As I mentioned in a previous post, USA Today asked me to write a counter-point editorial to their take on U.S. gun laws in general and the Zimmerman verdict in specific. [Click here to read paper’s anti-gun gait-prop Lax gun laws vs. Trayvon Martin’s life: Our view.] Know this: I didn’t get to read the full text until after it was published. Even so, I reckon my effort—Armed Zimmerman was no Dirty Harry: Opposing view—makes the case that TTAG’s Armed Intelligentsia explored in our Question of the Day. [Click here to give Gannet the page views or make the jump for the full text.] Thanks for helping me clarify my thinking. I hope I represented . . .
Would George Zimmerman have left his car if he hadn’t been carrying a gun?
Gun control advocates argue that Zimmerman’s Kel-Tec PF-9 brought out his inner Dirty Harry, leading to the tragic shooting of a Florida teen. They reckon restricting firearms ownership would prevent this kind of murderous machismo, making both individuals and society safer.
OUR VIEW: Lax gun laws vs. Trayvon Martin
It’s an insidious, irrelevant argument that betrays a profound ignorance of the truth about guns.
Whatever you think about Zimmerman’s decision to exit his vehicle, there’s no question he had the legal right to do so. Also beyond dispute: Zimmerman was motivated by a desire to safeguard his neighborhood.
The legally carried firearm resting on Zimmerman’s hip was there to protect life, not project personal power or facilitate a “hate crime.” Don’t take my word for it. Lest we forget, a Florida jury accepted his lawyers’ argument that their client acted in self-defense.
Millions of armed Americans go about their business carrying a firearm for the same reason: to protect themselves against criminal assault. While there are bad apples in every barrel, concealed carry permit holders are as far from trigger happy wannabe cops as Clint Eastwood is from Pee-wee Herman.
A 1996 survey of Florida permit holders revealed that they were 840 times less likely to be involved in a violent crime than the general population.
Gun control advocates refuse to accept the fact that the vast majority of Americans carrying a firearm — in accordance with local, state and federal laws — are a peaceable lot. They are not criminals. They’re anti-criminals.
By carrying a firearm, they deter violent crime. And combat it. In 2003, law-abiding Americans shot and killed 2.5 times as many criminals as police, with less collateral damage.
Gun control advocates are not swayed by statistics. They feel free to exploit the Zimmerman case to project their own fear (of a loss of self-control while armed) onto fellow citizens. Truth be told, armed Americans are not a threat to society. They are our country’s front line against crime.
Any law that seeks to delay, deny or restrict Americans’ natural, civil and constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms puts us all in greater danger, not less.
Robert Farago is the publisher ofthetruthaboutguns.com
Nice editorial. It’s very difficult to write something well within the limited word-count allowed.
Agreed. I only have one problem, no mention of a supermodel. “concealed carry permit holders are as far from trigger happy wannabe cops as Clint Eastwood is from Pee-wee Herman” should have been “concealed carry permit holders are as far from trigger happy wannabe cops as the world’s ugliest dog is from Gisele Bundchen.”
Gisele is Brazilian, not Israeli.
Kate Upton. /thread
Locate Uptin vs. Difi!
I don’t know, I think Kate Upton is one of the most overrated models (people in general?) of all time.
YouTube Kate upton cat daddy. Thank me later.
Stop bringing DiFi into it!
Not to mention, it’s difficult to write about complex subjects and still keep it under the third grade reading comprehension level that USA Today shoots for.
Agreed; well done – as far as it went. I’m guessing there was a space limitation.
That’s good stuff. Way to keep it succinct and on point RF.
+1, why I keep coming back here, keep it up
I believe the write-up was good. What I would love to see in some future articles is maybe let people know there have been SCOTUS cases and cases in every single state in the USA that says that the police have no duty to protect you. That does not mean they will not try, but that does not mean there is ANY guarantee that they will or that they can even when there is a law that says they must (note, there is a reason “to protect and serve” is no longer on the side of squad cars). We are, our own first responders. I would extend that to First Aid as well as CCW
Witness the abandonment of threatend drivers by the withdrawal of police from the area in Oakland during the recent street protest /intersection blocking activity as a result of the GZ verdict.
And that is exactly why CCW permit restrictions should be loosened from what they are in CA, where in most jurisdictions the sheriff requires one to have a specific, compelling reason beyond mere self defense to legally carry concealed.
CCW permits are seldom issued except to those in some manner associated with law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, judges, politicians, and those transporting high end valuables and money.
CCW qualifications throughout most of CA are clearly not in accord with any spirit of “shall issue”. The incident in Oakland and LE’s decision not to intervene is a perfect example of why shall issue should be the rule rather than the exception. The law has no duty to intervene and may never arrive, particularly in times of civil unrest.
I especially like your point about projecting THEIR fears onto the rest of us…absolutely confirms that it’s always a CONTROL issue not a gun control issue.
When people cite that GZ didn’t listen to the police advise I remind them that they also went against police wisdom after the police said no crime was committed.
The Attorney General of the United States went against “police wisdom” after they said no crime was committed.
I would like to point out, that even if you called 911 and said there was a man ready to jump of a building, and you tell them that you think you can help, they will tell you “you don’t have to do that” because of liability reasons. 911 cannot really tell you what you should do.
Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t his first call to the non-emergency number? In many places, the non-emergency number isn’t even staffed by full fledged police officers. It’s more of a glorified receptionist, in the grand scheme of things.
Not to mention that 911 often gives horrible advice in terms of protection and legalities.
Correct. An in most of the country 911 lines are staffed by the same person (or people). Typically are women with extreme tolerance/patience for talking to idiots. They also get their heads chewed off for taking the inititve and for not taking the initiave. From Fire Chief and Police Chief and citizens and anyone with an opinion. Typically have low tolerance for change to established proceedures/SOP. Some, but not majority, may have training to coach CPR etc. And paid like a secretary or receptionist. Seldom are actually a cop even some wear a uniform (see also jailer or baliff).
I couldn’t be a 911 operator/dispacher. Would be going postal in hours.
The 911 operator’s opinion to advise Zimmerman on what he should or shouldn’t do is of absolutely zero relevance to anything.
The relevance is a significant portion of the population see the 911 and non-emergency number operators as a representation of government authority. They willing submit to that authority and do not understand why someone else would not.
A 911 dispatcher is not “the police.”
I agree nice write up truth be told. I am an avid gun owner it’s my hobby and I love it and so dose my family. I even bought my 7 yr old son his first .410 and he thinks its the greatest thing ever. People need not fear guns they should have respect and us parents need to give them personal responsibility towards gun ownership. And teach them that owning a gun is not something to fear but is a sport and life saver for some.
I seriously loved the links. The forbes article that indicates that there is 4x the rate of hot prowl burglaries in Britain and Canada pretty much sold it for me.
And heaven forbid you defend yourself against someone breaking into your G-D HOME of all places. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9516776/Farm-tenant-arrested-after-burglars-shot-was-plagued-by-break-ins.html
THIS is what Eric Holder wants for the US. Complete dependence on the State for “defense”. And jail for anyone daring to protect themselves. It’s insane.
“In 2009, the millionaire businessman Munir Hussain fought back with a metal pole and a cricket bat against a knife-wielding burglar who tied up his family at their home in Buckinghamshire. Hussain was jailed for two and a half years, despite his attacker being spared prison.”
“Appeal judges reduced the sentence to a year’s jail, suspended”
This is f^cking insane.
I can remotely understand being anti-gun, or I’m saying I even recognize the very few decent arguments there are out there, but how do you justify this???
There are no excuses, no good arguments for ass clownery of these proportions.
This is the same level of absurdity the vocal minority wants in America.
Well written. Succinct. Great job RF.
If you go to each article on USA Today there are “quick polls” on the right of the page asking if you agree or disagree with the editorial. The anti gun one, the majority so far disagrees, and RF’s so far the majority agrees.
That’s good stuff. The poll on RF’s article is CRUSHING IT. 75% Strongly Agree, 14% Strongly Disagree, 7% Agree, 3% Disagree, 1% too retarded to have an opinion yet still motivated to vote in the poll for some completely mystifying reason.
That’s awesome. And on USA Today! Wow. What a result [so far].
“that betrays a profound ignorance of the truth about guns.” – I see what you did there.
From the USA Today opposing POV – ‘But one conclusion ought to be obvious: If Zimmerman had not been carrying a gun that night, Trayvon Martin would be alive today.’
Ummm.. No. TM could have beaten GZ to death and GZ would be dead today.
If Zimmerman had not been armed we would not be paying attention to the sentencing of a living Trayvon Martin to prison for murder.
Exactly. If it had been the other way around that TM killed GM today TM would be sentenced to life in prison. Given all the details that TM like his marijuana, potentially bought the Skittles and Arizona Tea (his girl friend testified she has the codeine cough syrup) to make up a batch of ‘Purple Drank’, and his budding ninja/MMA mad skills the prosecution would make him out to be the evilest 17 yr old on the planet. Had he been 18 yrs old instead sentencing would be the death penalty. It is not far fetched in our legal system to make the arguement that a 18 yr old black male killing a unarmed white male would have the book thrown at him.
“Would George Zimmerman have left his car if he hadn’t been carrying a gun?”
As part of his voluntary duty, if he needed to, was he not obligated to?
So is then, those against criminals being in awe of us Heart-Full bearers of arms, is it not their hope, desire & drive to give Criminals the unleashed capability to do as they please and we should be counted as lucky to be subjected to their wrathful desires of self-imposed domination made plausible by those whos only purpose, as elected civil servants, is to gain more powerbover of?
I say NO! I stand in Righteous Indignation of any who are not in Awe and subjugation to the power I, and others, softly weild!
Nice response. It can’t hurt. The ignorance regarding self defense and the law in this country is staggering. I’m in the minority even within my own family on this one, and they know I’m no Dirty Harry either.
What I see in this case is people want to punish Zimmerman for using poor judgment for getting out of the car, as if that somehow negates his right to defend his life. They want to give Martin a pass on using poor judgment, or somehow have convinced themselves it was excusable, simply because Zimmerman was armed.
This is one of those things.. where I have difficulty in finding the right words to try and explain things to people. On how they should view things.. (Open minded, not exactly how I see them.)
I have tried explaining that carrying a weapon does not make one go look for a fight, or look for a reason to use it. But when your liberal friends respond to that with “Bullshit, Zimmerman only had that gun so he could hunt black boys” and such, it’s hard to get them to calm back down.
Sharing your words everywhere, RF.. very well done.
You could ask them where the rest of the bodies are?
If he had a gun just to “hunt down black boys”, there should be more dead bodies. Plus adding to Renegade Dave’s comment below, if he was “hunting black boys”, why didn’t he shoot first & ask questions later?
Why start a fist fight if you are planning on shooting him anyway?
I still can’t fathom that some people think GZ started the altercation. Legally armed people with guns on their hips do not start fist fights. Period.
Nicely done, Robert. I don’t know. First you’re profiled by the Washington Post, then you’re writing an op-ed for USA TODAY. You’re not going mainstream media on us, are you? Naaah.
Well done, sir. Very well done. I see your editorial is kicked butt in the polling results, as well. Keep up the Good Fight.
I particularly liked “They are not criminals. They’re anti-criminals.”
Great read, but it will not be received well by very many of the subscribers. You can’t use logic to combat the emotion of the grabbers, they are as blind as Stevie Wonder.
after reading both sides of the debate 80% of the population wants civilians to be armed 😉 i believe that stat way before the 90% stat
Good job. You should be proud of that article Robert.
Interesting that the USA Today “Editorial Board” writer did not have the balls to put his name on the bilge.
What mindless, drivel in search of a coherent thought.
Well done, RF.
Voted in both polls. RF is kicking ass and taking names.
It’s an insidious, irrelevant argument that betrays a profound ignorance of the truth about guns. .com Nice touch
Well done Robert. The kind of article that makes people on the fence say, “hey, maybe there’s another side to this….”.
And that’s exactly what we need.
Robert Farago is the publisher ofthetruthaboutguns.com
That is a rather grandiose way of saying you have a blog.
Well… it’s the most read gun blog on the ‘net. So, perhaps it’s deserving of “grandiose” descriptions. 🙂
Not really, it has been pointed out countless times in the past that their metrics are inherently flawed and deliberately misleading. And RF has always refused to supply more specific and granular data. He really is one step removed from being a megalomaniac.
And you sir are a hypocrite. Why would you visit, read, or post if you want to bash RF? Troll!
So very tiresome. Why do all the trolls from the daily kos and wonkette come here to post?
Welcome to the 21st century of blogs and tumblr accounts.
You did well sir, and thank you for doing it.
Spot on, now if RF can get published in the NYT, Chicago papers et al then that would go a long way.
Great op ed. It was more focused than 1950’s Princeton men on a panty raid. Using a bit of the rhetorical panache which the left takes for an argument, you then threw in actual facts, a tactic many would consider outside the unwritten rules of the CCW debate. Bold.
It’s an emotional issue, and facts and logic are never used in the pursuit of a topic as emotional as this. Guns really do save more likes than they take, but it doesn’t matter much to those who hate guns. To them, even if 10 lives are saved via the defensive use of a gun – if a single life is taken via an OFFENSIVE use, then all guns are bad, period.
I found it interesting that the USA Today’s “Our View” said that if Zimmerman didn’t have a gun, Trayvon would have been alive. The ironic part of that statement, though, is this – sure, Trayvon might be a live, but Zimmerman might very well be dead.
Would that have even made the news?
Excellent editorial. Stats give it weight. And then there is “My right trumps your dead”.
If you honestly believe that Zimmerman’s main motivation was the desire to protect his neighborhood, you’re psychic. No one including Zimmerman presented one piece of evidence that Martin did anything suspicious ir that would give anyone a reason to suspect that the neighborhood or Zimmerman was in danger from Martin. That is until Zimmerman instigated the violence. I don’t know if regulation would prevent these types senseless situations from occurring. Because when you have a guy lolling for trouble he’s going to find it. Just like Zimmerman did. The bottom line is an unarmed guy got murdered walking home from the store, for defending himself from an idiot who at a minimum was harassing him for no reason.
^Apparently did not watch any of the trial (or any news coverage of it).
Looks like John Hope wants to take rtempleton’s spot as our most awesome troll.
Another troll? rtempleton has not been around lately, you taking his place?
sorry, you only get to come here and act like a whiney sore loser if you actually know some of the facts of the story / case.
you certainly don’t get to come here and make stuff up that suits your way of seeing things and barf them out all over us.
One look at GZ’s battered face would tell you that Trayvon Martin was intent on killing or severely damaging him. That required response by deadly force to save his life. It was self defense.
The proper response to “What are you doing here” on a dark rainy night, when you have been kicked out of your school and are lost because you are living with your father and are unaware of your surroundings is, “I’m sorry. I’m visiting my father at (insert address). I’m trying to find it. Could you point me in the right direction or walk me to the address. Thanks.” Of course, we know that wanna-be thug life required a different response.
Nice job. But I have to admit I would rather a reply that was written in CAPS, filled with expletives and was foaming at the mouth. My patience has worn quite thin over this whole situation.
As I write this, I had to listen to the statement juror B37 has just released. Obviously having realized that she is now the focus of death and rape threats, she came out pleading no one gave her a rope to lynch Zman. “A rope, a rope, my kingdom for a rope!”. Would have loved to convict him of something, but all these stupid rules prevented it. She quickly ran to the side with the pitchforks and torches.
Proud to know ya. Shared with all my friends on FB (and I’ve got bunches). 😀
Excellent job Robert. I really liked the fact you linked to two different sources that backed up your view nicely.
The polling results are the norm; 9 out of 10 responses on anti-gun editorials are in rebuttal to the gun grabbing meme being pushed by the writer; this has got to just irritate the hell out of these “Intellectual elites”, it also just reaffirms to their own immense egos how we are just a bunch of Neanderthals to not understand the brilliance and depth of their wisdom and their erudite commentary.
I would only have added that when anti-gun/pro-control people are projecting onto legal RKBA people, they are ignoring the fact that a lot of us fit into categories supposedly of concern to them.
We include people with physical disabilities, queer people, elders, people of racial, religious, and other minorities, women, people who take the 3 a.m. bus to get to our miserable jobs in or through terrible neighborhoods, people stalked by exes or other degenerates….
The six-woman jury could comprehend what anti-RKBA people cannot: legal RKBA people are as diverse as America, and some of the fastest-growing sectors of those who carry look nothing like the viciously classist, racist, and sexist caricatures of RKBA people proliferated in discussions of the topic.
This is why, I believe, the discussion has shifted to THE CHILLLLLDRUNNNNN. That is, the argument is not winnable if we discuss RKBA as adults, because adults worth the term will ALWAYS stand up for themselves, their families, their communities, and each other. In my view this show trial’s purpose was to further the meme that anyone (particularly a Half White Man–I mean Zimmerman, not Obama, obviously) who guards the community perimeter is psycho, because there is only one community, and it emanates from the UN, and our handlers will tell us when and how high to jump, and when and how low to cower.
Good job, Robert. Next newspaper: The Wall Street Journal, last seen mis-reporting that GZ was “following” St. Skittle’s after he was “told to stop.” Which we all know is nonsense.
Nice job representing the Pro-2A side.
Rachel Jeantel unavailable for (ignorant) comment.
I’m sorry. I thought this was a serious site. Are you people reading your own words?. I feel like you’re chest bumping one another for making the best snide remark about someone that has a view that’s not exactly the same as yours. Please don’t’ bother with any further comments. There’s really no point. You win. I’m wrong.
yes, yes you are.
Oh, gosh! I was so hurt and abashed by your remarks, John Hope, for about .0001 seconds, which was .00009999 seconds too long….glad you saw the light!
Ummm, are you an adult?
This is a serious site, for the informed populace who respects the right of an individual to be armed in a responsible manner. If that is not to your liking, I suggest the NY Times or Huffington Post. You can certainly use those places as a sounding board, without the irksome facts of the matter disturbing your narrative.
You might want to also research what goes on in other countries. A couple of years ago, in Quebec, a cash in transit guard shot an UNARMED man who jumped her–the guard was not charged. And nobody in Florida seems to be bothered with the large amount of shootings by security guards:
Of course, the Oprahs and Jay Zs have armed guards for their persons and estates; it seems the rabble aren’t entitled to such protections.
76% strongly aggree with your commentary at this point within their article survey. Outstanding. Well done.
Good to see you got a chance to speak for The Second Amendment Rights of all Americans in a Nationally Distributed widely known publication. You did a nice job! Congratulations!
congratulations RF, being published in USA today is a big deal. was it a one time thing or can we expect more?
I agree that reponsible gun owners are not a problem, I am one of them. But please don’t make a cowardly wuss like George Zimmerman the poster boy for self defense. Like all bullies he provoked a confrontation knowing he had an unfair advantage against an unarmed person. Seriously, do really think he would have acted the way he did if had not had a gun. Even his own defense zealously portrayed him as inept at every aspect of sef defense, after a year of taking martial arts training. He is absolutely the worst kind of person to advocate for gun rights.
And just how did he provoke things? …..TM came after GZ.
They only documented bully in this story was Trayvon Martin.
He was bragging about fighting and starting fights. Regularly.
And we’ve seen the picture of him, (a minor) with gun in hand.
If anything, GZ(not a minor) would be extra cautious about his
deploying a gun, if for the only reason, because the guy could
just as well have been one of HIS neighbors. Who wants that?
What George Zimmerman did, he did only a violent last resort.
That is not gun violence. Nor does it contribute to gun violence
Gun, and CCW holders are not the perpetrators of gun violence.
We’re not gunning down innocent teens in hoody’s, of any color.
Why? BECAUSE WE ARE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS!!!
If George Zimmerman is a poster boy for anything, it’s how the
law abiding are being treated like criminals, and the criminals
are being treated like the law abiding, by our own government.
The absolutely, positively, ridiculous notion that Trayvon was
a saintly 12 year old on his way home with Skittles and tea is
just bordering on the delusional. 17 year old males are full of
p*ss and vinegar, easy to rile, and ready to fight for no reason.
Just as it is equally delusional, to apply the same demeanor
and level of belligerence of a chemically imbalanced teen, to
29 year old George Zimmerman. Notice how Trayvon has no
past being looked into by the press? They’re pulling an Obama
on us, by deliberately NOT digging into even Trayvon’s recent
history. Why? Because Trayvon is the new graven image of the
racist Left. They are the one’s claiming George is our mascot.
How could you read RF’s rebuttal, yet still post that comment?
Trayvon was the coward and the bully in this fatal drama.
George was guilty of looking out for his neighbors.
O-f-T. Everything you say about Martin is probably correct. It is also irrelevant. In the eyes of the law, none of it counts. What you said about Martin was not admissable in court. From what I have read, Martin did nothing to provoke Zimmerman. Martin may very well be a poster child for birth control but it makes no difference. The only things that count were his actions that night.
OK, here’s my take on this. Flame if you will. But consider that I’m 67 and white. Zimmerman was told not get out of his car. Like it or not, 911 represents the police. He had a gun. He didn’t know if Martin had one or not but he knew he had one. Martin was doing nothing wrong. Zimmerman had no right to confront Martin. Martin, in a ‘stand your ground’ state had no obligation to run away. Martin was doing nothing wrong (did I already say that?) This site likes to think that people that believe in open or concealed carry understand the responsibility that carrying incurs. Zimmerman didn’t. He instigated the situation. The Castle Doctrine says you can’t use lethal force to defend yourself if you started it. If I had been Martin and someone came out of the dark and acousted me, I would probably have done everything I could to defend myself. Since we weren’t there, we really don’t know what really happened. But I do believe Zimmerman should have stayed in his car and Martin would still be alive and Zimmerman would be enjoying a beer instead of fearing for his life. This is a good lesson for all of us. Using a gun is the last, last, last resort and carrying one should make you consider every move. Even if you’re right you can be wrong.
“Zimmerman was told not get out of his car.”
You do realize the dialog is available on the internet right? http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html
He was not “told” to stay inside his car. He was told that “he didn’t need to do that (follow trayvon)”.
“Like it or not, 911 represents the police”
Like it or not, dispatchers are not law enforcement officers and can give no lawful orders.
“Zimmerman had no right to confront Martin.”
Not only did he have a compelling reason for following Martin, but, yes, like it or not, he had every right to confront him.
“Martin, in a ‘stand your ground’ state had no obligation to run away. ”
Youre right. He didn’t. Attacking somebody when they are returning to their vehicle has nothing to do with “standing your ground”. That is assault and battery.
“Martin was doing nothing wrong (did I already say that?)”
Other than attack Zimmerman? why, yes, that is “doing something wrong”. Sorry cupcake.
“This site likes to think that people that believe in open or concealed carry understand the responsibility that carrying incurs. Zimmerman didn’t.”
Actually they overwhelmingly do, if you read the study about concealed carriers involvement in crimes cited in the article above.
Not being responsible or understanding the responsibility of carrying a firearm has dire consequences: imprisonment, bankruptcy due to legal fees, divorce, job/career loss, home loss, etc. Gun owners and CCW holders have every incentive to understand the responsibility of carrying LOL.
“He instigated the situation. ”
He could have. He could have not instigated it. The only one that knows for sure is Zimmerman himself. From the evidence presented in court, he did not instigate the situation, but could have de-escalated it possibly (possibly, not guaranteed either).
“The Castle Doctrine says you can’t use lethal force to defend yourself if you started it. ”
…and Zimmerman didn’t jump on martin and start beating him so that argument is moot. Zimmerman’s defensive wounds are well known.
That is why people need to stop suggesting that “martin was defending himself”. That is BS.
“If I had been Martin and someone came out of the dark and acousted me, I would probably have done everything I could to defend myself. ”
How do you know Zimmerman “accosted” Martin? Oh right. You’re assuming and speculating (wildly albeit).
There is a difference from being surprised and defending yourself than waiting for someone to return to their vehicle and decide to jump them. Given the evidence provided, and the testimony, Martin had no reason to jump Zimmerman. None whatsoever. There was no legal justification for it.
“Since we weren’t there, we really don’t know what really happened.”
You’re right, but you’re assuming a lot aren’t you???
“But I do believe Zimmerman should have stayed in his car and Martin would still be alive and Zimmerman would be enjoying a beer instead of fearing for his life.”
That is a valid argument, one I have made plenty of times. The same can be said for Martin. All he had to do was keep walking.
“This is a good lesson for all of us. Using a gun is the last, last, last resort and carrying one should make you consider every move. Even if you’re right you can be wrong.”
The lesson here is think about the consequences when you decide to pounce somebody and start punching them. That person you’re hitting may be armed and they are legally obligated to shoot you in self defense.
Self-Defense laws justify this use of force across the nation, not just in Stand your Ground states. What Zimmerman did would be justified in most states.
Well, we obviously don’t agree on a lot of this. Fortunately neither of us were on the jury. We will never know what really happened. It was all very unfortunate. A young man died because a grown, armed man got out of his vehicle. That I think we can agree on. Regardless of his past, he didn’t deserve to die that night. Walking on a public sidewalk is not a crime regardless of your color or even your intent. We don’t actually know how Zimmerman approached Martin or what Zimmerman said. Or what Martin said. But yes, I am assuming and speculating. It’s what we all do when we don’t know for sure what the truth is. That being said, if I had been in Martin’s position, I probably would have been very defensive also. Wouldn’t you?
Sorry but there are a few factually incorrect statements in that BigByte.
First: “A young man died because a grown, armed man got out of his vehicle.” Is patently and proved false by the only people who’s understanding of the facts matter, the jury. The fact is ‘a young man died because he assaulted an armed grown man.’ Were the facts otherwise, GZ would certainly have been found guilty of murder.
Second: “Walking on a public sidewalk . . .” most certainly can be a crime depending on intent. For instance if it was done in order to harass someone, or in violation of a restraining order.
What either of them may have said is irrelevant, given that nothing they could have said would have justified either assault or murder.
That’s two factual errors, one admittedly technical but the other gross and damning to any argument that proceeds from it.
The reason you’re finding yourself in disagreements regarding this BigByte is simply because you’re wrong on the facts.
WLCE: Thanks, you saved me the time of having to
respond to that BigByte comment. With the nearly incalculable information available on the Internet;
for anyone who will spend the time to look for it,
you still run into uninformed comments like this.
You eviscerated that piece of rambling inaccuracies.
You must have been on the jury since you seem to know all about the case. Zimmerman was told to stay in his car? He confronted martin? The castle doctrine? Why did you not share all of this information with your fellow jurors? We could have nailed the racist bastard!!!!
Jerry. Where was I wrong? Tell me. You called him a racist bastard not me. He didn’t think clearly enough before he acted. Those of us that carry have a tremendous responsibility to consider our actions. This has been discussed many times on TTAG. One wrong move can mess up our lives. Many times whether you are right or wrong makes no difference. If someone appears ready to hurt my wife or me, I’ll worry about the consequences later. But if someone is just walking along apparently minding his own business, I would have to think really hard before confronting him. Especially armed. What was Martin doing wrong that Zimmerman needed to confront him? At night. Armed. On a public sidewalk.
Where were you wrong? Let me count the ways. I do believe Martin confronted and attacked Zimmerman. Stand your ground would not apply in martin’s case since Zimmerman was the one assaulted. 911 dispatchers are civilians. Non-commissioned civilians. They have no authority to order anyone to do anything. The racist bastard comment was sarcasm. Understand? Anyway, probably time for you to get back to posting on Thinkprogress with all the other self-hating white liberals yes?
Ouch! Nope. I guess I sort of like myself in a, you know, regular sort of way. However, I do like guns and have a CC license. I carry daily including at home. And I’m a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. So, I think that means I’m not a liberal. Not that I care that much about labels. Gotta check out Thinkprogress though.
Yeah, whatever you say pal. Big supporter of the 2A. And I am quite sure Thinkprogress is a site you are well acquainted with. Wasted enough time with you, run along now
Small correction Jerry, SYG doesn’t apply not because GZ was assaulted by rather TM’s actions rendered retreat impossible (straddling and punching). Although perhaps the most important factor is that SYG can only come up if the defense invokes it, which they did not.
Otherwise, spot on.
I usually try to avoid these but when someone seems to legitimately represent as pro 2A and pro justice, or even just interested in the truth and yet still arrives as such ridiculously misguided positions as BB it’s hard to stay quiet.
Anyway, way to set the record straight Jerry. Some people (BB) will just never learn.
Well done RF. I see as of 10:45 Eastern that the polling numbers are 61% “Strongly Disagree” with the Op Ed piece while 74% “Strongly Agree” with your article. That’s truly shocking and makes me hopeful. I suppose I’m not revealing any secrets by saying that these results make the grabbers polling number highly suspect at best. Looks to me like even among USA Today readers (I mean really!) a strong majority are on the side of self defense.
Clear statistics vs vile, anti-gun, emotional, statist, libtardism.
No. Retardism. They seek to hold us back, to keep us in check. Modern “liberals” are no more liberal that a spendthrift Rino is a conservative.
I like Chuck(le)’s take: “Liberals aren’t; progressives won’t.”