General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsthe number of posts saying "this in no way is a defense of Zimmerman" is astounding
Gun nuts are going out of their way on DU lately to try to cast some doubt on what happened in Sanford.
Look... If you feel the need to preface your post with the words, "this is in no way a defense of Zimmerman, but..."
... Then you've failed.
Gun nuts, you aren't going to be able to spin this bad law away. It is a horrendous law, and it can't be defended.
At all.
Quit trying.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)
Liberal Veteran
(22,239 posts)it seems to me that NRA that pushed this law has a measure of responsibility and culpability in this murder.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)Just asking because hinging the argument on this law weakens the greater argument.
Liberal Veteran
(22,239 posts).....being charged with chasing someone down, starting an altercation, and killing a person based on nothing more than "he looked suspicious to me".
There is another law at play here in this: The law of unintended consequences.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)One would simply claim that he tried to retreat and was unable to do so.
SYG has nothing to do with justifying chasing someone down and starting a confrontation.
Actually, it specifically precludes that.
http://law.onecle.com/florida/crimes/776.041.html
[div class='excerpt']776.041 Use of force by aggressor.
The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
No, in the case of Martin, Zimmerman doesn't have a leg to stand on, but the (apparently) racist PD's reliance on this law is pig ignorant.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Most never get past "with my gun I CAN NOW STAND MY GROUND."
lark
(26,080 posts)Repugs couldn't/wouldn't acknowledge the truth, but there was always a big element of racism in the law.
dmallind
(10,437 posts)And anyone (weakly IMO) who makes your disclaimer is only doing so because they have been browbeaten by propagandists who try to link any discussion of the former all about the latter in their emotionally driven irrational fear of guns.
spanone
(141,601 posts)
Lost-in-FL
(7,093 posts)The law didn't cause the murder, this f@$&&er wanted to kill a kid and become a hero.
The law is ridiculous but this event has little to do with the law. This is like running a red light and stating after getting caugh that you are colorblind thus protected to do whatever you want.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)His actions do not fit any requirements of the law.
His action was enabled by inept/corrupt local police and politicians.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)His will, in court. Just watch and see what his defense hinges on, once he's charged with a crime.
Why are you taking the same stance as the NRA? They're a Republican hate group.
SemperEadem
(8,053 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)
SemperEadem
(8,053 posts)thank you, though, for keeping what this law is and is not in the forefront of conversations here.
dmallind
(10,437 posts)
DFab420
(2,951 posts)as the reason he wasn't even detained after gunning down a 17 year old boy.
Lost-in-FL
(7,093 posts)In a place where institutionalized racism exist, the word from x person whom shoot a y person, where y person look suspicious solely because of having the wrong nationality, creed, sex, etc., the word of x has more weight and thus protected by the system with the shitty laws that exist.
How do you account then that after being dead, this kid was subjected to drug/alcohol tests? Because they already assumed he was guilty.
My point: this law has nothing to do with this murder.
Gore1FL
(22,951 posts)Everything else aside, this law was their excuse.
It may have been used in an attempt to hide institutionalized racism. Nonetheless, the law was invoked. If the structure of the law was such that this was possible, there is a reason to readdress the law.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Whatever law an (apparently) racist police department hides behind makes no difference.
Lost-in-FL
(7,093 posts)There are witnesses. That the police is ignoring the witness accounts is another story. At least we know Zimmerman has good lawyers and influence and it looks like he will get away with this murder.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)The police ignoring witness accounts is the reason they claim to not have probable cause. (Assuming witness accounts are accurate.)
Lost-in-FL
(7,093 posts)I guess it is a matter of being patient.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Lost-in-FL
(7,093 posts)Institutionalize racism allows for this type of abomination to go on. He would have killed him w a baseball bat and the Police would still try to protect Mr Zimmerman.
AnotherDreamWeaver
(2,926 posts)dmallind
(10,437 posts)lark
(26,080 posts)is what drove the law to be passed, along with racism. So called "irrational fear of guns" did not kill this young man, a crazed gun freak did.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)and therefore at least a little frightening to those that may not want to be killed by one.
Why do you feel fear of something that will likely kill you is so irrational?
Also I have to ask, how many guns does Budda have, and which flesh rendering (but not to be feared tool) is his favorite.
Is he a Glock guy?
RevStPatrick
(2,208 posts)"...emotionally driven irrational fear of guns."
And people wonder why other people call some people "gun nuts."
A kid was walking down the street in the rain, and was killed by a gun owned by a whacko.
He was someone's son, friend, cousin, neighbor.
And a whacko with a gun snuffed out his young life for no fucking reason whatsoever.
That wouldn't have happened if the whacko didn't have a gun.
Guar-an-fucking-teed.
And we have an "emotionally driven irrational fear of guns?"
When your kid can't walk down the street without the possibility of this sort of thing happening?
And it happens too often. Once is too often.
What's irrational about wanting your kid to be able to go to the store without worrying that this sort of thing? "...emotionally driven irrational fear of guns." Yeah, right, it's the propagandists fault that I don't want my kid killed by some whacko with a gun.
You see, this is the kind of attitude that the OP was talking about.
It's some people's "emotionally driven irrational fear of guns" that is the problem, not that fact that there are whackos walking around with guns looking to use them.
Blame the victim.
Sheesh...
Straw Man
(6,946 posts)[div class = excerpt]And a whacko with a gun snuffed out his young life for no fucking reason whatsoever.
That wouldn't have happened if the whacko didn't have a gun.
Guar-an-fucking-teed
... no one can be killed with anything but a gun. Before guns were invented, whackos never killed anybody.
Guar-an-fucking-what?
RevStPatrick
(2,208 posts)"Because no one can be killed with anything but a gun. Before guns were invented, whackos never killed anybody..."
Can't you gun nuts ever come up with a line of "reasoning" that isn't a total NRA sound-bite cliche?
George Zimmerman would not have chased down and killed Trayvon Martin if he was not carrying a gun.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)...is a shit statement
Ohio Joe
(21,898 posts)
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)for a self defense claim. There is no provision in that law for chasing someone down, period. Zimmerman may be able to claim self defense, but not using that specific law.
DFab420
(2,951 posts)ever ever speak ill of a weapon. Because they think a gun is a tool, used for useful things in everyday life. When really it's a weapon, made and used for taking/damaging the life of whatever it is pointed at.
Think of a religious fanatic, then replace Jesus with Heckler and Koch.
stonecutter357
(13,045 posts)
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)DFab420
(2,951 posts)words you are having trouble with.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)Except it's polite.
Response to DFab420 (Reply #79)
Zoeisright This message was self-deleted by its author.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)What if Traylon was your son?
The lack of empathy by the gun apologists is stunning.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)I've repeatedly said that Zimmerman appears to have commited a crime, that he can not claim any SYG defense because his actions did not fit the criteria stated in the law and that the local police appear to be incompetent/corrupt and did not do a proper investigation.
I am very glad that outside agencies are moving in to look at this event.
What more needs to be said?
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)....but tell me what proof should the prosecution use that he violated 'stand your ground' rules to best get a conviction?
Isn't that the fundamental problem with such laws?
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)That's what started this mess.
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)That statement was spot on, and is perfect understandable by those who have a basic grasp of cause and effect.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)nt
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)that the law doesn't actually state anything like that, or work that way... whatevuh.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)We also feel obligated to correct incorrect and incomplete information.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Something as dangerous as words.
I feel your suffering at the hands of those that don't want to be around something that might kill them, they are mean as hell, and you should never be abused in such a cruel way.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)nt
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)Remmah2
(3,291 posts)
I'm so excited.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)Straw Man
(6,946 posts)It really isn't. "Because I say so" carries no rhetorical weight.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)see your argument.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Because with the exception of one that was carried by an American in WWII, none of my firearms have ever threatened a human life.
OriginalGeek
(12,132 posts)because I was beginning to think some folk here thought anyone who owned any gun is a gun nut. Fortunately, I don't think any of the law abiding citizens here at DU who own guns would refrain from speaking ill of someone's misuse of a weapon. I believe they universally decry this Zimmerman prick's misuse.
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)stanwyck
(6,620 posts)
NBachers
(19,438 posts)chiffon
(569 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I kid, I kid
I agree.
They see it rightfully so, as a problem.
The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)Just as that invariably is followed by a racist remark, and in fact signifies a racist remark is coming, the 'This is in no way a defense of Zimmerman, but...' pre-amble is simply a warning that a defense of Zimmerman's actions, of the inaction of the Sanford police, of the law in Florida, and the wholesale carrying of fire-arms for 'self-defense', will follow.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)... Then you've failed.
How so? Can you explain your logic, or were you just hoping no one would ask you to explain your logic?
DFab420
(2,951 posts)The meaning is meant like this: If you have something to say that sounds so much like support for a murderer that you have to say "this isn't a defense of the murder BUT".. then it's obvious to everyone that even YOU feel like it's supportive of said murderer. And if even the person saying it feels they have to preface it, then they obviously know they shouldn't even be saying it in the first place.
"This is in no way a defense of George Zimmerman but...(Insert defense of George Zimmerman here)"
It's the same as saying "I'm not a racist but.." then saying something incredibly racist.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Is there really only one accurate way to interpret it?
Sometimes when people use that type of phrasing it is because they are attacking something they perceive as false about the situation, which is a different motivation than defending something.
For example: If someone posts an article from The Onion about the pope and child molestation, and people were acting as if the article was true, someone may say, "I am not trying to defend the Pope on his record, but the article is from The Onion."
I believe the "I'm not defending X, but..." phrase needs to be considered on a case by case basis.
Gore1FL
(22,951 posts)The post would normally read something like this:
That's an onion article. n/t No one would take that as defense of the pope.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)However, very few of us pay attention to the grammar and precision of our posts. I don't worry about grammar very much when I post on DU, and I'm an English major.
RZM
(8,556 posts)And examining things in context. Of course it's true that it can be used as a cover for nasty sentiments. But not always.
I don't support violent racial prison gangs who rape, kill, and extort other inmates.. But I can understand why someone would join one for protection.
I don't support a vigilante who murders the person who killed their child. But I can at least understand why they did it.
I'm not supporting joining a gang or vigilantism. I'm merely saying that these are complex issues.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)Until he is tried and found guilty.
DFab420
(2,951 posts)least manslaughter??
Or hell at least detain him for questioning as a person of interest in an on going murder investigation?
montanto
(2,966 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Smith & Wesson or Predator drone; what's the difference?
They are both used to kill people, based on ascriptive qualities and without the benefit of a trial.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Or, shoot, just ban/restrict them both.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)
Walk away
(9,494 posts)Many a time thru the years I have read Gun Lobby posts implying that a vote for the republican in a race would be a lesson to the Democrat who backed stricter gun laws. Anyone who disagreed was heckled down with NRA fabricated statistics.
They cannot live without their guns even at weddings, funerals, trips to Day Care centers, parks filled with children. I am unsure why they consider themselves Democrats as many admit to voting for republicans.
Last edited Thu Mar 22, 2012, 02:41 PM - Edit history (1)
Many post get moved to the Gungeon.
The NRA does not represent me. (Deal with it.)
The gun prohibitionist lobby fabricates and lies as much as that fucking NRA.
I'm third generation labor democrat. My dad and grandpa were both gun owning union steel plant workers. I have several uncles who were UAW and very much second amendment supporters. My brother is a union chemical plant worker and pro-2A. Visit the blue collar 99% neighborhoods of Pittsburgh, Detroit you'll find lots of us.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)Walk away
(9,494 posts)that it's members not vote for Democrats who do not endorse "open carry" and less stringent gun laws? I could rummage through the place and prove you wrong but it gives me the creeps these days.
I know many Democrats who own guns but every one that I know are in favor of stricter gun laws.
It is typical that you believe that anyone who is in favor of well regulated ownership of guns is a prohibitionist. It's always the same thing....either everyone can have any kind of gun they want and carry it where ever they want or we are trying to take away your guns.
You can be born with a Union card in your mouth but if you advocate for republicans you basically are one.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)Just because some of us eat bread and they eat sandwiches for lunch at the NRA does not mean as pro2A people we're NRA supporters, members, donors. There are many issues concerning firearm laws, often times we get lumped into one bunch and the hostility is heaped upon us. How would you like us to react?
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)Don't plan to be, ever, and I'm a gun owner.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)And every trap league as a militia.
Back in the 60's-70's many pickup trucks in PA had a gun rack w/a rifle or shotgun in it. It didn't mean anything. And you didn't have to worry about it being stolen either.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)Remmah2
(3,291 posts)Check out the star prohabitionist post at the Gungeon. How do you think the Gungeon came to be?
Walk away
(9,494 posts)advocate to vote for republicans and belong to a site called Democratic Underground. If I were in any other forum and advised someone to vote for a republican I would be shut down and kicked out.
Originally, I was pointing out that the posts from the the DU Gun group are not typical of the rest of this site because MOST of the people who frequent that group are only Democrats when it doesn't get in the way of their unrestricted ownership and use of their guns. Anyone else who posts there with a different point of view (carrying guns in playgrounds? parks? forcing cities to abandon the gun laws they prefer? ) will get bombarded with NRA talking points and statistics by 10 or 20 regular members of the group right away. You may not be one of the most but that is the majority of the Gun Group.
As to being lumped into one bunch? Right or wrong you are judged by the company you keep.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)As far as being judged by the company I keep. My dogs object to your insults about the company they keep.
(OH MY GOD, HE'S A LOANER).
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)By all means, do so.
I don't believe you for a second. I want to see proof. You make it sound like there's a lot of it, so surely it would be easy for you to cite some.
Straw Man
(6,946 posts)advocate to vote for republicans and belong to a site called Democratic Underground.
Could you quote/cite a DU member advocating voting for a Republican? I may have seen it once here, but it's certainly not common.
Either you're mistaken or you're deliberately misleading people. That's not very progressive.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You can't of course, because what you are describing is a clear rules violation. This is DU, we don't advocate for republicans, even as a protest vote.
What we advocate, is a sea change in party platform positions on this topic. There are things, like the background check system, that both sides agree on keeping. Let's keep that, and spike the rest of the shit that loses us elections.
We want to WIN elections, we don't accomplish that by protest voting for the R.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)insulting posts in the gun lobby is so depressing I would rather loose the arguement.
Maybe we should also defund Planned Parenthood and give tax breaks to the rich! That should get us a few more votes too!
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I hope you will too. It is an option to end the debate and move on to health care options, like Single Payer. Not the preferable option, but an option.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)REALLY well put.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Can you find one? Because what you just described is against DU rules, and I for one have alerted the only post I have ever seen of that nature, and per the rules, it was eradicated.
Link to these encouragements to vote Rethug?
(Because what you ACTUALLY see a lot of in the gungeon is encouragement to ALTER THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLATFORM to get rid of the nonsense gun regulation stuff)
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I'll bet they cheered loudly when jebb bush signed SYG into law. In celebration, many probably went out and bought another gun to carry.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)It's clear who is dancing in the blood of the dead.
It's funny how many people blame the NRA and how few mentions of the local PD.
DFab420
(2,951 posts)ppl down in the streets if you feel threatened....
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)Keep dancing.
DFab420
(2,951 posts)political influence to pressure and pass gun laws like this "stand your ground" law in Florida?
Are you claiming the NRA has nothing to do with almost every gun issue on the national and state level?
Are you saying that it was the local PDs fault for allowing a neighborhood watch captain to obtain, conceal, carry and use a loaded 9mm handgun on a 17 year old boy because said captain had felt "threatened"? Even though local 911 dispatch told the captain to leave the boy alone?
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)But I don't think you've read even that much of it.
DFab420
(2,951 posts)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. (This sounds more like Trayvon had to right to shoot Zimmerman, then the other way around)
(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.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)[div class='excerpt']776.041 Use of force by aggressor.
The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
DFab420
(2,951 posts)Zimmerman by not allowing a stranger to approach and question him????
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)And specifically in this case, Zimmerman can't avail himself of this law as a defense because of the section quoted above.
DFab420
(2,951 posts)Florida is among 21 states with a "Stand Your Ground Law," which gives people wide latitude to use deadly force rather than retreat during a fight. The self-defense law helps explain why a neighborhood watch captain has not been arrested in the shooting death of an unarmed teenager.
The Florida law lets police on the scene decide whether they believe the self-defense claim. In many cases, the officers make an arrest and leave it to the courts to work out whether the deadly force is justified. In this case, however, police have said they are confident they did the right thing by not charging 28-year-old George Zimmerman.
"The law has definitely shifted and given a signal to law enforcement to be more careful," he said. "But in a case where the self-defense claim is weak, you would think they would do their job."
In a statement released Wednesday, Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee insisted his officers were "prohibited from making an arrest based on the facts and circumstances they had at the time," including physical evidence that supported Zimmerman's self-defense claim.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)That PD?
Yeah, like I'd give any credence to a PD whose previous chief didn't pursue a case where a teen was caught on tape beating a black homeless man.
Pull the other one, it's got bells on.
DFab420
(2,951 posts)the racist PD are using to sheild a possible murderer..
Therefore the stand your ground law requires at least some action in the form of changing it's language right?
I mean thats the point I'm making, is that not the point you are also trying to make? Or are you saying the law is fine, it's just the people that implement it?
If that's the case then how do you feel about the law that allows the executive branch to kill american born terrorists without a court of law. You could basically say they are doing it out of self defense too.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)If it weren't this law, it would be another. This is just the most recent in a string of high profile cases where the Sanford PD has looked the other way when the victim is not white. It rises to the level of institutional racism. Which is why I'm glad the DoJ is looking into the matter.
*This* law actually includes a preclusion for assholes like Zimmerman.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)They are neglecting/refusing to properly investigate a crime.
Now that outside agencies are involved, I think the truth will be dragged into the light.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)to make racist decisions about incidents like this, no the problem certainly isn't this law, this enabling act for sociopaths everywhere it has been passed into law to go out and commit murder and get away with it. It is the misapplication of this license to murder that is the problem. The law is fine.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Is there anyway we can communicate? I'm thinking not.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)I just think it's naive in the extreme to point a finger at one law, when a racist police department has used other laws, other bad procedures, other incompetence to excuse other racists.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Guy Whitey Corngood
(26,848 posts)
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)KamaAina
(78,249 posts)No, really, it isn't. To hell with him.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)This law was never intended to protect nutjobs like him; it was intended to protect people whose homes are invaded, which was NOT what happened here.
The author of the Florida law has said that Zimmerman should be arrested. It's the police who are falsely claiming that the law protects this assclown. It does not.
murielm99
(32,988 posts)I just hate to see threads like this. It is worse than the primaries.
We need to be united now. We are facing too many threats to be otherwise.
And I don't know any gun owners who approve of what happened to Trayvon Martin.
Lost-in-FL
(7,093 posts)A murder was committed and this archaic law used, after the fact, to protect this asshole. I don't think this Neanderthal was even considering the law, specially when he acted even when told not to engage.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)You don't know what the outcome will be. People are sensely shot everyday for nothing, the reasons never matter to the shooter other than they feel justified. This shooting is not the first, wont be the last, regardless of what law is or isn't cited. Blame the PD for not taking proper action.
Lost-in-FL
(7,093 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Sometimes criminals don't get arrested initially while an investigation is underway. I believe that is what is happening right now in the Zimmerman case.
If you choose to interpret my position as "defending" Zimmerman, count me out of your angry mob.
obxhead
(8,434 posts)an adult twice his size and nearly twice his age with a gun.
I would call that probable cause for an arrest.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)Last edited Thu Mar 22, 2012, 04:09 PM - Edit history (1)
The only reason an investigation is underway is because of public outcry over an obvious murder. The Sanford cops had already closed the books on it as a "nothing to see here", "self defense" shooting.
So, in this case, the investigation came after the murderer (yes, he's a murderer) was set free.
Not part of an "angry mob", just an angry mom... who doesn't want to see a murderer encourage more murderers to go out hunting for children.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)The fact that he hasn't been arrested may be a result of how the law is being interpreted, and an avoidance of liability.
http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Zimmerman_Martin_shooting.pdf
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)The law does not (as per a FL atty on CNN) allow for harassing someone or stalking someone after being told that one did not need to do that. They had enough evidence the night of the murder to see that it was more than self defense unfortunately. This is a "cover our butts" letter, IMO.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)I don't understand your post. Did you mean "prohibit?" If so, I agree.
The letter does explicitly say that a suggestion from a 911 call-taker is not a lawful authoritative order that must be followed:
...The call taker’s suggestion is not a lawful order that Mr. Zimmerman would be required to follow....
I think the CNN caller was in error.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)with the Florida attorney on this one. There was enough evidence to the contrary of self defense claims to keep the case open. Sorry.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)
A 911 call-taker's suggestions have no legal authority. The law does NOT have to explicitly "allow for" something for that thing to be legal. Everything that is not explicitly prohibited is legal.
What law would a person who disregarded such a suggestion fall under? I don't believe there is one.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)who stated that, law or no law, there was enough evidence that this was not a SYG case and that Mr. Zimmerman should have been taken into custody. The investigation was taken up only after public outcry...and that is what makes this "mob member" sick.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)Zimmerman followed him with his car. It was dark. It was raining. Then Zimmerman got out of his car and confronted Martin. Martin fearing for his life shoots Zimmerman dead, claims self defense as he was afraid that the larger Zimmerman could over power him and do him grave bodily harm.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts) Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)Zimmerman has the right to a fair trial. Do people have a problem with Zimmerman receiving a fair trial?
Police are saying Zimmerman wasn't confronting Trayvon when Trayvon attacked Zimmerman.
Zimmerman says he was walking to his truck.
Chief Bill Lee: Zimmerman’s statement was that he had lost sight of Trayvon and was returning to his truck to meet the police officer when he says he was attacked by Trayvon.
http://tinyurl.com/84rklbf
Trayvon Martin’s girlfriend: “He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on,” she said. “He said he lost the man. I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run but he said he was not going to run.”
http://tinyurl.com/7vn6m2f
This means you need to know what happened once the two men were eye to eye. Now lets start again.
WI_DEM
(33,497 posts)arrested first. There is no doubt that his actions warranted being arrested, imo.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)You don't arrest-then-investigate. You have it 180 degrees the wrong way.
DFab420
(2,951 posts)questioning. Then he may be charged and kept in jail during the investigation if the evidence is compelling enough to keep him in custody.
The police can arrest you without any investigation having been done. They can then keep you for up to 24 hours before charging you....
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)the requirements for each are rather different.
I whole-heartedly think that Zimmerman should have been detained and questioned, and a proper investigation done. If it had been, I think there would have been more than enough evidence for an arrest.
The problem here is that a law some people don't like is being blamed (when it doesn't seem to apply), instead of the police who haven't done thier jobs properly.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Questioning was by 'Investigator D. Singleton'.
http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Twin%20Lakes%20Shooting%20Initial%20Report.pdf
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)For at least 40 seconds we heard Trayvon screaming for help. We know it was Trayvon because the screaming stopped immediately after the gunshot. Zimmerman obviously found Trayvon again and they were stationary outside of this woman's home for at least 40 seconds. According to Trayvon's girlfriend:
After that the line went dead and it was just seconds later that Trayvon was killed.
If indeed Trayvon's girlfriend is correct, there was some pushing but obviously Zimmerman kept the upper hand because 1) Trayvon remained stationary (probably because he was lying on the ground and/or had a gun pointing at him) and 2)he was screaming for help.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)Now it's sounding like Trayvon confronted Zimmerman asking him why he is following him. They both lost each other, so who met up with who?
Chief Bill Lee: Zimmerman’s statement was that he had lost sight of Trayvon and was returning to his truck to meet the police officer when he says he was attacked by Trayvon.
http://tinyurl.com/84rklbf
Trayvon Martin’s girlfriend: “He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on,” she said. “He said he lost the man. I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run but he said he was not going to run.”
http://tinyurl.com/7vn6m2f
You don't know Zimmerman knocked the phone to the ground or who pushed who. If Trayvon was crying for help, I figure he was probably looking at the gun.
Response to Life Long Dem (Reply #107)
Cali_Democrat This message was self-deleted by its author.
frylock
(34,825 posts)trayvon begging for his life. should be real fucking easy to analyze the recordings to determine if it was indeed trayvon or that lying murderous fuck pleading for mercy. care to wager on the results?
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)if all of a sudden someone pulled a gun out and pointed it at me while I'm engaged in a fight with them.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)You would rather be the judge and jury and hang someone before they have their right to a fair trial. I see where you stand.
Are you saying what I said didn't happen?
Are you saying they didn't fight? Or that it wasn't Trayvon crying? Or that Zimmerman didn't pull a gun and shoot Trayvon after he was yelling for help?
I didn't think so. I'm not the judge and jury as some here are. And I'm not in Zimmerman's camp. This should never have happened. So lets let this work out and put away the noose for a second.
Did Zimmerman need to use deadly force? Was Trayvon a threat to Zimmerman when he was crying for help? Wouldn't this mean he shot him while he was not a threat? Just saying. If or when this goes to trial these will be the questions the jury will want to know.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)more like sociopaths
safeinOhio
(37,651 posts)Zimmerman is an asshole and guilty as shit, but I'm going to defend him anyhow. But, no they lie.
Then they defend the law. Even the guy that wrote it says it needs to be changed.
USArmyParatrooper
(1,827 posts)If someone doesn't see he situation as black & white that doesn't de facto make that person a "gun nut."
Personally I find it implausible that Zimmerman had reason to believe his life was in danger, but attempting to shame people who disagree with you is wrong and it does nothing to validate your views.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)If it was him crying he must have saw the gun and felt his life was in danger.
obxhead
(8,434 posts)Last edited Thu Mar 22, 2012, 07:56 PM - Edit history (1)
You know the next thing out of their fucking mouths is going to be a racist statement.
If you want to defend Zimmerman have the guts to do so. Don't try to hide behind the "I don't think this way" statement when you damn well do.
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)Exactly.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)This should be locked.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)We can take it.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)like all of the posts that started 'I don't support Ron Paul but ...'
Sid
RZM
(8,556 posts)Who are clearly trolling.
That's not the same as a longtime DUer saying 'I don't support Ron Paul, but I acknowledge that I'm closer to his position on drug policy than I am to the president. Other than that, I don't like him at all.'
Given the support for drug law reform on this site, I imagine there are quite a few posters who could say that and still have clean hands.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)The rest of the post you cover yourself, so clearly you can reason that some peoples positions on this matter that are contrary to yours are genuine.
RZM
(8,556 posts)Hence the 'Fuck Ron Paul' meme here on DU.
Many of them posted things like:
'I'm not a Ron Paul fan, but when you think about it, we really should end the Fed and the drug war, repeal the patriot act, cut all foreign aid, invest in gold, and bring the troops home. I mean, can we really trust Obama to do this type of stuff?'
It was 'vote Ron Paul' without actually saying it (and sometimes actually saying it). These were people who signed up to DU specifically to troll for Paul. He does have a mini-army of keyboard commando zealots, after all.
That's not the same as a DUer who thinks that our current drug laws need to be reformed. I think more than half of the posters here would say that. They are closer to Paul on that particular issue than they are to the president, like it or not. I see nothing wrong with people saying that. It's just a fact.
In fact, many others are closer to him on the patriot act and the wars too. That's part of the reason there were so many Paulbots signing up here. They thought they might be able to turn some people, or at least get them to vote for him in open Republican primaries.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I'm closer to RP on WAR in general, than the president, with drone killings, new wars in Libya, etc. I'm also closer to RP on domestic security, like repealing the patriot act. Most progressives will identify that way.
But his domestic social agenda is a complete paleoconservative non-starter.
Moral Compass
(2,393 posts)Here is what seems to have happened. A self styled neighborhood watch captain saw someone he thought was suspicious, pursued him. confronted him, started some sort of altercation, and then shot the guy.
You can't defend that. It isn't even manslaughter. It is murder. It might even be premeditated murder. That will come down to intent.
There is no defense here. Really, quit trying. This isn't about gun rights. This is about a shooting that should have never happened. Even in Texas you couldn't do this and not get arrested and charged.
Response to scheming daemons (Original post)
ellisonz This message was self-deleted by its author.
Old Codger
(4,205 posts)And other assholes like him give the responsible gun owners and carriers a bad name, mostly it is a result of not enforcing the existing laws...I read that he had a domestic dispute and resisting arrest rap on him, most states take your gun right away based on that type of crime. H should never have had a concealed permit or a gun at all.
Lost-in-FL
(7,093 posts)They cannot even enforce basic gun laws. What made the state think that it was a good idea to pass laws that are critical to the safety of innocent people?
But you know how they will justify this one; "Oh, well... shit happens sometimes."
frylock
(34,825 posts)they screwed the pooch when charges were dropped on the assault on an officer (still waiting for details of that). he is likely connected (i read his father is an attorney in the area?) and that's why there were no charges. if he had been charged then his CCW would've been revoked.
earcandle
(3,622 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)imo.
louis-t
(24,618 posts)"A person can gun someone down in cold blood, then it's that person's word against a dead guy."
Simple as that.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)This is just another excuse that criminals will try to hide behind. Removing it would have likely just changed Zimmerman's excuse.
louis-t
(24,618 posts)arrest the suspect.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Zimmerman would have just claimed that he tried to retreat and couldn't.
The police always have to have probable cause to arrest, regardless of 'stand your ground'. If you have a corrupt police department inclined to look the other way when the victim is black, it doesn't matter which law they're hiding behind.
moriah
(8,312 posts)Last edited Thu Mar 22, 2012, 04:58 PM - Edit history (1)
He pursued Trayvon.
Trayvon was the one who had a claim to self-defense.
Self-defense is good. This wasn't it.
jzodda
(2,124 posts)He would have had the book thrown at him already.
LoZoccolo
(29,393 posts)That's how I could separate it from Zimmerman's action. Zimmerman claims that Trayvon fought him, but even if he did, Trayvon would be standing his ground against someone who followed him around in a car and approached him, when Trayvon was in a place which he had a right to be.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)The law is fine, the local PD and district attorney fell down in the application of the law.
Progressive dog
(7,602 posts)But since Trayvon was murdered, it works in Zimmerman's favor.
Is this sarcasm, or do you really believe what you said?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Dr Fate
(32,189 posts)nt
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)The problem is this specific police department's interpretation/application of it. (as well as the District Attorney)
No law is worth a shit if it isn't properly enforced. 'Stand your ground' does not imply (even though it is non-legal shorthand for no duty to retreat) getting out of your car, chasing down someone who isn't doing anything illegal, and initiating a confrontation with them, in which that person might feel threatened.
It is entirely self-evident, even to the gun-carrying community within DU, that what Zimmerman did was wrong, and is not entitled to shelter under the stand your ground law.
Predictions:
Zimmerman will be going to trial over this, both civil and criminal.
DA loses his job.
Police Department gets reamed out by the FBI over civil rights abuses.
None of that is a reflection upon this law. IT IS NOT SELF DEFENSE to go out of your way to accost another human being. If Trayvon had survived, and Zimmerman died, the law would have sheltered Trayvon, if properly applied. Trayvon, being the victim defending himself.
demgrrrll
(3,593 posts)yes you do.
Daemonaquila
(1,712 posts)The law ain't the problem. A racist murderer was the problem. When you get on your high horse and blame the law, you're giving him an excuse that "Oh, if only that lax law hadn't been passed, this might not have happened." Absolute rubbish - Zimmerman had a host of messages sent to him his whole life from institutional racism to hate speech by right-wing media. The vast majority of the population doesn't become murderous over it, and the likelihood of anyone tipping over the edge because of that silly law - which by the way IN NO WAY CAN BE INTERPRETED TO GIVE HIM AN OUT.
One person - Zimmerman - is at fault for acting on his most base, sick desire to blow away someone of the "wrong" race coming into "his" territory. He wasn't thinking about legal points, he was thinking about how good it would feel to pump lead into a black kid.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)If you have a gun, if you want a gun, that's one thing.
If you find yourself on Democratic Underground advocating for the NRA, you're in bed with a bunch of filthy right-wing death cult liars.
There's a difference.
Progressive dog
(7,602 posts)Thanks, just what I was thinking.
Control-Z
(15,686 posts)Progressive dog
(7,602 posts)This is not a perversion of this law. This is the expected consequence.
Should be called the murderers go free law (as long as the victim is a minority,especially a young black male).
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)hurts/exterminates poor people.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)Anyone who defends that piece of shit is a piece of shit themselves.
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)disgraceful.
Everyone should send 100 bucks to the NRA for penance.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Pretty quick to hide any thread that makes them nervous, thin skin must be part of the need for certain compensations.
I have seldom ventured into the gundgeon, but I went there today and I found many people praising ALEC laws and more than a few right wing NRA types. So me being me (for better or worse) I turned to sarcasm. (I know, really frightening stuff)
I sarcastically parroting their "reasoning" for needing so many guns in so many hands.
They really do frighten easily, sarcastic posts are enough to make them fear for their lives (or fear for something) and cause them to have the sarcasm locked for simply repeating back to them their own reasoning, interesting.
If people like this are so afraid of sarcasm, how little would it take to make them so frightened they feel they must shoot someone to be safe.
I thought they were supposed to be tough guys, now I am just embarrassed for them and will stop scaring them so much and treat them with the little baby gloves.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)You are, at best, terribly confused.
We routinely get called names, are accused of being criminals, suffer claims that we are looking for excuses to kill, are told we are not liberals/democrats/progressives because we don't pass some invented purity test and, as you so self-rightously announce, are told we are "right wing NRA types". Edit: See post #166 as a classic example. Edit #2: And 177.... sigh. Edit #3: http://www.democraticunderground.com/117224318
In any other forum on this site, those would be bannable offenses. We alert on only the most heinous examples, and often, under a double-standard so blatent it's risible, are told to suffer these indignities as a penalty for our alleged sins.
"Pretty quick to hide any thread that makes them nervous..." Hide what threads? Where? Cite, please.
"...thin skin must be part of the need for certain compensations." More ad hominem attacks and insinuation of... something. You prove my point.
"I thought they were supposed to be tough guys, now I am just embarrassed for them and will stop scaring them so much and treat them with the little baby gloves." More ad hominem, now with an extra dose of paternalism. Well played.
Now, would you like to discuss anything of actual substance?
Edit#3, cont.: No, I guess you don't.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)They just love to say 'we don't know what happened.'
Sure we do.
One fact is certain: There is a dead child.
Anyone care to dispute?
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)to daily spew right-wing memes and Republican talking points about guns, they've gotten bold. They barely even put up the slightest pretense - which was pretty thin at DU2 as it was - that they are actually progressives any more. They openly revel in being conservatives who are allowed to post at will on a liberal discussion board.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)and wildlife rehabilitator. I spent years protesting in the late 60's and early 70's and again with Code Pink while Bush was President. I pit my progressive history against anyone's here. I am also a woman who owns firearms and I resent your accusatory post. Here you are, calling out a segment of this board and painting them with a broad brush which is in my opinion the antithesis of progressive. I know emotions are running high but divisive statements like this make the situation worse.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)or with anyone else who owns firearms?
Maybe you should spend a couple of days (I've spent over 10 years) reading posts in the Guns forum -- and the antics of present and former posters there elsewhere on the net, chortling about their exploits at DU and spewing funny venom about actual progressive DUers like, yes, yours truly -- and then read the post you replied to again.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)I stop in to the guns forum every once and a while. I see a lot of people with passion for the subject and all it entails. I don't however spend enough time there to know all the regulars and any trolls who might stop in there. I know I am seeing a lot of posts insulting gun owners on this board and I take it personal when I am painted with a broad brush the way the poster did.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)The quotation marks were in the original post for a reason, one would think.
You are the only one misrepresenting anything here. Innocently, perhaps, but in that case out of ignorance, I guess.
As I said, if one reads something about the Guns forum and is not familiar with the Guns forum, one really needn't decide that it is about one's self.
Someday, I'm sure somebody will explain to me what the hell "pro gun" means ...
I'm "pro fetuccine Alfredo", myself, I guess. Gonna go make us some for supper shortly ... doesn't mean I don't support laws about pasteurization of milk ...
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Speaking of thinking everything is about you... "spewing funny venom about actual progressive DUers like, yes, yours truly..."
iverglas
(38,549 posts)I stated that once-current and former "DUers" spend time on the internet "spewing funny venom about actual progressive DUers like, yes, yours truly".
Are you saying that's false?
Try googling my name.
Here's a good one:
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/778683__ARCHIVED_THREAD____Just_registered_at_DU_and_am_now_behind_enemy_lines_________.html&page=2
I just thought it would be a neat place to troll around. Not sure how long it will be before I get kicked out (I'm going to try to infiltrate these a**holes as long as I can). Those hippies are just nuts on that wacky site.
I've been posting on their "Guns" forum as iverglas for some time and never had a problem.
i thought iverglas was some canadian cunt of a bitch that wanted no one to have weapons ever.....so now you tell me its an arfcommer?
Good cover, huh?
damn i guess so. i remember wanting to skull fuck you with rage while a stick of dynamite stuk in yer ass slowly counted down to detonation with a mildly wet old timey fuse....
Forgive the language and all; it isn't mine. I guess that thread demonstrated both my points pretty well -- a bucketful of right-wing gun militant assholes talking about posting at DU, and posting their thoughts about, yes, moi.
Happy?
Oh good, I've just seen that my identity has been stolen to put a fake signature on an online petition ... again ...
Papagoose
(428 posts)Because a person calls themselves a pro-gun Democrat, they can't be a Liberal? Most people think I'm a socialist or a communist, you say I'm a conservative.
We have to all believe the same on every single issue???
Wow...how very progressive of you.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)
Have you ever posted in the Guns forum? I don't recall seeing your name there in a decade, but I may have missed it.
Do you constantly post right-wing talking points about firearms policy at DU? I certainly will not presume you do!
So why do you feel insulted by that post?
Did someone say that? Or did someone refer to "pro-gun Democrats", in quotations like that, referring to people who merely call themselves pro-gun Democrats, whom there is no reason to believe? "Pro-gun" (ridiculous as that term is) they plainly are; Democrats, no evidence whatsoever apart from self-serving blatant assertions.
Well you might put three question marks after that statement!!! It's a strange idea, isn't it???
Fortunately, it isn't what that poster or anybody else has said.
Straw Man
(6,946 posts)Flat wrong. Cite to posters who "openly revel in being conservatives" or retract.
Private ownership of firearms is a progressive value.
Fascist.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)
flvegan
(66,278 posts)some folks feel they need to preface what they say with such a phrase because there are so many finger-pointing assholes quick to jump on and spin every fucking word out of context that anyone says on the topic.
Fuck actually thinking through something, discussing it, making a point.
And no, this is in no way a defense of Zimmerman. <---- See what I did there?
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)As big a tough guys toting shooting irons around as they brag about, their tender feelings sure do seem to get hurt real easy on the internet - I've had three replies "hidden" under DU3's asinine "jury" system in the last six hours because the tender little feelings of our "pro-gun Democrats," aka pretend liberals, have been wounded (no pun intended): they have been wearing out those alert buttons, angry at the truth about the right wing presence they pollute this place with in their presence here.
They are typically cowardly reactionaries, who have no place at DU but have nevertheless learned how to game the DU3 system quite easily.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)You can let it all out there. 
http://www.democraticunderground.com/124065245
And wear your transparency page with pride, if you get up to five.
Some of us hoped that the little-publicized administration policy of reserving the Guns forum (and another that one might mention) for our right-wing lodgers might change with the new DU -- that ordinary DUers might take a look at the dark corner of this place that they had avoided for all these years (ew, it's the gungeon, let me out!) and say: this is our DU now and this is not what we want it to look like.
Sadly, too many are still saying "it's the gungeon, they're all as bad as each other, let them have at it and I don't care".
And you're right; the number of sarcastic posts by non-right-wing Guns forum regulars that have been alerted on as "calling for people to be killed!", for example, show that the gaming is getting more refined. And the number of jurors willing to be deceived by such nonsense -- sometimes obviously at least in part because they actually do expect to see such things in that forum! -- is disappointing.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)to when I first stumbled onto the Gungeon on DU2, and all the tombstones handed out to our "pro gun Democrat" friends I'd witnessed over the years. I reckon 80% of them would never have been shown the door under the jury system.
I'm not sure this was what was intended when the new version launched, but it's what they got.
One thing I'm going to start recommending to folks not familiar with the history of the Guns forum is to check out the talking points on any given issue of the day at the average gun-loons discussion forum, and then compare them the "pro gun Democrats" consensus in the Gungeon right here at DU. I think if they take my advice they'll be startled at the similarities in such commentary between those sites and what is our very own, here at DU, sub-forum that is for all practical purposes an talking points clearing house of the NRA.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)BootinUp
(51,314 posts)not really... just trying to predict the next stupid bumper sticker for gun nuts.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)It's interesting to note whenever a crime involving a firearm occurs, how some of them think that by their owning a firearm somehow suddenly translates into making them legal experts.
Lilyeye
(1,417 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Lilyeye
(1,417 posts)I guess freeperville or stormfront has been slow this week.
emilyg
(22,742 posts)Lilyeye
(1,417 posts)Last edited Fri Mar 23, 2012, 01:49 PM - Edit history (1)
Just to clear up what I meant, I didn't mean to imply I saw a lot of DU members doing it. Mostly trolls who had under 10 post defending Zimmerman or trying to make the kid into some criminal. Not to mention some of the crap I've heard from real people.
Edit: I made a new post, but I deleted it and just put it here in my original post.
I was just reading another thread and stumbled up on this as an example of what I was talking about.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=460887
At first I thought he was being sarcastic, but the "sweet innocent Trayvon" comment lets you know where they stand.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)perhaps you should be prepared to discuss specifics.
I freely admit I haven't read every single thread on the subject, but I haven't seen what you have vaguely described.
Lilyeye
(1,417 posts)I
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Good luck with that.
Lilyeye
(1,417 posts)Why are you acting as though I am writing some newspaper article or stated something like
Hillary Clinton murdered children
Barack Obama is a terrorist
PavePusher is trying to make Zimmerman into a poor victim
I would definitely agree that when writing an published article or writing statements like the ones above, one would need links to be backed up. However, by me saying that it made me sick to see people make Zimmerman into victim is something that I didn't think I needed "proof" for. Considering my opinion was based on things I've seen on DU and out of it. I didn't feel as though I owed you any explanation for my opinion. Esp by a person who admits they haven't been in all the threads where some of these post can be found.
With that said, I ended up giving Emily an example anyway since I saw the post as soon as I left this one and went into another thread. So far she hasn't been on my case about it and I respected that. However, at the time, I was not about to go out of my way to find links for something that didn't really need an explanation or affected you personally.
but whatever, have a good day.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)you added a link after my challenge. I did not see your link until just now. I offer my apology for missing your revision.
I also owe you an apology for my terseness. Some of us have been attacked under claims of supporting Zimmerman when we haven't done so in any way, shape or form. I may have gotten oversensative to the subject. It's a bad excuse, but it is my only explaination.
Thank you for the link.
Lilyeye
(1,417 posts)Edit: I forgot to add that the reason I posted the above link is because I want to show I know the difference between people offering a different opinion and others just being flat out mean and cruel about it. The posts I linked to were just examples of what I meant.
However, I have to say that I truly appreicate and commend you for apologizing because I don't see that often on the internet. I would also like to apologize for appearing snarky as well. I think all of us are a bit oversensitive about this subject, but I am honestly glad that we were able to resolve this. Have a good day.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)to the point being bizarre.
But I now see what you were refering to. I'm just glad I hadn't seen it before. Ick.
As far as I have seen, no-one who is a regular pro-firearms-choice presence in the "Gungeon" has said anything that could be confused with that or with defense of Zimmerman. Plenty of defense of due process, and some defense of the law itself, with explaination of how Z's actions did not meet it's restrictions.
Thank you for your links and explainations. Glad we could clear up the misunderstanding. I hope you have a very good weekend.
Response to emilyg (Reply #197)
Lilyeye This message was self-deleted by its author.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)"This IS a defense of Zimmerman", doesn't it?
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)then posted links. The linked posts were reasonable, moderate, and did not defend Zimmerman's actions in any way, but merely said they had questions and wanted to wait for the investigation.
I haven't seen any posts that say what you are saying they said.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)polichick
(37,626 posts)We have the right-wing HATE/FEAR MACHINE to thank for this kind of injustice - hate radio, Faux News, the cowardly GOP and the over-reaching, fearmongering NRA. Time for real patriots to stand up together.
Pacafishmate
(249 posts)Lilyeye
(1,417 posts)I just say someone reply to my post like that. Thankfully, they were banned.
Straw Man
(6,946 posts)... and you're not. I'm just sayin' ...