…we’re just not going to tell our viewers. At Norman’s Spectator:
In the NY Times, Why TV news seldom correct errors on-air http://tinyurl.com/7kkxb5r
But, as Mr Spector also notes, the Gray Lady herself in not above, er, reproach (our papers are at least as bad)–especially regarding a certain president:
SUNDAY, APRIL 22, 2012
…
A NYT column the likes of which we should be reading in Canadian newspapers http://tinyurl.com/7fv9rej
Related to Mr Zimmerman:
White?
In my view, this whole mess was spawned by bad laws. Nowhere else in the western world is a comparable legal concept to stand your ground. Perhaps that is so because the state has a monopoly on violence and properly asserts its right to have such a monopoly. Perhaps it is to prevent the outbreak (or should I say continuation) of vendetta.
Vendetta like in the killings of 3 blacks and the shooting of 2 others in Tulsa Oaklahoma where one of the white mass murderers was motivated by the death of his father at the hands of a black killer who was released without prosecution due to stand your ground laws.
Stand your ground laws are just bad policy. If the goal is to prevent violence and needless deaths amongst the populace, well, this law clearly fails at the task. If the goal is public order and safety, this law fails at that task. Trayvon is merely one of many victims of the terrible policy choice made.
Everyone in the relevant jurisdictions has been made less safe as result of the SYG laws. Now, if one has a disagreement on the street, one must fear for one’s life as someone may feel entitled to kill you and have a sufficiently viable defense to not fear a realistic chance of prosecution. Does anyone really want to live in the Old West anymore?
The right to self defense can be taken too far. Where the line ought to be drawn is unclear, but when simply walking home by a different route gets a teenager killed, probably the line has been drawn in the wrong place.
The Wet One
Actually Mark, as I cluebatted Iberia the troll the other day Zimmerman IS white, because there’s no such thing as “Hispanic”. Its a made-up bullsh1t classification created by socialists so they could have another special victim category to put on their reservation.
But since they created it, we get to smash them over the head with it. You don’t get to move the goalposts this time Lefties, no “white Hispanic” circumlocutions for you.
Well, unless you want to go back to the mulatto, quadroon, octaroon classification we finally managed to crush in the 1960’s. Trust a Lefty to go and dig up some stinking corpse like that, eh?
Hey wet one, I think I Figured out why you are so wet. It’s because you get caught up in the effects and draw conclusions from that rather than look at the cause. The reason Zimmerman is the media racist of the week is because of a Whitehouse decree, nothing else. SYG laws are a return to the common-law right to security in the domicile – called castle laws in England for over 800 years. In self defense cases SYG laws do not protect the victor in a gun fight they protect the defender. If that small fact escapes you then you have a twisted perspective of law, civil liberty and fundamental justice – or is “social justice” the goal? If that’s the case, you’ll never be satisfied with almost a millennia of common-law precedent concerning civil rights and self defense.
Back to the Zimmerman file, we are woefully uninformed about the facts in the case, who attacked who, who was on the defensive – without that speculation about cause and effect is moot.
Occam, exactly and very well said.
Two acquaintances of mine mentioned the Zimmerman case last weekend. They are both very knowledgeable, very level headed, did well in life, had responsible jobs.
But they both make one huge mistake in life.
When I mentioned the broken nose, the gash to the head, the ‘black’ comment – they were both shocked that they knew nothing at all about these blatant ‘guilty by omission’, twisting the facts media malpractice ways.
About the only mistake my two acquaintances make in life? They rely on the news media for their information source.
The Zimmerman lynching is a classic case of social justice in action. A “white hispanic” shoots a black man boy therefore someone must die. That’s social justice.
Here Wet One.. this vid is just for you…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKnEAC-7WVo
Try and remember there are many of us who believe and live by this code of conduct.
Ps.. quite a few of us are armed as well.
As an after thought read this as well …and learn something.
http://corneredcat.com/Why_the_Gun_is_Civilization/
excerpt..When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
The Wet Dream has spoken.
All hail the new messiah.
” … About the only mistake my two acquaintances make in life? They rely on the news media for their information source. …”
This seems to be true more often than not , as most people still rely on the media , and unless the blogs identify some MSM report so blatantly wrong or deliberately misrepresented it goes unchallenged.
A good illustration is here in Ontario the MSM completely ignores the PC (Hudak)complaints about McGuinty’s proposed budget.
The Wet Wit has spoken (predictably) an horrific lie. Stand Your Ground laws were enacted specifically to counter decades of erosion in the right to self defense by trial lawyers and activist judges.
Previous to Stand Your Ground and Castle Doctrine laws being passed, it was considered permissible to use a weapon (any weapon, not just firearms) in self defense ONLY if the person being attacked -fled- and was pursued. Meaning people were expected to run -out- of their own house before engaging an assailant. As a practical matter there was no way to survive an attack and escape being charged and having your financial well being destroyed by the courts. It was cheaper and better to allow robbers to destroy one’s home than to defend it.
That is still very much the case in Canada as we see time and again where shop owners and homeowners are ruined by lawyer’s fees for defending their property. The Zimmerman case is just more of the same, this time with WetWillie’s little friends overriding the state law by use of rioting and propaganda.
William in Ajax at April 23, 2012 11:21 AM — ‘excerpt..When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone.
Yes, exactly! Anyone confused about why we carry (legally) should follow that second link so helpfully provided by ‘William in Ajax’. Thanks, William!
.
Alan Rock still has a fan in the wet one. This comes from the mindset of statists who believe that rights are granted by our betters rather than inherently existent.
As for attempting to reform the NYT, that is a waste of energy. That organization deserves to go under.
Occam, you are right. It is unconscionable for a government administration to ever comment on an incident that is or may be sub judice. The White House behaved very badly on this occasion. I can’t help but wonder where their lawyers were when the President shot his mouth off on this issue.
A predictable response. It’s kinda funny in fact and worthy of a chuckle or three.
Can anyone explain to me why Trayvon should not have been left alone? Was it merely because he was not carrying a gun and didn’t shoot Zimmerman first?
Race hasn’t got a thing to do with this case. It is totally irrelevant. The law, and the expansion of the Castle Doctrine to the street (which is rather different than one’s castle or domicile) is the problem.
But then, I suppose, being the target of your hostility, I should walk around and carry a gun. And if anyone should happen to threaten me after trying to carry on a reasonable discussion about policy, on the street, at a cafe or wherever, well that’s it for them, they’ll be getting it right between the eyes.
Is that what you’re actually arguing for?
I think one could very well make out the case that whichever of the political sh*t disturbers, made one fear for their life with their off the wall positions (especially while carrying your guns), and one simply decides to off them first (especially if it’s a lefty sh*t disturber).
Or, what if a person is just pestered in public about their political views and then someone says something vaguely threatening and they are shot you down in the street. I mean, hey, why not? They acted in a threatening manner and paid the price right?
What would be your judgement on that? Is it a good law that permits this or one that even permits a person to think that such an action is lawful?
Now imagine it’s you and I, both carrying on a discussion about the issues of the day and talking politics with gusto. Should one of us actually be able to consider making the other person dead because the law provides enough cover for one of us to shoot the other?
A rational response would be appreciated, but is not expected. Surprise me!
The Wet One
The Wet One >
“Race hasn’t got a thing to do with this case….”
Race has everything to do with the case – At least it did in the beginning when everyone was convinced that Gorge Zimmerman was a Euro White. Then they discovered that he is Hispanic, and a registered Democrat at that.
Then is became a Second Amendment issue (After the race baiting angle fell apart).
Your stand your ground analysis is either delusional or purposely misleading to promote a harmful agenda – Here is a good read, you can check the FACTS and resources.
http://gunowners.org/sk0802.htm
Gun disarmament by Liberal Progressives is about repression, first they wanted to create a race war based on Mark Zimmerman being “white” and now they want to disarm honest hard working Black Americans……. I’d tell you to get your facts strait, but I know you’re not interested in facts; you have an agenda to meet.
No Guns for Negro’s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaX3EM-fsc8
The Wet One #2 >
“Or, what if a person is just pestered in public about their political views and then someone says something vaguely threatening and they are shot you down in the street.”
Please site one example in history of this happening – LOL
Where delusional people like you get it wrong, is the belief that you will get guns off the street. It has worked out so well for drugs after all hasn’t it? You don’t need to carry a gun if you don’t want too, but your utopian lunacy prevents you from understanding that there are guns around you 24/7 and yet you still somehow manage to live through the day.
Did you really think that when the Liberals enacted the Long Gun Registry that ALL Canadians registered their guns? Why on earth do you think nearly 100% of gun owners came forward to say “you have made us criminals” and then proceeded to wiped out the Liberal Party, voted for Harper and then scrapped the registry. The reason is because they didn’t register their guns to comply with the law Wet One, millions of guns went unregistered; thus good people had become criminals overnight.
Watch the documentary I linked above called “No Guns for Negro’s” to know we know.
We citizens of all races are all Negro’s to the Liberal Progressive establishment. Your assertions are ridiculous and misleading, not one person with a bit of common sense will ever buy into your disarmament garbage, and you will never have your way about it. But thanks for the Pro Gun platform you give us anyway; we have a lot of facts to get out there to the unaware.
The Wet Wit said: “Can anyone explain to me why Trayvon should not have been left alone?”
Because he knocked a total stranger to the ground and started trying to crush the guy’s skull on the pavement. Pictures are on the web. Eye witness testimony is on the web. Zimmerman defended himself -during- a potentially fatal beating. Classic self defense. Zimmerman was charged with 2nd Degree Murder because the Governor of Florida wants to avoid having several of his cities burnt down by race riots.
Witty also said: “Should one of us actually be able to consider making the other person dead because the law provides enough cover for one of us to shoot the other?”
You are a very delusional person with zero self defense training. Rule One of staying out of trouble is not discussing religion or politics with people you don’t know. Its a standing order in the Canadian Forces that religion and politics are banned from discussion in the mess. It starts fights.
Concealed carry laws make it potentially fatal to attack people you don’t know. They could shoot you. Therefore the rational man behaves himself, speaks politely and doesn’t create trouble where there is none. Most people learn this in public school, you seem to have evaded that lesson.
Finally this Weticism: “A rational response would be appreciated, but is not expected. Surprise me!”
Given the above I doubt you’d recognize rationality if it walked up and slapped you with a flounder. Your entire argument is a fairly lame restatement of the tired old “There will be blood in the streets!” canard so beloved of gun control freaks everywhere. It never happens. Anywhere.
Every time “shall issue” concealed carry permits are enacted in a US state, thousands of guys go get them and start carrying pistols. The number of people killed by gunshot has -decreased- by double digit percent in every single state. Including Florida.
Arizona recently did away with their pistol permits altogether, there is now no permit required for concealed or open carry at all. For anyone. They also have a Castle Doctrine law. Guess what happened to the murder rate?
Stand your ground should be the norm and if necessary the LAW everywhere.