Click pic to enlargen



  1. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    I agree with the Castle Doctrine. When you go out of your Castle and start chasing the bad guys you are no longer in your Castle.

    So, the interesting question is why are the cops erring on the side of vigilante law? I have heard a few courts or DA’s interpret this law that way, but others not, so I think the question is fair.

    Also sad to watch my fellow libs wring their hands over that teenager who hid in someone’s house to escape an underage teenage party bust and he got shot by the homeowner. Every “rule” has sad cases. But a rule that you don’t break into someone’s house is a good thing to learn. Having to retreat to the last room in your house before defending yourself is BS.

    So–you gotta choose.

    Guns. USA in Decline. What could go wrong?

    • dusanmal says:

      What if bad guy starts pounding you in the public place and there is no one around to help you? Let him beat you to death or crippling injury?
      Now to the lies of Left PC mass media: it is documented in the police report that the shooter had bloodied nose and grass imprint on back of his head. Fact. Fact no Mass Media reports by choice. Because it makes this case non-clear cut. That explains your question: cops have evidence and police report from which it is most likely that shooter indeed shot in self defense.
      Hear-say evidence is the claim of at least one person that there are eye witnesses who saw black youth sitting on the chest of the shooter on the ground and fist-pounding him. This is not in the police report. But, at least one person claims existence of eye witness for it. To be seen in Court.
      Court is where this should be resolved. I see mass-marches about this issue as equivalent of lynch-mobs. Not interested in solving the problem, not interested even in 100% documented parts of the conflict (have the shooter nose been flatten by the aliens when they dropped him head-first after alien abduction?).

      • So what says:

        Just watched a 60 minutes piece on a guy (white) who spent 25 years in prison for killing his wife. Turned out the prosecutor failed to provide relevant police reports, he’s now a judge. The cops never investigated the reports themselves. It took five years before the state gave permission to DNA test the evidence. Turns out the guy was innocent. But hey the system works cause cops and lawyers and judges would never lie.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist and Junior Culture Critic says:

        Dismal–yes “Stand Your Ground” is a different issue from the “Castle Doctrine” and a more difficult one leading to vigilantism rather than home defense. I know you aren’t confusing the two and lumping them all together.

        I saw reports on that issue and certainly do agree it would balance the equities. Still leaving lots of room for horrible fact patterns one way or the other but certainly creating enough reasonable doubt so as to not warrant arrest in the first place.

        ALL COMING BACK TO my original question: seems inconsistent for cops to be encouraging vigilantism. What is their interest? Won’t be long before some good citizen tries to arrest a cop double parked with gun play to follow.

        Pro’s and Con’s to all we do. Do we want citizen “Patrol Captains” doing the work of cops? Pros and Cons. On balance, I say no. The cops are bad enough at this activity, don’t need cop wanna be’s .

        That raises another whiney lib complaint: that the guy had called 911 40 some odd times with 3-4 instances of naming blacks in the neighborhood? That seems totally normal and expected for the CAPTAIN of the Patrol. He sets the high water mark for such citizen based activities.

        Ha, ha. Pros and Cons. “Hey white boy, who you lookin at?” I also wonder if that pic of the victim is from 2-3 years ago and at the time……nah, I won’t take it that far.

        This is a good issue to monitor for all the silliness that surrounds it though and always to keep touch on the tragedy for all involved. Always pointing out to me the need for more aggressive mental health and social services. One of those tax payer funded quality of life issues.

        Trayvon’s family both seem like pretty decent folks although the only way I could be “pulled from a fire” and saved by a 9 year old would be if I was drunk off my ass at the time.

        Mind the gap.

      • smartalix says:

        Considering the situation, I find it hard to believe an armed man can be afraid of an unarmed kid half his weight. On that note, why doesn’t the kid have a right to defend himself from the armed asshole following him (against police direction, remember)? You and your ilk disgust me, but even then I hope you never have your child in a similar situation.

        This is the kind of thing that gets people to shake their heads in amazement at America. I can’t see this situation as anything but support for those who say that black people’s lives are worth less.

        • ugly, constipated, and mean says:

          Your post has no facts and lots of speculation and hyperbole. You continue to misstate some of the original suppositions that have since proved incorrect.

          Get the chip off of your shoulder (and the hoodie off of your head. You look like a MORON.)

  2. kiwini says:

    What he said….

  3. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist and Junior Culture Critic says:

    Am I getting old? I also think Geraldo is right about wearing a hoodie and adopting a “gangsta look.” It does up the odds on you getting shot whether you are black or white. Its not blaming the victim unless you think its an expression of freedom to flash a wad of cash in a dive bar, or to play pool for money in that same dive bar, and so on. There are “rights” and then there is common sense, or uncommon sense that comes by hard experience.

    Just saw an ad against some kind of credit card theft. It showed a young white guy wearing a hoody opening a door going somewhere. Its not blaming the victim to point out certain behavior/dress identifies people. Thats why in LA you don’t wear red and blue signifiers. Thats why motorcycle “clubs” wear leather jackets.

    Showing Geraldo and OReilly wearing hoodies at a ball game doesn’t mean a thing.

    Reality – deal with it, or it deals with you.

    • rider1 says:

      You are not getting old you are just stupid.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist and Junior Culture Critic says:

        Owwwie! That Hurts. Good thing we aren’t in my Castle, or some dive bar.

        Ha, ha. Whats stupid though specifically? Moi?–or the fact that people do judge a book by the cover or where the book is?

        Life does have a lot of stupid in it.

        • rider1 says:

          The fact that you are afraid of hoodies.

          Stupidest thing I have ever heard of in my life.

        • So what says:

          Actually booboo rider1 is right your comment is jump the shark alfie level stupidity.

          Hooded sweat shirts and jackets have been around for decades. Were you afraid of them back in the sixties?

          The fact that you would think gerry riviera is right about anything just confirms two things you have lost your fucking mind, and I should have continued to ignore your posts.

          • Anonymous says:

            Like I said a LONG TIME AGO! Bobo is dyslexic. His REAL handle is BOOB!

            BOOB is clearly off his meds. And having his head firmly planted in a deep dark stinky place (like Nancy Pelosi’s butt) doesn’t exactly help matters either. He (or IT) is just an annoyance.

            Your first clue should have been his extended handle. I mean, does calling yourself a “pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist and Junior Culture Critic ” sound NORMAL?!

            So let’s leave Boob alone and move on.

          • ugly, constipated, and mean says:

            Yeah, hooded sweatshirts have been around a long time. People used to wear them to, ya know, keep their head warm when it’s cold outside, or dry when it’s raining. That’s NOT what they’re for nowdays. You know what’s under that hoodie 99% of the time? A white t-shirt. You know why? (Alex knows.) It’s so you are anonymous. If someone commits a crime, then you immediately blend in, all distinguishing features are hidden. If you’re being chased, ditch the hoodie and you have a ubiquitous white t-shirt on underneath.

            This isn’t supposition, I have know quite a few of the kids who subscribe to this behavior. Most of them are even decent folks. However, it’s all part of that culture of not cooperating with law enforcement. You don’t rat, you don’t talk to the po-po, you don’t report crimes, you don’t know nothing, you don’t see nothing, you didn’t hear nothing. So you don’t commit crimes, but you wear the uniform to provide a nice anonymous background for your homies so THEY can escape.

            These are FACTS and if you actually have any black friends who trust you they’ll tell you the same thing.

            Alex.

  4. Skeptic says:

    I’m organizing a ‘hoodie walk’ based on the slut walk concept. It will be a warm day and walkers are encouraged to wear the hood keeping your face covered, with one hand in a pocket. Muslim women wearing a full hijab are welcome to join in. Wear a bulky overcoat. Holding a cell phone, or a pen with your thumb on the button is encouraged

  5. The Jobs Memorial Fund says:

    Hoodies should be worn by all criminal tending black “youth” at all times. Makes it easier to spot them far away, and either avoid them or zero in on them.

  6. Yaknow says:

    The shooting of that kid has really caught the attention of the world. What I don’t understand is the need to make it a racist issue. One over zealous untrained nut job with a gun, stalks a kid whose dress APPEARS to resemble that of a criminal. The kid may have been DEFENDING HIMSELF, leveling blows against the nut job with a gun. There are recordings of the kid getting the worse of of it, screaming for help. Isn’t that enough to seek justice? It is clear Florida isn’t budging, with or with out the cries of racism? Zimmerman is a criminal that abused a law Florida isn’t going to change.

    Zimmerman isn’t white, he is of mixed races, that makes those crying racism look stupid. More importantly, the New Black Panthers have put a bounty on Zimmerman’s head to bring him to justice…if the government doesn’t do anything they will…inferring they will kill him. How different are they from Zimmerman….or being racist, they are not.

    • Amnesty for cartels says:

      Black Panthers racist? I’m SHOCKED!

    • ugly, constipated, and mean says:

      It has been established that the “kid” who was screaming was in fact zimmerman.

      Also, have you been paying attention to the cute widdle pictures of the black kid? Have you seen any that are less than 6 or 8 years out of date? (answer: no.) You know why? Lots of whitewashing going on behind the scenes. (no pun intended.)

  7. NewfornatSux says:

    Stand Your Ground is probably irrelevant here. The police just don’t feel they have enough to charge the guy for now.
    This is showing up on blogs because some on the left feel it is a way to stir up racial issues, especially with an election coming.

  8. ECA says:

    gOOD BY ME…
    Lets start with the Congress/reps…so they dont Outlaw shooting the lawyers..
    THEN we hit the Lawyers..
    THEN the RIAA/MPAA, and a few other groups..

  9. Hmeyers2 says:

    I still haven’t heard the facts of this case anywhere.

    And it appears trying to find them via search engine is unworkable because all the search results are clogged with posturing.

    Typical America. On the surface, I see little reason for this to be blown out of proportion, even as a “race issue” — which is a bit silly as there is no “white man” involved in this.

    According to homicide statistics, 7 out of 8 African American murder victims are killed by other African Americans.

    But this one kid in Florida whose circumstances seem unfortunate, causes an uproar?

    Perhaps to the extent there is perceived a “black culture” problem, maybe it is precisely because they are worrying about this “one kid” and attempting to stir up a racial issue and not the other 20,000 like him that are murdered by others of the same race.

    Then again, some people in this country are “race profiteers” and this is how they earn their living.

  10. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist and Junior Culture Critic says:

    rider1 too easily missing the point says:
    3/25/2012 at 11:59 am

    The fact that you are afraid of hoodies.

    Stupidest thing I have ever heard of in my life. //// I’m not afraid of hoodies—I’m saying its very OBJECTIVELY evident that enough other people are to make its sartorial selection a tale of caution. Same with the baggy pants and red/blue bandanas on the head.

    Cities have made wearing your pants on the ground subject to fines and ultimately to arrest. Rather reality adverse to not recognize people DO JUDGE based on looks/clothing/attitude/speech/tatoos.

    Its the silly person who engages reality thinking that their personal values control–especially at night, in alleys, in strange neighborhoods?

    Same advice to young ladies–don’t wear revealing clothing and expect to be treated like a lady.

    Reality. Not what I think. Reality.

    So what–you too. We all have the freedom of speech but I wold advise people not to go into a Church on Sunday and start yelling “F*** J*****” We are social animals, and that means when you act/dress/speak in unsocialable ways, some social component will rise to meet your challenge.

    Simple thing really. Even simple minds should grok this eventually. Maybe after the 3rd or 4 th time you get beat up over it?

  11. Haunted sheep says:

    Quick! Somebody ban something!

  12. Glenn E. says:

    This isn’t a race issue, despite how the news media keeps trying to spin it. It’s about the haves verses the have-nots. The lower class boy, straying thru or too near, the upper middle class “gated community”. This last thing was mentioned once, and then not repeated (that I’ve heard). And the minute I heard “gated”, I realized it was a class issue. The insignificant fact that the dead boy happen to be black, and the shooter was a “white Hispanic”, I believe was deliberately intended to make it seem a race issue. And they will probably will repeat it.

    The official police chose to side with the land owner(s). By not charging their appointed “watch captain”. Basically their own private sheriff for hire. The fact that he’s white and Hispanic makes no real difference. The boy dared to violate the communities gated space. And fearing more burglaries, they permitted their private sheriff to use deadly force. Or didn’t care enough to instruct him not to. And the Florida police are covering up for this gray area, of wealthy civilians taking the law into their own hands, in the from of a “neighborhood watch” authorized or permitted to use deadly force, in case of self-defense. And just like legally authorized law officers, are taken at their word concerning the “in self-defense” defense, for their actions.

    Florida’s new “Stand Your Ground” law, permits people of means, to use deadly force in self-defense, wherever they are, and their word will be taken for. Perhaps it’s just a coincidence that it was a law passed by a Republican Florida governor. And seems to benefit mostly to wealthy citizens. Who generally speaking, are the only ones who really need to defend themselves and what they own. But should deadly force be excused in all cases of personal self-defense? Is someone’s life justifiably ended in stopping a theft of property? Apparently some Floridians think so. Or is it just the rich ones that do? And the State is catering to their misguided whims.

    Laws like the “Stand Your Ground” defense, are just short term stop gaps. By not addressing the underlying problem, they’re only allowing it to grow much worse over time. And history shows that the down trodden class, eventually bring down their overly privileged oppressors. I don’t know how to state it any more gently than that, to match history’s lessons, without sounding like an anarchist. But differences of class, privilege and wealth have always been at the heart of civil conflict. Even if it’s not recognized or acknowledged as such.

    And the government, and news media’s predilection to always portray things as a race issue, smells of a deliberate confusion tactic. To keep protecting the growing wealth imbalance from experiencing any sort of minor correction. It’s understandable for those pledged to defend that wealth imbalance. And those who benefit from it, that also control most of the media. But it’s their lies and deceptions that are root of the cultural ignorance that keeps the races isolated. Dividing the common people, so they won’t organize and act as one in their own best interests.

    • Hmeyers2 says:

      Is that so? On what basis? In this world or political fantasia? Does a generic “have and have not” diatribe need basis?

      Seriously.

    • Hmeyers2 says:

      I’m sorry but “oppressors”? LOL

      This isn’t China. People can move.

      Oppressed how? Starvation? No. Forced labor? Most poor people don’t even work. Are any groups of people deprived of knowledge or learning?

      Class warfare = blame it on invisible Wall Street people hiding somewhere plotting … well … what are you saying they are plotting? It isn’t even clear.

      Are they plotting to make you live in Florida or Texas maybe? Because those states had Bushes as governors?

      • GregAllen says:

        >> Hmeyers2 says:
        >> Wall Street people hiding somewhere plotting … well … what are you saying they are plotting?

        They are plotting how to loot the Social Security Fund, for starters.

        • NewfornatSux says:

          That fund is non-existent except on paper. And on paper it is bankrupt. Actually lost money for a month under this president. Only a matter of years before it loses money regularly, and some years before that before the paper account runs dry. Had the Wall Streeters gotten to ‘loot’ this bankrupt fund, there would be actual Social Security funds by the tens of millions, and money gained for the government. But thanks for playing.

  13. rick says:

    All this law does is give you incentive to kill the other person dead regardless. Make sure they can’t testify against you in any case.

  14. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist and Junior Culture Critic says:

    Culture, class, age, race, tv, home bringing, drugs, “everything” is involved in just about everything including this incident. Just an exercise to go thru it as one may wish.

    I understand our shooter during the 911 call described Trayvon as “a f******* coon.” ((C word might not make sense?)). On its own that would not indicate a racially motivated hate crime here==as stated, and obvious, all incidents involve many interacting interests. Is there a line at all between it was racially “motivated” verses “being black probably didn’t help?” I understand the shooter has many friends of color which might lessen the severity but not the impact of bias.

    We will only see more of this as the safety net is rip apart to give our job creators even less of a fair share of the tax burden.

    What does anyone “think” is going to happen?

    How is wearing a hoody and walking around in an uptight gated community any different than wearing the opposing teams marketing images on the wrong side of the arena?

    Its no different. Word to the wise===there are idiots among us.

  15. GregAllen says:

    The trouble with the cartoon on this blog is that a black shooter gets arrested.

    In the Treyvon case, it was Treyvon who got investigated while his shooter just walked away.

    “Shoot A Brown” laws must be repealed.

  16. scandihoovian says:

    All hand guns should come with a camera mounted underneath the laser sight. G3 access couldn’t hurt.

  17. LibertyLover says:

    Personally, I think the SYG and CD laws are good laws. How many lives have been saved because of them? A metric buttload, that’s how many (my opinion). The FBI has reported a consistent decline in the number of murders, rapes, armed robberies, etc., interestingly enough, since about the time these laws started coming onto the books. Are they going down because of these laws? The FBI thinks so but they haven’t given a definitive Yes.

    What happened to this kid is questionable. It probably should be investigated. Should the entire law be thrown out because someone may have screwed up? No.

    My dad was cop. So was one of my sisters, my brother is, my wife’s uncle is, and an ex-brother-in-law is. They all say the same thing; cops are there to clean up the mess. Until I can have my own personal cop sit with me wherever I go, I’ll support these laws.

  18. NewfornatSux says:

    The liberals’ case is falling apart. Apparently Obama is as good at choosing race cases to opine as choosing green energy companies to invest taxpayer money.

    The picture being spread of the victim is from a long time ago. His current pictures are being disappeared from the web. His twitter feed too, and yup, there’s a ‘nigga’ in his handle.

    Yea, this is an issue of class not race. People in Ivy League schools bashing the cop who does his job properly and realizes he doesn’t have evidence to make an arrest, or perhaps has the contrary, evidence that suggests innocence.

  19. NewfornatSux says:

    Obama Admin wants white elites to pat themselves on the back that they are not racist like those guys in Florida. He needs to keep them distracted with happy thought so they don’t put analysis to his budget deficits and the accompanying lies that his budget improves things. If they pay too close attention, they see that his proposed budget actually doubles the budget deficits vs staying on the current path. But don’t worry, vote for me and you will prove you are not a racist like that guy in Florida who shot my son Trayvon.

  20. Yaknow says:

    As I said before, Zimmerman (not white) is an untrained over-fantical nutcase carrying a gun. Sees a kid that looks suspicious wearing what many criminals wear, a hoodie indicating he is a criminal. Zimmerman didn’t have to confront the kid. He could of kept an eye on him until the police came. Zimmerman didn’t. No, his wannabe cop side kicked in and the gun gave him deadly moron courage. The law gave him the reason to shoot an unarmed kid, and claim self-defense.

    I had a relative brutally, viciously, sadistically, and gruesomely raped, tortured and then murdered over hours in her home at the age of 70 in Orlando. Yes, they also robbed her. The two animals where finally caught. For that and other reasons, I understand the law and why it is in place. Therefore, I am not completely against the law, people do need to be able to protect themselves. Look at California at the other end of the spectrum where if you shoot a criminal in defending yourself you go to jail. If you don’t kill the criminal, the criminal can sue you for everything you own. Florida should take the responsibility to adjust the law and have any shooting case go under a court review.

    I don’t think there is enough pressure on Florida to adjust or amend the law.

    • Yaknow says:

      Or will be enough pressure, even if it is screaming racism, and giving knew life to those fanatics. If Zimmerman is arrested I will be surprised.

  21. NewfornatSux says:

    >and have any shooting case go under a court review.

    Fear of a court review is what caused them to pass the law in the first place.

  22. Voice of reason says:

    At what point can a person defend himself against another person? After the first punch? After the person is sitting on top of him continuing to punch him? After the concussion from the bashing of one’s head on the ground when prone? After the broken nose? After the person reaches for your gun?

    Seems like cut and dry self-defense to me.

    • Yaknow says:

      Did Martin approach Zimmerman first? Did Martin approach Zimmerman who was minding his own business and threaten him with violence? No. Maybe Martin was defending himself against Zimmerman?

      Zimmerman approached Martin when told by dispatch not to. How Zimmerman approached him is unknown. Only Zimmerman knows who provoked who first, facts show Zimmerman had no business approaching Martin.

      Zimmerman was acting as security who was clearly unable to handle that responsibility that he took up himself. Zimmerman became a loose cannon of a vigilante the moment he didn’t follow the dispatch’s orders. There are no witnesses to back up Zimmerman’s account of how things got out of hand. Martin can’t tell his side of the story because Martin is dead.

      Would have Zimmerman approached Martin, ignoring dispatch’s orders not to, if Zimmerman didn’t have a gun? If Zimmerman thought Martin had a gun as he said he did, why did Zimmerman not wait for the police? Martin at that time wasn’t threaten Zimmerman.

      Zimmerman was untrained and a fanatical dangerous nutcase, who thought Martin had a gun. Because he knew he had the power to and believed the law was in his favor to kill, he had no reserve to approach Martin. A grown man approaching a 17 year male dressed similar to that of a criminal and believed to have a gun, would not have otherwise done so without having a gun. Zimmerman was the aggressor because he carried a gun. How is that self-defense. It isn’t, it is criminal.

      Zimmerman, used poor judgement, disregarding common sense and intelligence. Zimmerman thought he could handle the situation because carried a gun, he wanted to play cop. He didn’t show any responsibly that comes with carrying and fire a gun. He didn’t act in self-defense. Self-defense doesn’t mean deadly force as the only option in cases like this. The Florida law is messy, and Zimmerman and those like him have no right to carry a gun.

      • Yaknow says:

        And yahoos like Zimmerman exploit it and abuse the law, just like criminals.

      • ugly, constipated, and mean says:

        can you point out ONE SINGLE FACT in your spew above that you didn’t make up yourself?

        I can’t.

  23. smartalix says:

    Not to mention all Zimmerman had to do was draw his weapon to end the situation. Nobody sober and sane attacks an armed man with their hands. If Zimmerman got into a brawl with his weapon in his pocket he is stupider than I thought.

  24. observer says:

    Here’s Zimmerman’s trial.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g

  25. smartalix says:

    Well, now that the footage from the police station of the killer taken that evening shows NO INJURY, what lie do you think he and the police will use now? No concussion (he moves very well for a person who claims to have had one), no bloody nose (if you get hit in the nose hard enough to break it there will be blood), and not even rumpled clothes (no struggle).

    What lie will they concoct now?

    • ugly, constipated, and mean says:

      “Film shows no injury” doesn’t mean that there is no injury. Don’t be a dolt. It’s typical surveillance footage, you can’t really see crap. Who said he had a concussion, and how do you diagnose one from typical surveillance footage. Everybody who gets hit in the nose bleeds? Is that a fact or did you make that up? And his clothes aren’t rumpled? Really? Really? You’re going with that?

      Let’s face it, even if a local news crew turned out to have filmed the whole incident in HD, showing everything happened exactly as zimmerman claimed, you STILL would be making up crap to dispute it.

      Your agenda is clouding your judgement.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 7981 access attempts in the last 7 days.