Zimmerman verdicty (courtesy cnn.com)

David Codrea writes [via Ammoland.com]

“The man who killed Trayvon Martin should have never had a gun in the first place,” Hillary Clinton declared to the crowd at Al Sharpton’s National Action Network. The statement was pure, opportunistic political pandering. Clinton didn’t say why George Zimmerman — completely exonerated of homicide charges by a court of law — should have been prohibited by the government from owning a gun. That’s important to know, because, if elected, Clinton will be in a position to call for and sign “gun laws.” In a way, we ought to be grateful that, occasionally, totalitarians give us glimpses of their end game. Which doesn’t stop Hillary from doing what she does best, that is, lying . . .

I respect the rights of lawful gun owners to own guns, to use their guns…

Hillary said that right before showing everyone her huge “but,” which includes a veritable wish list of citizen disarmament fantasies documented by On the Issues. She has also endorsed adding a 25% federal sales tax on guns. Add to that her assertion that “the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment.”

No one wants to take your guns? If everything Hillary wants is enacted, what difference does it make?

It’s simultaneously pathetic and funny that during her speech, about 28 minutes in, Hillary had to keep looking down at her notes for the names of people she wanted to acknowledge and especially for the name “National Action Network.” Her “[he] should have never had a gun” comment takes place around 55 minutes in.

Again, without defining why, it’s impossible to tell who else Hillary thinks should not have a gun, although with her record, it’s fair to speculate she’d extend that to anyone not in her employ and control. And that’s curious, because she’s been asked before about one specific person and has paid no attention to the question. Perhaps, if asked again, and by enough people, it will be more difficult for her to ignore:

Should Juanita Broaddrick have had a gun?

———————————–

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.

In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

153 Responses to Hillary Clinton: George Zimmerman Shouldn’t Have Had a Gun

  1. Sorry. I have to agree with her on this thing and this thing only. I think Zimmerman got away with murder and dealt a massive blow to gun rights in doing so. Stand your ground laws are intended to protect us from people like Zimmerman, not to enable him to commit murder.

    • Except that the physical evidence supported zimmerman’s assertions. Maybe he was lying and he did ‘go after’ Martin, but the evidence didn’t prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.

      • Even if he did, there is no evidence that Martin was in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm that would have justified attacking Zimmerman.

        Martin was a thug and got what he damn well deserved. Now if only we could make sure that his hood rat parents don’t squat out a replacement on the tax payer’s dime.

        • Wow, you must know a lot about Trayvon’s family.

          Did you know his father was/is a prominent freemason in the community, holding rank?

          The whole event has the whiff of being staged.

          Oh, and purple drank rots the brain.

        • Except ole gergie was follwong him and must have approached trayvon before he started getting his ass whooped. What if trayvon thought a jeffery dahmer was trying to kidnap to drill holes in his brain and ass? So he tryed to bash his head off the road sounds resonable to me that it may have happened a out.

        • Warp said: “Wow, you must know a lot about Trayvon’s family.

          Did you know his father was/is a prominent freemason in the community, holding rank?”

          Did you know Trayvon’s father was also a gang member? He had, at least at one point, a gang tattoo on his neck, and there are photos of him posing with men making gang signs; other photos have him with a group have dollars bills rained down on them.

          And then there are the illegal handgun sales Mr. Martin and his SEVENTEEN year old son were making…

      • No, the physical evidence was inconclusive in the context of a second-degree murder charge. It was a slam-dunk for manslaughter, but that’s the reality of a politically-charged persecution.

        Stand your ground is perfect for self-defense against delusional sheepdog wannabes like Zimmerman.

        • Umm, Stand Your Ground had nothing to do with it. Do you even know what the law says?

        • Stand your ground is perfect for self-defense against delusional sheepdog wannabes like Zimmerman.

          Florida SYG statutes were not invoked by the defense, and did not factor into the defense arguments. The defense was one of simple, standard self-defense.

          Martin used unlawful force against Zimmerman, constituting a felony assault that justified Zimmerman’s use of deadly force in self-defense. No more, no less.

        • Oh look, the personification of the Kruger-Dunning effect on the Zimmerman case is back.

          So did you ever figure out the legal difference between “Zimmerman not 2nd-degree murder” and “Martin guilty of assault”?

          “Umm, Stand Your Ground had nothing to do with it. Do you even know what the law says?”

          Learn to read, Martin could have easily applied SYG and shot Zimmerman. And the gun crowd would normally have given him three cheers, save his race.

        • Wow people still think this was a Stand Your Ground case.

          And you wonder why you people have no credibility…..

        • The police dispatcher testified under oath that Zimmerman was on his way back to his truck when Martin attacked him. Even if Zimmerman was the initial aggressor, he had already disengaged. Therefore, Zimmerman was no longer a threat. Once Martin reengaged he became the aggressor and lost the right to invoke SYG so even in your alternative universe Martin was guilty of assault and attemped murder.

        • And Thugvon would be on death row as he was the first to initiate violence in a situation no rational person would think justifies lethal force.

        • If Zimmerman was the aggressor why did he wait until he was pinned to the ground and having his head bashed on the sidewalk before resorting to lethal force? I know George isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed but if he wanted to murder the poor innocent kid why did he wait until his life was in danger instead of just gunning him down.

          I guess he figured he would just maneuver himself into a position where he claim self defense. /sarc.

    • Unless he was mentally unfit prior to his acquiring his firearm, no, sorry. I agree he was a jackass and should probably be in prison, but up until the point he committed a crime, he had every right to own and carry, IMO.

    • You are the reason we have laws and a court system. You may THINK or BELIEVE GZ committed murder but a jury did not.

      Maybe they got it wrong bit it was given due process and he was cleared. The state did not make their case. It did nothing to hurt gun rights.

      The media are another matter. He was convicted in the media hype long before the trial. The outrage came when the jury did not find for the media….uh state.

      • Actually I am the reason there are comment sections where people can just state what they think rather than having to prove it in court.

        • The reason there are comment sections is that people can make stuff up to suit their personal point of view instead of relying on evidence presented in court. FIFY.

        • “Actually I am the reason there are comment sections where people can just state what they think rather than having to prove it *ever*.”

          FTFY.

    • I you thing Zimmerman “got away” with anything, you’re a retard. The only person who got away with something in this case was the prosecutor who brought what she knew were unsustainable charges. She should have been disbarred and thrown in jail.

      • Exactly. The police chief even was relieved of his command as he refused to arrest Zimmerman on trumped up charges. So many people got stepped on as the state district attorney rammed this case down the courts throat. Anyone who watched that trial could see even those two jokes mascarading as prosecutors knew it was sham. Anyone that believes the CNN is exactly what you said, a complete and blatant Retard.

        • Indeed. The prosecution’s case was so bad, many people including myself confused it for the defense!

    • Trayvon Martin tried to buy rolling papers and blunts at the convenience store and was denied for being underage. Instead he bought ingredients to mixup a batch of “purple drank” aka “sizzurp” which involves skittles, soda, and cough syrup. If you are on neighborhood watch and see someone you don’t recognize staggering through peoples yards where break ins have occurred, you’re gonna call the cops and potentially see where he is going. Why would trayvon take exception to being followed? Probably because he know his room back at his uncles house was full of stolen property, drugs, stacks of bound $100 bills, tools used for breaking and entering, a semiauto handgun, etc. All of this was posted on his Facebook account. Anyway, this thug wasn’t going to let George Zimmerman put him in jail. So he doued back through the shadows and bushes ambushing Zimmerman and using mixed martial arts to ground and pound poor Georges skull into cement. Witnesses supposedly heard trayvon mutter that George was going to die that night. Verge Zimmerman may have acted like an idiot during and after his trial but he had every right to report a suspicious person and was doing his duty to see where they were going. He is not a white Hispanic, he never uttered racial epitaphs (NBC admitted they doctored the tape), and he didn’t hunt anyone down.

      • Instead he bought ingredients to mixup a batch of “purple drank” aka “sizzurp” which involves skittles, soda, and cough syrup.

        Sorry, but this is horse puckey. He had no cough syrup with him, which is of course the only intoxicating ingredient of the three. It’s like saying you caught a kid drinking Cuba Libres without the rum. Nor is there anything specific about skittles or iced tea – there is no one recipe for “purple drank”.

        I saw the evidence, I think the defense (hell, even the prosecution) showed Martin was the aggressor, but that whole claim about “purple drank” was never anything more than a transparent smear.

        • Autopsy results showed active marijuana metabolite in his system. Depending on how hard-core Trayvon Martin was as a marijuana user, he either smoked about 3-5 hours ago, or maybe late the night before if a heavy user.

          In Florida, any active metabolite means you are ‘under the influence.’ (In some other states it is different.)
          Active metabolite does not taper off like blood alcohol levels. It spikes up a few minutes after smoking, then goes down and stays at a low level until it fades entirely.

          You don’t know it, but you are ‘buzzed’ and not thinking clearly the whole time. Thus Trayvon’s paranoia and aggressiveness, two classic secondary characteristics of heavy marijuana users (google it).

        • Oh, you still think Martin was carrying around “iced tea”. How cute.

          People who failed to follow the facts, evidence, and law usually make themselves so easy to spot.

        • Respectfully, it was on his facebook page, and its called LEAN. Travon was getting the ingredients for his favorite recipe of “some fire-ass lean”.

          Does that really matter? Nope.
          People love to build sacred cows and sacred sh*t piles because it sounds like the plot of a movie, but in the end none of this has ANY bearing on who bears the blame for the confrontation.

          Our legal system did its job, and as usual its imperfect. The simple fact is we will never have PROOF of everything that happened that night. We have a lot of puzzle pieces with a lot of holes.

          Bottom line – we have to be OK with NOT KNOWING, instead of trying to fill in the gaps in what we know with complete wishful-thinking bullsh*t.

    • A jury of peers disagrees with your assertion. You don’t have to like the man but he didn’t “get away” with anything.

    • I guess whenever a member of the general public or a police officer is attacked by a black thug they should just take their punishment eh?

    • Soooo you’re a pre-crime believer? Your only justification for denying Zimmerman a firearm, in the first place, are the later events that happened in subsequent places. Hmmm.

      Given how wildy you’ve misapprehended the historical facts of the Zimmerman case, you’ll excuse me for not entrusting you or Hillary with divining future facts to decide who should be allowed to own a firearm.

    • Stand your ground laws are intended to protect us from people like Zimmerman, not to enable him to commit murder.

      Zimmerman never invoked “Stand Your Ground.” Your use of SYG is a red herring, and you are either misinformed or you’re pulling a Clinton on us.

    • That’s right. You’re personal opinion because of what you read on CNN trumps the jury, and Americas due process system. You’re personal opinion trumps the fourth and second amendment. All bow down before the mighty whatever your name is. You would likley get along well with Hitlery as she feels quite the same way.

    • Stand your ground was never used as a defense in the Zimmerman case. So please get your facts straight.

      Thank God Zimmerman defended himself. One less thug who should have been aborted.

    • Martin had Zimmerman mounted and was punching him. The neighbor came out and Zimmerman called for help. The neighbor told Martin to ‘cut it out’. Rather than stopping the attack, Martin chose to continue to batter Zimmerman. The neighbor went back to the house to call police. Moments later Martin was shot. This isn’t murder by any stretch of the imagination.

    • “The man who killed Trayvon Martin should have never had a gun in the first place,” HRC.

      Note: “in the first place.”
      That is, before he committed any crime or armed defense, he should not have had a gun.
      That is Hillary’s position, albeit when pandering to Sharpton.

    • Sorry. I have to agree with her on this thing and this thing only. I think Zimmerman got away with murder and dealt a massive blow to gun rights in doing so. Stand your ground laws are intended to protect us from people like Zimmerman, not to enable him to commit murder.

      Maybe so, maybe not. Only two people really know what happened, and one of them is dead. What we do know is that a jury reviewed all the evidence – a lot more evidence than we have – and they felt the evidence to convict wasn’t there. Furthermore, you say to commit murder, but we have no evidence to assume he took chase to “commit murder.” Also, the evidence didn’t consist of just “Zimmerman’s story.” It was testimony by people in the area, wounds sustained to Zimmerman’s body, forensic evidence, etc. It’s a lot more complicated than just “Stand your ground enabling Zimmerman to commit murder.” Zimmerman made a series of bad choices, that led him to a position where he felt he needed to defend himself from grievous bodily harm. Is it wrong to draw your weapon and shoot someone that is pounding your head into the pavement? I don’t think so, but at the same time, it was Zimmerman that took chase on foot, on the basis of his own speculation. He escalated the situation in doing so, and he had no evidence or even probable cause that Martin had committed a crime.

      • According to the testimony of the dispatcher, Zimmerman heeded his advice and was already in the way back to his truck when Martin attacked him. He was not giving chase.

    • I really never thought that this case was all that complex really.

      1) The area had been robbed recently and somewhat frequently
      2) Black Males were suspected.
      3) GZ was neighborhood watch in the area.
      4) GZ spotted a black mail walking in an area he did not recognize and followed him
      5) TM spotted GZ and started acting more squirly (either because he was a criminal, or just got nervous cause someone was following him
      6) TM does not go home (he was close to home), TM does not call the cops.
      7) GZ does call the cops.
      8) TM confronts GZ in aggressive manner.
      9) TM escalates and attacks GZ, this includes beating head into concrete.
      10) GZ deploys gun and shoots TM.

      Not complicated. GZ is victim, TM is assailant.

      What am I missing?

      • Curious how you mention Zimmerman’s stalking of Martin but excuse it because the area has experienced break-in’s. And yet the “people of the gun” always talk about maintaining awareness and keeping track of threats.

        Martin was on the phone and said he was being stalked, so clearly he considered Zimmerman a threat.

        One wonders if the “people of the gun” would have sided with Martin if Martin was armed and shot the stalking Zimmerman under stand-your-ground. Nah… because he’s black, right? 🙂

        • Please learn the definition of “stalking”. And if Martin was so threatened, why did he not go inside Brandi Green’s townhome once he reached it? If he was so threatened, why did he circle back, 400 feet away, to the location of the assault? And if he was so threatened, why did he accost Zimmerman?

          Maybe – just maybe – he never felt “threatened” at all, and decided to put bangaz on a cracka.

        • stalking: of or relating to the act of pursuing or harassing.

          Zimmerman admitted to the dispatcher he was following Martin, then when he lost sight of Martin, attempted to deduce Martin’s path in an act of pursuance.

          It is amusing that you apply a *legal definition* of stalking when that application has absolutely no relevance in this context… the literal context being the one that matters. Then you have the chutzpah to criticize the legal bonafides of the judge of the case… 🙂

          “why did he not go inside Brandi Green’s townhome once he reached it?”

          Because he didn’t have to. Why do you demand him to flee his stalker?

          “Maybe – just maybe – he never felt “threatened” at all, and decided to put bangaz on a cracka.”

          Conjecture, and moreover one that is unsupported by any sort of evidence or testimony. He was on the phone claiming he was being followed. No admission of intent to confront this follower was shown in the trial. On the other hand, the stalking action of Zimmerman is documented in a dispatcher phone call. One wonders why you ignore and excuse Zimmerman’s stalking, yet accuse Martin of stalking Martin without a shred of proof.

          As usual, you are the literal personification of the Kruger-Dunning effect on the Zimmerman case.

        • stalking: of or relating to the act of pursuing or harassing.

          Zimmerman admitted to the dispatcher he was following Martin, then when he lost sight of Martin, attempted to deduce Martin’s path in an act of pursuance.

          Wrong. Zimmerman lost sight of Martin before Zimmerman ever exited his vehicle. There was never any form of pursuit. Without pursuit or contact, there was likewise never any harassment.

          It is amusing that you apply a *legal definition* of stalking when that application has absolutely no relevance in this context… the literal context being the one that matters.

          Except, Martin needed a legal justification for his use of force against Zimmerman, so it is the legal definition that matters.

          “why did he not go inside Brandi Green’s townhome once he reached it?”

          Because he didn’t have to. Why do you demand him to flee his stalker?

          So, you contend that Martin had a right to be wherever he chose lawfully to be? Certainly that is true. Do you extend the same freedom to Zimmerman?

          “Maybe – just maybe – he never felt “threatened” at all, and decided to put bangaz on a cracka.”

          Conjecture, and moreover one that is unsupported by any sort of evidence or testimony.

          You should review Rachel Jeantel’s testimony more carefully.

          He was on the phone claiming he was being followed. No admission of intent to confront this follower was shown in the trial.

          You should review Rachel Jeantel’s testimony more carefully.

          On the other hand, the stalking action of Zimmerman is documented in a dispatcher phone call.

          Wrong. Zimmerman lost sight of Martin before Zimmerman ever exited his vehicle. There was never any form of pursuit. Without pursuit or contact, there was likewise never any harassment. Without pursuit or harassment, Zimmerman’s actions didn’t even meet the colloquial definition of “stalking”.

          One wonders why you ignore and excuse Zimmerman’s stalking, yet accuse Martin of stalking Martin without a shred of proof.

          Where did I accuse Martin of “stalking”? I accused Martin of unlawful use of force.

        • “lost sight of Martin before Zimmerman ever exited his vehicle. There was never any form of pursuit”

          Somehow in your tiny head, a man exiting his vehicle, then following the path where he thought his quarry went (as admitted on the dispatcher phone call), does not constitute “pursuit”. You need to brush up your English skills.

          “Martin needed a legal justification for his use of force against Zimmerman”

          Yes, that would be stand-your-ground against a guy who is following you. In fact, while we are on the topic of legal justification, you know that Zimmerman’s acquittal for murder does not constitute a legal justification for use of force, right?

          “So, you contend that Martin had a right to be wherever he chose lawfully to be? Certainly that is true. Do you extend the same freedom to Zimmerman?”

          Note your pseudo-legal mumbo-jumbo. The locale of Zimmerman is intimately tied with his stated actions: the stalking of Martin. Not so for Martin. You demand Martin to flee and hide at a time where he is literally a victim, but assert that Martin can be wherever he wants as he is stalking and pursuing someone with absolutely no authority whatsoever.

          “You should review Rachel Jeantel’s testimony more carefully”

          It sounds like you should. Your selective memory is truly astounding.

          “Where did I accuse Martin of “stalking”? I accused Martin of unlawful use of force.”

          Quote from you: “and was worried that Martin might be watching/following him”. You displace Martin’s fears and attribute them to Zimmerman. Truly amazing.

          Considering that nobody witnessed the beginning of the confrontation between Martin and Zimmerman (i.e. the crucial moments that decide on the legality of either party’s use of force), your term “accuse” is right. Because yours is an accusation without a shred of physical evidence, being merely the dreamed-up fantasy of a wannabe sheepdog with exceptionally poor understanding of the law.

          Say it again: Zimmerman’s acquittal of murder does not mean Martin initiated the altercation. This is a legal point that has escaped you this long, so I doubt you will ever “get it”, for obvious reasons.

        • Yes, that would be stand-your-ground against a guy who is following you.

          Except that, you can’t invoke SYG as an affirmative defense for using otherwise-unlawful force against another, who is “following you”, because “following” is not an unlawful activity, and does not constitute evidence of a reasonable fear of imminent use of unlawful force.

          In fact, while we are on the topic of legal justification, you know that Zimmerman’s acquittal for murder does not constitute a legal justification for use of force, right?

          Is your word-salad intended to make a point? Use of deadly force in self-defense was the legal justification – the affirmative defense – against otherwise unlawful use of force. If the State had disproved self-defense, then Zimmerman would have been convicted, at a minimum, of manslaughter.

          Note your pseudo-legal mumbo-jumbo. The locale of Zimmerman is intimately tied with his stated actions: the stalking of Martin. Not so for Martin. You demand Martin to flee and hide at a time where he is literally a victim, but assert that Martin can be wherever he wants to be even as he is in a definite legal grey area.

          I make no such demand; rather, I use Martin’s actions as evidence that he was not in fear.

          “Where did I accuse Martin of “stalking”? I accused Martin of unlawful use of force.”

          Quote from you: “and was worried that Martin might be watching/following him”. You displace Martin’s fears and attribute them to Zimmerman. Truly amazing.

          So I didn’t, in fact, use the term stalking to describe Martin’s actions? Duly noted. Well done, channeling your inner Angela Corey, and proving my case for me.

          Because yours is an accusation without a shred of physical evidence…

          Wrong again. All of the physical evidence corroborates Martin being the only one to use physical force (absent Zimmerman’s single gunshot), and Martin being the one to initiate force.

        • “Except that, you can’t invoke SYG as an affirmative defense for using otherwise-unlawful force against another, who is “following you”, because “following” is not an unlawful activity,”

          You are comfortable attributing motive to Martin, so let’s do it with Zimmerman: he was intent on unlawfully detaining Martin with his firearm, in which case Martin could have stood his ground and shot Zimmerman.

          “against otherwise unlawful use of force”

          Notice how your entire tale revolves around Martin’s supposed unlawful use of force. This is the linchpin of your entire fantasy. I’ve already addressed this falsehood many times, so I don’t do it again. Search this thread for the answer.

          “I use Martin’s actions as evidence that he was not in fear.”

          To what point? To try to insinuate that he was in fact, not being followed? Nice try.

          “So I didn’t, in fact, use the term stalking to describe Martin’s actions? Duly noted.”

          Epic strawman, bro. I used the term, I proved it by using Martin’s actions. You, on the other hand, are so delusional, you refuse to acknowledge the plain meaning of the word “stalk”, even as you posit that Martin was in fact “following” Zimmerman, with stalking implications. Sad really.

          “Wrong again. All of the physical evidence corroborates Martin being the only one to use physical force (absent Zimmerman’s single gunshot), and Martin being the one to initiate force”

          I know where this is going. Apparently being on the losing end of a physical fight proves one did not initiate force. Do you know how dumb that sounds?

        • “Except that, you can’t invoke SYG as an affirmative defense for using otherwise-unlawful force against another, who is “following you”, because “following” is not an unlawful activity,”

          You are comfortable attributing motive to Martin, so let’s do it with Zimmerman: he was intent on unlawfully detaining Martin with his firearm, in which case Martin could have stood his ground and shot Zimmerman.

          I do not attribute motive to Martin. I have no idea why he approached, verbally accosted, or physically assaulted Zimmerman. Martin’s comments to Jeantel shed some insight, but don’t prove motive. Proving motive is really unnecessary, though. All that really matters is: who used force, when, and was that use of force lawful?

          Martin sucker-punching Zimmerman, knocking him to the ground, straddling him, and pounding his head into the ground would constituted a) a forcible felony, and b) evidence of reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. Either one is sufficient to justify Zimmerman’s use of deadly force in self-defense.

          Martin had no way to know that Zimmerman was armed, and therefore had no basis to claim reasonable fear that Zimmerman was imminently going to hold Martin at gunpoint.

          “against otherwise unlawful use of force”

          Notice how your entire tale revolves around Martin’s supposed unlawful use of force. This is the linchpin of your entire fantasy. I’ve already addressed this falsehood many times, so I don’t do it again. Search this thread for the answer.

          No, it is the linchpin of asserting self-defense. It was proven at trial that Martin used force against Zimmerman. All that remains is determining whether that use of force was lawful, and remained lawful up until the point that Zimmerman used deadly force in response.

          “I use Martin’s actions as evidence that he was not in fear.”

          To what point? To try to insinuate that he was in fact, not being followed? Nice try.

          For someone so condescending, you suck at logic. Martin’s actions evincing a lack of fear dispute the claim that Martin used force against Zimmerman out of fear.

          “So I didn’t, in fact, use the term stalking to describe Martin’s actions? Duly noted.”

          Epic strawman, bro. I used the term, I proved it by using Martin’s actions. You, on the other hand, are so delusional, you refuse to acknowledge the plain meaning of the word “stalk”, even as you posit that Martin was in fact “following” Zimmerman, with stalking implications. Sad really.

          I never posited that Martin was “following” Zimmerman. I said that Zimmerman’s words on the NEN call evinced Zimmerman’s fear that Martin might be following him.

          “Wrong again. All of the physical evidence corroborates Martin being the only one to use physical force (absent Zimmerman’s single gunshot), and Martin being the one to initiate force”

          I know where this is going. Apparently being on the losing end of a physical fight proves one did not initiate force. Do you know how dumb that sounds?

          A fight requires two willing participants. What transpired that night was not a fight, but rather an assault.

          And, for what it’s worth: there are provisions in Florida statutes regarding use of deadly force in self-defense, even as the aggressor. It is a much higher standard and much more difficult to prove, but even if one engages in a physical altercation as the initial aggressor, one does not lose any and all opportunity to use deadly force in self-defense.

    • You may agree in principle with the words that spewed from her mouth in this instance, but I doubt she is human enough to even care about George Zimmerman nearly as much as she cares about votes and contributions. She was secretary of state while the Obama administration was arming everybody from Saudi Arabia to Egypt to South America to Syria and Isis and beyond. If her lips are moving shes probably not just lying, shes probabyly lying with the blood of innocent children on her hands. She is the definituon of cunt.

    • I think Zimmerman got away with murder…

      What you think is in explicit and stark contrast to the facts of the case. That you could still hold such a thought after all the evidence, and the trial, belies either an inability to comprehend the facts, evidence, and law; or else willful ignorance.

      • “an inability to comprehend the facts, evidence, and law”

        Says the purported legal expert who actually believes Zimmerman’s acquittal of murder is equivalent to Martin’s postmortem conviction of assault. 🙂

        • Says the guy who actually believes Zimmerman’s acquittal of murder is equivalent to Martin’s postmortem conviction of assault.

          There you go, putting words in my mouth again.

          Please quote where I said that.

        • Just from this thread (and there are many more threads where you spew your ignorance of this case, but this one will suffice):
          “I accused Martin of unlawful use of force.”
          “and Martin being the one to initiate force.”
          “As such circumstances did not exist, Martin’s use of force against Zimmerman was unlawful, and justified Zimmerman’s use of deadly force in self-defense, in response.”

          Initiating unlawful use of force constitutes assault. You’re just too dense to put your own words together.

        • Initiating unlawful use of force constitutes assault. You’re just too dense to put your own words together.

          I can put my own words together just fine. I’m simply not allowing you to get away with ascribing a word I didn’t use – namely, conviction – to me.

        • “simply not allowing you to get away with ascribing a word I didn’t use – namely, conviction – to me.”

          But I didn’t quote you. I never said you used the word “conviction”, because if I did, I would use quote marks. So save your fake outrage.

          Besides, you’ve continually and endlessly droned on about Martin’s “unlawful use of force” in pseudo-legal blather. What are you getting at? That he was legally culpable. That is the context of “conviction” (my use this time… let’s keep it simple for your simple mind).

        • But I didn’t quote you. I never said you used the word directly (that’s what quote marks are for). Save your fake outrage.

          Not letting you get away with straw man arguments is not equivalent to outrage, fake or otherwise.

          Besides, you’ve continually and endlessly droned on about Martin’s “unlawful use of force” in pseudo-legal blather. What are you getting at? That he was legally culpable. That’s what conviction means.

          See, there’s the straw man. I never claimed that Martin was “legally culpable” for anything. I merely stated that his use of force was unlawful, and justified Zimmerman’s use of deadly force in self-defense.

          If Martin had not ended up dead, he would have almost certainly faced charges for that use of force, at which time, due process would have been followed to determine if he was legally culpable or not. But none of that has anything to do with Zimmerman.

          Zimmerman, in asserting self-defense, need not prove a charge of legal culpability against Martin. Zimmerman, in asserting self-defense, need not even prove his own assertion. Rather, under due process, it is the State that bore the responsibility to disprove the assertion of self-defense.

    • The key piece of evidence from the trial was the revelation from Trayvon Martin’s friend Rachel Jeantel that when she reconnected on the phone with Martin after Martin first ran away from Zimmerman Martin told her he was back at his father’s house. That means he went back out in search of Zimmerman, because the fatal confrontation occurred 100 yards from Martin’s father’s house, supporting Zimmerman’s testimony that it was Martin who initiated contact between them and Martin who attacked him.

      The media constantly lies about this key information, still asserting in nearly every story about the case that the fatal confrontation occurred when Martin was walking home to his step-father’s house from a nearby 7-11, so it is not surprising that Aerindel would be so badly misinformed.

      My survey of media lying about the basic facts of the case here:
      http://errortheory.blogspot.com/2015/07/media-still-claiming-that-trayvon.html?m=1

    • Point of fact – please – Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law was NEVER part of George Zimmerman’s defense. If trial testimony is to be believed GZ had lost sight of Martin and was returning to his truck when he was attacked, beaten, thrown to the ground, and had his head bashed against the sidewalk repeatedly. Only then did he draw and fire his weapon.

      If martin had not confronted GZ with the intent to give a beat-down to the “cracker” who was observing his somewhat suspicious movements through the neighborhood he would probably be alive today. Most likely in a prison somewhere.

      • Somehow the scenario where Zimmerman didn’t stalk and harass people to satiate a sheepdog fantasy goes unmentioned.

    • Except that Stand Your Ground Laws had nothing to do with the Trayvon Martin case. Stand Your Ground does not come into effect when you’re on the ground getting the back of your head slammed into the concrete. Plain old self-defense works just fine.

    • Stand your ground laws do not apply to someone sitting on your chest and beating your head against the concrete. Ergo, they have no place in a discussion of Zimmerman/Martin. Martin was attempting to murder Zimmerman for no reason whatsoever, and he died a thug’s death as a result. This is why I carry.

  2. Somebody ask her if the shooters in the 968 (and counting) shootings YTD in Chicago should have had their guns…. please. Perhaps they need some gun laws? Oh wait….

  3. One could make an argument that Zimmerman should have been prohibited based on his prior conviction, an argument I’m sure many here would refute. But I suspect Hillary’s not making that argument. She’s not arguing that George Zimmerman shouldn’t have had a gun, she’s saying none of us should. Nobody but her friends and bodyguards (which are mutually exclusive).

      • And all previous charges against him were dropped because it was later proven that all of those allegations were false.

  4. no he did not get a way with murder, does he have the best judgement ever, no. Trayvon Martin assaulted Zimmerman. Zimmerman was completely both legally and morally justified in shooting Trayvon and the case never should have gone to trial. The prosecution of Zimmerman was entirely politically motivated to draw attention away from Benghazi and Fast and Furious, the prosecution could not get a conviction even with a kangaroo court designed to convict Zimmerman because their was zero evidence of criminal conduct on his part and all existing evidence corroborated his testimony.

    • The vile evil thing the prosecution did, knowing evidence did not support the charge, three hours before their closing arguments was change from second degree murder to manslaughter.

      • They didn’t have to. Under Florida law, lesser included offenses can be considered almost automatically. There’s practically no concept of “overcharging”.

  5. Perhaps Clinton thinks Zimmerman should have lain there and have his head pounded into the pavement until brain damage set in?

    Granted, given subsequent events I can’t say for sure it wasn’t already too late…

    • Hillary thinks that Zimmerman should have been required to lay back and take it. Just like she did with Bill.

    • She thinks killing guys like Zimmerman is the solution to White Male Privilege. We need to kill all the White Jewish Hispanic men before we can form a perfect utopia.

  6. I just find it amazing that the anti-gun crowd keeps returning to these incredibly bad cases to try to make their argument. If George Zimmerman had not had his gun, there’s a high likelihood he’s the victim of an unsolved homicide.

    Bashing someone’s head into concrete is a serious threat of bodily harm. One can argue the wisdom of Zimmerman’s actions that night, but he did not initiate the violence, and Martin had every opportunity to simply go home and never have an encounter with him at all. Instead he circled back and jumped Zimmerman. It was Martin’s choices that ultimately precipitated the final confrontation. Had he chosen differently, he could be alive now, and none of us would know either of their names.

  7. I know who Juanita Broaddrick is. I saw the interview with her on the Hannity and Colms Fox show back in the Clinton years. History would have been changed if she had put two to the chest and one to the head of her rapist, the Arkansas governor William Jefferson Clinton.
    Hillary Clinton is a rapist enabler. She has risen very high in society protecting her rapist husband.

  8. Why are we rehashing this?
    The police, the courts, and the entire system dealt with this .
    The evidence set a man free.period.

    Move on!

    And i agree..Hillary should just go away.

    • Unfortunately that woman, Hillary Clinton, will never go away until the American People in mass tell her to. This means Tuesday, November 8th, and only if gun owners and everyone else who thinks that she is going to screw things up even worse shows up to vote! If that happens she is political road kill stinking up the DNC.

        • Her daughter is going to to need the inheritance, she’s made noise about politics in her future.

          What’s really scary, look at pictures of Chelsea now compared to the HildaBeast when she was 30, nearly identical…

  9. It’s probably radical to say but if she is elected president then every constitution supporter should be ready to forceably remove her from office.

      • I think in our lifetime we will see the second amendment used for its real purpose or the death of this country as a home for those who want to live independent of government control.

        I hope it’s the former.

    • She’s got the barking thing down. Now just imagine her on the same couch where another woman gobbled her man’s goo, in the doggy position, barking while an intern….

  10. Who cares. The fastest shot out of a holster IMO is the 36 navy. And ballistically its as good as a 357 at 7 yards

  11. Without that pistol, Zimmerman would have been beaten to death. that would have made Hillary happy? Who could vote for such a pandering liar

  12. The Witch of Ben Ghazi should never have been in a position to commit treasonous acts to line her own pockets.

  13. I’m thinking GZ’s bloody head is glad he shot that punk. Never used stand yer ground. Even then it beats bashed in your head…meanwhile in NYC a cop gets away with plain ole’ murder today. Oh well…

  14. Zimmerman and his compatriots did the world a service, we should be sponsoring them to patrol more neighborhoods.

  15. —unless I misread–this article is about pol-lie-tians———-didn’t her husband says six different thins to six different groups and everyone voted for him????

  16. Under the circumstances, George should definitely have been found “not guilty” of murder, the crime for which he was charged.

    But that does not mean George exercises good judgment, nor does it mean George should be trusted with firearms in the future. I also think it was a big mistake not to go after George for manslaughter/negligent homicide, which would have been much easier for a jury to swallow.

    We should remember that George Zimmerman purposefully ignored the recommendations of law enforcement dispatch and provoked a fatal confrontation with an aggressive punk that did not have to happen.

    This was hardly new behavior. Several years prior to this incident, George had a violent altercation with police, and was formally named in a domestic violence protective order, both within the span of two months.

    Warning flags, anyone?

    The trouble is, neither of the prior incidents resulted in charges that stayed on Georges permanent record. If the criminal justice system simply tried to obtain a conviction whenever possible for every violent altercation, aggressive idiots like George Zimmerman would be prohibited from possession of deadly weapons, and therefore would be less likely to provoke unnecessary conflicts.

    That is all.

    • We should remember that George Zimmerman purposefully ignored the recommendations of law enforcement dispatch…

      Wrong. Zimmerman was following the dispatcher’s instructions (as he understood them) when he exited his truck to “keep an eye on” Martin. Zimmerman further followed the dispatcher’s instructions when the dispatcher told him, “we don’t need you to do that” – at which time Zimmerman stopped walking, stood still for the remainder of the call, and then proceeded to walk back toward his truck.

      More importantly: following or not following the instructions of a dispatcher is not unlawful, and does not preclude the use of deadly force in self-defense.

      …and provoked a fatal confrontation with an aggressive punk that did not have to happen.

      Wrong. Martin provoked the confrontation.. Martin circled back. Martin confronted Zimmerman. Martin initiated the physical altercation. Martin used unlawful physical force against Zimmerman.

      • This is not about lawful vs. unlawful. This is about a history of bad judgement. Regardless of your interpretation of events, George needlessly escalated the situation by following Trayvon in the first place.

        In many states, a conviction of domestic abuse is enough to deny a person the right to carry concealed firearms. If police had followed through on the domestic abuse charges, George would most likely not have been carrying a gun, and therefore would have had to behave sensibly.

        • George needlessly escalated the situation by following Trayvon in the first place.

          Except, Zimmerman never actually followed Martin. You can’t “follow” someone if you have no idea where that person is, or went. Zimmerman lost visual contact with Martin before Zimmerman ever left his vehicle. He followed the path taken by Martin, to attempt to see where Martin went, but was unsuccessful in that attempt.

          Martin needlessly escalated the situation by circling back from Brandi Green’s townhome 400 feet away, to accost/confront Zimmerman.

          If police had followed through on the domestic abuse charges, George would not have been carrying a gun…

          Or, there was nothing to “follow up” on – and Zimmerman enjoys the same due process as the rest of us.

          …and therefore would have had to behave sensibly.

          Zimmerman did act sensibly. The only difference, had Zimmerman been unarmed, would have been that Zimmerman would have wound up dead or maimed.

    • “But that does not mean George exercises good judgment, nor does it mean George should be trusted with firearms in the future.”

      There is a simple and yet very basic flaw in your assertion:

      “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

      I cannot find anything in that sentence regarding exercising good judgement or being trusted by the government, or anyone, for that matter.

      The people have the right to keep and bear arms. All of the people. The government may not infringe upon that right. If you have a problem with a particular person and what he is doing with his “arms”, whether firearms or any other arms, all are protected, SHOOT THE S.O.B.! But don’t go eroding the Second Amendment by claiming the government should or has the authority to enact pre-crime laws in violation of the Second Amendment.

    • “Warning flags, anyone?”

      Oh, hell yes. I see warning flags when someone can make all kinds of appeals to unconstitutional actions and not even make excuses. No convictions, clean record, and you pretend we should just remove his RKBA without any consideration of the Bill of Rights. That fires off HUGE warning flags, to me, that the dumbing down of our educational system is approaching critical mass, when people will accept *any* fruitcake’s definition of our rights, meaning we will have none. The “warning flags” are about *YOU*, Paul!

  17. Clinton was speaking at Al Sharpton’s venue. Sharpton’s National Action Network is allied with the gangs. They provide the muscle when he wants to blackmail someone. Clinton was endorsing Sharpton’s tactics. She was telling Sharpton and his allies that no one, whether a targeted individual/business or LEO, has a right to interfering in gang activities.

  18. If Zimmerman should have never been able to own a gun, then Bill should have never been able to own a d*ck.

  19. Z never committed a felony nor was he adjudicated mentally unfit. He was legally allowed to have a gun.

    Z’s biggest mistake was not keeping a low profile after the trial.

    Hillary basically wants all gun purchases to be “may-issue”.

  20. Zimmerman aside, if Hillary is elected and gets a democrat Congress, guns will be rounded up next spring, ala Australian Style Gun Control.

    By next summer, Inform and Reward will be paying out big dollars to people who squeal on gun possessors.

    When a Trayvon breaks into your house while you are at work and finds your gun, he will get a fat reward and a medal for turning you into the authorities.

    Self-defense will NOT be a legitimate reason to possess a firearm.

    • Within a week of any such bill being brought up for a vote. Demokkkrat politicians will begin rapidly developing cases of cranial lead poisoning.

  21. So let’s say I was black and went to a redneck trailer park. Walked around, get followed by a resident, then end up shooting the resident when we get in a fight. The cops and my friends would ask me, “what were you doing? What did you think was going to happen?”

    It wasn’t proved in court.

    Subsequent behavior by Zim shows his self image is a little twisted. ie. guarding the motorcycle/gun shop at night without any knowledge of or permission by the owners. To me, he got his ass whipped and didn’t win the fight so he brought lethal force. Following a young black man around? You must think you’re a bad ass. TM could have had great concern for his safety. Take race out of it. TM doesn’t know why Zim is following him. Is he supposed to turn around and say, “I’m TM and I’m supposed to be in this neighborhood?” Question is, would you?

    This isn’t about race unless you make it so. It isn’t about gun rights. It seems like two people acting poorly. Zim has the greater responsibility as he was older and acting in an “official” capacity. If you don’t know how teens and young adults behave when confronted or threatened then you shouldn’t be on neighborhood watch. So he was frustrated that the cops hadn’t responded to previous burglaries. This means he gets to be a vigilante?

    For we PoG this points to poor gun carrying discipline. Not escalating situations. Leaving before you have to use your firearm……Zim wasn’t defending some helpless citizen from violent attack.

    This is a great opportunity to see this from every perspective.

    • To me, he got his ass whipped and didn’t win the fight so he brought lethal force.

      A fight requires two willing participants. What transpired that night was an assault.

      Following a young black man around? You must think you’re a bad ass.

      Project much?

      Listen to Zimmerman on the recorded NEN call. He didn’t want to have to interact with Martin, and was worried that Martin might be watching/following him. Zimmerman wasn’t doing anything other than what he perceived the dispatcher to have asked him to do: keep an eye on Martin.

      TM could have had great concern for his safety.

      In order to use the force Martin used against Zimmerman, said concern would have to be reasonable, and would have to include reasonable fear that Zimmerman was threatening imminent use of unlawful force against Martin. As such circumstances did not exist, Martin’s use of force against Zimmerman was unlawful, and justified Zimmerman’s use of deadly force in self-defense, in response.

      Take race out of it. TM doesn’t know why Zim is following him. Is he supposed to turn around and say, “I’m TM and I’m supposed to be in this neighborhood?” Question is, would you?

      Irrelevant. Martin crossed the line when he initiated the use of unlawful force against Zimmerman, and when that use of unlawful force a) constituted a forcible felony, and b) reasonably but Zimmerman in fear of death or great bodily harm, it justified the use of deadly force in self-defense.

      • “Listen to Zimmerman on the recorded NEN call. He didn’t want to have to interact with Martin, and was worried that Martin might be watching/following him. ”

        Wow. You are so invested in your pro-Zimmerman fantasy, you actually displaced Martin’s voiced concerns (he was being followed) and attributed them to Zimmerman.

        Feel free to point out the part in the taped dispatcher call where he expresses this feeling in plain words.

        • Feel free to point out the part in the taped dispatcher call where he expresses this feeling in plain words.

          Please, don’t throw me in that briar patch:


          911 dispatcher: Alright, George, we do have them on the way. Do you want to meet with the officer when they get out there?

          Zimmerman: Yeah.

          911 dispatcher: Alright, where are you going to meet with them at?

          Zimmerman: Um, if they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the clubhouse and, uh, straight past the clubhouse and make a left and then go past the mailboxes you’ll see my truck. [3:10]

          911 dispatcher: Alright, what address are you parked in front of? [3:21]

          Zimmerman: Um, I don’t know. It’s a cut-through so I don’t know the address. [3:25]

          911 dispatcher: OK, do you live in the area?

          Zimmerman: Yeah, yeah, I live here.


          911 dispatcher: OK, what’s your apartment number?

          Zimmerman: It’s a home. It’s 1950 – oh, crap, I don’t want to give it out – I don’t know where this kid is [inaudible] [3:40]

          911 dispatcher: OK, do you just want to meet with them at the mailboxes then? [3:42]

          Zimmerman: Yeah, that’s fine. [3:43]

        • “oh, crap, I don’t want to give it out – I don’t know where this kid is [inaudible]”

          An honest reading (and hearing) would be Zimmerman simply lost track of Martin and has no idea where he is. That much has already been established.

          You, on the other hand, heap on your own interpretation of Zimmerman feeling fear on this single phrase. Conveniently, you also dismiss Martin’s expressions of concern. Coincidence? I think not.

          I used to call you delusional, but now I think you are also a liar.

        • I like how you are actually proud of your lies and ignorance.

          Like I said, the living embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

        • Speaking of lies and ignorance … pretty simple, really. Literally everybody, here, was initially acting within the law. Martin was going to the store, Z was attempting to follow him. All legal. Martin detected Z, because Z was an idiot and overextended his abilities. All legal. Martin circled around, snuck up on Zimmerman, who was now headed back to his truck on direction of 911. All legal. Martin elected to feloniously *assault* Zimmerman, as that was apparently something he did regularly, enjoyed it, and got away with it. Definitely NOT legal! He began by breaking Z’s face and then commencing to smash his head against the concrete, while Z yelled for someone, anyone, to help him while neighbors ignored his pleas. Definitely NOT legal. Realizing no help was coming, Z drew and fired, completely legal as finally determined by a damn *JURY*, thank you very much. Yet there are *still* people who bury their heads in the sand and claim Z did something illegal. Dumb, fine. Illegal, *HOW*? Martin was a punk, headed toward costing us $40,000/year for the next 70 years, eliminated from the gene pool by a guy who made a completely legal mistake in judgement.

      • Stupid people in stupid places doing stupid things.
        Is the back of Zimmerman’s head worth someone stealing a TV?
        Zim should be able to walk anywhere he wants?
        Then….TM should be able to walk anywhere he wants without interference.
        He was lawfully allowed to be there.

        Is a bias making Zim the victim?

        Is a bias making TM the victim?

        • Both parties are presumed to have had a lawful right to be where they were, doing what they were.

          That changed, the moment Martin used unlawful force against Zimmerman.

  22. I found this thread fascinating
    Before I read all the analysis above, I thought Zimmerman stalked Martin until Martin turned and reacted to being followed.
    I did not know that Zimmerman had lost sight of Martin and was returning to his car
    I had no idea Martin had reached safety and left it to assault Zimmerman
    That puts an entirely different light on the events of that night

    • “I did not know that Zimmerman had lost sight of Martin and was returning to his car”
      “I had no idea Martin had reached safety and left it to assault Zimmerman”

      It’s funny how gullible people are, so much that they’d believe the vicarious rantings of sheepdog fantasists on the internet. You know all these people would love to conjure up an excuse to shoot a “thug” and get away with it.

  23. The Stupid people in stupid places doing stupid things.
    Is the back of Zimmerman’s head worth someone stealing a TV?

    Zim should be able to walk anywhere he wants?
    Then….TM should be able to walk anywhere he wants without interference.
    He was lawfully allowed to be there.

    Is a my bias making Zim the victim?

    Is a my bias making TM the victim?

    • Don’t GAS about your bias. Everybody was within the law right up until *Martin* STRUCK *Zimmerman*. That defined him as a criminal thug which Z had a perfect right to defend himself against. Zimmerman did not interfere with Martin’s travel through the neighborhood, but Martin attempted to kill Zimmerman for his travel through the neighborhood. What part are you unable to comprehend?

  24. Man there’s a whole lot of rather vile and racist comments about a dead teenager who happened to be on the wrong side of a stupid neighborhood spat that never should have happened…wow. I never realized the hate and anger this community has towards a dead teenager, nor the conviction so many have that he deserves to die and that the world is better off because of it.

    Comments sections like this are what give Gun Grabbers their political ammo and what keep those in the center from realizing and defending their 2A rights.

    Regardless, Zimmerman fully had the right to a firearm at the time of the the original shooting, and Hillary is talking out of her ass…as usual. That said, based on his subsequent behavior and antics, I sure as hell wouldnt want to be anywhere near Zimmerman with a gun now, and I don’t think I’m exactly alone in that opinion.

    • You formed an opinion about Zimmerman’s character based on his “behavior and antics.”

      Why shouldn’t Martin get the same treatment?

      • Martin was a kid, kids do stupid shit. I did stupid shit that could have landed me in jail when I was a teenager, most people did at some point. Was Martin an Angel? Fuck no. Nobody that age is. But the level of hate this dead kid gets is unreal.

        I’m judging Zimmerman, a full grown man, based on his behavior *after* the shooting.

        • Martin was a kid…

          Martin was 17 years old, and physically fully grown. He was a teenager, but he was not a “kid”.

          …kids do stupid shit. I did stupid shit that could have landed me in jail when I was a teenager, most people did at some point. Was Martin an Angel? Fuck no. Nobody that age is. But the level of hate this dead kid gets is unreal.

          Martin’s activities went well beyond merely “stupid”.

          He refereed street fights, he used, bought, and sold drugs, he burgled homes near his school, he (with the assistance of his father) attempted to purchase guns.

          I’m judging Zimmerman, a full grown man, based on his behavior *after* the shooting.

          You endure a life-and-death situation that results in having to use deadly force in self-defense, then go through a multiple-year, malicious prosecution for an open-and-shut self-defense case, then face the nationwide defamation, vitriol, death threats that he faced, and then let us know how that impacts your psyche.

          Zimmerman isn’t perfect, and he has his own flaws, but I defy anyone to deal with what he’s dealt with, and do so much better than he has.

    • I tell you what. You go down to the ‘hood and hang out with those nice young black teenagers like Travon and Michael. We will then get to read about you in the newspapers.

      By all rights Martin should have been in juvie. Shortly after the Zimmerman trial the head of security for Miami-Dade schools was forced to resign for reducing the number of high schoolers gettting in trouble with the law by no longer turning in students to the police for committing crimes and just suspending them. Trayvon was a “beneficiary” of this policy. Had he been turned over to the police instead of receiving a suspension for possession of stolen property and burglary tools he never would have confronted Zimmerman and perhaps would have turned his life around instead of being dead.

      • I’ve been there and done that in life. Who didnt do stupid shit when they were a teenager? Some of us more than others.

        I’m not saying the kid was a saint, my point was that there are very real, very racist, very angry, and very misdirected comments at a dead teenager that appear to delight in his death and consider him human garbage for doing stupid things many (if not most) of us have done at some point.

        Im older and wiser than my teenage self, came from a middle class family with no real family problems, have two degrees and a great job, but I realize my teenage self, and most other people’s, was a complete fucking idiot that avoided jail only by dint of never getting caught and pure luck.

        • But the point is that Martin did get caught and the system let it slide because school authorities wanted to present a false picture to the public. The way a teenager grows up is by learning that there are consequences to misbehavior. Suspension in lieu of jail is not the way this learning occurs. Like all liberal policies that fail, the burden of the failure falls disproportionately on minorities especially African Americans. This is no accident. The Democratic Party wants It this way to keep black people in line. Their adjustment to the civil rights era was to replace the KKK with criminal gangs.

    • Racist? Try analyzing the entire scenario without ANY identification by race, and your reaction might change. If that is the case, you are a racist. Pretty easy, huh? I have done that, and my reaction did not change. Try it yourself.

  25. She is just pandering for the Black Vote, but it clearly shows her disdain for the our
    personal right to keep and bear arms,
    the Stand Your Ground doctrine,
    and our Judicial system buy ignoring the decision of the jurors.

    But her time is coming soon when she will have to appear in front of some jurors who will most likely
    put her behind bars for a long time.

  26. talk about trying to get black votes well her secret service should not have guns either why is it her life is more important than ours I have a right to protect myself oh I forgot Benghazi she don’t care about other peoples lives

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *