"I don't support changing one damn comma of the 'Stand Your Ground' law," Gaetz told the Tampa Bay Times Friday. "It would be reactionary and dangerous to make Floridians less safe to pacify uninformed protesters."
He is absolutely right.
Thursday, August 8, 2013
Don't know this guy...
...but I like him (from Huffingtion Post).
"I don't support changing one damn comma of the 'Stand Your Ground' law," Gaetz told the Tampa Bay Times Friday. "It would be reactionary and dangerous to make Floridians less safe to pacify uninformed protesters."
He is absolutely right.
"I don't support changing one damn comma of the 'Stand Your Ground' law," Gaetz told the Tampa Bay Times Friday. "It would be reactionary and dangerous to make Floridians less safe to pacify uninformed protesters."
He is absolutely right.
Tuesday, August 6, 2013
Ah. Reverend Al!
Ran into this picture today in a Huffington story about a defamation settlement all these years after the Tawana Brawley debacle. There's Reverend Al (no, its not Barry White) - a much younger and more portly Reverend Al - standing behind her. All these years alter and the huckster is still there, doing his usual shtick; a little (mis)information, a lot of emotion, and grabbing headlines.
Some folks have no shame.
Monday, August 5, 2013
This is what happens when people do not know what they are talking about...
Ah - if enough misinformed people ("dream defenders") whine they finally get attention. As with most misinformation on the topic, the telling line says that Stand Your Ground (SYG) "...allows the use of guns in self-defense." That is not what SYG does - the allowance for the use of deadly force - including a knife, a firearm, a club, and so on - for self-defense (in defense of one's own life) is part of self-defense law and has been for centuries. The only thing that SYG did was remove the legal requirement to retreat if at all possible without putting one's self in lethal jeopardy.
So - this is simply a squeaky ignorant wheel getting greased. If the only way you can create indignation is to misrepresent the law, then you have no rational argument. It is a sign of the decline of Western Civilization that people no longer balk at talking about things they know nothing about and could learn about if they just chose to read. Just yell louder - it will enhance your credibility.
Even more disappointing are some of the comments:
1. Zimmerman didn't use "Stand your Ground" in his defense, because then he would have had to answer the awkward question of why Martin didn't have the same right to stand his ground. So even if they repeal it, it'll still be perfectly OK to pick a fight with an unarmed black kid and shoot him dead in Sanford, FL."
Let me start by trying to make this simple; Martin could not have done so because he was not in lethal jeopardy (one of three required conditions for the use of deadly force - that must first be met before SYG has meaning).
Now, Karen...I know state laws are pretty boring shit - but it IS important if one is going to talk about such issues that they at least give it a try. So check out FL Statutes so you can know what you are talking about. SYG is one small provision in the context of justifiable self-defense. I'd really like to take the time to spell it all out to you, show you why you are wrong, but you would not believe me anyway, since you KNOW the truth.
Suffice to say that, if you read that chapter of FL Statutes you would see that one must reasonably believe that their life is in danger to use lethal force in self-defense. If Martin thought that then he must have been high. There is no evidence - even at autopsy - to suggest that Martin was assaulted prior to assaulting Zimmerman; his fatal injury was secondary to his assault and battery of Zimmerman. I know - evidence sucks, but it is what it is. Martin had nothing to stand his ground about (and he could have kept on walking).
You see, this is where you sound clueless. The law does not say that if someone follows you or uses harsh language at you or questions you for being who you are, the color you are, or where you are, then you can assault them. That would not be standing your ground - it would be assault and battery (as it was in this case). The evidence, from both defense and prosecution, shows that this is what Martin did. He had no lethal threat to retreat from (or stand his ground against).
2. Next, decides to flaunt his ignorance: "It empowers people to attack when they feel threatened. With an insanely armed sub-population who tend to be somewhat scared already (why else buy a gun, except the small minority that actually hunt). It is a product of ALEX and the NRA and needs to go"
Again, please feel free to use the link above to read the law - it would be better than reading the Brady literature as this was their tag line when SYG passed - as it has been every where it passes. Yet there has been no evidence of shoot outs int eh streets and, BTW, murder rates are down.
If you read the law you will find that there is nowhere in the law about "feeling threatened". The standard is reasonableness - as in "would a reasonable person believe their life was in danger". But, again, this has nothing to do with SYG - it is merely the standard self-defense law that is in effect in all 50 states and other countries - it has been common law for centuries. Again SYG added one small phrase in the self-defense law that says "...does not have a duty to retreat".
So, as usual, people feel strongly about things they know nothing about. In fact, they prefer to exist on strong feelings and no information.
Once more - in the context of this case:
- Stand your ground was not relevant; not because there was some reason to think that Martin might have also been "standing his ground". He could not have claimed it because all the evidence shows that no reasonable fear of imminent lethal harm existed in him - he even talked about initiating aggression. SYG was not used because Zimmerman had no ability to retreat. Even without SYG on the books, had this happened pre-2005, Zimmerman was justified to act in his own defense. SYG was not necessary - pre-SYG one did not have to retreat if they could not do so.
- SYG is one small phrase in a long-existing self-defense law. It says only that one "...has no duty to retreat...". That does not mean you can go around guns blazing at any one who pisses you off. It means that, if you are physically attacked by an aggressor, you need not first decide "Gee, I wonder if I can run without getting killed" while someone is beating on you, holding a knife on you or pointing a gun at you. You know, no need to call a time out in the assault and ponder one's available avenues of escape.
- It remains clear that, given this situation, most of the people who are protesting self-defense law would have preferred that Zimmerman die of murder that night. The sad and tragic facts are clear - either Zimmerman was going to die that night or Martin was. Martin made the decision that lead to that inevitability when he decided to pummel Zimmerman - to initiate a physically aggression encounter - a decision that can never be justified in the face of non-physical confrontation (Sticks and stones and...). Once that happened, one of these men was going to die. That defines the situation in which lethal self-defense is justified - either the asailant or the target will die.
Clearly - if the law that allows using a firearm to defend one's self from a beating that was likely to be fatal is a target to be repealed, then it is clear that those wishing to repeal it wish that Zimmerman had died that night.
That only adds to the tragedy of this case.
So - this is simply a squeaky ignorant wheel getting greased. If the only way you can create indignation is to misrepresent the law, then you have no rational argument. It is a sign of the decline of Western Civilization that people no longer balk at talking about things they know nothing about and could learn about if they just chose to read. Just yell louder - it will enhance your credibility.
Even more disappointing are some of the comments:
1. Zimmerman didn't use "Stand your Ground" in his defense, because then he would have had to answer the awkward question of why Martin didn't have the same right to stand his ground. So even if they repeal it, it'll still be perfectly OK to pick a fight with an unarmed black kid and shoot him dead in Sanford, FL."
Let me start by trying to make this simple; Martin could not have done so because he was not in lethal jeopardy (one of three required conditions for the use of deadly force - that must first be met before SYG has meaning).
Now, Karen...I know state laws are pretty boring shit - but it IS important if one is going to talk about such issues that they at least give it a try. So check out FL Statutes so you can know what you are talking about. SYG is one small provision in the context of justifiable self-defense. I'd really like to take the time to spell it all out to you, show you why you are wrong, but you would not believe me anyway, since you KNOW the truth.
Suffice to say that, if you read that chapter of FL Statutes you would see that one must reasonably believe that their life is in danger to use lethal force in self-defense. If Martin thought that then he must have been high. There is no evidence - even at autopsy - to suggest that Martin was assaulted prior to assaulting Zimmerman; his fatal injury was secondary to his assault and battery of Zimmerman. I know - evidence sucks, but it is what it is. Martin had nothing to stand his ground about (and he could have kept on walking).
You see, this is where you sound clueless. The law does not say that if someone follows you or uses harsh language at you or questions you for being who you are, the color you are, or where you are, then you can assault them. That would not be standing your ground - it would be assault and battery (as it was in this case). The evidence, from both defense and prosecution, shows that this is what Martin did. He had no lethal threat to retreat from (or stand his ground against).
2. Next, decides to flaunt his ignorance: "It empowers people to attack when they feel threatened. With an insanely armed sub-population who tend to be somewhat scared already (why else buy a gun, except the small minority that actually hunt). It is a product of ALEX and the NRA and needs to go"
Again, please feel free to use the link above to read the law - it would be better than reading the Brady literature as this was their tag line when SYG passed - as it has been every where it passes. Yet there has been no evidence of shoot outs int eh streets and, BTW, murder rates are down.
If you read the law you will find that there is nowhere in the law about "feeling threatened". The standard is reasonableness - as in "would a reasonable person believe their life was in danger". But, again, this has nothing to do with SYG - it is merely the standard self-defense law that is in effect in all 50 states and other countries - it has been common law for centuries. Again SYG added one small phrase in the self-defense law that says "...does not have a duty to retreat".
So, as usual, people feel strongly about things they know nothing about. In fact, they prefer to exist on strong feelings and no information.
Once more - in the context of this case:
- Stand your ground was not relevant; not because there was some reason to think that Martin might have also been "standing his ground". He could not have claimed it because all the evidence shows that no reasonable fear of imminent lethal harm existed in him - he even talked about initiating aggression. SYG was not used because Zimmerman had no ability to retreat. Even without SYG on the books, had this happened pre-2005, Zimmerman was justified to act in his own defense. SYG was not necessary - pre-SYG one did not have to retreat if they could not do so.
- SYG is one small phrase in a long-existing self-defense law. It says only that one "...has no duty to retreat...". That does not mean you can go around guns blazing at any one who pisses you off. It means that, if you are physically attacked by an aggressor, you need not first decide "Gee, I wonder if I can run without getting killed" while someone is beating on you, holding a knife on you or pointing a gun at you. You know, no need to call a time out in the assault and ponder one's available avenues of escape.
- It remains clear that, given this situation, most of the people who are protesting self-defense law would have preferred that Zimmerman die of murder that night. The sad and tragic facts are clear - either Zimmerman was going to die that night or Martin was. Martin made the decision that lead to that inevitability when he decided to pummel Zimmerman - to initiate a physically aggression encounter - a decision that can never be justified in the face of non-physical confrontation (Sticks and stones and...). Once that happened, one of these men was going to die. That defines the situation in which lethal self-defense is justified - either the asailant or the target will die.
Clearly - if the law that allows using a firearm to defend one's self from a beating that was likely to be fatal is a target to be repealed, then it is clear that those wishing to repeal it wish that Zimmerman had died that night.
That only adds to the tragedy of this case.
Be honest
So, now folks are up in arms over Jeopardy (and, of course, Alex Trebek) not giving a student credit for his Final Jeopardy response because it was misspelled.
A misspelled response is NOT really correct - even if it is misspelled by a student from Newtown Connecticut.
The BS meter goes off again...
Oh Oprah - I didn't think I could find you even more off-base than I already
do; no, it's not a gender thing or a race thing, it a "foolishness thing"
- I simply do not buy the new-age crap she spouts and I blame her for Dr. Phil.
Friday, August 2, 2013
I don't love Cheney, but...
God, I hate this! It is one of those rare times when I have to admit that I half-agree with Boring Joe: Nope, I will never be able to say I love Dick Cheney, but I have come to believe that Barack Obama was not and is not ready to lead this country; he is an activist who belongs on the streets of Chicago. Of course my reasons for thinking this are diametrically opposed to Boring Joe's, although we reach a similar conclusion.
I will admit - it should not surprise anyone who has seen what I have written over the years - I voted for Obama. I will note, in my own defense (since I have unfortunately come to feel I need to defend the decision) that I could not bring myself to even consider voting for a ticket that had Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney on it. I tend to "vote against" (again no surprise given my previous blogs). To my mind, such is the great limitation of our system; we get shitty choices and have to pick from them or not participate.
Obama had potential, he had some appeal (independent of completely incompetent competitors) - the great contrast between someone who appeared both intelligent and thoughtful and the 8 years of his predecessor made him appear a viable alternative. Sadly, in discussing the candidates in 2008 with some people, many expressed concerns that Obama was not ready to lead. I confess I largely dismissed these based on the fact that Bush had also seemed out of his depth for a full 8 years (as well as not very smart). At least Obama, it seemed, would be someone who, if over their head, would be smart enough to deal with it. Sadly, 5 years later, this has proven untrue.
I suppose it should have been somewhat obvious where this might go eventually the night of his election, when African-Americans cheering his victory were shown in the streets celebrating it as meaning that the power differential in the nation had flipped in one night; now they would visit oppression upon others for a change. I realize this reflects years of a different differential, but the fact that many seemed to think that the answer to that was to flip it, that revenge was at hand, should have been a bad sign. The fact that racism, in whatever form or direction, was not an evil to be shunned, but was to be embraced as long as the target was someone else, was disheartening to one who wanted to see the change that was promised. Equality is equality, not a compensatory unbalancing.
Flash forward to a president now in a second term with no need to think in terms of obtaining another and I see someone who seems the great chameleon, whose prior words hold little weight. The great racial chasm in this country has opened even wider - it is seemingly much worse than was apparent heretofore and divides us more than ever. I consider it open for debate how much this has to do with one side or the other of this divide. Flash forward to a president whose first "allegiance" in times of social discord is to his "blackness" (which would be no more acceptable than one who first allied himself based on his "whiteness") than to his role as a president of all people.
Whether apparent in the events that lead to the famous "beer summit" or in his comments following the Zimmerman/Martin tragedy, this president sadly seems unable to avoid representing his race as president in those times where his activist side takes over, seems incapable of avoiding reverting to community organizing as opposed to leadership. As Bush seemed to create a presidency where the campaign never ended, so does Obama, confusing rhetoric with leadership. A national leader should not be taking sides in such issues, but facilitating discussion, attempting to unify the citizenry.
"Change" is a very ambiguous term; I think I misunderstood what he meant.
I will admit - it should not surprise anyone who has seen what I have written over the years - I voted for Obama. I will note, in my own defense (since I have unfortunately come to feel I need to defend the decision) that I could not bring myself to even consider voting for a ticket that had Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney on it. I tend to "vote against" (again no surprise given my previous blogs). To my mind, such is the great limitation of our system; we get shitty choices and have to pick from them or not participate.
Obama had potential, he had some appeal (independent of completely incompetent competitors) - the great contrast between someone who appeared both intelligent and thoughtful and the 8 years of his predecessor made him appear a viable alternative. Sadly, in discussing the candidates in 2008 with some people, many expressed concerns that Obama was not ready to lead. I confess I largely dismissed these based on the fact that Bush had also seemed out of his depth for a full 8 years (as well as not very smart). At least Obama, it seemed, would be someone who, if over their head, would be smart enough to deal with it. Sadly, 5 years later, this has proven untrue.
I suppose it should have been somewhat obvious where this might go eventually the night of his election, when African-Americans cheering his victory were shown in the streets celebrating it as meaning that the power differential in the nation had flipped in one night; now they would visit oppression upon others for a change. I realize this reflects years of a different differential, but the fact that many seemed to think that the answer to that was to flip it, that revenge was at hand, should have been a bad sign. The fact that racism, in whatever form or direction, was not an evil to be shunned, but was to be embraced as long as the target was someone else, was disheartening to one who wanted to see the change that was promised. Equality is equality, not a compensatory unbalancing.
Flash forward to a president now in a second term with no need to think in terms of obtaining another and I see someone who seems the great chameleon, whose prior words hold little weight. The great racial chasm in this country has opened even wider - it is seemingly much worse than was apparent heretofore and divides us more than ever. I consider it open for debate how much this has to do with one side or the other of this divide. Flash forward to a president whose first "allegiance" in times of social discord is to his "blackness" (which would be no more acceptable than one who first allied himself based on his "whiteness") than to his role as a president of all people.
Whether apparent in the events that lead to the famous "beer summit" or in his comments following the Zimmerman/Martin tragedy, this president sadly seems unable to avoid representing his race as president in those times where his activist side takes over, seems incapable of avoiding reverting to community organizing as opposed to leadership. As Bush seemed to create a presidency where the campaign never ended, so does Obama, confusing rhetoric with leadership. A national leader should not be taking sides in such issues, but facilitating discussion, attempting to unify the citizenry.
"Change" is a very ambiguous term; I think I misunderstood what he meant.
Thursday, August 1, 2013
Holy shit - Speeding!
Damn - we always knew that George Zimmerman was a criminal, at heart. Why else would he have have been caught speeding in Texas with a gun in his glove compartment? Clearly he is on a national rampage to break laws.
All right - let's see if we can keep at least some of the panties from getting wadded around he ah!
First; Texas and Florida have reciprocity. For those out there who have no idea what that might mean (who are also likely the same who think Zimmerman should get prison time for speeding), it means that if you have a valid Concealed Weapon or Firearm License in Florida, you can legally carry as a visitor to Texas - subject to the details of Texas law (which relates to below). So, the fact that a pistol was concealed in the glove compartment of the vehicle is perfectly legal.
Second; Zimmerman informed the officer who stopped him that he had a pistol in the glove compartment. Well, I know this will be disappointing to some - but Texas law requires that one inform a law enforcement officer who approaches them that they are carrying a weapon (of note, Florida law does not require this). Damn - there he goes following the law again - even one in another state.
Third, let's be honest here; he is carrying for a good reason; if one cannot be stopped for speeding (I am sure none of us ever go over the speed limit or have ever been stopped) without it making the national news and causing major heart palpitations, then it is probably a damned good idea to be armed against all those out there who have made threats against you. Both the media and many others will be hounding this person for a long time.
So why does this deserve all this attention? Speeding, by a free man, an individual, acquitted of a crime. Preposterous.
All right - let's see if we can keep at least some of the panties from getting wadded around he ah!
First; Texas and Florida have reciprocity. For those out there who have no idea what that might mean (who are also likely the same who think Zimmerman should get prison time for speeding), it means that if you have a valid Concealed Weapon or Firearm License in Florida, you can legally carry as a visitor to Texas - subject to the details of Texas law (which relates to below). So, the fact that a pistol was concealed in the glove compartment of the vehicle is perfectly legal.
Second; Zimmerman informed the officer who stopped him that he had a pistol in the glove compartment. Well, I know this will be disappointing to some - but Texas law requires that one inform a law enforcement officer who approaches them that they are carrying a weapon (of note, Florida law does not require this). Damn - there he goes following the law again - even one in another state.
Third, let's be honest here; he is carrying for a good reason; if one cannot be stopped for speeding (I am sure none of us ever go over the speed limit or have ever been stopped) without it making the national news and causing major heart palpitations, then it is probably a damned good idea to be armed against all those out there who have made threats against you. Both the media and many others will be hounding this person for a long time.
So why does this deserve all this attention? Speeding, by a free man, an individual, acquitted of a crime. Preposterous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)