There seems no doubt that a roll on the ground fight occurred between Zimmerman and Martin. A larger, older man with a gun does not easily get threatened enough by skinny kid to likely throw the first punch (unless he’s a biker bar bouncer) — an underweight kid easily gets threatened enough by an overbearing adult. A 17 year old boy can put up a “shark feeding frenzy” of a fight — it’s just hormones. 17 year old boys tend to be saints in the house and sinners outside depending on which audience they are playing to. Once you accept the boy likely hit the adult first you are forced to take the word of only person who survived the confrontation: slam dunk — not guilty. If he gets a fair trial.
PS. I’m the one trying to spread the (eighth-grade math) word that if New York police upped frisking 6X after crime went down 4X, then, New York police are now frisking 24X as often per reported crime: slam dunk — unconstitutional.
not unconstitutional any more; the SCOTUS repealed that amendment last week:
Supreme Court Ruling Allows Strip-Searches for Any Offense – The Supreme Court on Monday ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that officials may strip-search people arrested for any offense, however minor, before admitting them to jails even if the officials have no reason to suspect the presence of contraband. “Every detainee who will be admitted to the general population may be required to undergo a close visual inspection while undressed,” Justice Kennedy wrote, adding that about 13 million people are admitted each year to the nation’s jails.
It is a common practice for prisoners who have contact with visitors to go through a strip search before and after the visit with whoever. It is not common for people detained for speeding, etc. to be strip searched. Court Justice Kennedy errors in applyinhg this statement in his decision:
“It allowed strip-searches of people held at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York after “contact visits” with outsiders.”
The general populace of a prison or jail is not the same as one detained for a minor offense.
Either Martin told Zimmerman to stop following or Zimmerman attempted to detain Martin. Either way Martin’s actions are criminally stupid. A reasonable juror could conclude that anything more than walking away amounts to more than self-defense. Getting 12 jurors to come to that conclusion: impossible. So, he won’t be convicted.
“Either way Martin’s actions are criminally stupid.”
Martin’s actions are stupid? How do you come to that conclusion? I’ll resist evaluating the comment until you”ve had a chance to explain it or correct it.
On another topic. The Dems, including the President, screwed up the reply to Romney’s dissatisfaction with Rosen’s remark about Mrs. Romney. Mitt states that the Mrs. provides him with all he needs to know about what women in America need and/or want from their government. Ms. Rosen sticks her foot in her mouth by focusing on Mrs. Romeny’s work status rather than the quality of the advice she has been giving to her husband regarding women. The Dems screw up a second time by apologizing for Rosen rather than evaluating the quality of the advice. So twice the Dems in one way or another pass up an opportunity to point out that whom ever is the originator of the Romney view of women and their place in America that view point is crap.
They could also have pointed out that Rosen erred by failing to take account of Mrs. Romney’s executive experience. She’s been running a household and its attendent hired help for at least two decades. Supervising all that household help is a big job. So yes, Mrs. Romney has been working as an executive supervising her nannies, housekeepers and who knows who else. Gardeners, grounds keepers, maids, etc. It’s good not to have to carry out all those boring tasks and instead hone your supervisory skills by supervising the people you can afford to pay to do the drudge work while you’re out playing bridge or tennis.
The man may have aggravated the kid but that doesn’t change anything — that’s not a crime (or much of one) — the man is the only one left to testify what happened next. Multiple “witnesses” agree there was a knock down drag out fight but couldn’t see exactly what happened. Some knowledgeable folks say the case will never get to trial — will get thrown out by a judge.
Last week a federal court allowed cops to search cell phones without probable cause on the fear someone may remotely erase its contents. Anyone ever hear of pulling the battery until you get to a safe place?
coberly, The man may have aggravated the kid but that doesn’t change anything — that’s not a crime (or much of one) — the man is the only one left to testify what happened next. Multiple “witnesses” agree there was a knock down drag out fight but couldn’t see exactly what happened. Some knowledgeable folks say the case will never get to trial — will get thrown out by a judge.
man with attitude problem sees kid of wrong color in “wrong place.” lays hands on kid. kid pushes back. escalates. kid is stronger, faster, and maybe smarter than man. man pulls out gun and kills kid.
there is a big crime there.
and even if man did not intend it to end up that way, it’s not a good idea to start a fight when you are carrying a gun. it tends to get used.
having been criminally stupid in my life… if a man starts pushing me around, i am going to push back. if he escalates i am going to have to escalate. it could get out of hand. especially if he was carrying a gun and was looking for an excuse to use it.
i don’t really want to see zimmerman put away, but i am pretty sure that if he is not we are going to start having a lot more black and white murders… both ways. that whole civil rights thing was not working out anyway.
on the other hand i have been in situations where “kids” provoked me in such a way that if i had a gun i would have used it. very grateful i did not have it.
My own personal experience is such that I can challenege Kennedy’s allegations. He is wrong in applying the instances he has applied in his decision thereby making his deciding factors incorrect. Do you have personal knowldge of prison procedures?
Those stopped for minor offenses are not the same as those imprisoned and convicted. The procedures for imprisonment are different for each.
It is a two earner economy in which it takes two earners to keep a family’s head above water. It has been such since the seventies and it has not helped family’s get ahead. Ms. Romney provided anecdotal and heresay information and not of her own personal experiences. So how does the 1 percent believe they can have the same or similar experience as those of the median income.
Yep except stupid doesn’t count if you kill someone. It’s not against the law to be stupid but it is to track someone down, provoke or otherwise engage in a fight and kill him. That’s a wrongful act on Z’s part. He has no right whatever to pursue and provoke a fight with the deceased.
Supposing Z gets in the deceased’s face and starts a fight. Kid has a right to self-defense. Z’s wrongful act leads to intentional shooting which results in death of victim. It’s a crime. Which is why Florida’s brilliant two-bit tort lawyers now ascended to the legislature invented stand your ground. Provocation is no excuse except in cases of SYG in my native great and sovreign state.
Z wasn’t merely stupid. He committed a knowing and willful act with criminal disregard for human life. Kid got shot in the chest, from the front. If he was standing up (determinable at autopsy), this suggests that Z could get his gun clear and get a shot off without interference from the kid. Devil is in the details. Very circumstantial case. But, so is life. In another jurisdiction in FL with a racially mixed jury including a proportional number of African Americans Z has a good chance of going to jail for a long, long time. My advice is plead like it’s 1968 and you need another draft deferment.
The reason to move the trial is the history of Sanford as a hotbed of KKK activity since the 1920’s. Still true. No way native Floridians like me would let Z off easy unless they actually approve of the Klan. Then, yeah, the judge would let him walk. Too late for that. My sister used to work for Florida DLE in Sanford and knows the sitting judges. Practices law in the second judicial circuit and tries cases in Seminole and other small counties all over North Central Florida. They’re local Republicans but they ain’t stupid. This guy is either gonna get on his knees and plead to a lesser or get sent up to an unpleasant place for a long time. Put it this way–I wouldn’t reccommend going to trial in Duval or Dade. NancyO
Seems to me that under Florida’s law I could walk into the meanest biker bar I could find. get right in the face of the Sergeant at Arms girlfriend and call her a ‘skanky cunt’ and then under the more than reasonable fear that my life was in serious and imminent danger (and it would be even if you were dealing with wannabees, still less the real deal), pull out my gun and start blasting away.
Why not? I was legitimately in fear for my life.
Now take that same scenario and turn it around. I am a law abiding motorcycle enthusiast who just likes to sit around in our ‘Club’ colors swapping lies in our ‘Clubhouse’, aka the local bar. (oops excuse me for a minute, got to take this call, ‘business’ you know). All of a sudden this stranger walks into the bar with a gun on his hip, starts openly lipping off and insulting our girlfriends right in front of us even though he is out-numbered eight to one. So being in fear that he will pull that gun I ‘stand my ground’, pick up a pool cue and bash his brains out.
Why not? I was legitimately in fear for my life.
We could call it the Rashomon law. All you need is a perspective.
I am sorry but there is an explicit tension between ‘Open Carry’ and ‘Stand Your Ground’ that glibertarians need to confront. At base the belief that ‘An armed society is a polite society’ is based on legitimate fear that a person carrying open is both willing and able to use to shoot if necessary. Meaning you need to be polite or else be legitimately (in both senses afraid). But if simple fear is justification for pre-emptive action, then anyone carrying open is a legitimate target under ‘Stand Your Ground’. Because the INTENT of carrying open is to instill LEGITIMATE FEAR. Emphasis on the legal sense of ‘legitimate’. The logical outcome here is Dodge City prior to Marshall Dillon showing up to establish law and order, law and order that historically was enforced by ‘No Carry in Town’ laws, prior to that anyone was justified in shooting anyone at any time on the basis of “You lookin’ at me?” and “Judge he was carrying a gun”.
Actually there are ways to resolve this logical inconsistency. You just have to write or at least enforce your laws through a lens of race and class. Historically even countries and cities with strict gun control laws made categorical or easy licensing exceptions for the wealthy and powerful. This in fact is the true historical basis for the Second Amendment. Under 18th century English and so Colonial law, private possession of arms by workers and peasants was either illegal or discouraged precisely to keep the possibility of armed rebellion in check. And since in England the Game and Forest Laws made even sport or subsistence hunting illegal for almost anyone the end result was a monopoly of armed force by the landholders and the local government, in practice with property qualifications for voting the same thing. Things were different in Colonial America of course. Almost everyone had legitimate needs to do subsistence hunting and at least frontiersmen had needs for home defense, still it was British practice to suppress ownership of weapons. Hence Paul Revere’s Ride etc. and ultimately the Second Amendment. But uncontrolled possession of weapons HAS to be balanced by reasonable restrictions on use, otherwise the end result is anarchy and the “No Law West of the Pecos River” effect, ultimatetly the subject of umpteen zillion Westerns as ‘Law and Order’ replaces ‘Libertarian Paradise’, erp I meant unrestrained outlawry and murder.
‘Stand Your Ground’ in effect just re-marginalizes both the real and mythical Earp Brothers. Under Florida logic the ‘Bad Guys’ were in the right. I mean Wyatt was coming for their guns. And given previous bad blood between them and the Earps the […]
Ms. Romney’s youngest child is 31 years old. For how many years does she get credit for being a “stay at home Mom”?
If Hilary Rosen had directted this comment at Karen Santorum, who has seven children under the age of 21 including a very ill special needs toddler and who indeed home-schooled those children (with the assistance of state-funded remote learning programs), then the outrage could at least be viewed as heart-felt. But Ann Romney casually describes cross-country flights simply to indulge in a day of ‘dressage’ riding with her six-digit costing horses. And I am pretty sure she doesn’t spend a whole hell of a lot of time mucking out the stalls.
The Santorums are not a poor, struggling family, but I am betting Karen would do fine betting on household cleaning product prices on The Price is Right. Whereas Ann and Callista would likely be helpless anywhere outside the Tiffany and Nordstrom edition of the show.
Agree with run, Jack. I have read that Mrs. Romney’s husband did not provide her with extensive household help. She undoubtedly had a great deal to do raising five children. Of course, they have several large residences in different states. One assumes there were numerous domestic staff but just not all in one location. But, she is now a public figure whose life is the subject of comments both favorable and unfavorable. The notion that she deserves some sort of apology for Ms. Rosen’s remark is silly. She’s not responsible for the dumb stuff her husband says. But, she’s in line for such remarks in the course of an election. NancyO
My point is not whether or not we owe the Romneys an apology. It was a missed opportunity to focus attention on the unique structure of life in the wealthy twilight zone. It is that difference between the “work” that Mrs. Romney has to perform as the head of an Upstairs/Downstairs estate. Also, it was a missed opportunity to refocus on the Romney view of econoomics and how it does a great disservice to the average American, man or woman. Note that with all of Romney’s rhetoric about the failure of the Obama administration in all aspects of governance, he has described no specific plan as to what he would do differently. What he has described should be analysed for the adverse consequences that would be wrought on all workiing class Americans. The point is to stop apologizing and start taking apart Romney’s “All Citizens Left Behind” approach to government as he now describes his ideology.
coberly, Question is conviction — proving a case in court when the defendant is the only witness and it looks likely thats the kid, provoked or not, hit him first. What we may have here is two screwups — that’s how it happens — the kid being the bigger screwup for going hysterical on a man with a gun?
“Seems to me that under Florida’s law I could walk into the meanest biker bar I could find. get right in the face of the Sergeant at Arms girlfriend and call her a ‘skanky cunt’ and then under the more than reasonable fear that my life was in serious and imminent danger (and it would be even if you were dealing with wannabees, still less the real deal), pull out my gun and start blasting away.
“Why not? I was legitimately in fear for my life.”
It is up to the bikers to keep their cool — if they go after you, you can legally get away with it — unless you confess to somebody it was all a setup. Don’t you guys ever watch “Law and Order”? 🙂
only in the movies does that make a difference. except of course, if you can hit the other guy hard enough before he hits you it may solve the problem.
my guess though is that it doesn’t matter anymore. the powers are using terrorism hysteria to take away our presumption of innocence… or any other “civil rights” we thought we had.
The key to the biker bar scenario is that you have to cause the bikers to scream in terror, like the screams on the 911 audio recording in the Zimmerman-Martin case. This may be difficult, but if they scream, I think you can say that the screams scared you into shooting.
If we can say life begins two weeks before conception, is it a stretch to say that a fight begins with guy with gun stalking and provoking kid with skittles.
The Dems are always apologizing. They’re sensitive to others’ feelings. Well, right you are, Jack. That tender sensibility business doesn’t win elections. NancyO
It just occurred to me that there might be a security camera that taped Z’s encounter with Martin. Wouldn’t it be interesting if there were. Might settle the question of what Z and Martin acually did. NancyO
“Arizona bill declares women pregnant two weeks before conception”
If life in the womb can begin before conception, which is generally agreed to be that point at which sperm and ovum connect, it should follow that the same would apply to the man’s testicles. So if life begins on the first day of a woman’s menstrual cycle then it should follow that life begins in a man’s testicles constantly given that sperm cells, which are required for fertilization and subsequent reproduction. Therefore, in accordance with Arizona’s new law concerning the abortion of a viable gamete cell it should follow that any ejaculation that occurs external of the source of an ovum is a violation of that law. Waste not, want not is the applicable concept. Was it Jacob that spilled his seed upon the ground and brought forth God’s wrath? The punishment should be castration of any man who spills his children’s earliest beginnings.
coberly, It all — from the TSA to low wages to every other crazy thing done to Americans while they never fight back (when you are in a European airport do you really wish they had the kind of rope your genital security they have here?) — boils down to our post-apocalyptic American labor market — as in total deunionization. Organized labor is what (should be) watching the store in Washington, our state capitols and city councils — because we are too busy living our own lives.
There is — theoretically — a perfect answer (here we go again; you know what’s coming): LEGALLY MANDATED, SECTOR WIDE LABOR AGREEMENTS — which wherever they are instituted for over half a century and around the world (first, second and third) seem to perfectly balance power between ownership and labor — and — supply the average person with all the political muscle (read finance) they need to go along with their overwhelming majority votes.
Yet you will never never never get any human male progressive economist between the ponds to say the words “sector wide agreements” out loud.
I have a social instinct theory to explain that. The (pea sized) human male midbrain (social brain) is so heavily slaved to cooperate with its immediate hunting pack members that any new idea that has to spread even one layer beyond the pack to be effective is instantly discarded — with no consideration of its merits. The human male very instinctively (and unconsciously) thinks in terms of individually spreading any new idea to a pack of 300 million (in America’s case) – recognizes that to be physically impossible – and instantly guillotines the new idea. It’s all down to heavy heavy stupid social instinct.
Human females on the other hand – instinctively individual gatherers (nuts and berries) – are able to think for themselves. Is not that they are receptive or more easily intimidated that they consider any new idea on its actual merits – it is that they do not have a heavy heavy stupid social instinct instantly freezing their (giant) forebrains.
Maybe you couldn’t bash in a head with the cheap ass cues you find at the tables at the bowling abbey or in a roadside tavern. But believe me with a professional cue properly weighted you can definitely put a serious dent in a temple. And a metal based cue won’t splinter like some skinny ash cue. And even shoddy pool places often have extra heavy ‘break cues’ on hand.
coberly, The men cannot think for themselves — the women are not rambunctious enough to make everybody listen to what they think — and so the world goes on in a straight line. :-{
I knew you were gonna say that because I thought about it instantly. My husband had a lot of experience fighting in bars in his youth and said that the best thing to do with a cue stick was use it as a spear. Of course, he mainly found other ways to leave quickly rather than fight a lot of guys at once. Just sayin’. NancyO
Everyone, especially Mitt and Anne, seems to have forgotten that not too long ago good old “I really respect women” Mitt was complaining about stay at home moms who were out of work and recommending that they be required to work in order to qualify for what little government financial assistance they received. I guess staying at home with the kids is work only if there’s enough other family income to allow mom to stay at home. Otherwise its just lazy welfare queens on the dole.
There seems no doubt that a roll on the ground fight occurred between Zimmerman and Martin. A larger, older man with a gun does not easily get threatened enough by skinny kid to likely throw the first punch (unless he’s a biker bar bouncer) — an underweight kid easily gets threatened enough by an overbearing adult. A 17 year old boy can put up a “shark feeding frenzy” of a fight — it’s just hormones. 17 year old boys tend to be saints in the house and sinners outside depending on which audience they are playing to. Once you accept the boy likely hit the adult first you are forced to take the word of only person who survived the confrontation: slam dunk — not guilty.
If he gets a fair trial.
PS. I’m the one trying to spread the (eighth-grade math) word that if New York police upped frisking 6X after crime went down 4X, then, New York police are now frisking 24X as often per reported crime: slam dunk — unconstitutional.
not unconstitutional any more; the SCOTUS repealed that amendment last week:
Supreme Court Ruling Allows Strip-Searches for Any Offense – The Supreme Court on Monday ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that officials may strip-search people arrested for any offense, however minor, before admitting them to jails even if the officials have no reason to suspect the presence of contraband. “Every detainee who will be admitted to the general population may be required to undergo a close visual inspection while undressed,” Justice Kennedy wrote, adding that about 13 million people are admitted each year to the nation’s jails.
rjs:
It is a common practice for prisoners who have contact with visitors to go through a strip search before and after the visit with whoever. It is not common for people detained for speeding, etc. to be strip searched. Court Justice Kennedy errors in applyinhg this statement in his decision:
“It allowed strip-searches of people held at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York after “contact visits” with outsiders.”
The general populace of a prison or jail is not the same as one detained for a minor offense.
Either Martin told Zimmerman to stop following or Zimmerman attempted to detain Martin. Either way Martin’s actions are criminally stupid. A reasonable juror could conclude that anything more than walking away amounts to more than self-defense. Getting 12 jurors to come to that conclusion: impossible. So, he won’t be convicted.
my read on the decision was that it ok’d strip searches even for those detained after being caught jaywalking…
“Either way Martin’s actions are criminally stupid.”
Martin’s actions are stupid? How do you come to that conclusion? I’ll resist evaluating the comment until you”ve had a chance to explain it or correct it.
On another topic. The Dems, including the President, screwed up the reply to Romney’s dissatisfaction with Rosen’s remark about Mrs. Romney. Mitt states that the Mrs. provides him with all he needs to know about what women in America need and/or want from their government. Ms. Rosen sticks her foot in her mouth by focusing on Mrs. Romeny’s work status rather than the quality of the advice she has been giving to her husband regarding women. The Dems screw up a second time by apologizing for Rosen rather than evaluating the quality of the advice. So twice the Dems in one way or another pass up an opportunity to point out that whom ever is the originator of the Romney view of women and their place in America that view point is crap.
They could also have pointed out that Rosen erred by failing to take account of Mrs. Romney’s executive experience. She’s been running a household and its attendent hired help for at least two decades. Supervising all that household help is a big job. So yes, Mrs. Romney has been working as an executive supervising her nannies, housekeepers and who knows who else. Gardeners, grounds keepers, maids, etc. It’s good not to have to carry out all those boring tasks and instead hone your supervisory skills by supervising the people you can afford to pay to do the drudge work while you’re out playing bridge or tennis.
ddrew
you may be right, but it’s easy enough for me to imagine a man who knows he has a gun to get pushy with a kid. and a kid would push back.
The man may have aggravated the kid but that doesn’t change anything — that’s not a crime (or much of one) — the man is the only one left to testify what happened next. Multiple “witnesses” agree there was a knock down drag out fight but couldn’t see exactly what happened. Some knowledgeable folks say the case will never get to trial — will get thrown out by a judge.
Harvard professor Noah Feldman says studies show that one in 25,000 strip searches turn up an anally hidden object — usually a lighter and cigarets or something like that.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-08/strip-search-case-reflects-death-of-american-privacy.html
Last week a federal court allowed cops to search cell phones without probable cause on the fear someone may remotely erase its contents. Anyone ever hear of pulling the battery until you get to a safe place?
coberly,
The man may have aggravated the kid but that doesn’t change anything — that’s not a crime (or much of one) — the man is the only one left to testify what happened next. Multiple “witnesses” agree there was a knock down drag out fight but couldn’t see exactly what happened. Some knowledgeable folks say the case will never get to trial — will get thrown out by a judge.
ddrew
i get the feeling you haven’t been out much.
man with attitude problem sees kid of wrong color in “wrong place.” lays hands on kid. kid pushes back. escalates. kid is stronger, faster, and maybe smarter than man. man pulls out gun and kills kid.
there is a big crime there.
and even if man did not intend it to end up that way, it’s not a good idea to start a fight when you are carrying a gun. it tends to get used.
Arne
having been criminally stupid in my life… if a man starts pushing me around, i am going to push back. if he escalates i am going to have to escalate. it could get out of hand. especially if he was carrying a gun and was looking for an excuse to use it.
i don’t really want to see zimmerman put away, but i am pretty sure that if he is not we are going to start having a lot more black and white murders… both ways. that whole civil rights thing was not working out anyway.
on the other hand i have been in situations where “kids” provoked me in such a way that if i had a gun i would have used it. very grateful i did not have it.
rjs:
My own personal experience is such that I can challenege Kennedy’s allegations. He is wrong in applying the instances he has applied in his decision thereby making his deciding factors incorrect. Do you have personal knowldge of prison procedures?
Those stopped for minor offenses are not the same as those imprisoned and convicted. The procedures for imprisonment are different for each.
Jack:
It is a two earner economy in which it takes two earners to keep a family’s head above water. It has been such since the seventies and it has not helped family’s get ahead. Ms. Romney provided anecdotal and heresay information and not of her own personal experiences. So how does the 1 percent believe they can have the same or similar experience as those of the median income.
We do not owe Ms. Romney an apology.
Yikes, a really stupid error on my part.
I clearly meant: Either way Zimmerman’s actions are criminally stupid.
Yep except stupid doesn’t count if you kill someone. It’s not against the law to be stupid but it is to track someone down, provoke or otherwise engage in a fight and kill him. That’s a wrongful act on Z’s part. He has no right whatever to pursue and provoke a fight with the deceased.
Supposing Z gets in the deceased’s face and starts a fight. Kid has a right to self-defense. Z’s wrongful act leads to intentional shooting which results in death of victim. It’s a crime. Which is why Florida’s brilliant two-bit tort lawyers now ascended to the legislature invented stand your ground. Provocation is no excuse except in cases of SYG in my native great and sovreign state.
Z wasn’t merely stupid. He committed a knowing and willful act with criminal disregard for human life. Kid got shot in the chest, from the front. If he was standing up (determinable at autopsy), this suggests that Z could get his gun clear and get a shot off without interference from the kid. Devil is in the details. Very circumstantial case. But, so is life. In another jurisdiction in FL with a racially mixed jury including a proportional number of African Americans Z has a good chance of going to jail for a long, long time. My advice is plead like it’s 1968 and you need another draft deferment.
The reason to move the trial is the history of Sanford as a hotbed of KKK activity since the 1920’s. Still true. No way native Floridians like me would let Z off easy unless they actually approve of the Klan. Then, yeah, the judge would let him walk. Too late for that. My sister used to work for Florida DLE in Sanford and knows the sitting judges. Practices law in the second judicial circuit and tries cases in Seminole and other small counties all over North Central Florida. They’re local Republicans but they ain’t stupid. This guy is either gonna get on his knees and plead to a lesser or get sent up to an unpleasant place for a long time. Put it this way–I wouldn’t reccommend going to trial in Duval or Dade. NancyO
Seems to me that under Florida’s law I could walk into the meanest biker bar I could find. get right in the face of the Sergeant at Arms girlfriend and call her a ‘skanky cunt’ and then under the more than reasonable fear that my life was in serious and imminent danger (and it would be even if you were dealing with wannabees, still less the real deal), pull out my gun and start blasting away.
Why not? I was legitimately in fear for my life.
Now take that same scenario and turn it around. I am a law abiding motorcycle enthusiast who just likes to sit around in our ‘Club’ colors swapping lies in our ‘Clubhouse’, aka the local bar. (oops excuse me for a minute, got to take this call, ‘business’ you know). All of a sudden this stranger walks into the bar with a gun on his hip, starts openly lipping off and insulting our girlfriends right in front of us even though he is out-numbered eight to one. So being in fear that he will pull that gun I ‘stand my ground’, pick up a pool cue and bash his brains out.
Why not? I was legitimately in fear for my life.
We could call it the Rashomon law. All you need is a perspective.
I am sorry but there is an explicit tension between ‘Open Carry’ and ‘Stand Your Ground’ that glibertarians need to confront. At base the belief that ‘An armed society is a polite society’ is based on legitimate fear that a person carrying open is both willing and able to use to shoot if necessary. Meaning you need to be polite or else be legitimately (in both senses afraid). But if simple fear is justification for pre-emptive action, then anyone carrying open is a legitimate target under ‘Stand Your Ground’. Because the INTENT of carrying open is to instill LEGITIMATE FEAR. Emphasis on the legal sense of ‘legitimate’. The logical outcome here is Dodge City prior to Marshall Dillon showing up to establish law and order, law and order that historically was enforced by ‘No Carry in Town’ laws, prior to that anyone was justified in shooting anyone at any time on the basis of “You lookin’ at me?” and “Judge he was carrying a gun”.
Actually there are ways to resolve this logical inconsistency. You just have to write or at least enforce your laws through a lens of race and class. Historically even countries and cities with strict gun control laws made categorical or easy licensing exceptions for the wealthy and powerful. This in fact is the true historical basis for the Second Amendment. Under 18th century English and so Colonial law, private possession of arms by workers and peasants was either illegal or discouraged precisely to keep the possibility of armed rebellion in check. And since in England the Game and Forest Laws made even sport or subsistence hunting illegal for almost anyone the end result was a monopoly of armed force by the landholders and the local government, in practice with property qualifications for voting the same thing. Things were different in Colonial America of course. Almost everyone had legitimate needs to do subsistence hunting and at least frontiersmen had needs for home defense, still it was British practice to suppress ownership of weapons. Hence Paul Revere’s Ride etc. and ultimately the Second Amendment. But uncontrolled possession of weapons HAS to be balanced by reasonable restrictions on use, otherwise the end result is anarchy and the “No Law West of the Pecos River” effect, ultimatetly the subject of umpteen zillion Westerns as ‘Law and Order’ replaces ‘Libertarian Paradise’, erp I meant unrestrained outlawry and murder.
‘Stand Your Ground’ in effect just re-marginalizes both the real and mythical Earp Brothers. Under Florida logic the ‘Bad Guys’ were in the right. I mean Wyatt was coming for their guns. And given previous bad blood between them and the Earps the […]
Ms. Romney’s youngest child is 31 years old. For how many years does she get credit for being a “stay at home Mom”?
If Hilary Rosen had directted this comment at Karen Santorum, who has seven children under the age of 21 including a very ill special needs toddler and who indeed home-schooled those children (with the assistance of state-funded remote learning programs), then the outrage could at least be viewed as heart-felt. But Ann Romney casually describes cross-country flights simply to indulge in a day of ‘dressage’ riding with her six-digit costing horses. And I am pretty sure she doesn’t spend a whole hell of a lot of time mucking out the stalls.
The Santorums are not a poor, struggling family, but I am betting Karen would do fine betting on household cleaning product prices on The Price is Right. Whereas Ann and Callista would likely be helpless anywhere outside the Tiffany and Nordstrom edition of the show.
Agree with run, Jack. I have read that Mrs. Romney’s husband did not provide her with extensive household help. She undoubtedly had a great deal to do raising five children. Of course, they have several large residences in different states. One assumes there were numerous domestic staff but just not all in one location. But, she is now a public figure whose life is the subject of comments both favorable and unfavorable. The notion that she deserves some sort of apology for Ms. Rosen’s remark is silly. She’s not responsible for the dumb stuff her husband says. But, she’s in line for such remarks in the course of an election. NancyO
My point is not whether or not we owe the Romneys an apology. It was a missed opportunity to focus attention on the unique structure of life in the wealthy twilight zone. It is that difference between the “work” that Mrs. Romney has to perform as the head of an Upstairs/Downstairs estate. Also, it was a missed opportunity to refocus on the Romney view of econoomics and how it does a great disservice to the average American, man or woman. Note that with all of Romney’s rhetoric about the failure of the Obama administration in all aspects of governance, he has described no specific plan as to what he would do differently. What he has described should be analysed for the adverse consequences that would be wrought on all workiing class Americans. The point is to stop apologizing and start taking apart Romney’s “All Citizens Left Behind” approach to government as he now describes his ideology.
coberly,
Question is conviction — proving a case in court when the defendant is the only witness and it looks likely thats the kid, provoked or not, hit him first. What we may have here is two screwups — that’s how it happens — the kid being the bigger screwup for going hysterical on a man with a gun?
“Seems to me that under Florida’s law I could walk into the meanest biker bar I could find. get right in the face of the Sergeant at Arms girlfriend and call her a ‘skanky cunt’ and then under the more than reasonable fear that my life was in serious and imminent danger (and it would be even if you were dealing with wannabees, still less the real deal), pull out my gun and start blasting away.
“Why not? I was legitimately in fear for my life.”
It is up to the bikers to keep their cool — if they go after you, you can legally get away with it — unless you confess to somebody it was all a setup. Don’t you guys ever watch “Law and Order”? 🙂
ddrew
not sure why you need to reach that conclusion. did the kid know he had a gun?
i think you also discount the possibility that zimmerman was actually looking for an excuse to use that gun.
Bravo Bruce
only this: you can’t bash brains out with a pool cue. you could make someone pretty mad with it, though.
The guy stalked the kid – after he was given explicit instructions not to.
If stand your ground applies, it applies to Trevon, and Trevon only – he was threatened by Zimmermen, not the other way around.
JzB
as for “hit him first”
only in the movies does that make a difference. except of course, if you can hit the other guy hard enough before he hits you it may solve the problem.
but better be sure.
thanks run
my guess though is that it doesn’t matter anymore. the powers are using terrorism hysteria to take away our presumption of innocence… or any other “civil rights” we thought we had.
drew
do not try this at home.
The key to the biker bar scenario is that you have to cause the bikers to scream in terror, like the screams on the 911 audio recording in the Zimmerman-Martin case. This may be difficult, but if they scream, I think you can say that the screams scared you into shooting.
If we can say life begins two weeks before conception, is it a stretch to say that a fight begins with guy with gun stalking and provoking kid with skittles.
The Dems are always apologizing. They’re sensitive to others’ feelings. Well, right you are, Jack. That tender sensibility business doesn’t win elections. NancyO
It just occurred to me that there might be a security camera that taped Z’s encounter with Martin. Wouldn’t it be interesting if there were. Might settle the question of what Z and Martin acually did. NancyO
“Arizona bill declares women pregnant two weeks before conception”
If life in the womb can begin before conception, which is generally agreed to be that point at which sperm and ovum connect, it should follow that the same would apply to the man’s testicles. So if life begins on the first day of a woman’s menstrual cycle then it should follow that life begins in a man’s testicles constantly given that sperm cells, which are required for fertilization and subsequent reproduction. Therefore, in accordance with Arizona’s new law concerning the abortion of a viable gamete cell it should follow that any ejaculation that occurs external of the source of an ovum is a violation of that law. Waste not, want not is the applicable concept. Was it Jacob that spilled his seed upon the ground and brought forth God’s wrath? The punishment should be castration of any man who spills his children’s earliest beginnings.
Onan
coberly,
It all — from the TSA to low wages to every other crazy thing done to Americans while they never fight back (when you are in a European airport do you really wish they had the kind of rope your genital security they have here?) — boils down to our post-apocalyptic American labor market — as in total deunionization. Organized labor is what (should be) watching the store in Washington, our state capitols and city councils — because we are too busy living our own lives.
There is — theoretically — a perfect answer (here we go again; you know what’s coming): LEGALLY MANDATED, SECTOR WIDE LABOR AGREEMENTS — which wherever they are instituted for over half a century and around the world (first, second and third) seem to perfectly balance power between ownership and labor — and — supply the average person with all the political muscle (read finance) they need to go along with their overwhelming majority votes.
Yet you will never never never get any human male progressive economist between the ponds to say the words “sector wide agreements” out loud.
I have a social instinct theory to explain that. The (pea sized) human male midbrain (social brain) is so heavily slaved to cooperate with its immediate hunting pack members that any new idea that has to spread even one layer beyond the pack to be effective is instantly discarded — with no consideration of its merits. The human male very instinctively (and unconsciously) thinks in terms of individually spreading any new idea to a pack of 300 million (in America’s case) – recognizes that to be physically impossible – and instantly guillotines the new idea. It’s all down to heavy heavy stupid social instinct.
Human females on the other hand – instinctively individual gatherers (nuts and berries) – are able to think for themselves. Is not that they are receptive or more easily intimidated that they consider any new idea on its actual merits – it is that they do not have a heavy heavy stupid social instinct instantly freezing their (giant) forebrains.
Maybe you couldn’t bash in a head with the cheap ass cues you find at the tables at the bowling abbey or in a roadside tavern. But believe me with a professional cue properly weighted you can definitely put a serious dent in a temple. And a metal based cue won’t splinter like some skinny ash cue. And even shoddy pool places often have extra heavy ‘break cues’ on hand.
ddrew
i am disposed to agree with you about labor agreements. but don’t count on the ladies to bring it to you.
Bruce
i defer to your superior knowledge. i was going by the cues i see in the sorts of places that let my kind in.
coberly,
The men cannot think for themselves — the women are not rambunctious enough to make everybody listen to what they think — and so the world goes on in a straight line. :-{
I knew you were gonna say that because I thought about it instantly. My husband had a lot of experience fighting in bars in his youth and said that the best thing to do with a cue stick was use it as a spear. Of course, he mainly found other ways to leave quickly rather than fight a lot of guys at once. Just sayin’. NancyO
Remember “The Meaning of Life and Everything”? Shouldn’t we all know by now that every sperm is sacred? NancyO
Everyone, especially Mitt and Anne, seems to have forgotten that not too long ago good old “I really respect women” Mitt was complaining about stay at home moms who were out of work and recommending that they be required to work in order to qualify for what little government financial assistance they received. I guess staying at home with the kids is work only if there’s enough other family income to allow mom to stay at home. Otherwise its just lazy welfare queens on the dole.