The Rude Pundit: The NRA and Florida Legislators Killed Trayvon Martin as Surely as a Gun Did

[Cirque du So-What]

Well, what the fuck did you expect, Florida, you limp, useless cock of the diseased body America? You make guns as easy to get as a package from Amazon (regular shipping), you pass concealed carry laws, and you pass a law that says that if people "have a reasonable belief that they are in danger of death or great bodily harm" they can kill the fuck out of someone out in public. No need to run away. No need to call the cops first. Just Spidey senses a-tingling. Did you not expect that at some point, some creepy vigilante wouldn't get the chance to live out his Batman fantasies? Of course, George Zimmerman, not being in the physical shape of Batman, was just a stupid asshole who shot a skinny, unarmed teenager because he felt threatened by black guys in hoodies walking through his 'hood.

Back on April 13, 2005, when the "Stand Your Ground" bill had just passed the Florida legislature, Bo Dietl, the former cop who appears on TV constantly to support law enforcement in his deranged goombah way (thus leading him to be a regular Daily Show and Colbert Report punchline interview subject), said on MSNBC's Scarborough Country that the new law was "idiotic" and a "ludicrous and ridiculous law. And Jeb Bush must be smoking a crack pipe...If you have a feeling, if you have a belief or that you are threatened, that you can react and react first, then you open up a whole Pandora's box here."

Anybody with a fucking brain, and even a few without, knew what was going to happen. In early 2005, when the bill was quickly debated and savagely passed, State Senator Steve Geller, a Democrat, warned, "I don't think you ought to be able to kill people that are walking toward you on the street because of this subjective belief that you're worried that they may get in a fight with you." The street, he said, is not your castle. (Note: Pat Buchanan said in 2005 on The McLaughlin Group that the law's passage was a "Great victory for Bush and for America." Is he dead yet?)

Politicians, on the right and in the middle, are to blame for Trayvon Martin's execution. All over the nation, but especially in Florida, the National Rifle Association threatens to destroy any legislator who refuses to bend over and let it shove cash into their assholes. The NRA wants an exception to the 3-day waiting period for people with concealed carry licenses, as they did in the Sunshine State? The Republicans in Tallahassee line up and open their asses for that cash to be shoveled in, along with the promise that the almighty motherfucking NRA will support them in a primary. And then, their asses full to their lower intestines with filthy money, the legislators get on their knees in front of NRA lobbyist Marion Hammer as she holds a pistol between her legs and they suck on it until the barrel has rubbed her kooz to orgasm. Then they pass every idiotarded law the gun nuts want under the umbrella of "rights." That's how the NRA works, motherfuckers, and then they tell us it's to keep us safe.

Seriously, if the ACLU were as deranged in defending the First Amendment as the NRA is in defending its distorted version of the Second, you'd be able to walk up to a crucifixion statue in the middle of St. Boyrape's Cathedral, shit on Christ's face, and claim "freedom of expression," and the laws would back you up and how dare anyone be such a pussy as to claim that shitting on Christ's face isn't free speech.

Trayvon Martin was killed by a gun. No, guns alone don't kill people. People with guns do, though. And, chances are, if George Zimmerman wasn't carrying one, he wouldn't have pursued Martin. He wouldn't have ignored the 911 operator's call for him to stand down. And Martin would still be alive.

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/

[jpak]

1. Rude Pundit does not like Rude Toters

yup

[Hoyt]

2. Totally agree. I'd also add those who contribute to, and support, the NRA to the list.

[Paladin]

3. Bullseye, Rude Pundit.

"What the fuck did you expect?" is the exact question that needs to be asked at this point. Lots of luck with your answers, gun militants.....

[Cirque du So-What]

4. 'What the fuck did you expect?' indeed

I hope the answers are forthright - replete with explanations why their expectations do no meet with reality.

[ellisonz]

22. I remember...

...after the UCLA library taser incident a friend writing: "UCLA why are you surprised?" -

[Starboard Tack]

5. Pretty much says it all.

Do I hear hoof beats?

[Remmah2]

6. The horse will be dead in a week.

The public will be on to it's next crisis.

[Cirque du So-What]

15. Its

You may hope so, but what you so derisively call a 'crisis' may not go away within the time frame you wish.

[Remmah2]

20. Okay 10 days then.

For some with OCD it'll linger but most people suffer from ADD.

[Cirque du So-What]

26. Don't think much of the American public, do you?

Cling to your specious hope that it all gets forgotten, then, and things return to normal - where police departments are given wide discretion on whether to bring charges against shooters who may just get away with murder. The Florida legislature will likely reopen debate on this law, so you'd better your hope of collective amnesia extends to the State House in Tallahassee.

[Remmah2]

41. What percentage of people actually turn out at the polls?

Yes I have a low opinion of the general masses. People that don't give a crap about one another.

[gejohnston]

7. Proof that having a blog does not make you a journalist, thinker, intellectual, or much else.

This whole scribbling is incoherent and void of any thought and not worth. In other words, he is a Mike Malloy wantabe that does not have the slightest idea what the fuck he is talking about. Change a few nouns and this would fit in at freeperville. At best, it shows the gun control movement as being intellectually bankrupt.
Mike has talent, this asshole does not.

[Cirque du So-What]

8. Anything specific with which you disagree

or is this just a blanket dismissal?

On edit: AFAIK, The Rude One is not part of the vast gun-control conspiracy. He's merely viewing this cockamamie law from a layperson's position - as do millions of other people who do not buy into the notion that these laws are in the public's best interests.

[gejohnston]

9. I always give

semi-literate scribblings a blanket dismissal, no exceptions.

vast and gun control is an oxymoron. Unless Brady et al can actually get members and get funds from more than just a foundation and a couple of billionaires.
The problem is not the law, the problem is Sanford PD. If they did their job properly, Zimmerman would be in jail law or not.

[ellisonz]

24. I found it perfectly readable...

...I don't get the constant insults to the literacy of various members and figures on this board.

[gejohnston]

36. you must read a lot of drivel

to comprehend it. Listen to Rush much?

[Clames]

68. Since you found it so readable..

...why don't you remind the OP how many paragraphs one should quote when excerpting an article here. Funny how you haven't jumped on that yet...

[ellisonz]

69. Oy Vey

Go to the blog and tell me where it says "Copyright" - answer: it doesn't, it's not copyrighted material, on the other hand, you can pretty much assume most news outlets are copyrighted. For example, if you go to the LA Times, it states at the bottom right of every page: "Copyright 2012," same for KTLA, a local Los Angeles news station:



What don't you understand about copyright law and the DU copyright policy? I can help you...

[Clames]

71. Doesn't need to.

Blog material does not need to be expressly stated in order to be protected. Nothing does in fact...

Copyright Law required a copyright notice to protect works until 1977. In 1978, however, the law changed and abolished the requirement for copyright notice. This means that every published work (be it on paper or digital media) automatically gets copyright protection, whether expressed with a notice or not.

Apparently I understand a LOT more than you do...

[ellisonz]

72. Not really...

...that would be in regard to commercial use of material, in this case it's fair use and there's no statement of copyright. We can take this to Meta if you'd like...

[Clames]

74. You can do/go whatever/wherever you like.

I'm happy right here. Since you are obviously no expert on copyright laws or even "fair use" (nobody can really be expert since it is rather ill-defined and dynamic) doctrine I'll just leave you this little link to avail yourself to.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html


Even DU's policy isn't a 100% shield from infringement since it basically comes down to the entity from which the work is borrowed. Sorry, hiding behind "fair use" is not the same as

[ellisonz]

79. Oh I will...

Feel free to defend your argument (but if you're staying out of the main forums right now, I understand): http://www.democraticunderground.com/124065348

Toodles

[Clames]

94. And?

Still need help or are you just going let the articles you like slide?

[pipoman]

82. ~snick~

as do millions of other people

Millions? undoubtedly. Millions believe the moon landings were fake. The millions seem pretty insignificant when a percentage of population is attached, and even that number has been dwindling for 2 decades. No, this diary is wishful thinking.

[rl6214]

10. Written by a 12 year old?

The OPs DU name says it all...SO WHAT.

[Cirque du So-What]

14. Nice ad hominem

Don't believe we've crossed paths before, although there are plenty of others with cryptic initials & numerals come & go with great frequency, yunno. Hard to keep up. It's only when one includes moderately famous numbers like '88' do I recall a specific poster with a meaningless username.

[rl6214]

63. Not a slam towards you, just a so what towards the story.

And a few of the posters here know what the initials and numerals mean, nothing sinister or cryptic. Been here a while so I don't think I'll "come & go with great frequency, yunno"

[X_Digger]

11. *yawn*

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.

[Cirque du So-What]

13. So where's the 'justification' in the Trayvon Martin case?

or the tripled numbers of 'justified' homicides after passage of the 'stand your ground' law?

“When the Legislature passed this in 2005, I don’t think they planned for people who would go out and become vigilantes or be like some weird Batman who would go out and kill little kids like Trayvon.”

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/03/20/deaths-nearly-triple-since-stand-your-ground-enacted/

[X_Digger]

16. In Martin's case, there isn't. You have a police department with a history of..

.. sweeping racist assaults under the rug. (That's why the current chief has only been on the job for something like 5 months.)

Re the increase in justifiable homicides- how many of those do you claim actually weren't justified?

I haven't looked into all 35 (up from 12) cases, have you?

[Cirque du So-What]

17. You replied in a thread in which the OP addressed that exact issue

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x333693

Short or selective memory?

[X_Digger]

19. And the substance is the same. Your point? n/t

[Cirque du So-What]

23. Point is

all you supply is standard boilerplate without acknowledging the possibility that this law may be used as an excuse for homicide when deadly force is hardly necessary. I am researching this as we speak.

On edit: found this, for starters

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/article1128317.ece

[X_Digger]

27. Many defendants use various laws as excuses.

Sometimes they apply, often they don't. Sometimes the jury buys it, often they don't.

You be sure to get back to me with your research.

[Cirque du So-What]

30. See above

I'm far from done.

Also, as I've pointed out already in a post to someone else, the law gives wide latitude to police departments on whether charges are brought against the shooter - evident in their summary dismissal of Trayvon Martin's death.

[X_Digger]

42. Before SYG, the police still had to have probable cause to arrest..

A corrupt, racist police department needs no 'latitude'- they can 'lose' evidence, intimidate witnesses, intentionally miss court filing deadlines, misrepresent evidence to prosecutors and grand juries.. there's no end to the things that they can to do pervert justice.

Why you think one more (or less) law would fix a corrupt police department- is beyond me.

eta: I read above to the top.. no clue which post you're referring to. Got a post #?

[eqfan592]

56. An interesting quote from that article...

""The intent is that you can only use the same amount of force as you believe will be used against you," Lt. Gov. Jeff Kottkamp, then a state representative, said at the time. "It certainly wasn't that you can shoot and kill somebody wielding a souvenir baseball bat.""

I find this quote very interesting, as to me I think a person would be perfectly justified in shooting somebody they had reason to believe was about to attack either themselves or another loved one with a baseball back, souvenir or no. A baseball bat can do terrific damage to a person, and can very easily kill somebody.

It's an interesting article, with an obvious slant, but still interesting nonetheless.

Something we have to keep in mind is the fact that it is VERY easy for us armchair quarterbacks to sit here, well after the fact, and pass judgment on the decisions made by somebody who was lacking the same sort of information we now have. I think that is a key point there, that when it comes to a law like this, we HAVE to do our best to place ourselves in the persons shoes and then ask ourselves "If I was him, knowing only what he knew right then, would I have felt my life was in danger?"

[shadowrider]

18. Vigilantes. You mean like the anti-gun people who are now screaming

for Zimmermans blood before he's had a fair trial? Those kind of vigilantes? Trayvon was far from a "little kid". He was 6'3" and played football (far from the 140 lbs. being reported).

Not taking exception to you, just what's contained in quotes. I'm all in favor of knowing the fact before I issue judgment.

[ellisonz]

29. I don't see anyone "screaming for Zimmerman's blood" - cite please.

I see a lot of calls for a fair trial and a lot of belief that he's guilty.

[X_Digger]

44. How about asking for a contract hit on him?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=454348

[div class='excerpt']I hope the shooter is scared. What goes around comes around. I wish for an old fashioned contract type of, hit killing. Pass the hat for a fee. I see how this justice thing gits taken care of, partner. Ya just take the law into your own hands, and murder in cold blood. Merkin way.

(The message has been deleted, but there's a thread about it in H&M.)

[ellisonz]

47. One post out of thousands...

And it was deleted by the admins, plus it was pretty clearly facetious

[X_Digger]

50. You asked for a cite, I gave one. *shrug* n/t

[ellisonz]

52. And it got a swift and firm response...

If there were others like it, I'm sure they would get the same treatment, but there aren't.

[X_Digger]

54. That was just the one I remembered because of the H&M thread..

They're there, if you look. There was another, but I don't have it close at hand, that said Zimmerman should be in general population right now, and something like 'you know what they do to people who hurt kids'.

[ellisonz]

49. The poster was banned too...

[X_Digger]

65. Here's another..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002458337#post23

[X_Digger]

73. And another..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002458890#post10

[ellisonz]

75. Must suck to be you guys right now...

This story has legs, people are angry. If you ask me, it's long overdue...

[X_Digger]

76. Changing the subject, are you?

It's okay, one can be dismissed. Two? Coincidence.. Three?

[ellisonz]

77. Get over it.

Fuck George Zimmerman.

[X_Digger]

78. I'll take that as concession. n/t

[Clames]

84. At least he didn't tell you to bite him. n/t

[era veteran]

12. Gun militants?

This guy was the criminal the gun was a tool.
I hate other inanimate objects like my balky lawnmower.
If, because you exercise your Constitutional right to own weapons and don't agree with the folks who hate guns, you are a lumped in militant.
There are problems in Florida but guns did not start them.

[ellisonz]

21. Best Part:

Seriously, if the ACLU were as deranged in defending the First Amendment as the NRA is in defending its distorted version of the Second, you'd be able to walk up to a crucifixion statue in the middle of St. Boyrape's Cathedral, shit on Christ's face, and claim "freedom of expression," and the laws would back you up and how dare anyone be such a pussy as to claim that shitting on Christ's face isn't free speech.

[Cirque du So-What]

25. It's all lost on some

who fail to acknowledge sardonic wit when it's their ox that's getting gored.

[ellisonz]

28. I think it's cultural...

[eqfan592]

31. If by best, you mean most idiotic, then yes, I agree completely.

I mean honestly, how can you guys post drivel like this, expecting anybody with even the slightest bit of rational thought on the subject to take it, or you, seriously!?! It boggles the mind.

You can't making a rational argument against somebodies irrational ravings. At least not effectively.

[ellisonz]

32. Whatever you say pardner...

I think the message is damn clear.

[eqfan592]

35. I never said the message wasn't clear.

I said the message was pure, irrational drivel. I'll even say it's CLEARLY pure, irrational drivel, if that makes you feel better about it.

EDIT: Honestly, when I see a rant like the one above, I treat it the same way I would a religious fundie ranting about god after finding out I'm an atheist. There are no rational arguments to be made to that kind of person, nor to the kind of person that views those arguments as having any sort of merit. The bloggers post falls well into this category.

[Clames]

37. It's all they have left.

They've lost and they know it though they don't want to admit it. Just sit back and laugh at the show...

[eqfan592]

39. Oh trust me, I am!!

[gejohnston]

33. You mean it doesn't?

Either the priest didn't see me or the cops have a distorted understanding of the first amendment.

My kids wrote more intelligent and thoughtful essays when they were in second grade.

[ellisonz]

34. It's a writing style...

...that takes some time to appreciate. Kinda like:

[eqfan592]

38. Then I guess its time to turn in your computer as well then, right?

It's not that it's a different writing style, it's that the writer is an idiot. Bit of a difference.

[ellisonz]

40. Hurling insults repeatedly and assuming that the person...

...you're having a dialogue with isn't seeing them is self-defeating if the image you're trying to project is a superior understanding of the topic. Just saying.

[gejohnston]

43. hurling insults

what do you think rude pundit is doing? Does he or she look like they have a superior understanding of the topic? The word hypocrite comes to mind.

[eqfan592]

45. I'm not having a dialogue with the writer of the blog.

I'm having one with you, and I haven't directly insulted you yet that I'm aware of (unless you wrote the blog in question, in which case then yes, I do in fact think you are an idiot, and to be frank I don't really care what you think my saying that is doing to the image I'm trying to project ).

[Atypical Liberal]

55. Living in the past?

[eqfan592]

61. Well put! (nt)

[lastlib]

46. Kick & Hearty Recommend!

[eqfan592]

48. Somehow, I don't think the person pictured in your avatar...

...would approve.

[lastlib]

51. You are referring to the Senator who was killed by a gun?

Same Senator who had a brother killed by a gun?

Who had a friend named Martin who was killed by a gun?


What do you smoke at those NRA meetings?? I hope the "drain bamage" isn't irreversible.

[Cirque du So-What]

53. Oh snap!

[eqfan592]

58. Not really.

The poster in question thinks in very narrow terms it seems, made obvious by the post you're replying to. Not really how I would define "getting real"

[eqfan592]

57. I'm not an NRA member.

And yes, that same Senator. I don't think he would have approved of the sort of mindless drivel being spewed by the blogger in the OP, no matter what subject. You may define the man only by how he died, but not I.

[friendly_iconoclast]

62. How many people did that Senator help kill when he challenged Jimmy Carter in the primaries...

thus helping to put Ronnie Raygun into office? And would that number be a) more or b) less than the number of people that the NRA is complicit in killing?

[lastlib]

67. DONK!! Thank you for playing. Now go home. Robert Kennedy was assassinated in 1968--

EIGHT YEARS before Jimmy Carter was elected. So your question becomes meaningless, your logic becomes farcical, and your point (if you have one) becomes silly and petulant.

[Straw Man]

87. Yes, he mistook Bobby for Edward.

A key difference is that Bobby, like his brother Jack, was an NRA member. I don't think Edward ever was.

[friendly_iconoclast]

88. Yes, I did mistake Bobby for Edward. The question remains: How many lives was Ted responsible for?

[gejohnston]

83. and had a brother

who was an NRA life member.

[lastlib]

59. "...guns alone don't kill people." But people die because of guns. The NRA is complicit

because they aid and abet the use of guns. It has to stop!!!

[eqfan592]

60. That's some faulty reasoning and logic right there.

Faulty because of a lack of evidence to support the idea that it is only because of the firearms that people are dying.

EDIT: It also fails to take into account lives saved by defensive firearm usage.

[lastlib]

64. They aren't dead because they got hit with a newspaper...

When someone gets hit with a bullet and dies, it is because of the gun.

[eqfan592]

66. Actually, it's because somebody used the gun.

Guns almost never go off on their own and shoot somebody without somebody making them do it. And that still doesn't make your logic any less faulty.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

81. Neither do bombs, so why don't they sell bombs freely at Piggly Wiggly?

Same shit.

[sarisataka]

85. Actually

They do... In the household cleaning aisle- If you know the right recipe

[TPaine7]

86. Ummmmm... The same reason they don't sell guns at Piggly Wiggly??? n/t

[spin]

70. Two questions ...

1) Do you believe that people have the right to use force including lethal force to stop an attacker who has the intention of severely injuring or killing them?

2) Do you realize that firearms are often used by honest and responsible citizens to stop such attacks?

[pipoman]

80. Isn't there like a 4 paragraph limit on useless screeds?

[Walk away]

89. Great post but it really belongs in the "General".....

where most folks would agree with it. Here in the Black Hole of Calcutta it's just flame bait in Hell!

[ellisonz]

91. Nothing wrong with flame bait in Hell!

Those fires don't burn eternal on their own!

[Walk away]

92. I guess...but I think it's a shame it has to be missed as I think it was smart and sharp and timely

and most people don't come down here to poke the bear. I haven't been here in a year. No one down here is going to change their mind about anything.

I just peeked in because some of them have been posting up on top and it reminded me that this place existed. I used to have almost every active member blocked so I didn't have to see the post's in the "Latest Threads". That all changed with the new DU and I have to start "ignoring" all over again.

[ellisonz]

93. I agree it's effective.

As a GD host, I imagine we aren't going to let the gun threads in GD go on forever. But yes, poke the bear!

[ileus]

90. 8 years is a long time to get your faux poutrage on.