feels,” and because any other position doesn’t support his and the media’s racist narrative against the “white hispanic.”