We've been weeding through the comments and we've been taking a bunch of crap out of the Zimmerman post, the usual accusation of Klan affiliations, the lib-tards who have gotten all of their info from Lame Stream Media sources, rather than the trial, the racists celebrating for the what can only be described as the wrong reasons.Everyone is entitled to an opinion. You aren't entitled to our forum and you aren't entitled to your own facts, and what some are claiming as "fact" is anything but.
Here's something that everyone with an opinion should be aware of:
- Once Martin confronted Zimmerman, he wasn't the "victim" of stalking or assault or profiling or whatever. And once he placed hands on Zimmerman, he became an assailant. And the rules for dealing with assailants are very different, not only for cops, but for non-law enforcement persons, too.
We're sure we'll get the usual, "Zimmerman swung first," or "Zimmerman provoked..." or other suppositions. The fact is, no one knows. And if no one knows, Reasonable Doubt is present and a conviction is technically impossible.
Here's another Florida case that just ended a few months ago
involving a "Stand Your Ground" defense that failed:
- Last Friday, Jacksonville mother Marissa Alexander was sentenced by a Florida judge to 20 years in prison for firing what she says was a "warning shot" into the wall after a physical altercation with her husband, Rico Gray.
The case has set off yet another controversy involving the state's "stand your ground" law, which is under intense scrutiny after the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in February. Critics, including Congresswoman Corrine Brown (D-Fla.), are crying foul.
How, they ask, could a 31-year-old woman in a relationship with a man who had a history of domestic violence, and whose actions did not result in any physical injury, be sentenced to two decades in prison while George Zimmerman, the man who shot and killed Martin, is out on bail?
Well, first up, she violated an Order of Protection by going to the home. Second, when she escaped to the garage, she gave up the claim of "standing her ground." Third, she returned into the residence with a gun to confront her abuser. That isn't a "victim" under any state law we are aware of - that is an assailant. The jury didn't buy it either, handing down a conviction in 15 minutes.
Zimmerman lawfully carried a weapon. He exhibited questionable judgement, chose not to wait for police and disregarded advice from a police dispatcher (advice he was under zero obligation to obey in any event). He probably thought he had an edge with a gun. He needed that edge shortly thereafter to bail himself out of trouble when his quarry turned into a violent assailant that broke his nose and proceeded to bash his head into the sidewalk numerous times (we don't know where certain comments are getting 20-30 times. We imagine they're making it up because no one has ever claimed that.)
The usual suspects are starting with their bullshit. Jesse claims injustice because it wasn't a jury of Martin's peers, but last time we checked, it was the accused who got the trial, not the victim. Obama is using this to try to kick start gun control again, rather than thug-control and supporting the jury system or mentioning a word about Chicago's senior citizen community getting lit up on weekends.
In any event, that line that someone crosses to become an assailant took place and arguing over who crossed it first is an exercise in futility. The armed/unarmed argument is nonsense, too. We can name half-a-dozen people who died at the hands of unarmed assailants, including an off-duty Chicago cop working mall security in Norridge and a kid on Rush Street who ran into the mayor's nephew. Zimmerman made a few questionable choices, Martin made at least one particularly bad choice. Everything else is just pandering to the grievance mongers.
Labels: scc responds