[jariel]

The witnesses who have actually come forward have told a much different story.

Ultimately, to figure out who should be believed is what a trial by jury is for.

It's not grounds to forestall an arrest.

As I've already stated, there hasn't been anything that has been put forward that has supported Zimmerman's profile nor his story of self-defense.

The governor who signed the "Stand Your Ground" law and the lawmakers who "created" the legislation have come forward and said that Zimmerman is not protected by that law.

As a result, his attorney has publicly said he will not even use that defense in court, he's just going with good old self-defense.

He's going to have a hell of a time convincing people that you can somehow claim self-defense after stalking, confronting, and ultimately shooting a person who was never actually a threat to him.

By that logic, Brian could follow a female home from the grocery store, and when he approaches her, gets smacked, and has mace sprayed in his face, because she is fearful for her life, he can strangle her to death and call it self-defense.

[jariel]

Quote:

Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself?

A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:

Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.

Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, manslaughter, or worse.

Example of the kind of attack that will not justify defending yourself with deadly force: Two neighbors got into a fight, and one of them tried to hit the other by swinging a garden hose. The neighbor who was being attacked with the hose shot the other in the chest. The court upheld his conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm, because an attack with a garden hose is not the kind of violent assault that justifies responding with deadly force.

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons...fense.html

A bloody nose and some grass stains on your back don't justify playing Duck Hunt with a 9 mm.

Game over, out of quarters.

[Brian]

(03-25-2012 07:22 PM)jariel Wrote:  

Quote:

Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself?

A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:

Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.

Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, manslaughter, or worse.

Example of the kind of attack that will not justify defending yourself with deadly force: Two neighbors got into a fight, and one of them tried to hit the other by swinging a garden hose. The neighbor who was being attacked with the hose shot the other in the chest. The court upheld his conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm, because an attack with a garden hose is not the kind of violent assault that justifies responding with deadly force.

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons...fense.html

A bloody nose and some grass stains on your back don't justify playing Duck Hunt with a 9 mm.

Game over, out of quarters.

Read your own post dude. Specifically, this part "Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm"

So if a 6'3 guy clocks you in the back of the head, gets on top of you, and is raining down punches does that sound like serious bodily harm to you? Sure does to me. Especially considering both the testimony and the evidence show that Zimmerman was proceeding back to his truck when he was attacked by harmless little Trayvon. And the people who investigated the case and know more about it then you and me seem to agree.

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/d....

Fellow Citizens:
There has been a lot of media attention to the recent incident where George
Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin. This is indeed a tragic situation and has
caused a flood of questions and strong emotions from within our community, the region
and nation. On behalf of the employees of the City of Sanford, Our deepest sympathy
and prayers go out to the family and friends of Trayvon Martin. As a father, I can only
image the pain Trayvon’s family must be going through. The City of Sanford is
committed to insuring that justice is served and, therefore, the City of Sanford has
contacted the United States Attorney General’s Office for assistance in this matter.

In an effort to continue to be as responsive as possible to the public seeking information on
the incident, I have asked Chief Lee to provide answers to some of the most frequently
asked questions regarding this matter. Below are his responses. Please understand that
since this is still an ongoing investigation, the Police Department is limited in what
information it can publicly release.

The men and women of the Sanford Police Department extend our heartfelt
sympathies to the Martin family. This is indeed a tragic situation. The death of
anyone due to violence, especially a 17 year old young man, is morally appalling. As
this incident has generated a lot of media attention, we wanted to provide answers to
some of the most frequently asked questions.

Why was George Zimmerman not arrested the night of the shooting?

When the Sanford Police Department arrived at the scene of the incident, Mr.
Zimmerman provided a statement claiming he acted in self defense which at the time
was supported by physical evidence and testimony. By Florida Statute, law
enforcement was PROHIBITED from making an arrest based on the facts and
circumstances they had at the time. Additionally, when any police officer makes an
arrest for any reason, the officer MUST swear and affirm that he/she is making the
arrest in good faith and with probable cause. If the arrest is done maliciously and in
bad faith, the officer and the City may be held liable.

According to Florida Statute 776.032 :

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use
of force.—

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is
justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action
for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law
enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance
of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance
with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have
known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the
term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or
prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the
use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the
person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the
force that was used was unlawful.

Why weren’t the 911 tapes initially released?

There are exemptions to the public records laws for active criminal intelligence and
for ongoing investigations. In this instance, the 911 calls made by neighbors in the
subdivision, and the non-emergency call made by Mr. Zimmerman are all key to the
investigation by Sanford Police Department. In consultation with the Office of the
State Attorney, the Sanford police department had decided not to release the audio
recordings of the 911 calls due to the ongoing investigation. Many times, specific
information is contained in those recordings which is vital to the integrity of the
investigation. At the time, it was determined that if revealed, the information may
compromise the integrity of the investigation prior to its completion. The 911 tapes
have since been released.

Why did Mr. Zimmerman have a firearm in his possession while acting in the
role of a neighborhood watch member?

Mr. Zimmerman holds a concealed weapon permit issued from the State of Florida.
He is authorized to carry the weapon in a concealed manner wherever Florida
Statute dictates. Neighborhood Watch programs are designed for members of a
neighborhood to be “eyes and ears” for police and to watch out for their neighbors.

They are not members of the Police Department nor are they vigilantes. Training
provided by law enforcement agencies to Neighborhood Watch organizations
stresses non-contact surveillance of suspicious situations and notifying police of
those situations so that law enforcement can respond and take control of the
situation.

Mr. Zimmerman was not acting outside the legal boundaries of Florida Statute by
carrying his weapon when this incident occurred. He was in fact on a personal
errand in his vehicle when he observed Mr. Martin in the community and called the
Sanford Police Department.

If Zimmerman was told not to continue to follow Trayvon, can that be
considered in this investigation?

Yes it will; however, the telecommunications call taker asked Zimmerman “are you
following him”. Zimmerman replied, “yes”. The call taker stated “you don’t need to do
that”. The call taker’s suggestion is not a lawful order that Mr. Zimmerman would be
required to follow. Zimmerman’s statement was that he had lost sight of Trayvon and
was returning to his truck to meet the police officer when he says he was attacked by
Trayvon.

Why was George Zimmerman labeled as “squeaky clean” when in fact he has
a prior arrest history?

In one of the initial meetings with the father of the victim the investigator related to
him the account that Mr. Zimmerman provided of the incident. At that time the
investigator said that Mr. Zimmerman portrayed himself to be “squeaky clean”. We
are aware of the background information regarding both individuals involved in this
event. We believe Mr. Martin may have misconstrued this information.

What about media reenactments of the shooting incident?

Any media reenactments of the shooting incident are purely speculation. To date the
Sanford Police Department has not released any rendition of the events of the
evening to anyone other than the Office of the State Attorney. The renditions we
have seen are not consistent with the evidence in this case.

The Sanford Police Department has conducted a complete and fair investigation of
this incident. We have provided the results of our investigation to the Office of the
State Attorney for their review and consideration for possible criminal prosecution.

Although the Police Department is the target of the troubling questions, let me
assure you we too feel the pain of this senseless tragedy that has dramatically
affected our community. Therefore, as we move forward and strive to answer the
questions that are a point of controversy in the community, we ask for your patience,
understanding and assistance in getting the correct information to the community
We trust that this information is helpful to you.

Norton N. Bonaparte, Jr., ICMA-CM
City Manager
March 23, 2012

[jariel]

I don't give a damn about the city manager or the police chief's statements. At this point, you're not going to get a mea culpa out of either one of them because they're going to continue to justify what they did. It is now obvious that neither one of them was operating with the law in mind. In fact, they have both been publicly embarrassed by lawmakers who have stated they were applying the "Stand Your Ground" law in this case INCORRECTLY.

You keep bringing up Trayvon's height, which makes me believe you are short. He is 6'3, but he only weighed 140 pounds. That makes him Gumby's little brother -- On the other hand, I'm 6'4, 205, had Zimmerman confronted me, he would have been unconscious before he even had a chance to pull out that 9 mm.

Trayvon only had two weapons on him. His bare hands and the bottle of tea. If he really wanted to injure Zimmerman, he could have taken that bottle and smashed it on Zimmerman's head.

The law clearly states that deadly force is only justifiable when deadly force can possibly be exerted against you.

Furthermore, legal precedent has established that if a man is hitting you with a garden hose and you shoot him, you're still committing a crime. Thus, there's no way bare hands can justify pulling out a gun, so Zimmerman is still guilty of committing a crime.

Ultimately, the DA needs to figure out exactly what crime, but to argue that no crime has been committed, which you continue to do, is asinine and warrants no further discussion with someone like myself.

[Brian]

I'm actually 6'3, and I realize if he's 140 thats a skinny kid. That being said, there's a big difference between someone swinging a garden hose at you, and someone who punches you in the back of the head, mounts you, and continues throwing punches.

[BortimusPrime]

Given Zimmerman's story is obviously bullshit (Martin came back and attacked him while he got out of his truck to look for directions? come on), I think the question is that if you provoke a fight and lose, are you then justified in escalating to deadly force? My guess is that Zimmerman confronted Martin and provoked a scuffle, which ended with him on the ground getting pounded, but he managed to draw his gun and fire. I assume if you're on the ground getting beaten up you could justifiably reason that your life is in danger, but from the phone call to Martin's girlfriend it's pretty clear that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation.

[Brian]

(03-25-2012 08:22 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  

Given Zimmerman's story is obviously bullshit (Martin came back and attacked him while he got out of his truck to look for directions? come on), I think the question is that if you provoke a fight and lose, are you then justified in escalating to deadly force? My guess is that Zimmerman confronted Martin and provoked a scuffle, which ended with him on the ground getting pounded, but he managed to draw his gun and fire. I assume if you're on the ground getting beaten up you could justifiably reason that your life is in danger, but from the phone call to Martin's girlfriend it's pretty clear that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation.

where did you see that Zimmerman claimed he was asking for directions?

[assman]

I don't really have a dog in this fight, other than the stand your ground doctrine not being repealed based on a hasty, emotional reaction by the public and legislators.

As to the right of self-defense using deadly force, not sure what it is in FL, but in NC, you can use deadly force in self-defense if presented with imminent threat of death OR great bodily injury. I'd guess the wording of the FL statute is similar. What constitutes 'great bodily injury'? Pretty much anything that would put you in a hospital. Hence swinging a garden hose does not rise to that level.

So assuming the actual events led to the issue of whether self-defense applies (i.e., Zimmerman didn't just shoot Tayvon after asking him what he's doing there and that he didn't initiate the violence (or provoke the violence - and asking what someone is doing there isn't sufficient for that) without subsequently retreating), then a jury is going to have to ask whether Tayvon was in the process of posing a threat of great bodily injury. A weapon is NOT necessary for this, a disparity of force (e.g., attacker much bigger than person claiming self-defense, or someone very skilled in fighting vs someone not) can be sufficient. Here, it seems Tayvon didn't have any weapons and wasn't much larger (if fact probably smaller than Zimmerman). So this doesn't help Zimmerman. But if he can show that Tayvon effectively had him pinned and was raining down punches, that could be enough. Enough punches to the head and you can be knocked unconscious, which definitely constitutes great bodily harm. But proving that Tayvon had free reign to throw punches at his undefended head isn't going to be easy.

So we'll have to see whether a grand jury returns an indictment after seeing the actual evidence, as opposed to the speculation that has become rampant everywhere.

[assman]

(03-25-2012 08:22 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  

I think the question is that if you provoke a fight and lose, are you then justified in escalating to deadly force?

Clearly the answer is no. If you instigate the violence, you lose the right of self-defense UNLESS you make it clear that you are retreating. Then if the other person attacks you, you have regained the right to self-defense.

[Brian]

(03-25-2012 08:56 PM)assman Wrote:  

(03-25-2012 08:22 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  

I think the question is that if you provoke a fight and lose, are you then justified in escalating to deadly force?

Clearly the answer is no. If you instigate the violence, you lose the right of self-defense UNLESS you make it clear that you are retreating. Then if the other person attacks you, you have regained the right to self-defense.

I think the argument here is basically that Zimmerman didnt provoke a fight simply by asking Trayvon a question. In fact Trayvon provoked the fight by throwing the first punch, then mounting Zimmeran and continuing to throw punches.

[assman]

(03-25-2012 09:36 PM)Brian Wrote:  

I think the argument here is basically that Zimmerman didnt provoke a fight simply by asking Trayvon a question. In fact Trayvon provoked the fight by throwing the first punch, then mounting Zimmeran and continuing to throw punches.

Right, simply asking a question like 'what are you doing here?' isn't provocative enough to justify any physical retaliation.

If it went down like you are suggesting, given the size disparity with Zimmerman being heavier, he would have had to have been somewhat defenseless (i.e., pinned down) for there to have been a legitimate threat of great bodily harm. Getting punched in the face a few times by a guy much smaller than you doesn't rise to that level, IMO.

[Brian]

(03-25-2012 10:01 PM)assman Wrote:  

(03-25-2012 09:36 PM)Brian Wrote:  

I think the argument here is basically that Zimmerman didnt provoke a fight simply by asking Trayvon a question. In fact Trayvon provoked the fight by throwing the first punch, then mounting Zimmeran and continuing to throw punches.

Right, simply asking a question like 'what are you doing here?' isn't provocative enough to justify any physical retaliation.

If it went down like you are suggesting, given the size disparity with Zimmerman being heavier, he would have had to have been somewhat defenseless (i.e., pinned down) for there to have been a legitimate threat of great bodily harm. Getting punched in the face a few times by a guy much smaller than you doesn't rise to that level, IMO.

The first cop on the scene said that "his back appeared to be wet and was covered in grass, as if he had been laying on his back on the ground. Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and back of the head." Its pretty clear that between that and the testimony of the witness who heard Zimmerman screaming for help and say Trayvon on top that this wasnt a case of Zimmerman just shooting for no reason, and his actions fall w/in the statute of the law.

Meanwhile, the Black Panthers have placed a bounty on Zimmerman.

[assman]

(03-25-2012 10:58 PM)Brian Wrote:  

(03-25-2012 10:01 PM)assman Wrote:  

(03-25-2012 09:36 PM)Brian Wrote:  

I think the argument here is basically that Zimmerman didnt provoke a fight simply by asking Trayvon a question. In fact Trayvon provoked the fight by throwing the first punch, then mounting Zimmeran and continuing to throw punches.

Right, simply asking a question like 'what are you doing here?' isn't provocative enough to justify any physical retaliation.

If it went down like you are suggesting, given the size disparity with Zimmerman being heavier, he would have had to have been somewhat defenseless (i.e., pinned down) for there to have been a legitimate threat of great bodily harm. Getting punched in the face a few times by a guy much smaller than you doesn't rise to that level, IMO.

The first cop on the scene said that "his back appeared to be wet and was covered in grass, as if he had been laying on his back on the ground. Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and back of the head." Its pretty clear that between that and the testimony of the witness who heard Zimmerman screaming for help and say Trayvon on top that this wasnt a case of Zimmerman just shooting for no reason, and his actions fall w/in the statute of the law.

Meanwhile, the Black Panthers have placed a bounty on Zimmerman.

I wouldn't say it's 'pretty clear'. That witness that was reported didn't see the shooting. What if he fired after getting Trayvon off of him?

I agree that Zimmerman didn't shoot him for no reason, and I don't think Treyvon is the saint the media are making him out to be. But that isn't the issue when we're talking about justifiable self-defense. Seems to me this could go either way, depending on the evidence.

The Black Panthers thing is ridiculous. If the roles were reversed and it was the KKK offering a bounty, everyone would be up in arms (figuratively speaking). But because it's a black group, it's ok. Steven A. Smith (from ESPN) talked about this double standard - it hurts the black community more than it helps. IMO, guys like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton do more harm than good to the black community, unlike, say, Bill Cosby.

[jariel]

(03-25-2012 11:15 PM)assman Wrote:  

I wouldn't say it's 'pretty clear'. That witness that was reported didn't see the shooting. What if he fired after getting Trayvon off of him?

I agree that Zimmerman didn't shoot him for no reason, and I don't think Treyvon is the saint the media are making him out to be. But that isn't the issue when we're talking about justifiable self-defense. Seems to me this could go either way, depending on the evidence.

The Black Panthers thing is ridiculous. If the roles were reversed and it was the KKK offering a bounty, everyone would be up in arms (figuratively speaking). But because it's a black group, it's ok. Steven A. Smith (from ESPN) talked about this double standard - it hurts the black community more than it helps. IMO, guys like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton do more harm than good to the black community, unlike, say, Bill Cosby.

I'd be very careful in making personal assessments in this situation because it really has nothing to do with the story.

The issue is not whether or not Trayvon was a saint, but did he deserve to die in the manner that he did for the reason that he did?

The answer to that question is obviously, "no".

How many American teenagers in 2012 are saints?

There's a story on Huffington Post about little kids in Kindergarten and 3rd Grade engaging in oral sex during class.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/23...75399.html

One of the serious problems with this society is this fake moral fiber that most people to seem to have, which is likely born and bred from the falsehoods of Christianity.

[assman]

(03-25-2012 11:28 PM)jariel Wrote:  

I'd be very careful in making personal assessments in this situation because it really has nothing to do with the story.

The issue is not whether or not Trayvon was a saint, but did he deserve to die in the manner that he did for the reason that he did?

The answer to that question is obviously, "no".

Whoa, easy there.

What did I say right after that? Let me remind you:
"I don't think Treyvon is the saint the media are making him out to be. But that isn't the issue when we're talking about justifiable self-defense."

The media certainly seems to think it IS an issue because they have tried to portray him in a very positive light. I'm merely saying that I don't buy the image the media is selling.

Does it matter whether he was or wasn't? Depends on the evidence. If, for example, we have video and audio of the encounter, then no, it doesn't matter. But with evidence that paints a very incomplete picture, it does matter because the jury will have to determine facts from a partial puzzle, and things like character do matter, even though they are not dispositive. Would it matter if Zimmerman had a history of harassing and starting fights with black guys in that neighborhood?

Is it because Treyvon is the ultimate victim here that we shouldn't consider his history and character? I would assume that every guy on this site understands that in a 'he said, she said' acquaintance rape case (again, a situation with incomplete evidence), the victim's sexual history, how she dressed, etc., IS relevant, even if our PC culture has deemed otherwise.

[jariel]

(03-25-2012 11:49 PM)assman Wrote:  

Whoa, easy there.

What did I say right after that? Let me remind you:
"I don't think Treyvon is the saint the media are making him out to be. But that isn't the issue when we're talking about justifiable self-defense."

The media certainly seems to think it IS an issue because they have tried to portray him in a very positive light. I'm merely observing that I don't buy the image the media is selling.

I'm not jumping on you for your perspective, but what light should they be portraying him in?

His past is pretty clear, he has no criminal record, he was earning decent grades in school, etc.

I mean my thing is when people start trying to dig into the character's of victims, it is just so they can come full circle and have reasons to blame the victim for their demise -- which I'm not suggesting you're doing, but plenty of people on the other side of this issue are trying their hardest to do it and they're frustrated right now because they can't.

It should be remembered that this young man is gone. He's never coming back. Our lives still move forward. We can sit here and talk about him. We can run around and fuck bitches and do whatever it is that we do, and he will never have the opportunity to do anything that you and I are doing right now.

It's time that we start valuing human life period, and not just the lives of certain types of people. This story will be off our minds in a matter of months, and then he'll be on the same list as Aiyana Jones, Martin Lee Anderson, etc. meanwhile JonBenet Ramsey is still in the news.

[JayMillz]

   

[assman]

(03-26-2012 12:01 AM)jariel Wrote:  

I'm not jumping on you for your perspective, but what light should they be portraying him in?

His past is pretty clear, he has no criminal record, he was earning decent grades in school, etc.

I mean my thing is when people start trying to dig into the character's of victims, it is just so they can come full circle and have reasons to blame the victim for their demise -- which I'm not suggesting you're doing, but plenty of people on the other side of this issue are trying their hardest to do it and they're frustrated right now because they can't.

It should be remembered that this young man is gone. He's never coming back. Our lives still move forward. We can sit here and talk about him. We can run around and fuck bitches and do whatever it is that we do, and he will never have the opportunity to do anything that you and I are doing right now.

It's time that we start valuing human life period, and not just the lives of certain types of people. This story will be off our minds in a matter of months, and then he'll be on the same list as Aiyana Jones, Martin Lee Anderson, etc. meanwhile JonBenet Ramsey is still in the news.

I think the media could be more balanced here. And I certainly think the POTUS should not have politicized the issue by commenting on it the way he did.

I agree with you that this is a tragedy, and it didn't have to happen. And Zimmerman shouldn't have confronted the kid. But that doesn't mean he murdered him. We simply don't have all the evidence. So while we shouldn't crucify the kid, we shouldn't be crucifying Zimmerman either.

Mistake != Murder

[JayMillz]

ALEC: Paul Krugman takes them on

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/opinio...money.html
Op-Ed Columnist

Lobbyists, Guns and Money
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: March 25, 2012

Florida’s now-infamous Stand Your Ground law, which lets you shoot someone you consider threatening without facing arrest, let alone prosecution, sounds crazy — and it is. And it’s tempting to dismiss this law as the work of ignorant yahoos. But similar laws have been pushed across the nation, not by ignorant yahoos but by big corporations.

Specifically, language virtually identical to Florida’s law is featured in a template supplied to legislators in other states by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a corporate-backed organization that has managed to keep a low profile even as it exerts vast influence (only recently, thanks to yeoman work by the Center for Media and Democracy, has a clear picture of ALEC’s activities emerged). And if there is any silver lining to Trayvon Martin’s killing, it is that it might finally place a spotlight on what ALEC is doing to our society — and our democracy.

What is ALEC? Despite claims that it’s nonpartisan, it’s very much a movement-conservative organization, funded by the usual suspects: the Kochs, Exxon Mobil, and so on. Unlike other such groups, however, it doesn’t just influence laws, it literally writes them, supplying fully drafted bills to state legislators. In Virginia, for example, more than 50 ALEC-written bills have been introduced, many almost word for word. And these bills often become law.

Many ALEC-drafted bills pursue standard conservative goals: union-busting, undermining environmental protection, tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy. ALEC seems, however, to have a special interest in privatization — that is, on turning the provision of public services, from schools to prisons, over to for-profit corporations. And some of the most prominent beneficiaries of privatization, such as the online education company K12 Inc. and the prison operator Corrections Corporation of America, are, not surprisingly, very much involved with the organization.

What this tells us, in turn, is that ALEC’s claim to stand for limited government and free markets is deeply misleading. To a large extent the organization seeks not limited government but privatized government, in which corporations get their profits from taxpayer dollars, dollars steered their way by friendly politicians. In short, ALEC isn’t so much about promoting free markets as it is about expanding crony capitalism.

And in case you were wondering, no, the kind of privatization ALEC promotes isn’t in the public interest; instead of success stories, what we’re getting is a series of scandals. Private charter schools, for example, appear to deliver a lot of profits but little in the way of educational achievement.

But where does the encouragement of vigilante (in)justice fit into this picture? In part it’s the same old story — the long-standing exploitation of public fears, especially those associated with racial tension, to promote a pro-corporate, pro-wealthy agenda. It’s neither an accident nor a surprise that the National Rifle Association and ALEC have been close allies all along.

And ALEC, even more than other movement-conservative organizations, is clearly playing a long game. Its legislative templates aren’t just about generating immediate benefits to the organization’s corporate sponsors; they’re about creating a political climate that will favor even more corporation-friendly legislation in the future.

Did I mention that ALEC has played a key role in promoting bills that make it hard for the poor and ethnic minorities to vote?

Yet that’s not all; you have to think about the interests of the penal-industrial complex — prison operators, bail-bond companies and more. (The American Bail Coalition has publicly described ALEC as its “life preserver.”) This complex has a financial stake in anything that sends more people into the courts and the prisons, whether it’s exaggerated fear of racial minorities or Arizona’s draconian immigration law, a law that followed an ALEC template almost verbatim.

Think about that: we seem to be turning into a country where crony capitalism doesn’t just waste taxpayer money but warps criminal justice, in which growing incarceration reflects not the need to protect law-abiding citizens but the profits corporations can reap from a larger prison population.

Now, ALEC isn’t single-handedly responsible for the corporatization of our political life; its influence is as much a symptom as a cause. But shining a light on ALEC and its supporters — a roster that includes many companies, from AT&T and Coca-Cola to UPS, that have so far managed to avoid being publicly associated with the hard-right agenda — is one good way to highlight what’s going on. And that kind of knowledge is what we need to start taking our country back.

[Brian]

(03-26-2012 12:01 AM)jariel Wrote:  

(03-25-2012 11:49 PM)assman Wrote:  

Whoa, easy there.

What did I say right after that? Let me remind you:
"I don't think Treyvon is the saint the media are making him out to be. But that isn't the issue when we're talking about justifiable self-defense."

The media certainly seems to think it IS an issue because they have tried to portray him in a very positive light. I'm merely observing that I don't buy the image the media is selling.

I'm not jumping on you for your perspective, but what light should they be portraying him in?

His past is pretty clear, he has no criminal record, he was earning decent grades in school, etc.

I mean my thing is when people start trying to dig into the character's of victims, it is just so they can come full circle and have reasons to blame the victim for their demise -- which I'm not suggesting you're doing, but plenty of people on the other side of this issue are trying their hardest to do it and they're frustrated right now because they can't.

It should be remembered that this young man is gone. He's never coming back. Our lives still move forward. We can sit here and talk about him. We can run around and fuck bitches and do whatever it is that we do, and he will never have the opportunity to do anything that you and I are doing right now.

It's time that we start valuing human life period, and not just the lives of certain types of people. This story will be off our minds in a matter of months, and then he'll be on the same list as Aiyana Jones, Martin Lee Anderson, etc. meanwhile JonBenet Ramsey is still in the news.

So what did he do to get suspended from school for 5 days?

[assman]

(03-26-2012 08:46 AM)JayMillz Wrote:  

ALEC: Paul Krugman takes them on

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/opinio...money.html
Op-Ed Columnist

Lobbyists, Guns and Money
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: March 25, 2012

Florida’s now-infamous Stand Your Ground law, which lets you shoot someone you consider threatening without facing arrest, let alone prosecution, sounds crazy — and it is. And it’s tempting to dismiss this law as the work of ignorant yahoos. But similar laws have been pushed across the nation, not by ignorant yahoos but by big corporations.

Specifically, language virtually identical to Florida’s law is featured in a template supplied to legislators in other states by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a corporate-backed organization that has managed to keep a low profile even as it exerts vast influence (only recently, thanks to yeoman work by the Center for Media and Democracy, has a clear picture of ALEC’s activities emerged). And if there is any silver lining to Trayvon Martin’s killing, it is that it might finally place a spotlight on what ALEC is doing to our society — and our democracy.

What is ALEC? Despite claims that it’s nonpartisan, it’s very much a movement-conservative organization, funded by the usual suspects: the Kochs, Exxon Mobil, and so on. Unlike other such groups, however, it doesn’t just influence laws, it literally writes them, supplying fully drafted bills to state legislators. In Virginia, for example, more than 50 ALEC-written bills have been introduced, many almost word for word. And these bills often become law.

Many ALEC-drafted bills pursue standard conservative goals: union-busting, undermining environmental protection, tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy. ALEC seems, however, to have a special interest in privatization — that is, on turning the provision of public services, from schools to prisons, over to for-profit corporations. And some of the most prominent beneficiaries of privatization, such as the online education company K12 Inc. and the prison operator Corrections Corporation of America, are, not surprisingly, very much involved with the organization.

What this tells us, in turn, is that ALEC’s claim to stand for limited government and free markets is deeply misleading. To a large extent the organization seeks not limited government but privatized government, in which corporations get their profits from taxpayer dollars, dollars steered their way by friendly politicians. In short, ALEC isn’t so much about promoting free markets as it is about expanding crony capitalism.

And in case you were wondering, no, the kind of privatization ALEC promotes isn’t in the public interest; instead of success stories, what we’re getting is a series of scandals. Private charter schools, for example, appear to deliver a lot of profits but little in the way of educational achievement.

But where does the encouragement of vigilante (in)justice fit into this picture? In part it’s the same old story — the long-standing exploitation of public fears, especially those associated with racial tension, to promote a pro-corporate, pro-wealthy agenda. It’s neither an accident nor a surprise that the National Rifle Association and ALEC have been close allies all along.

And ALEC, even more than other movement-conservative organizations, is clearly playing a long game. Its legislative templates aren’t just about generating immediate benefits to the organization’s corporate sponsors; they’re about creating a political climate that will favor even more corporation-friendly legislation in the future.

Did I mention that ALEC has played a key role in promoting bills that make it hard for the poor and ethnic minorities to vote?

Yet that’s not all; you have to think about the interests of the penal-industrial complex — prison operators, bail-bond companies and more. (The American Bail Coalition has publicly described ALEC as its “life preserver.”) This complex has a financial stake in anything that sends more people into the courts and the prisons, whether it’s exaggerated fear of racial minorities or Arizona’s draconian immigration law, a law that followed an ALEC template almost verbatim.

Think about that: we seem to be turning into a country where crony capitalism doesn’t just waste taxpayer money but warps criminal justice, in which growing incarceration reflects not the need to protect law-abiding citizens but the profits corporations can reap from a larger prison population.

Now, ALEC isn’t single-handedly responsible for the corporatization of our political life; its influence is as much a symptom as a cause. But shining a light on ALEC and its supporters — a roster that includes many companies, from AT&T and Coca-Cola to UPS, that have so far managed to avoid being publicly associated with the hard-right agenda — is one good way to highlight what’s going on. And that kind of knowledge is what we need to start taking our country back.

What a joke. No relevant facts, just tenuous (at best) links to the issue at hand. The NY Times is very anti-gun and has no reservations about distorting the facts to make its case. I can post an example if anyone is interested.

And we have to listen to Paul Krugman of all people talk about crony capitalism??? He who has been advocating for ever more money printing by the Federal Reserve? It is to laugh.

[ATTA]

(03-23-2012 05:09 PM)Baldwin81 Wrote:  

(03-23-2012 04:11 PM)JayMillz Wrote:  

(03-23-2012 03:33 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Do me a favor. This is in the news because black people spoke up about it and white-controlled media outlets began reporting it. Furthermore, most white people of certain social class know the kid who wanted to be cop or a soldier and for whatever reason couldn't cut it. Fast-forward ten years, a hundred Chuck Norris movies later, and you have Mr. Zimmerman. This says nothing of Zimmerman's guilt, innocence or of his race. I can tell you that there are no shortage of angry, afc white dudes who'd do the same thing. Any American white man who disagrees with me needs to get their eyes and ears checked.

Get over yourself. I disagree with you and I don't need to be 'checked'.

[Baldwin81]

(03-26-2012 09:16 AM)ATTA Wrote:  

(03-23-2012 05:09 PM)Baldwin81 Wrote:  

(03-23-2012 04:11 PM)JayMillz Wrote:  

(03-23-2012 03:33 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Do me a favor. This is in the news because black people spoke up about it and white-controlled media outlets began reporting it. Furthermore, most white people of certain social class know the kid who wanted to be cop or a soldier and for whatever reason couldn't cut it. Fast-forward ten years, a hundred Chuck Norris movies later, and you have Mr. Zimmerman. This says nothing of Zimmerman's guilt, innocence or of his race. I can tell you that there are no shortage of angry, afc white dudes who'd do the same thing. Any American white man who disagrees with me needs to get their eyes and ears checked.

Get over yourself. I disagree with you and I don't need to be 'checked'.

Heh. If you say so...

[Menace]

Ultimately, the character of Zimmerman or Martin doesn't matter. Bad grades or getting suspended from school are not factors that justify killing someone. It's easy to get angry about the media portrayal of this event as white guy kills black guy, which in this case is both untrue and unfair. I think it's BS too. It's happening because there is just no solid information about what happened, so people naturally have to fill things in.

Martin is dead, and Zimmerman killed him. No one seems to be disputing that. All that really matters is determining whether Zimmerman's killing was justifiable under the law or not. The big failure here was the police department's failure to investigate the killing.

I have to agree that it was incredibly stupid of Obama to make comments about his case, but it's election season, so I'm not surprised.

[JayMillz]

(03-26-2012 09:06 AM)assman Wrote:  

No relevant facts, just tenuous (at best) links to the issue at hand.

Here is an example of ALEC at work. A publicly traded corporation worked through ALEC to get Arizona's controversial anti-immigration law passed. The company was seeking to increase its market with an inmate population that is not well regarded in the states, is cheap to house because they are being warehoused with no programing, and Arizona actually passed legislation that provides exclusive tax incentives for companies that operate prisons. The company in this example actually builds prisons on "speculation" and gets small towns to buy into these projects for the promise of jobs. Once the bonds are sold and there are financial interests, there also becomes an incentive to keep the prisons full, which, in turn, leads to greater profits for Wall Street investors.

http://www.npr.org/2010/10/28/130833741/...ration-law