HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » the number of posts sayin...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 01:24 PM

the 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.

241 replies, 22277 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 241 replies Author Time Post
Reply the number of posts saying "this in no way is a defense of Zimmerman" is astounding (Original post)
scheming daemons Mar 2012 OP
Chorophyll Mar 2012 #1
Liberal Veteran Mar 2012 #2
Puzzledtraveller Mar 2012 #32
Liberal Veteran Mar 2012 #56
X_Digger Mar 2012 #59
Hoyt Mar 2012 #180
lark Mar 2012 #88
dmallind Mar 2012 #3
spanone Mar 2012 #17
Lost-in-FL Mar 2012 #27
PavePusher Mar 2012 #47
DisgustipatedinCA Mar 2012 #136
SemperEadem Mar 2012 #64
X_Digger Mar 2012 #65
SemperEadem Mar 2012 #67
dmallind Mar 2012 #85
DFab420 Mar 2012 #19
Lost-in-FL Mar 2012 #39
Gore1FL Mar 2012 #58
X_Digger Mar 2012 #68
Lost-in-FL Mar 2012 #73
X_Digger Mar 2012 #76
Lost-in-FL Mar 2012 #83
X_Digger Mar 2012 #84
Hoyt Mar 2012 #182
Lost-in-FL Mar 2012 #70
AnotherDreamWeaver Mar 2012 #42
dmallind Mar 2012 #87
lark Mar 2012 #91
Dragonfli Mar 2012 #165
RevStPatrick Mar 2012 #190
Straw Man Mar 2012 #228
RevStPatrick Mar 2012 #238
phleshdef Mar 2012 #4
Ohio Joe Mar 2012 #5
leftofcool Mar 2012 #6
DFab420 Mar 2012 #22
stonecutter357 Mar 2012 #40
PavePusher Mar 2012 #48
DFab420 Mar 2012 #79
Remmah2 Mar 2012 #106
Zoeisright Mar 2012 #152
Ikonoklast Mar 2012 #144
PavePusher Mar 2012 #150
fightthegoodfightnow Mar 2012 #167
Remmah2 Mar 2012 #208
Zoeisright Mar 2012 #153
Dragonfli Mar 2012 #168
BlancheSplanchnik Mar 2012 #203
Remmah2 Mar 2012 #209
PavePusher Mar 2012 #210
Remmah2 Mar 2012 #99
Dragonfli Mar 2012 #171
Remmah2 Mar 2012 #187
BlancheSplanchnik Mar 2012 #202
Remmah2 Mar 2012 #205
BlancheSplanchnik Mar 2012 #218
Straw Man Mar 2012 #232
BlancheSplanchnik Mar 2012 #235
AtheistCrusader Mar 2012 #117
OriginalGeek Mar 2012 #137
xtraxritical Mar 2012 #174
Hoyt Mar 2012 #216
stanwyck Mar 2012 #196
NBachers Mar 2012 #173
chiffon Mar 2012 #7
nadinbrzezinski Mar 2012 #8
The Magistrate Mar 2012 #9
ZombieHorde Mar 2012 #10
DFab420 Mar 2012 #14
ZombieHorde Mar 2012 #24
Gore1FL Mar 2012 #61
ZombieHorde Mar 2012 #170
RZM Mar 2012 #71
tularetom Mar 2012 #11
DFab420 Mar 2012 #18
montanto Mar 2012 #69
Hoyt Mar 2012 #183
OnyxCollie Mar 2012 #200
Hoyt Mar 2012 #214
OnyxCollie Mar 2012 #215
Walk away Mar 2012 #12
Remmah2 Mar 2012 #23
Puzzledtraveller Mar 2012 #45
Walk away Mar 2012 #66
Remmah2 Mar 2012 #74
Puzzledtraveller Mar 2012 #89
Remmah2 Mar 2012 #96
Walk away Mar 2012 #124
Remmah2 Mar 2012 #139
Walk away Mar 2012 #105
Remmah2 Mar 2012 #109
AtheistCrusader Mar 2012 #135
Straw Man Mar 2012 #230
AtheistCrusader Mar 2012 #120
Walk away Mar 2012 #132
AtheistCrusader Mar 2012 #133
Union Scribe Mar 2012 #239
PavePusher Mar 2012 #51
AtheistCrusader Mar 2012 #119
Hoyt Mar 2012 #184
Remmah2 Mar 2012 #13
DFab420 Mar 2012 #16
Remmah2 Mar 2012 #26
DFab420 Mar 2012 #82
PavePusher Mar 2012 #53
DFab420 Mar 2012 #86
X_Digger Mar 2012 #92
DFab420 Mar 2012 #97
X_Digger Mar 2012 #101
DFab420 Mar 2012 #108
X_Digger Mar 2012 #110
DFab420 Mar 2012 #114
X_Digger Mar 2012 #118
PavePusher Mar 2012 #145
Warren Stupidity Mar 2012 #156
X_Digger Mar 2012 #158
Warren Stupidity Mar 2012 #159
X_Digger Mar 2012 #161
Hoyt Mar 2012 #185
Guy Whitey Corngood Mar 2012 #15
CakeGrrl Mar 2012 #20
KamaAina Mar 2012 #21
bluestateguy Mar 2012 #25
murielm99 Mar 2012 #31
Lost-in-FL Mar 2012 #33
Puzzledtraveller Mar 2012 #50
Lost-in-FL Mar 2012 #54
slackmaster Mar 2012 #28
obxhead Mar 2012 #43
ScreamingMeemie Mar 2012 #77
slackmaster Mar 2012 #111
ScreamingMeemie Mar 2012 #115
slackmaster Mar 2012 #121
ScreamingMeemie Mar 2012 #123
slackmaster Mar 2012 #127
ScreamingMeemie Mar 2012 #128
Kalidurga Mar 2012 #29
slackmaster Mar 2012 #30
Life Long Dem Mar 2012 #34
WI_DEM Mar 2012 #36
PavePusher Mar 2012 #55
DFab420 Mar 2012 #93
PavePusher Mar 2012 #146
X_Digger Mar 2012 #148
Oilwellian Mar 2012 #90
Life Long Dem Mar 2012 #107
Cali_Democrat Mar 2012 #149
frylock Mar 2012 #98
Life Long Dem Mar 2012 #113
frylock Mar 2012 #130
Life Long Dem Mar 2012 #143
fascisthunter Mar 2012 #35
safeinOhio Mar 2012 #37
USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #38
Life Long Dem Mar 2012 #44
obxhead Mar 2012 #41
Zoeisright Mar 2012 #155
cherokeeprogressive Mar 2012 #46
Remmah2 Mar 2012 #52
cherokeeprogressive Mar 2012 #63
SidDithers Mar 2012 #49
RZM Mar 2012 #72
Puzzledtraveller Mar 2012 #95
RZM Mar 2012 #131
AtheistCrusader Mar 2012 #122
Moral Compass Mar 2012 #57
ellisonz Mar 2012 #60
Old Codger Mar 2012 #62
Lost-in-FL Mar 2012 #78
frylock Mar 2012 #103
earcandle Mar 2012 #75
Rex Mar 2012 #80
louis-t Mar 2012 #81
X_Digger Mar 2012 #100
louis-t Mar 2012 #236
X_Digger Mar 2012 #237
moriah Mar 2012 #94
jzodda Mar 2012 #102
LoZoccolo Mar 2012 #104
X_Digger Mar 2012 #116
AtheistCrusader Mar 2012 #125
Progressive dog Mar 2012 #141
Warren Stupidity Mar 2012 #162
Dr Fate Mar 2012 #219
AtheistCrusader Mar 2012 #112
demgrrrll Mar 2012 #126
Daemonaquila Mar 2012 #129
DisgustipatedinCA Mar 2012 #134
Progressive dog Mar 2012 #142
Control-Z Mar 2012 #138
Progressive dog Mar 2012 #140
Hoyt Mar 2012 #217
Nye Bevan Mar 2012 #147
Zoeisright Mar 2012 #151
abelenkpe Mar 2012 #154
L0oniX Mar 2012 #157
Warren Stupidity Mar 2012 #160
Dragonfli Mar 2012 #163
PavePusher Mar 2012 #188
fightthegoodfightnow Mar 2012 #164
apocalypsehow Mar 2012 #166
Mojorabbit Mar 2012 #179
iverglas Mar 2012 #192
Mojorabbit Mar 2012 #220
iverglas Mar 2012 #221
Union Scribe Mar 2012 #240
iverglas Mar 2012 #241
Papagoose Mar 2012 #191
iverglas Mar 2012 #193
Straw Man Mar 2012 #229
apocalypsehow Mar 2012 #234
flvegan Mar 2012 #169
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #172
apocalypsehow Mar 2012 #177
iverglas Mar 2012 #195
apocalypsehow Mar 2012 #225
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #201
BootinUp Mar 2012 #175
Major Hogwash Mar 2012 #176
Lilyeye Mar 2012 #178
PavePusher Mar 2012 #189
Lilyeye Mar 2012 #204
emilyg Mar 2012 #197
Lilyeye Mar 2012 #206
PavePusher Mar 2012 #211
Lilyeye Mar 2012 #212
PavePusher Mar 2012 #222
Lilyeye Mar 2012 #223
PavePusher Mar 2012 #224
Lilyeye Mar 2012 #226
PavePusher Mar 2012 #227
Lilyeye Mar 2012 #213
Ken Burch Mar 2012 #181
Honeycombe8 Mar 2012 #186
freshwest Mar 2012 #194
polichick Mar 2012 #198
Pacafishmate Mar 2012 #199
Lilyeye Mar 2012 #207
Straw Man Mar 2012 #231
Lilyeye Mar 2012 #233

Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 01:29 PM

1. Hear hear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 01:30 PM

2. This in no way is a defense of Zimmerman, but...

it seems to me that NRA that pushed this law has a measure of responsibility and culpability in this murder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal Veteran (Reply #2)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 02:18 PM

32. What if there wasnt that particular law in this case?

Just asking because hinging the argument on this law weakens the greater argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puzzledtraveller (Reply #32)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 02:52 PM

56. If there wasn't a SYG law, it seems less likely that one could avoid....

.....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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal Veteran (Reply #56)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 02:56 PM

59. Unlikely.

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
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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #59)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 07:04 AM

180. Really does not matter what law "is" -- it's how those who carry guns in public perceive it.


Most never get past "with my gun I CAN NOW STAND MY GROUND."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal Veteran (Reply #56)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 03:41 PM

88. Nope, think it was totally intended

Repugs couldn't/wouldn't acknowledge the truth, but there was always a big element of racism in the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 01:31 PM

3. Bullshit. The law and the act are entirely separate

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmallind (Reply #3)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 01:52 PM

17. the law enabled the act....no arrests, no grand jury....nada

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #17)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 02:12 PM

27. More like a gross misrepresentation of the law...

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #17)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 02:37 PM

47. Not in any way, shape or form.

 

His actions do not fit any requirements of the law.

His action was enabled by inept/corrupt local police and politicians.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #47)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 04:48 PM

136. your interpretation doesn't matter

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #17)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 03:00 PM

64. a grand jury was covened two days ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SemperEadem (Reply #64)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 03:02 PM

65. Don't bother me with facts, son, I'm on a roll here!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #65)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 03:03 PM

67. lol!

thank you, though, for keeping what this law is and is not in the forefront of conversations here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #17)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 03:37 PM

85. stay tuned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmallind (Reply #3)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 01:54 PM

19. Lol ummm except that the law was the EXACT LAW that the POLICE cited

as the reason he wasn't even detained after gunning down a 17 year old boy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFab420 (Reply #19)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 02:29 PM

39. Disagree.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lost-in-FL (Reply #39)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 02:53 PM

58. The police still cited this specific law as the reason Zimmerman wasn't arrested.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gore1FL (Reply #58)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 03:04 PM

68. They said they didn't have probable cause. We're not going to repeal the 5th amendment.

Whatever law an (apparently) racist police department hides behind makes no difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #68)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 03:16 PM

73. Probable cause for what?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lost-in-FL (Reply #73)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 03:22 PM

76. Probable cause for arrest. (It's always required, regardless of SYG.)

The police ignoring witness accounts is the reason they claim to not have probable cause. (Assuming witness accounts are accurate.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #76)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 03:34 PM

83. How sad and frustrating for the family this must be.

I guess it is a matter of being patient.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lost-in-FL (Reply #83)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 03:36 PM

84. No doubt. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #68)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 07:09 AM

182. "Probable cause" considering their interpretation of "Get a Gun and Stand Your Ground."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gore1FL (Reply #58)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 03:04 PM

70. And they are still wrong cause that law doesn't even apply to this situation (even when it was used)

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFab420 (Reply #19)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 02:32 PM

42. and still hasn't been arrested when lots of evidence has been presented.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFab420 (Reply #19)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 03:38 PM

87. stay tuned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmallind (Reply #3)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 03:44 PM

91. Irrational love of guns

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmallind (Reply #3)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 10:13 PM

165. Was it irrational for that boy to be afraid of that gun, I don't follow, a gun is by design deadly

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmallind (Reply #3)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 09:05 AM

190. Ah yes, there's that line I love so much...

 

"...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...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RevStPatrick (Reply #190)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 02:04 AM

228. Because ...

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #228)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 01:24 PM

238. And there's that other line I love so much...

 

"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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 01:31 PM

4. this in no way is a defense of Zimmerman

...is a shit statement

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 01:32 PM

5. It is disturbing - nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 01:34 PM

6. First, please define "gun nut." Secondly, Zimmerman can not use the new law

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #6)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 01:58 PM

22. Gun Nut: Someone who is so devoted to a machine of war that they cannot, will not

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFab420 (Reply #22)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 02:31 PM

40. K&R...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFab420 (Reply #22)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 02:38 PM

48. Incoherent and irrelevent. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #48)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 03:26 PM

79. Lol there is nothing incoherent about it.. trying reading it again. This time try saying aloud the

words you are having trouble with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFab420 (Reply #79)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 03:59 PM

106. Actually the statement is correct.

 

Except it's polite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFab420 (Reply #79)


Response to PavePusher (Reply #48)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 05:42 PM

144. Struck too close to home, I see. Made you uncomfortable.

What if Traylon was your son?

The lack of empathy by the gun apologists is stunning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #144)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 06:33 PM

150. Lack of empathy? WTF?

 

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #150)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 10:13 PM

167. I agree

....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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #144)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 12:56 PM

208. It's not nice to stereotype.

 

That's what started this mess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #48)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 07:05 PM

153. Why? Because YOU can't understand it?

That statement was spot on, and is perfect understandable by those who have a basic grasp of cause and effect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #48)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 10:19 PM

168. Not if you can read and comprehend English, just sayin' /nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #48)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 12:25 PM

203. .......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlancheSplanchnik (Reply #203)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 12:58 PM

209. The cartoon speaks for what it is. nt

 

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlancheSplanchnik (Reply #203)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 01:00 PM

210. Well, except for the fact...

 

that the law doesn't actually state anything like that, or work that way... whatevuh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFab420 (Reply #22)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 03:52 PM

99. Actually we just respond to being abused.

 

We also feel obligated to correct incorrect and incomplete information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #99)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 10:35 PM

171. We will try to be more sensitive to your pain and suffering, no one should ever be harmed by

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dragonfli (Reply #171)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 08:38 AM

187. Stay out of your car then. nt

 

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #187)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 12:15 PM

202. False Equivalence. Fail. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlancheSplanchnik (Reply #202)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 12:54 PM

205. Is that the whole substance of the counter arguement?

 



I'm so excited.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #205)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 05:45 PM

218. no need to say anything further. The logical fallacy is evident. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlancheSplanchnik (Reply #218)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 02:41 AM

232. No. It isn't.

It really isn't. "Because I say so" carries no rhetorical weight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #232)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 10:38 AM

235. for an illustration of your argument,

see your argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFab420 (Reply #22)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 04:12 PM

117. OH MY GOD all my guns are broken!

Because with the exception of one that was carried by an American in WWII, none of my firearms have ever threatened a human life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFab420 (Reply #22)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 04:50 PM

137. Whew! Ok good

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OriginalGeek (Reply #137)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 12:16 AM

174. Has anyone ever heard of a gun owner who was NOT a "responsible" gun owner? I think not. eom

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xtraxritical (Reply #174)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 03:42 PM

216. Even the ones like Zimmerman were consider "responsible" gun owners right up until . . . . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFab420 (Reply #22)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 10:00 AM

196. great post n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #6)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 11:32 PM

173. A Gunophiliac

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 01:36 PM

7. Agreed! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 01:36 PM

8. This is in no way...

I kid, I kid

I agree.

They see it rightfully so, as a problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 01:38 PM

9. True, Sir, It is Like The 'I'm No Racist, But...' Pre-Amble

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 01:42 PM

10. "If you feel the need to preface your post"

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.


How so? Can you explain your logic, or were you just hoping no one would ask you to explain your logic?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #10)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 01:50 PM

14. I think it's pretty understandable...But if you want to be obtuse, I'll jump through your hoops.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFab420 (Reply #14)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 02:03 PM

24. How certain are you of your interpretation of that phrase?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #24)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 02:57 PM

61. You wouldn't need to preface it.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gore1FL (Reply #61)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 10:34 PM

170. I agree the preface is unneeded, and can be considered wordy.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #24)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 03:05 PM

71. It can be a way of expressing a nuanced opinion

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 01:42 PM

11. This is in no way a defense of Zimmerman but I don't think he should be strung up

Until he is tried and found guilty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tularetom (Reply #11)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 01:52 PM

18. That's fine. But how about the at least arrest him as a suspect and charge him with at

least manslaughter??

Or hell at least detain him for questioning as a person of interest in an on going murder investigation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tularetom (Reply #11)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 03:04 PM

69. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tularetom (Reply #11)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 07:12 AM

183. Those who carry guns are ready to play judge/jury/executioner without benefit of trial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #183)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 11:24 AM

200. And the President shall lead them.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Reply #200)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 01:51 PM

214. Once we get guns restricted, we can go after drones.

Or, shoot, just ban/restrict them both.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #214)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 02:09 PM

215. How 'bout we just restrict killing w/out trial instead? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 01:44 PM

12. The "Gungeon" is the only group in DU that routinely advocates in favor of republicans....

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #12)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 02:02 PM

23. Sigh

 

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.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #23)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 02:37 PM

45. Well said!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #23)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 03:03 PM

66. So you are telling me that members of the gun lobby don't routinely advocate....

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #66)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 03:18 PM

74. Try taking people for who they are, one at a time.

 

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #74)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 03:41 PM

89. I have never been a NRA member either.

Don't plan to be, ever, and I'm a gun owner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puzzledtraveller (Reply #89)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 03:46 PM

96. I love how some people see every gun owner as a mass murdered.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puzzledtraveller (Reply #89)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 04:24 PM

124. Good for you. That was clearly not my point but feel free to testify! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #124)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 05:01 PM

139. But that is exactly how gun owners get treated.

 

Check out the star prohabitionist post at the Gungeon. How do you think the Gungeon came to be?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #74)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 03:59 PM

105. How yow you react is up to you. I am interested in why so many Gun Lobby folk...

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #105)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 04:04 PM

109. I've sent many an e-mail to my Democratic Senators and Reps expressing my opinions.

 

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).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #105)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 04:46 PM

135. You haven't established your claim.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #105)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 02:30 AM

230. Put up or shut up.

How yow you react is up to you. I am interested in why so many Gun Lobby folk...

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #66)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 04:19 PM

120. Do it.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #120)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 04:41 PM

132. The thought of sifting through the haranging and often...

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!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #132)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 04:45 PM

133. If we do, individuals like myself will step up with private contributions to PP.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #23)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 01:35 PM

239. Well put.

REALLY well put.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #12)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 02:40 PM

51. Well that was a bunch of fallacious horse-apples. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #12)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 04:16 PM

119. Did you alert those 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)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #12)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 07:18 AM

184. The pro-gun crowd does indeed applaud every time some right winger proposes relaxing gun laws.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 01:50 PM

13. It seems the spin started with the gun prohibitionist prom.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #13)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 01:52 PM

16. Yup cause it was the local PD's money and influence that allowed a for a law that means you can gun

ppl down in the streets if you feel threatened....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFab420 (Reply #16)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 02:04 PM

26. Second verse, same as the first.

 

Keep dancing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #26)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 03:33 PM

82. Seems your the one dancing around this issue. Do you disagree that the NRA has used its money and

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFab420 (Reply #16)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 02:42 PM

53. Only if you only read half the law.

 

But I don't think you've read even that much of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #53)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 03:37 PM

86. I have read all of it.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFab420 (Reply #86)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 03:45 PM

92. Apparently you missed this part..

http://law.onecle.com/florida/crimes/776.041.html
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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #92)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 03:49 PM

97. I don't understand your point? Are you saying Trayvon brought this on himself cause he provoked

Zimmerman by not allowing a stranger to approach and question him????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFab420 (Reply #97)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 03:54 PM

101. No, you can't "gun ppl down in the streets if you feel threatened...." under this law..

And specifically in this case, Zimmerman can't avail himself of this law as a defense because of the section quoted above.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #101)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 04:01 PM

108. So even though you think Zimmerman can't avail himself of the law, the FL PD disagree

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2012/03/22/stand_your_ground_law_at_center_of_fla_shooting/


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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFab420 (Reply #108)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 04:06 PM

110. The racist PD, whose chief was replaced for a previous incident of looking the other way?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #110)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 04:10 PM

114. ?? ok I'm confused by the point you are trying to make..the stand your ground law it the law that

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFab420 (Reply #114)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 04:16 PM

118. Yes, it's the corrupt police, not the law.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFab420 (Reply #114)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 05:48 PM

145. The police aren't using the law at all.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #110)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 08:13 PM

156. Yes, you see the problem isnt this fucked up law that enables racist police departments

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.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #156)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 08:20 PM

158. And you think a racist police department wouldn't cover for a racist without this one law?!?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #158)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 08:24 PM

159. If I bang my head harder will it get through to you what we are saying?

Is there anyway we can communicate? I'm thinking not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #159)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 08:31 PM

161. Feel free to bang whatever you like.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFab420 (Reply #86)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 07:20 AM

185. Like Zimmerman and those like him are going to read all that. They don't get past Stand Your Ground

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 01:51 PM

15. Lots of concern trolls that just feel the need to reassure themselves. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 01:55 PM

20. Rec.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 01:55 PM

21. This in no way is a defense of Zimmerman.

No, really, it isn't. To hell with him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 02:03 PM

25. I am a gun nut but Zimmerman is a racist who should be prosecuted for murder

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestateguy (Reply #25)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 02:17 PM

31. I guess I must be a gun nut, too.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestateguy (Reply #25)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 02:20 PM

33. Agree.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lost-in-FL (Reply #33)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 02:40 PM

50. Murderers never consider the law!

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puzzledtraveller (Reply #50)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 02:44 PM

54. He wanted this to happen, no doubts about it. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 02:14 PM

28. I don't want police to get in the habit of arresting people without concrete evidence of a crime

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #28)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 02:34 PM

43. A child carrying nothing but tea and skittles was killed by

an adult twice his size and nearly twice his age with a gun.


I would call that probable cause for an arrest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #28)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 03:22 PM

77. "while an investigation is underway"...

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ScreamingMeemie (Reply #77)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 04:06 PM

111. The problem may be the law itself. Please read the Sanford City Manager's open letter.

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #111)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 04:12 PM

115. I saw the letter yesterday (responded in the original post about it).

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ScreamingMeemie (Reply #115)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 04:19 PM

121. The law does not -verb needed- harassing somone...

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #121)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 04:23 PM

123. It does not allow for (edited). I hope you don't mind that I am going to go

with the Florida attorney on this one. There was enough evidence to the contrary of self defense claims to keep the case open. Sorry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ScreamingMeemie (Reply #123)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 04:25 PM

127. I agree with you that there is evidence to keep the case open, and in fact it IS still open.

 



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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #127)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 04:31 PM

128. Again, I am going to go with the (not a CNN caller) legal expert

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 02:16 PM

29. Ironically Trevor Martin could have used this law had he been carrying a gun...

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kalidurga (Reply #29)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 02:17 PM

30. Perhaps so, but Trayvon Martin was too young to legally buy a handgun or get a permit to carry it

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 02:21 PM

34. Above all everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Life Long Dem (Reply #34)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 02:23 PM

36. I have no problem with Zimmerman having a fair trial, but to have a trial he needs to be

arrested first. There is no doubt that his actions warranted being arrested, imo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WI_DEM (Reply #36)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 02:45 PM

55. No, that's not how it works.

 

You don't arrest-then-investigate. You have it 180 degrees the wrong way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #55)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 03:45 PM

93. Lol what??? Usually if there is a shooting and the shooter is on scene he is at least detained for

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....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFab420 (Reply #93)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 05:53 PM

146. "detained for questioning" =/= "arrested and charged"

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #146)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 05:58 PM

148. Actually, according to the PD report (for what it's worth), he was handcuffed and detained.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Life Long Dem (Reply #34)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 03:43 PM

90. Oh, we have a good idea about what happened next

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:

“Trayvon said, ‘What, are you following me for,’ and the man said, ‘What are you doing here.’ Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell. I called him again and he didn’t answer the phone.”

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.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Reply #90)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 04:00 PM

107. Who confronted who?

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Life Long Dem (Reply #107)


Response to Life Long Dem (Reply #34)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 03:52 PM

98. all that shit is on the 911 tapes..

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #98)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 04:08 PM

113. I think i'd be yelling for help too...

 

if all of a sudden someone pulled a gun out and pointed it at me while I'm engaged in a fight with them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Life Long Dem (Reply #113)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 04:37 PM

130. and based on that comment i'll place you in the zimmerman camp

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #130)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 05:22 PM

143. I see.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 02:22 PM

35. I Expected it... and Glad they Outed Themselves

more like sociopaths

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 02:24 PM

37. They could try being honest.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 02:28 PM

38. I think you're being unfair.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to USArmyParatrooper (Reply #38)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 02:35 PM

44. If it was Trayvon crying for help then he was fearing for his life.

 

If it was him crying he must have saw the gun and felt his life was in danger.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 02:32 PM

41. It's exactly like someone saying "I'm not racist, but"

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obxhead (Reply #41)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 07:06 PM

155. Bravo!

Exactly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 02:37 PM

46. "Gun nuts... on DU" is an insult to DUers

This should be locked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #46)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 02:42 PM

52. We're tough.

 

We can take it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #52)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 03:00 PM

63. I didn't alert for just that reason. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 02:38 PM

49. Agreed...

like all of the posts that started 'I don't support Ron Paul but ...'



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #49)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 03:09 PM

72. Most of those are probably from TS'd Paulbots

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RZM (Reply #72)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 03:45 PM

95. Why make the claim about Paulbots then?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puzzledtraveller (Reply #95)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 04:40 PM

131. There was a rash of Ron Paul trolls not so long ago

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RZM (Reply #72)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 04:23 PM

122. More than just the war on drugs.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 02:52 PM

57. Complete Agreement

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 02:58 PM

62. Zimmerman

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old Codger (Reply #62)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 03:24 PM

78. This avalanche of mistakes is why laws like this one makes no sense.

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."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old Codger (Reply #62)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 03:56 PM

103. imho why the PD is in full blown CYA mode..

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 03:21 PM

75. 21 states have passed this same law as Florida. This is insane!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 03:27 PM

80. That is like saying, 'this is in no way defense of the GOP...'

imo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 03:32 PM

81. The argument against this law in the first place was.....

"A person can gun someone down in cold blood, then it's that person's word against a dead guy."

Simple as that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis-t (Reply #81)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 03:52 PM

100. That was always the case, before this law or after.

This is just another excuse that criminals will try to hide behind. Removing it would have likely just changed Zimmerman's excuse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #100)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 12:42 PM

236. Without the law, the evidence would have allowed the police to

arrest the suspect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis-t (Reply #236)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 12:50 PM

237. Not likely..

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 03:45 PM

94. The law is fine. Zimmerman's actions don't fall under it.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 03:55 PM

102. what would have happened if Zimmerman had followed and shot a middle aged white man?

He would have had the book thrown at him already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 03:58 PM

104. I would actually say that the "stand your ground" law would work in Trayvon's favor.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LoZoccolo (Reply #104)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 04:12 PM

116. Especially if Zimmerman tried to illegally detain Martin. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LoZoccolo (Reply #104)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 04:24 PM

125. Exactly.

The law is fine, the local PD and district attorney fell down in the application of the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LoZoccolo (Reply #104)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 05:13 PM

141. It would if Zimmerman was dead

But since Trayvon was murdered, it works in Zimmerman's favor.

Is this sarcasm, or do you really believe what you said?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LoZoccolo (Reply #104)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 08:36 PM

162. no. If Martin had shot Zimmerman he would be in jail right now facing a death penalty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LoZoccolo (Reply #104)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 05:51 PM

219. The law certainly was Trayvon's advantage. Especially if being killed counts as an advantage.

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 04:08 PM

112. Sorry pal. The law isn't the problem.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 04:25 PM

126. Just like I don't mean to bother you, I don't mean to step on your... I don't mean to interupt you..

yes you do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 04:34 PM

129. Nonsense. Zimmerman is a murderer, and you trying to blame the law gives him an EXCUSE.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 04:46 PM

134. The gun people here are the only ones permitted to openly worship a rightwing organization

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #134)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 05:15 PM

142. Yes

Thanks, just what I was thinking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 04:52 PM

138. Thank you. K&R n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 05:04 PM

140. I am so sick of the twisted defences of this law

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).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #140)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 03:55 PM

217. Exactly, the fuckers who backed this law were Republicans. They love to pass crap that


hurts/exterminates poor people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 07:02 PM

151. I agree 10000000%.

Anyone who defends that piece of shit is a piece of shit themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 07:06 PM

154. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 08:17 PM

157. It's obvious that the anti gun nuts are looking for any reason to attack all gun owners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #157)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 08:30 PM

160. yes how dare we.

disgraceful.

Everyone should send 100 bucks to the NRA for penance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 10:02 PM

163. What I find amazing is what incredibly thin skin gun lovers (at least here) appear to have.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dragonfli (Reply #163)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 08:51 AM

188. "incredibly thin skin"?

 

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.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 10:07 PM

164. AGREE 100%

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 10:13 PM

166. Now that our pretend liberals, aka "pro-gun Democrats" have been given their very own forum on DU3

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #166)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 04:49 AM

179. I am a progressive flaming liberal retired nurse

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #179)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 09:41 AM

192. why do you think that post had anything to do with you?

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #192)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 06:01 PM

220. Because I am a "pro gun liberal"

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #220)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 06:13 PM

221. no, presumably you're a pro gun liberal

 

The quotation marks were in the original post for a reason, one would think.

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.


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 ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #192)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 01:39 PM

240. Oh, lord.

Speaking of thinking everything is about you... "spewing funny venom about actual progressive DUers like, yes, yours truly..."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Union Scribe (Reply #240)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 03:31 PM

241. did you have something to actually say?

 

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 ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #166)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 09:38 AM

191. Thanks for the insult

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Papagoose (Reply #191)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 09:48 AM

193. and another one

 



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?

Because a person calls themselves a pro-gun Democrat, they can't be a Liberal?

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.

We have to all believe the same on every single issue???

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.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #166)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 02:23 AM

229. You're wrong.

They openly revel in being conservatives who are allowed to post at will on a liberal discussion board.

Flat wrong. Cite to posters who "openly revel in being conservatives" or retract.

Private ownership of firearms is a progressive value.

Fascist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #229)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 03:55 AM

234. No, I'm not wrong. Nothing about the NRA agenda is a "progressive value."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 10:21 PM

169. Maybe, just maybe

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 11:15 PM

172. This is the result of gun nuts. Nothing else need be said. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #172)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 03:02 AM

177. It is - precisely right. And they are allowed here to spew their Right wing talking points unabated.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #177)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 09:55 AM

195. c'mon over to H&M

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #195)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 08:20 PM

225. Two more and I'm an transparency page ace! Just like Snoopy and his Sopwith Camel. I'm thinking back

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #177)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 12:00 PM

201. I agree with you 100% nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 01:09 AM

175. You'll have to rip that bill out of our cold dead hands!

not really... just trying to predict the next stupid bumper sticker for gun nuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 02:50 AM

176. Killing black kids seems to be popular amongst a small segment of the population.

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.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 04:32 AM

178. Its pretty sickening seeing people make Zimmerman into some poor victim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lilyeye (Reply #178)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 08:54 AM

189. People here? Where? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #189)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 12:34 PM

204. Yup, a few of them have been banned. Look in any thread on the guy and you'll find one.

I guess freeperville or stormfront has been slow this week.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lilyeye (Reply #178)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 10:34 AM

197. Link please.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emilyg (Reply #197)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 12:54 PM

206. No offense, but I don't have time to go back finding posts from trolls.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lilyeye (Reply #206)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 01:02 PM

211. If you are going to make this claim....

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #211)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 01:07 PM

212. You can ignore my post. I made an opinion and I don't need to explain myself further.

I

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lilyeye (Reply #212)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 06:44 PM

222. No, you made an accusation and have not supported it when challenged.

 

Good luck with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #222)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 07:25 PM

223. Good luck with that? lol

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lilyeye (Reply #223)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 07:56 PM

224. Going by the edit time-stamp....

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #224)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 10:09 PM

226. I posted the link earlier today. Here is another one

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=446361. That post was hidden and the poster was banned, so I can't post the link to the direct post. Its number 52.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lilyeye (Reply #226)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 01:07 AM

227. Yeah, that was entirely inappropriate in the given circumstances....

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emilyg (Reply #197)


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 07:07 AM

181. Makes you wonder what they'd post if they started with

"This IS a defense of Zimmerman", doesn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 08:11 AM

186. Let's see some links, please. Another poster tried to say what yu say...

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 09:53 AM

194. Rush was just kidding!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 10:58 AM

198. k&r - As I posted on another thread...

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 11:08 AM

199. It's a great law and has nothing to do with Zimmerman not being charged.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 12:55 PM

207. or they will say "I am a progrssive" before they make a post lol.

I just say someone reply to my post like that. Thankfully, they were banned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lilyeye (Reply #207)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 02:38 AM

231. Hi. I'm a progressive ...

Thankfully, they were banned.

... and you're not. I'm just sayin' ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #231)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 03:25 AM

233. No I am not, thanks for reminding me lol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread