Look, I want to give Bill Cosby his props. He’s been speaking up courageously for years on the problems within the black community, and he’s gotten a lot of flak for it. It can’t have been easy for him.
Here are some excerpts from the address Cosby gave to the NAACP in 2004 on the 50th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education. You may have heard of Cosby’s speech because it got a lot of press, and evoked a lot of backlash. But have you ever read it? The guy did not pull his punches:
Now, look, I’m telling you. It’s not what they’re doing to us. It’s what we’re not doing. 50 percent drop out. Look, we’re raising our own ingrown immigrants. These people are fighting hard to be ignorant. There’s no English being spoken, and they’re walking and they’re angry. Oh God, they’re angry and they have pistols and they shoot and they do stupid things. And after they kill somebody, they don’t have a plan. Just murder somebody. Boom. Over what? A pizza?…
Five or six different children — same woman, eight, ten different husbands or whatever. Pretty soon you’re going to have to have DNA cards so you can tell who you’re making love to. You don’t who this is. It might be your grandmother. I’m telling you, they’re young enough. Hey, you have a baby when you’re twelve. Your baby turns thirteen and has a baby, how old are you? Huh? Grandmother…
I’m telling you Christians, what’s wrong with you? Why can’t you hit the streets? Why can’t you clean it out yourselves? It’s our time now, ladies and gentlemen. It is our time. And I’ve got good news for you. It’s not about money. It’s about you doing something ordinarily that we do — get in somebody else’s business. It’s time for you to not accept the language that these people are speaking, which will take them nowhere. What the hell good is Brown v. Board of Education if nobody wants it?
It’s worth reading the whole thing, but that’s the basic idea.
So one might think that Cosby would have something insightful to say about the Zimmerman/Martin case. And in a sense he does. In this interview, he downplayed the possible role of racism in the killing, which is a valuable message. He also said not to trust the media reports on these things because they tend to distort them. True enough. In addition, he said the prosecution failed to prove its case; can’t argue with that assessment, either. But Cosby had the following curious things to say on the self-defense and firearm possession aspects of the case [emphasis mine]:
I know that if you have a gun, it changes your whole feeling about what you can tell people, about how people better do what you say. Your mind can turn in such a way that you have a sense of control and power. I see a thing and so forth and so on [unintelligible] OK just stay where you are and don’t, but I got a gun.
Let’s not go into a racial discussion unless we really have something there. But we do know that he [Zimmerman] had a gun. And we do know that the Florida state law says you have a right to defend yourself, that means both people. So you have a gun and you come up to me and I don’t have a gun, but then you show me your gun and I become frightened and according to the State of Florida, I have a right to defend myself. According to the State of Florida, the person with the gun has the right to defend him or herself. I mean this is getting out of line.
What on earth does the fact situation Cosby describes have to do with the Zimmerman/Martin case, except in Cosby’s imagination? Does Cosby think that Zimmerman walked up to Martin and flashed a gun, and Martin “became frightened”? If so, why did Zimmerman then wait all that time while his head was being bashed on the pavement, screaming at the top of his lungs for help, before using that gun on Martin?
What’s more, as little as Cosby seems to know about the evidence in the Zimmerman case of how the confrontation went down, he unfortunately seems to know even less about the responsibilities and attitudes of most legal concealed carriers in general. For that, ask attorney Andrew Branca, who is not directly addressing Cosby’s statements in the following, but might as well be:
AB: I’d say the biggest misconception is that if you’re carrying a gun you get to take shit from fewer people. The reality is exactly opposite. When you’re carrying a gun you have to take shit from everybody. Except, of course, the guy actually trying to kill you. You can shoot him. That’s the tradeoff. The gun gives you the practical means to end the life of anybody in your immediate vicinity. In exchange for that power it is your moral and legal responsibility to conduct yourself in such a way as to make that outcome as unlikely as possible. The last thing you want to do if you’re carrying is to be the one who even inadvertently escalates a non-deadly encounter to a deadly one. Confronting the drunk loudmouth who’s making a scene at the table next to you in a restaurant, for example, may be seen as a potentially very bad idea if you think a few steps down the line. Best to just let it go, and just go, leave. One of my primary tactical rules of self-defense is to vacate the area at the first sign of a red flag. Let the bad stuff go down while you’re safely somewhere else.
There’s every indication that Zimmerman tried to do just that and did not “confront” Martin, but that “the bad stuff” came to get him anyway. And yet Cosby’s point of view and his state of ignorance on the case is mild compared to that of so many people who continue to opine about it. You know the drill: Zimmerman the racist; Zimmerman followed Martin; Zimmerman confronted Martin.
It might have been understandable for many people to believe these things for the first few weeks after the killing. But in the meantime there’s been a trial here. With evidence, yet. And anyone who paid attention to the trial, anyone who listened to the recording of Zimmerman’s non-emergency call, anyone who looked at the evidence, should know better.
But this case has something for everyone, and it’s the gift that keeps on giving. Want to rail against the racism of white people? Want to take on Stand Your Ground? Want to campaign for more gun control? Then talk about this case.
Cosby’s message is about gun control, an issue about which he feels strongly. From the start of the Zimmerman case, long before the trial, he saw it as an issue about guns and made it clear he didn’t think Zimmerman should have been carrying one. Cosby has a reason to feel so strongly about guns (he’s not against possessing one in the home, by the way): his only son was shot and killed in 1997 while changing a tire, by a man who was attempting to rob him.
The man who killed Ennis Cosby was a criminal, a Ukrainian immigrant 18 years of age named Mikhail Markhasev who had come here with his mother at the age of nine. Although I’ve been unable to ascertain whether he had a concealed carry permit for the gun he used to kill Ennis Cosby, it is nearly impossible to believe that he did. Not only his age but his background (he was a gang member and had spent six months in a correctional facility after having attacked two African-American men at a gas station with a knife) argues against it. So what gun law would have stopped him, and what concealed carry ban would have changed anything? The concealed carry laws in California, where the crime took place, are among the strictest in the nation, by the way.
It’s not at all difficult to understand why Bill Cosby might have a special reason to want to keep guns away from violent criminals. We all would like to do that, but we have yet to figure out a way to accomplish it. George Zimmerman was not a criminal, however, and the fact situation of the Martin killing bears no resemblance to that of the Ennis Cosby murder. It’s not beyond the realm of possibility that, if Zimmerman had not had a gun with him that night, it would have been Zimmerman who would have ended up either gravely injured (brain damage) or even dead.
[Neo-neocon is a writer with degrees in law and family therapy, who blogs at neo-neocon.]
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
And that’s exactly what Zimmerman did not do. And that’s why so many people think Zimmerman was culpable in the death of an unarmed teenager.
William A. Jacobson: There’s every indication that Zimmerman tried to do just that and did not “confront” Martin, but that “the bad stuff” came to get him anyway.
Actually, Jeantel’s testimony was that Martin attempted to avoid Zimmerman, that Zimmerman reappeared behind him, and then Martin said “Get off, get off”. Martin had a right to defend himself.
Ding! Ding! Ding! Thanks for playing, but I’m afraid there are no parting gifts for you.
Did you actually watch any of the trial, or are you just parroting what you’ve heard others say? If you’ve been following this blog, then you have even more reason to discount Jeantel’s highly biased testimony. Testimony that she first gave in the Martin home surrounded by Martin’s family, and then changed several times over the course of discovery.
Please, if you want to race-bait, do it someplace where the trial has not been closely followed.
Jeantel’s testimony would not have stood up in a kangaroo court let alone a criminal court. She added and changed several things in her court statement that were not in her pretrial statement. In fact you are wrong because she said that TM was going to give GZ some whoopass. She also said that TM was afraid that GZ might be a homo and was worried about being raped by him! Not only did TM racially insult GZ, by calling him a “Creepy ass cracka”, but then did it again by concluding that he was gay! GZ stated that TM walked up to him and said “You got a problem with me?”. So how could GZ have appeared behind him? And even if your wrong theory was correct tell me the transition from GZ stalking TM, appearing behind him with his gun and then getting his brains beaten out by TM. It’s kinda hard to imagine that scenario.
Baloney.
That’s what you want to think, that Martin was avoiding Zimmerman and Zimmerman came out of the blue and jumped Martin. The evidence shows otherwise. He had stopped following Martin, could not see him, and out of the blue, Martin jumps Zimmerman. It is Martin on top of Zimmerman hitting him MMA, it is Zimmerman with the head injuries and broken nose – not Martin.
And BTW, I would consider Jeantel’s testimony, that Martin was trying to “avoid” Zimmerman as hearsay. Nothing about Martin indicates he was doing that. Martin was bigger and stronger than Zimmerman, an athlete who trained in MMA. I guess you’re going to keep deliberately trying to spread lies to make them into facts, but you do a disservice to reason, logic and the law itself with that approach.
Jeantel’s testimony on the stand was highly dubious because of the circumstances of her deposition. Sybrina Fulton, Martin’s biological mother, sat next to her, with Benjamin sitting across from her while Bernie De LaRosa interviewed her. No law enforcement was present at the request of Sybrina Fulton. This combined with her previous lies (her age, why she missed the funeral, ect…) make your use of her testimony very strange.
First problem with your comment:
1. A. Rachel Jeantel, aka DeeDee, aka Diamond Eugene’s testimony is just her word, with no substantiating proof of its veracity. B. Her accounts changed with every subsequent sworn testimony and in court. C. Law Enforcement officer Dennis Root said her account did not correlate with that of the other witnesses and therefore could not be incorporated into a timeline.
2. You have no proof of your contention that Zimmerman instigated the fight and jumped Martin first.
3. ‘Get off’ is a street fighter slang for ‘Come on, let’s fight.’
4. Several firearms and martial arts experts said Zimmerman showed great reticence to use his firearm, and waited until Martin grabbed for it while uttering threats.
You have come here over and over with your same baseless contentions that are contradicted by the maps of the crime scene, the word of witnesses, knowledge available of the consistent personality traits and behaviors of the two persons involved and ordinary common sense.
Sure, you can choose to ignore the testimony of the last person to talk to Martin before he was shot.
I don’t think you ignore it, rather take it with a grain of salt.
Her entire deposition is corrupted by Crump – if you think an honest forthright witness squirms on the stand (same as Tracy when attempting to discredit the fact that he said it wasn’t his son’s voice) you’re mistaken.
To believe it went down differently you have to assume GZ is an incredible liar – almost sociopathic. To have told his story to the law 4 different times(with minor details added/recalled in each one)without a lawyer present, and he had already called the NEN prior to plotting the murder of some black kid in his neighborhood – then you’re borderline delusional
Jeantel’s testimony was consistent with the evidence and with common sense. There’s no reason for Martin to attack Zimmerman other than because Zimmerman was following him in the dark. Zimmerman claimed that Martin said “You’re going to die tonight”. That only made sense when Zimmerman thought he was dealing with a dangerous, drugged-out prowler, rather than a kid returning from the store after buying his step-brother some candy.
It was Zimmerman’s duty to avoid a confrontation where someone might feel threatened precipitating a fight. He should have been at his truck waiting for the police.
For one he was not buying anything for his step brother, there was no step brother, just a child of his dad’s girlfriend. Secondly the Skittles and Watermelon cocktail where more than likely for TM,won’t even get into that. If you think Rachel is so credible think about her statement post trial saying that TM did attack GZ first and that GZ should have just taken the beat down.
Martin was a drugged-out prowler. Or rather, he was a habitual drug user (though not on them at the time), and he was either casing houses for burglary, or doing something unexplained that looked exactly like that. He was certainly not simply “returning from the store” — if he’d done that he’d have been home by the time Zimmerman drove past.
And no, Zimmerman had no duty to avoid a confrontation. It might have been wise for him to do so, but carrying a gun does not diminish a person’s right to go about his lawful business as usual.
Trayvon WAS a dangerous drugged out character. His school/police record, his twaeets show that’s how he saw himself too. Trayvon was violent and looking for a gun – an illegal one.
Give it up Z.
bizbach: the Skittles and Watermelon cocktail where more than likely for TM,won’t even get into that.
The Skittles were for Chad, his soon-to-be step-brother.
bizbach: He was certainly not simply “returning from the store”
He was also talking on the phone.
Milhouse: Zimmerman had no duty to avoid a confrontation.
The problem with being armed and not avoiding confrontation with the unarmed is patently obvious.
The Skittles were for Chad, his soon-to-be step-brother.
And you know this how? Just because Chad said so?!
Still, it doesn’t matter who they were for. Let’s just go with Chad’s word, since it makes no difference.
bizbach: He was certainly not simply “returning from the store”
He was also talking on the phone.
How’s that relevant? It was raining, and instead of going straight home he was wandering around, checking out the houses. Why was he doing that, if not to burgle them? He certainly looked like a burglar, that’s the obvious thing anyone who saw him would suspect, and since we know that he was in fact a burglar the most logical explanation for what he was doing that night is that he was preparing to continue his criminal career.
Milhouse: Zimmerman had no duty to avoid a confrontation.
The problem with being armed and not avoiding confrontation with the unarmed is patently obvious.
The legal problem? You claimed that he had a duty to avoid a confrontation. Defend that claim, or withdraw it. Where does such a duty come from? Which law imposes such a duty on a person just because he’s armed?
There is the missing four minutes. How do you explain that? Martin was less than a minute from home when he disappeared from view – but four minutes later, Zimmerman is on the ground with Martin on top of him. If he was so terrified of Zimmerman, why didn’t he just go home. Look at the diagrams of the scene. Open your eyes.
JoAnne: Martin was less than a minute from home when he disappeared from view
So was Zimmerman.
JoAnne: Martin was less than a minute from home when he disappeared from view
So was Zimmerman
Huh? Zimmerman was less than a minute from home?! Are you nuts? You can’t possibly mean that. In any case, how is it relevant? Z wasn’t heading for home. He was waiting for the police. So even if he had lived less than a minute away, why would you expect him to have gone there?
Zimmerman was on his way back to his truck after looking for the address of the clubhouse. You really need to read the transcripts of the trial instead of listening to MSNBC.
http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/evidence-that-trayvon-martin-doubled-back
Zacharial:
You said: “There’s no reason for Martin to attack Zimmerman other than because Zimmerman was following him in the dark.”
And yet, the evidence indicates that Martin did attack Zimmerman, sooo maybe you need to reconsider your premise that a given person’s actions will be objectively “reasonable”, to wit:
a) Perhaps Martin simply decided to mug Zimmerman;
b) Perhaps Martin resented Zimmerman following him, and thought he would teach Z a lesson;
c) Perhaps Martin wanted something to brag about on Facebook for his gangsta cred;
d) Perhaps Martin wanted to impress Jeantel about how tough he was;
e) Perhaps Martin wanted to prove what a man he was to himself.
You could play the “could have been” game forever. With your premise, there is no reason for people to sell drugs, drop out of school, create babies they can’t pay for, etc. Yet, all these things happen.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Milhouse: Huh? Zimmerman was less than a minute from home?!
Yes, and also less than a minute from his truck.
JoAnne: Zimmerman was on his way back to his truck after looking for the address of the clubhouse.
That doesn’t account for four minutes.
SqueekyFromm: And yet, the evidence indicates that Martin did attack Zimmerman, sooo maybe you need to reconsider your premise that a given person’s actions will be objectively “reasonable”
The evidence indicates an altercation.
Trayvon probably found cough syrup in the house and went to the store to get the rest. He had liver damage consistent with excessive use of this concoction.
Even with the best parenting, some young people will turn out poorly. And with the kind Trayvon was getting he was pretty much doomed.
Daddy should have been home with him, forcing him to study or do KP, he should have taken his phone and allowed no other entertainment. Instead daddy was chasing tail and Trayvon was free to get into more trouble.
Are we ignoring the part where TM tells here he’s in his father’s back yard, too? Because the fight started 70 yards away at the point where GZ lost sight of TM.
If J’s story is correct, then the fight should have started in TM’s dad’s back yard. It didn’t.
DavidInAuburn: Are we ignoring the part where TM tells here he’s in his father’s back yard, too?
Jeantel said Martin was near his father’s home.
Which is simply not the case. That is not where the confrontation took place. That’s where TM was when he decided to GO BACK and confront GM.
Zachriel: Jeantel said Martin was near his father’s home.
deadrody: Which is simply not the case. That is not where the confrontation took place.
The confrontation took place near his father’s home.
The confrontation took place near his father’s home? Only if you consider more than 100 yards away “near”.
Yes, as in almost home.
The very real problem that you, Zachriel, and others here and elsewhere can’t seem to reconcile and stifle yourself from is condemnation by vague generalities.
Do we know the exact location where Martin was after he took off running? The answer is no…Not even Rachel knows because she was not there in person. He probably told her something like “I’m by my dad’s house” which could mean I’m in the neighborhood, I’m on the same street, or I’m looking at the front door. You can’t make a definitive statement from that quote and choose to revoke the presumption of innocence based on this ambiguity.
Likewise, you can’t make a definitive statement from yours, Cosby’s, or anyone’s personal take on “what they think really happened” and choose that as a basis of condemnation and revocation of the presumption of innocence. That’s exactly what you are doing by fabricating a story about “appearing from behind” that is patently false (or at least absent from all court proceedings including Rachel’s testimony).
I mean I guess technically you “can” but no one of intelligence and real common sense will believe you.
As to which version of her convoluted story you want to believe that is a valid point but is a whole other animal to tackle…I would say listen to the one actually from the trial where she was testifying under oath and therefore unable to “get creative”…even then you still have to subtract a few point since they were proven in court on cross examination to be inconsistent and therefore unreliable.
Also, this is just a guess but because of your simplistic style, I would venture that you either haven’t listened to the entire court proceedings or selectively removed what you didn’t want to hear.
Many that post/discuss this case in this manner would love to stay in “generality land” because that’s the only place vague logic makes sense.
Logically, it made sense that the earth was flat because anyone who had venture far away had not come back and therefore must have fallen off the earth. When hard evidence disproved this postulate, that logic suddenly became ridiculous. Dig deeper, stay objective, and you’ll get there…if you are willing.
healthguyfsu: He probably told her something like “I’m by my dad’s house” which could mean I’m in the neighborhood, I’m on the same street, or I’m looking at the front door.
What he meant, sure.
Zimmerman followed Martin, first in his truck, then on foot. According to Jeantel’s testimony, Martin was evading Zimmerman, thought he had lost him, then Zimmerman reappeared. Martin said “Get off, get off”. Within a minute Martin was fatally shot.
healthguyfsu: That’s exactly what you are doing by fabricating a story about “appearing from behind” that is patently false (or at least absent from all court proceedings including Rachel’s testimony).
“The nigga is behind me.”
healthguyfsu: You can’t make a definitive statement from that quote and choose to revoke the presumption of innocence based on this ambiguity.
We haven’t revoked anything. Zimmerman was found not guilty at trial.
Milhouse: Just because Chad said so?!
Yes. It’s what he told the police.
Milhouse: How’s that relevant?
Because teenagers talking on the phone don’t travel quickly or in straight lines. They stop and meander. If you aren’t used to watching kids talking on hands-free, you might think they were distracted, mumbling to themselves, or otherwise acting strangely. Kids!
Milhouse: He certainly looked like a burglar, that’s the obvious thing
Looks like a typical teenager talking on hands-free, that’s the obvious thing.
Milhouse: The legal problem?
The moral problem. Branca said, “In exchange for that power it is your moral and legal responsibility to conduct yourself in such a way as to make that outcome as unlikely as possible.” Branca further claims it’s a legal responsibility, though that isn’t so clear given the prevailing law in Florida.
Just because Chad said something doesn’t automatically make it true. We don’t know whom the skittles were for. Not that it matters in any way. For all we know they were a present for Jeantel, or for Malia Obama; it makes no difference.
Because teenagers talking on the phone don’t travel quickly or in straight lines. They stop and meander.
In the rain?!
Milhouse: He certainly looked like a burglar, that’s the obvious thing
Looks like a typical teenager talking on hands-free, that’s the obvious thing.
A typical teenager on the phone does not act like a burglar, peering at all the houses and ducking among them. Even when it isn’t raining.
Branca said, “In exchange for that power it is your moral and legal responsibility to conduct yourself in such a way as to make that outcome as unlikely as possible.
Branca isn’t a moral authority. I want to know what moral principle imposes such a duty. For that matter, I want to know what law imposes such a duty; I’ve never heard of one. For now I’ll take Branca’s statement as hyperbole; perhaps he’ll clarify it. But if you don’t know of such a law, you shouldn’t claim the duty existed. And if you think such a moral duty exists, please explain the moral principle from which it derives. Why should the mere possession of the means of defending oneself diminish ones ordinary right to go about ones lawful business?
Milhouse: He was caught with a burglar’s tool and jewelry that was reported stolen from a home close to his school
He was caught with a screwdriver. And the jewelry was not reported stolen.
Yes, it was. On October 21st 2011 a burglary took place a few blocks from Krop Senior High School where Trayvon Martin attended. The stolen property outlined in the Miami-Dade Police Report (PD111021-422483) matches the descriptive presented by SRO Dunn in his School Police report 2011-11477.
And yes, a screwdriver can be a burglary tool, and that is how the school police report described it.
So she claims. There’s no evidence that she spoke to him at all.
Oh, gee whiz.
What do you mean by that? Do you claim there is such evidence? If so, what is it?
We have phone records and Jeantel’s testimony.
The phone record does not indicate whom Martin was talking to. And Jeantel’s testimony has no credibility.
Here are a few issues with RJ’s claim to have been on the phone with TM directly preceding the altercation:
– The voice of the original RJ, with whom Crump recorded the ‘oral affidavit’ leading to the ‘bombshell’ which blew GZ’s claim of self-defense ‘out of the water’, is not the same voice as the RJ in court. Listen to the ‘oral affidavit’. The female is younger, more articulate, speaks at a much faster rate, and has a distinctly Southern accent. That’s a problem.
– RJ knew an extraordinary amount of detail, e.g., ‘Trayvon put his hoodie on’, for the few minutes leading up to the encounter, but replied ‘I don’t remember’ when asked about what they talked about on his 20 minute trip back from the 7-11 before seeing the creepy-ass cracka. The detail she knew so well also corresponds to the NEN and 911 calls available to TM’s entourage before RJ came forward. That’s called witness tampering, suborning perjury – fun stuff.
– RJ’s testimony, including her interviews under oath with FDLE, are not only inconsistent, but have provable lies, e.g., ‘Get off, get off.’, within them. Her other lies, such as the hospital fib, do nothing to enhance her credibility.
– She has admitted that other people used her phone near the time of the shooting and the phone itself was pre-paid, so there’s no way to ascertain who was using the phone at the time in question. When BdlR asked her in deposition if the phone was in her name, she said ‘It should be now’.
– She gave conflicting stories about how she learned of TM’s death – both who told her and the date on which she was informed. Several different accounts.
– She gave conflicting reports about how and when she was contacted by Sybrina and Tracy. She simply has no credibility at all, and that she was used as the state’s star witness, reveals the fiasco that was this show trial.
Fabi: The voice of the original RJ, with whom Crump recorded the ‘oral affidavit’ leading to the ‘bombshell’ which blew GZ’s claim of self-defense ‘out of the water’, is not the same voice as the RJ in court.
Sure, and the defense attorneys are part of the conspiracy.
Sure, and the defense attorneys are part of the conspiracy.
What are you talking about? Which defense attorneys claimed as fact that she was on the phone?
I repeat, what evidence exists that she is the person Martin was talking to? It wasn’t her phone, and she wasn’t the only one with access to it, so why do you believe it to be a fact that it was her? The word of a perjurer and an idiot?
Milhouse: Just because Chad said something doesn’t automatically make it true.
No, but there’s no reason to suspect Chad of perjury.
Milhouse: In the rain?!
You were never young? Yes, in the rain, perhaps using nearby buildings for shelter.
Milhouse: I want to know what moral principle imposes such a duty.
The one that says you should avoid scaring people in the dark, then risking an altercation by grabbing him, so that when the person tries to defend himself, you’ll claim self-defense for killing an unarmed teenager on his way home from the store after buying his step-brother some candy.
Milhouse: I repeat, what evidence exists that she is the person Martin was talking to?
As we said, the phone records, and the testimony.
Apparently, what we have established, is that you think all the black people are liars.
Apparently, what we have established, is that you think all the black people are liars.
That’s an unfortunate comment. You’ve argued with, and debated, multiple people in great detail – and in good faith – and then you make an unfounded accusation of that magnitude?
The voice of the original RJ, with whom Crump recorded the ‘oral affidavit’ leading to the ‘bombshell’ which blew GZ’s claim of self-defense ‘out of the water’, is not the same voice as the RJ in court.
Zachriel: Sure, and the defense attorneys are part of the conspiracy.
That’s a non sequitur. Have you listened to both voices? Can you logically refute any of my assertions? And how or why would the defense be involved in a conspiracy? I can’t follow that argument at all…
And remember, at the end of RJ’s first day of testimony, the defense was preparing a ‘proper impeachment’. Nothing came of it during this trial, but I would be attuned to its revelation should TM’s parents be misguided enough to sue GZ in civil court.
Fabi: That’s an unfortunate comment.
It’s an unfortunate fact.
Fabi: Have you listened to both voices?
Yes.
Fabi: And remember, at the end of RJ’s first day of testimony, the defense was preparing a ‘proper impeachment’. Nothing came of it during this trial …
Right.
there’s no reason to suspect Chad of perjury.
Nor is there any reason not to. He may have told the truth, he may have lied. We have no information that could prove one or the other, so you can’t state it as established fact.
Milhouse: I want to know what moral principle imposes such a duty.
The one that says you should avoid scaring people in the dark, then risking an altercation by grabbing him, so that when the person tries to defend himself, you’ll claim self-defense for killing an unarmed teenager on his way home from the store after buying his step-brother some candy.
Are you on drugs? Where are you getting this fantasy from? It doesn’t bear any resemblance to what happened. There is no evidence and no reason to believe that Z grabbed M, or even came anywhere close to him.
In any case, nonresponsive. An ordinary person has no duty, moral or legal, to avoid confrontations. You claim that the possession of a firearm magically creates such a duty; tell me what moral principle does that. From which moral principle does this duty derive, and how?
Milhouse: I repeat, what evidence exists that she is the person Martin was talking to?
As we said, the phone records, and the testimony.
How do the phone records tell us who was on the phone? The only evidence is her testimony, which is no evidence at all, both because we know she’s a perjurer and because her testimony was completely unbelievable.
Apparently, what we have established, is that you think all the black people are liars.
Again, are you on drugs? How did you leap to that conclusion?
Milhouse: In the rain?!
You were never young? Yes, in the rain, perhaps using nearby buildings for shelter.
Yes, I’ve been young. I’m pretty sure I never deliberately stayed outside in the rain and night longer than I had to. I certainly didn’t choose that occasion to go investigating strangers’ houses for possible points of entry.
I also wasn’t a burglar. Martin was.
Milhouse: Nor is there any reason not to. He may have told the truth, he may have lied.
Sure. No one believes anything anyone ever says when they testify under oath. It’s amazing they bother calling witnesses.
Milhouse: It doesn’t bear any resemblance to what happened.
You asked for a moral principle, as if such a moral principle couldn’t exist. It has to do with placing a high value on human life.
Milhouse: An ordinary person has no duty, moral or legal, to avoid confrontations.
One can’t argue moral principles. You either believe that people should avoid situations that lead to the unnecessary killing of other people, or you don’t.
Milhouse: Yes, I’ve been young. I’m pretty sure I never deliberately stayed outside in the rain and night longer than I had to.
It’s never too late to learn to live a little.
Milhouse: I also wasn’t a burglar. Martin was.
Yes, we know. Martin was burglarizing the neighborhood. Chad is a perjurer. And Jeantel wasn’t even on the phone with Martin that night. It all fits!
There is no particular reason to believe Chad wouldn’t perjure himself, any more than that he would. It’s not as if he would be risking anything by doing so.
We don’t know whether Martin was burglarizing that neighborhood at that time. But we do know that he was a burglar. He had committed at least one burglary in Miami, and probably more. Zimmerman didn’t know this, but we do. And when a known burglar is known to have been acting on a particular occasion as a burglar would, the most likely explanation for his behavior is that it was exactly what it looked like.
Milhouse: An ordinary person has no duty, moral or legal, to avoid confrontations.
One can’t argue moral principles. You either believe that people should avoid situations that lead to the unnecessary killing of other people, or you don’t.
Of couse one can argue moral principles. How else does one test them? Start with ordinary people: do they have a duty to avoid confrontations? Of course not. So how is that changed by the mere possession of the means to defend oneself if ones life should unexpectedly come into danger? It’s not as if Z had reason to believe he would be forced to shoot.
And no, we don’t know that Jeantel was on the phone with him that night. If you think we do know this, tell us how we know it. What is the evidence? The phone records don’t tell us this, and every honest person knows that her word is absolutely worthless, so what else is there?
Zachriel: No, but there’s no reason to suspect Chad of perjury.
There is good reason to doubt his testimony and veracity, in general. He claimed that he didn’t hear any of the commotion outside his house after the shooting because he had his headphones on – remember? Chad attempted calls to Trayvon’s phone at these times:
7:22:40
7:46:24
8:36:06
8:36:22
8:44:46
10:03:35
10:23:27
11:42:36
12:23:03
Did he not have to remove his headphones to call TM? First post-shooting call at 7:22:40, right after SPD shows up. He heard something. You can count on it…
Milhouse: There is no particular reason to believe Chad wouldn’t perjure himself, any more than that he would.
Which is why courts never call witnesses.
Milhouse: We don’t know whether Martin was burglarizing that neighborhood at that time.
We don’t know whether he was having a rendezvous with cronies of Obama’s socialist conspiracy.
Milhouse: But we do know that he was a burglar.
How many times was he arrested and convicted of burglary?
Milhouse: Of couse one can argue moral principles. How else does one test them?
You certainly can test them, but if, for instance, you place a lower value on the lives of others than your personal comfort, then there is no argument to convince you otherwise.
Milhouse: The phone records don’t tell us this, and every honest person knows that her word is absolutely worthless, so what else is there?
Sorry, every honest person doesn’t know that. Her testimony seemed quite credible, and as the last person to talk to Martin before his death, indeed moments before his death, it is crucial to understanding the events of that night.
They’re all liars and perjurers and burglars, oh my!
Don’t fret, though. At least one juror discounted her testimony too, though not for your reasons. She just felt sorry for her.
Milhouse: There is no particular reason to believe Chad wouldn’t perjure himself, any more than that he would.
Which is why courts never call witnesses.
Courts call witnesses, knowing that some of them lie. Juries are told to assess their credibility, not just to take their word for it.
Sworn testimony is usually presumed to be more credible, because people are reluctant to lie for fear 1) of God, and 2) of being prosecuted for perjury if caught. I think it’s safe to say that Chad was brought up without fear of (or indeed belief in) God; and he must have known (if he didn’t on his own, Crump will have told him) that he could lie without any fear of prosecution because a) how would anybody catch him?; b) he’s a minor; and c) the state is on his side. So of what value was his oath? If he wanted, for some reason, to lie, why wouldn’t he?
Milhouse: But we do know that he was a burglar.
How many times was he arrested and convicted of burglary?
No times. How is that relevant? We know for a fact that he was a burglar. He was caught with a burglar’s tool and jewelry that was reported stolen from a home close to his school; and the only reason he wasn’t arrested was the racist policy of the Miami-Dade School District Police Department to avoid arresting black male offenders, so as to manipulate their crime stats. (Remember that the next time some idiot prates of “white privilege”.)
Milhouse: The phone records don’t tell us this, and every honest person knows that her word is absolutely worthless, so what else is there?
Sorry, every honest person doesn’t know that. Her testimony seemed quite credible,
To whom? No honest person could possibly find her credible. Your claim to do so is self-evidently a lie.
and as the last person to talk to Martin before his death
Once again, what evidence exists for this?
They’re all liars and perjurers and burglars, oh my!
You can’t deny that Jeantel is a perjurer. Or that Martin was a burglar.
Milhouse: He was caught with a burglar’s tool and jewelry that was reported stolen from a home close to his school
He was caught with a screwdriver. And the jewelry was not reported stolen.
Milhouse: To whom? No honest person could possibly find her credible. Your claim to do so is self-evidently a lie.
We’re not lying, so your statement is evidently false.
Milhouse: To whom? No honest person could possibly find her credible. Your claim to do so is self-evidently a lie.
We’re not lying, so your statement is evidently false.
You’re begging the question. Your lie is self-evident. The fact that you claim to find her a credible witness proves that you’re lying, just as if you were to claim to be 300 years old, or to have seen LBJ shoot JFK.
Milhouse: The fact that you claim to find her a credible witness proves that you’re lying
Sorry, Milhouse, but you’re wrong. We found Jeantel’s testimony to be credible and compelling.
“We found Jeantel’s testimony to be credible and compelling.”
Clearly the jurors did not. You can argue until hell freezes over and George Zimmerman was still acquitted. That means that you cannot call it murder.
rjriley5000: Clearly the jurors did not.
At least one juror discounted her testimony saying she felt sorry for her.
rjriley5000: You can argue until hell freezes over and George Zimmerman was still acquitted. That means that you cannot call it murder.
We haven’t. We have said he is morally culpable in the death of another.
You have it wrong. It is your community, culture and Trayvon’s parents who are culpable. In fact, Trayvon is culpable.
I hope that Zimmerman and his attorneys demonstrate through civil actions just how culpable they are.
As a practical matter all the special perks blacks receive require whites to agree to pay for them. Each time there is another outrageous case, and this one is really something, good will which allows those perks evaporates.
For me Tawana Brawley was a wake up call. Still I was passive about the issue, but this case changed that. The shear viciousness of the racist smear campaign against George Zimmerman, his family and others (especially post verdict threats) have convinced me that it is time to dismantle affirmative action.
Success of the PR campaign is itself clear evidence that blacks no longer need or deserve special treatment. It is time that everyone competes equally based on their capabilities and work ethic.
Sorry, Milhouse, but you’re wrong. We found Jeantel’s testimony to be credible and compelling.
So you’ve said before, but repeating your lie won’t make it any truer. What you report is impossible, therefore it isn’t true. And who’s “we”? Did you become the Queen, or have you got a split personality?
rjriley5000: The shear viciousness of the racist smear campaign against George Zimmerman, his family and others (especially post verdict threats) have convinced me that it is time to dismantle affirmative action.
Said as if there were no racist smears against Martin or Jeantel.
Milhouse: What you report is impossible, therefore it isn’t true.
You live in a world that can’t even imagine other points of view. Don’t be afraid. Dance in the rain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQRRnAhmB58
Sorry that reality doesn’t comport with your expectations.
Oops. I added that to the wrong thread. It belongs here:
Milhouse: He was caught with a burglar’s tool and jewelry that was reported stolen from a home close to his school
He was caught with a screwdriver. And the jewelry was not reported stolen.
Yes, it was. On October 21st 2011 a burglary took place a few blocks from Krop Senior High School where Trayvon Martin attended. The stolen property outlined in the Miami-Dade Police Report (PD111021-422483) matches the descriptive presented by SRO Dunn in his School Police report 2011-11477.
And yes, a screwdriver can be a burglary tool, and that is how the school police report described it.
Got it wrong again, but no matter, it’s close enough.
Milhouse: And yes, a screwdriver can be a burglary tool
“You put your knife with a fork and a spoon and it looks quite innocuous. Perhaps you travel with a wife and child for the same reason.”
Milhouse: Yes, it was.
The police initially reported otherwise. Do you have the actual descriptions? Has the return been verified by the police? Not sure if it is in the list of links provided.
You may mock, but do you deny that a screwdriver is a burglary tool? What do you think a burglary tool looks like? Do you think they have special Burglars R Us stores where they sell specialised tools? And yes, a knife carried as a weapon can be identical to one used as cutlery, and one can disguise it that way, but this screwdriver wasn’t even disguised. It wasn’t with a tool set, it was with stolen jewelry. The police report called it a burglary tool for a reason, don’t you think?
The police initially reported otherwise
Which police? The school police who found it? How could they have known whether it was stolen or not? How could they have known about the burglary a few blocks away? They’d have had to turn it over to the real police for that match to happen, but they had a policy of not arresting black males, so they put it down as “lost property” and didn’t bother telling the real police about it.
Milhouse: They’d have had to turn it over to the real police for that match to happen
You didn’t answer the question.
Sure, you can choose to ignore the testimony of the last person to talk to Martin before he was shot.
Of the several she’s told – before, during and after the trial – which version of Jeantel’s story do you consider the correct one? Just curious.
The problem here is that the whole of Jeantel’s story was concocted. There is hardly a word of truth in anything that she has stated.
What kind of facial hair does Spock have in the universe you live in?
Actually, Jeantel’s testimony was that Martin attempted to avoid Zimmerman, that Zimmerman reappeared behind him, and then Martin said “Get off, get off”. Martin had a right to defend himself.
Here’s the actual transcript from the trial. Please be factual.
WEST: Right, at that point he decided to approach this man and say, why are you following me?
JEANTEL: Yes, sir.
Fabi: Here’s the actual transcript from the trial.
WEST: Right, at that point he decided to approach this man and say, why are you following me?
JEANTEL: Yes, sir.
It’s quite obvious she was responding to what Martin said. That’s the problem with taking quotes out of context.
Jeantel said, “He just told me he just wanted to try to lose him. By starting walking home, back home because the rain calm a little bit down.”
“Now the man is — start following him like, follow him.”
“I heard Trayvon say, get off. Get off.”
Again, she agreed that he decided to approach the man. Not that the man approached him. And that’s even your admitted perjurer’s version of events. Yes, she contradicted herself multiple times, because she’s a certifiable moron, but her word is the only support you’ve cited, and this is what she said.
It’s clearly not her intent based on the context.
Zachriel: re: context, where is the other speaker’s narrative in the dialogue you’ve shown below? Are the same comments sequential, i.e., no skips or deletions? Also, where did you get this transcript, I’d like to view it. Thanks.
Jeantel said, “He just told me he just wanted to try to lose him. By starting walking home, back home because the rain calm a little bit down.”
“Now the man is — start following him like, follow him.”
“I heard Trayvon say, get off. Get off.”
They are separate quotes, as indicated.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1306/26/cnr.10.html
Thank you, Zachriel.
If you listen carefully to Jeantel’s testimony you’ll hear that she testified that Martin actually made it back to behind his dad’s house.
Yet a couple of minutes later Martin was back at the T intersection near Zimmerman’s truck, 100 yards away, pounding Zimmerman’s skull against the concrete.
Here’s the clip where Jeantel testifies to Martin having made it back (at the 10-second mark): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E7rOMErq1A
Irony Tag: If you listen carefully to Jeantel’s testimony you’ll hear that she testified that Martin actually made it back to behind his dad’s house.
JEANTEL: And he say he by the area that his daddy house is. His daddy fiancee house is. I told him, keep running. And he said, no, he’ll just walk faster.
There’s no reason to run or walk faster if he is already home. He’s near his father’s house, meaning within the gated community, heading home.
In the Zimmerman trial, Travon took about 4 minutes to find and attack Zimmerman. During that 4 min. Zimmerman did not even know where Travon was. Also, you can not depend on people doing reasonable things when they are regular drug users.
“And that’s exactly what Zimmerman did not do. And that’s why so many people think Zimmerman was culpable in the death of an unarmed teenager.”
I find it hard to fathom why people keep repeating such drivel after all the evidence was aired.
Apparently, that even though the first story was told by Martin and Associates Scheme Team, a story based on misrepresentations and outright lies that some people just cannot reconcile the truth with their world view.
I am interested in people’s opinion concerning libel-defamation, what the likelihood might be that discovery will lead to connections between the PR group associated with Trayvon’s parents, Crump and others and defamatory media coverage. Did media cook up the stuff by themselves or were they directly persuaded by the media team?
What is the likelihood of an expanding group of defendants?
If you listen carefully to Jeantel’s testimony you’ll hear that she testified that Martin actually made it back to behind his dad’s house.
Yet a couple of minutes later Martin was back at the T intersection near Zimmerman’s truck, 100 yards away, pounding Zimmerman’s skull against the concrete.
The only reasonable explanation for Martin to have gone back was to teach the “crazy ass cracker” a lesson for watching him. If Zimmerman had been following Martin, than the beating would have happened by Martin’s dad’s house.
Here’s the clip where Jeantel testifies to Martin having made it back (at the 10-second mark): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E7rOMErq1A
The “Teachable Moment” in the Zimmerman case has been ignored and glossed over. I recognize that part of the Black Experience that I will never be able to relate to is the feeling of anger and frustration Blacks feel resulting from being unfairly or racially profiled. I get that.
However, that being said, if I were a Black father, I would have a conversation with my Black kids about the dangers of committing an unprovoked assault against any person, for any reason. I would explain to my sons that being ‘disrespected’ is not sufficient reason to commit an assault (or murder) against another human being.
From the crap I gathered the morning following the verdict:
Black parents had to reconcile their children to the fact that they could just be gunned down if they wore a hoodie by creepy ass cracka’s
And I’m sure they conferred this delusion in a responsible manner that won’t provide the means for future racism through fear of unknown whites.
And children are always logical which means they won’t have irrational takeaways at all from what their parents lament about.
My grandmother was half Chippewa, orphaned at 4 and married out of the orphanage at 14. She had five children and my grandfather died during the depression.
It would be an understatement to say that their lives were bleak, yet with the exception of one aunt the rest of the family improved their and their children’s prospects with each generation.
This was done with a strong work ethic and for some of us an equally strong education ethic.
Some people do not have drive to excel, including how they raise their children. Incredibly poor parenting, and an ingrained entitlement mentality is what destroyed Trayvon Martin.
Society’s problem is that there are untold numbers of young people like Trayvon, and when I say like I am referring to attitude, not race.
Nobody seems to remember that Martin could have decided to go home instead of circling back to pick a fight.
Today’s San Diego Union-Tribune contains yet another letter from a “reader” who hasn’t followed the trial and has misconceptions about what happened. In defense of the reader: the the prosecutor has made false public statements about the evidence in the trial. I look forward to reading about the disciplinary action.
Declaring guns illegal doesn’t make a gun anymore or any less lethal.
Declaring guns illegal doesn’t stop guns being in the hands of the irresponsible by taking them out of the hands of the responsible.
What it does is to allow chaos to remain armed while civility and order surrenders their arms.
Statistically, the 1,000,000+ CCL holders in Florida are a more law-abiding cohort than the population at large.
Taking OUR guns away from US is the LEAST logical “answer” to lowering the crime rate.
WE are not the ones anyone should be worrying about. But do the gun-grabbers “get” that? No they do not. SMH.
in my country where we are so-so about guns, we have a growing problem in both Melbourne and Sydney relating to guns.
The fact is that the majority of the crimes are committed by people possessing illegal weapons.
Legal possession of firearms has almost no impact upon crime statistics.
To get back on topic: Mr. Cosby touches on a point that was always a concern of my father’s as well: “You never want a deputy sheriff who wants the position because it means he gets to carry a gun in public.” There was always one or two like that in the area.
Guns are powerful, and in the hands of jackass, anything can happen. George Zimmerman did not act like a jackass. However, where the real problem is, in places like Chicago and Baltimore, guns are in the hands of, not somebody like George Zimmerman, but somebody like Trayvon Martin. That is, the guns are in the hands of somebody who is young, stupid, reckless, caught up in macho fantasies, and a lousy shot. The people they are shooting at may survive. It’s the bystanders, who are sometimes in bed in a house across the street, who die.
The people who jump through all the regulatory hoops, get the training, and act accordingly, aren’t the problem.
So, how do we reach the problem, without losing the advantage of the solution?
We could always make it illegal for unlicensed citizens to walk around carrying guns… Oh, wait.
Criminals and insane people do not follow rules or laws. The only reasonable response is for police to enforce laws such as murder, robbery, assault. The citizen needs to be able to defend themselves during the time when police are not there. Do away with “No Gun Zones” since they provide places where mass killing happen without any resistance.
Maybe you should not have to pay taxes on guns if you are an NRA member. Tax rebate on gun training?
Quote:
“To get back on topic: Mr. Cosby…”
Thank you Valerie!
Blacks are responsible for 99.99% of their own problems but you can’t say that or you get falsely accused of racism. White people are a convenient excuse for their problems and that IS racism.
CrustyB: Blacks are responsible for 99.99% of their own problems but you can’t say that or you get falsely accused of racism.
So are white people. Or people.
But few people blame black people for white people’s self-caused problems. Many blame white people for black people’s problems, which are almost all self-caused.
Milhouse: But few people blame black people for white people’s self-caused problems.
Heh.
Anyway, there’s historical reasons for that.
Professor Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit), this morning, on several examples of how the Left is trying to keep this “raaaaacism!” narrative going:
Exactly.
The proggie narrative that is developing here is that concealed carriers are going around flashing their weapons which is making everybody else fear for their lives, and with the ‘stand your ground’ laws these non-concealed carriers and then justified in bashing the carriers’ heads against the concrete because it’s self defense dontcha know?
But isn’t the point of concealed carry that, well, it must stay concealed? Isn’t the mere act of brandishing a weapon (showing it) a crime in concealed carry states?
It depends on the state. In Texas if you display your gun intentionally, expect to explain your actions to an LEO. Hopefully, you will get to 911 prior to the bad guy and get the report in soon enough that the bad guy is caught.
Florida, too:
790.10 Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms.—If any person having or carrying any dirk, sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, or other weapon shall, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit the same in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, **not in necessary self-defense**, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. (emphasis mine)
although truly accidental exposures of your weapon are forgivable, as long as you weren’t deliberately doing it to casually intimidate someone:
790.053 Open carrying of weapons.—
(1) […] It is not a violation of this section for a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm as provided in s. 790.06(1), and who is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, to briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense.
Long story short: it’s ALREADY illegal to casually brandish a weapon in order to intimidate someone, if self-defense grounds aren’t there.
Really cool letter to black, white, brown, red and yellow thugs from former teen thug, Doug Giles.
h/t Town Hall
On a scale of 1 – 10, I give 11 points to AB’s quoted message above.
Plus 2 or 3 for good luck. Make it about a 15.
But isn’t Bill Cosby just another left leaning celebrity? A great comedian, sometimes a poor movie actor, a former TV role model for African Americans, and a sweater aficionado? Why all of the fuss about Bill Cosby and whatever he says about the Zimmerman/Martin case in 2013? Move along now, nothing to see here…
like I have said to you before, wordpress is free so you can start your own blog and write whatever you want in it.
I know, easier to just driveby and criticize other peoples work…..
Not criticizing anyone’s work; just wondering what all of the fuss is about. I think that I actually used those same words in my Comment…
Welcome back Troll by.
Actually, I have always found Bill Cosby to think heavily about his words and actually show a conscience regardless of when he is wrong about things. I can’t say the same for the category of “just another leftist celebrity” that you would like to ascribe and lump him into. Discernment is key…you seem to be lacking.
OK. Read this and then tell me how much you love [conservative, gun rights, Christian] Bill Cosby:
Quote:
“Comedian Bill Cosby over the weekend penned an op-ed for the New York Post, in which he argues everyone should be more like Muslims.”
Former Congressman Allen West (R-Fla.) took exception to this characterization, issuing a blunt rebuttal to Cosby via his official Twitter account.
“Bill Cosby said we should [be] more like Muslims,” West wrote. “[You] mean honor killings, beheadings, suicide bombings? Hope [you’re] kidding sir.””
Here’s what Cosby wrote in the Post that has raised some eyebrows:
“I’m a Christian. But Muslims are misunderstood. Intentionally misunderstood. We should all be more like them. They make sense, especially with their children. There is no other group like the Black Muslims, who put so much effort into teaching children the right things, they don’t smoke, they don’t drink or overindulge in alcohol, they protect their women, they command respect. And what do these other people do?
They complain about them, they criticize them. We’d be a better world if we emulated them. We don’t have to become black Muslims, but we can embrace the things that work.”
Black Muslims my ass, Mr. Bill! And you too Mr. Health Guy FSU (Anthony Weiner wanna be) jerkoff!
I have never met anyone I agree with 100% of the time on 100% of issues. Most of my friends, I am not “in step with” on at least one big issue (environmental, political, social, religious, the right way to make Key Lime pie…).
What FSU guy said was “Actually, I have always found Bill Cosby to think heavily about his words and actually show a conscience regardless of when he is wrong about things.” I think that’s a common experience for most of us. We agree with people on some things; think they’re wrong on others; but as long as they’re halfway intelligent and expressing genuine opinions that you can tell they’ve actually thought about, you’re not going to throw out their comments on Topic A just because you disagree with their opinions on Topic B.
The world is not that black and white.
Hey, I got a mention in a thread not my own. Awesome! 🙂
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
Would you care to respond? Did you really mean that having a gun on ones person automagically confers on one a moral and legal duty to avoid confrontation, duties which one didn’t have before? If you really meant it, then I’d like to hear what law imposes the legal duty, and what moral principle imposes the moral duty.
But I suspect you didn’t really mean that; I suspect you really meant only that someone carrying a gun would be wise to try to avoid confrontations, and certainly would be unwise to seek them out.
Sure. I believe we have both a legal and moral duty not to take another humans’ life unless it is truly necessary. If the necessity can be avoided by conducting ourselves more prudently and cautiously, then I think that’s the right way to go.
I don’t see CCW holders as legal avengers out to make up for the quite glaring shortcomings of the criminal justice system. That’s not our job. Our job is to defend our families and ourselves from violent criminal predation. And, should that necessity arise in my personal life, I intend to do so with all necessary force. I encourage all others to do the same, should they be so moved.
I’m fully aware that some states have laws that allow the defensive use of deadly force in a broader context than I’ve just described. For the most parts those laws provide for presumptions of innocence/reasonableness intended to keep politically motivated prosecutors from targeting people who have defended themselves in their homes, places of work, or personal vehicles. Texas, of course, has the interesting provision for the use of deadly force in defense of property, subject to plenty of conditions.
But I personally would not shoot someone over a property crime alone. Just wouldn’t do it. I live in a two story house, bedrooms are all upstairs. If everyone’s tucked in, and the bad guys come in to rob the place, and they stay downstairs, I’m going to call 911, keep my nice safe perch at the top of the stairs, and let them take whatever they want from the first floor. That’s why I have insurance, and why my taxes pay for the police.
If they try to come up the stairs, on the other hand, t’s likely to get quite noisy.
But those are the elements I’ve chosen to build into my personal legally sound self-defense strategy. Different people will make different choices in their own legally sound self-defense strategy. I only hope to help them ensure that those choices are well-informed.
–Andrew
Well thought-out plan. Everyone should have one.
That’s the way I feel, too. If it was me, I would have shot Trayvon, just like GZ. This NOLA kid, probably not if all he was doing was stealing something. Although I sure would have told him I was going to, just to scare the crap out of him. But, I can’t get into Landry’s head and there is no way to dispute what he said about the kid reaching into his pocket, possibly for a weapon. Plus, at 2:00 in the morning, who is thinking at their best?
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Thank you. Do you mind expanding on this? Let’s start with basics: an unarmed person has no duty, moral or legal, to avoid confrontations. In general he’d be wise to do so, and it’s certainly unwise to go looking for them, but there’s no reason to go out of ones way to avoid them. And if there’s a reason to risk a confrontation, e.g. to help someone, then it’s cowardice to be deterred.
Now are you saying that possessing a gun changes that? That merely carrying a gun imposes on one a duty that one didn’t have five minutes earlier? How does that work?
Now let’s get down to brass tacks: let’s take the case of George Zimmerman. When he saw a suspicious youth in the area, the most confrontation-averse thing to do would be to ignore him. Avoid the risk of confrontation, and if you wake up in the morning to hear that another house has been broken into, oh well. Choosing to stop and scrutinise the suspect, follow him in the car, and call the police, was risking a confrontation. And indeed it did lead to one: Martin noticed him looking, came towards him, circled the car; he was angry at being dissed. But Zimmerman assumed that risk, because it was the right thing to do. Now according to what you’ve written, or at least according to how Zachriel interpreted/spun your words, the fact that he had a gun made this wrong. Since he had a gun, he had a moral and legal duty to avoid confrontation; so it would seem he should have said “screw my neighbours, I’m sitting this one out”. By not doing so he was breaking the law and acting immorally.
Now I don’t think that’s what you meant at all; please tell me I’m right.
Yes, I DO mind expanding on it, with YOU, for FREE. You’re being deliberately confrontational and taking matters out of context. I don’t feel that investing the effort to clarify things for you would be a worthwhile use of my time, under those circumstances.
You could, of course, simply retain me for the day and then I’d be happy to speak with you about self-defense law to your heart’s content. If you’re interested in that option, let me know. But there will be some zeros involved.
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
I’m not being confrontational at all. Why have you got your back up? I’m just looking to clarify an opinion you’ve expressed on this forum, and which a troll (Zachriel) has (I believe) twisted and misinterpreted. I don’t get paid to explain my opinions, why should you? I’m not looking for legal advice or anything else you provide professionally.
I’m not seeking YOUR opinion, so of course I would not expect to pay for what I do not seek.
You ARE asking me for my professional legal opinion, something I provide for a living. I don’t know what YOU do for a living, but I presume whatever service you provide, if any, comes associated with some level of compensation.
While I provide much legal opinion to the Legal Insurrection general audience for free, it is because I am whimsically inclined to do so, not because I am being paid to do so.
I am not, however, whimsically inclined to work for you for free.
If you find yourself struggling with THAT concept, a return to kindergarten might be warranted.
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
You ARE asking me for my professional legal opinion,
No, I am not. You said that a legal obligation exists; I want to know whether you really meant that, and if so what law creates such an obligation. That’s not giving professional legal advice, it’s the ordinary process of blogging. When you say something cryptic, people ask for clarification, and you clarify.
Blogging about the law does not constitute the provision of legal advice; otherwise non-lawyers would not be allowed to do it. And that doesn’t change if the blogger happens to be a lawyer. As Beldar puts it, “I am a lawyer, but I’m not your lawyer”. Without a client, to whom you have a duty of care, you’re not practicing law.
In this case we have a troll who has seized on your inexact words and turned them into a condemnation of Zimmerman. I’m pretty sure you didn’t mean it that way, and am asking for confirmation. That’s all. I am not being confrontational, but you are.
Haha, I guess you _like_ me living in your head rent-free. 🙂
You, however, I find tiring. Plus, it smells kind of funny in here. Later.
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
Ouch. You got trolled hard by both sides. I can see Zachriel and Branca having a beer together after work a la Ralph Wolf and Sam Sheepdog.
Yeah, that might work, until law and order breaks down enough for bandits to start burning the place down, just for fun.
You’re always on our minds! Just received my book, awesome!
Haha, you can’t leave it at that, tell me more. “Count the ways” in which the book is awesome. 🙂
Just kidding, thanks for the kind words.
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
It really is a terrific book, but one thing I wish it had is an index. The table of contents is great and the book is so logically laid out that it’s not that big of a deal, but it would still make it handier as a reference book if it had an index. Something to keep in mind for the third edition maybe?
Indeed, we have tons of great suggestions for the next edition, and an index is high-ranked among them. You can count on it being in there.
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
I received my copy Saturday – thank you very much.
I have chuckled more than a few times.
Thanks for the kind words! Don’t forget, after you’ve had a chance to read and digest, we’re always looking for testimonials.
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
Part of the problem when “public figures” comment on guns is that they do not really spent the time to understand the facts. The things that are billed as “common sense” are many time very wrong when you know the facts. Today it seems that the NRA is the universal bad guy, when the truth is that NRA does more to educate gun owners about safe use than any other group.
So, people need to really get information from professionals, suggest Mas Ayoob and http://www.studentofthegun.com as starting places.
Okay, this did make me laugh:
#Protip: Don’t try to rob a gun store with a baseball bat
lol
That situation isn’t as straightforward as it seems. The perp wasn’t threatening the manager with immanent death or grievous bodily injury. He attacked and destroyed a DISPLAY CASE, not a person. While preventing firearms from falling into the hands of criminals is a laudable goal, they’re just property. Can the manager threaten to shoot the perp to protect property?
I don’t know Oregon’s laws, but in Florida you can act “to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony”.
776.08 Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
See Florida Statutes: CHAPTER 776 — JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html
But again, I don’t know what the deal is in Oregon. But any state where shop owners have to just let armed thugs walk in (and yes, a baseball bat is a weapon), smash things up and take what they like, and not be allowed say ‘boo’ about it, is a state I don’t want to be.
Treason? Really…..
Oops, what a clanger – that’s “imminent”, not “immanent”, a perfectly good word which means something else.
What the world needs today…
…is an edit button.
@Rantbot I believe the store owner had the legal authority to draw his weapon simply because the thief broke a display case with a weapon inside. At this point, I do not think the owner would have the legal right to fire on the thief. However, additional facts change my opinion. For example, if the thief grabbed the weapon, the store owner may have sufficient fear to fire, even if the owner knew the weapon was not loaded.
The question would be whether the store owner is required to wait for the thief to finish loading the weapon before firing. Personally I think the mere attempt to load justifies firing, but I can easily see an ambitious prosecutor arguing otherwise.
“In a recent interview with a rap blogger, hip hop icon Jay Z endorsed Trayvon Martin’s battery of George Zimmerman as legitimate self-defense against racial profiling and surveillance by the neighborhood watch volunteer — while in the same interview scoffing at the right to use a firearm to defend against a home invasion/robbery….”-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/26/jay-z-stand-your-ground-against-profiling-against-/
This is how ‘racial street justice’ (aka Obama/Holder/New Black Panther/Louis Farrakhan justice) operates.
They get to beat, rob, invade your home. You get to take it for Trayvon.
ANNOUNCEMENT
Incidentally, for any of you in the Columbus OH area, I’ve just arranged for a Law of Self Defense Seminar to be held there September 14. There are only 20 seats available, due to pace constraints, so I wanted to give the LI community an early heads up. We only just started taking registrations today. The host–GunEnvy/CB6 Training–is also marketing the site independently, and I don’t expect the seats to last for long.
If you’re interested in participating, see: http://lawofselfdefense.eventbrite.com/
If you’re interested in arranging for a seminar in your area, see: http://lawofselfdefense.com/seminars/
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
Ref guns and obligations one way or another. I still have a couple of moves left. But, back in the day, I was in pretty good shape and had some martial arts training–“scientific dirty fighting”–both civilian and military.
I suspect that, getting the right opportunity, I could have killed somebody with one punch. Practical anatomy. But really hurt them in any case. And then had pretty much free play.
What is the practical difference between that and having a gun in Mr. Branca’s various suggestions as to actions and obligations and likely results?
No real difference, IMO, and a retired welter weight I know spoke of killing someone in a brawl with one punch. (Ruptured a vein behind the other guy’s jaw.)
Normally, the restriction they gave me was that any time physical contact was initiated by either party, lethal force may be the consequence for any side. Whether intentional or accidental. It made people real motivated to gauge and maintain distance, which is normally a high level warrior skill not trained in by most people.
In a sense, the better someone became at lethal H2H force, the more they functioned under the same limitations as a handgun user. Meaning, bar room brawling automatically became the same standard as “pull out your gun and empty the clip in someone”. This is based upon the justification that not only are you using force capable of killing people, intentionally or unintentionally, but they are using force against you that may result in your death. Which means you, now that you understand this, can plead “fear for your life”. Because this stuff is way too much paperwork, a lot of operators utilize coping and avoidance mechanisms that essentially come out as “man, I don’t want to deal with this guy and take his life, it’s not worth the trouble, paperwork, detention. I’m just going to walk off, easier for me”.
Violence, for an operator based solely on lethal force, is much too boring to do much work for if it can be avoided. That is one type of “coping” mechanism or personality adjustment.
Avoiding things because of fear… is a slightly different emotion and judgment. What often marks the advancement of a person from incompetent, to competent, to mastery is often their attitude when it comes to danger and the physical emotions it brings, rather than one’s internal self confidence levels. Even then, emotions are still rather subjective and inaccurate. Survival motor controls are much more accurate, which is why physical training is vital to test someone and for someone to test themselves to determine what level they have obtained.
A gun and sword unmaintained will rust. For the steel it is made out of requires cleaning oil to be ready for battle. Although blood may work just as well. However, even a blunt and rusty sword can cleave a foe apart with enough speed and skill.
To address the specifics, a stomp to a person’s head when they are on the ground is easy to argue as excessive force. So when it comes to H2H, the prosecution has a harder time proving that you intended to kill unless you use regular thug tactics. If you just tripped on something and landed, with your knee holding up your entire body weight, and his kidney, spleen, liver, or lung exploded…. you can easily argue that it was an “accident”. And thus this would face accidental negligence charges or manslaughter charges, but they would have to prove you had lethal intent and “having a gun” won’t exist for them to do so if you are unarmed. So they more or less rely on witness testimony concerning whether you were seen to be aggressive, escalating the fight, or attempting to get away and de-escalate the fight.
Thus the easiest way to avoid prosecution is to just avoid the scene of the enemy’s hideout. Thus if the fight happens anywhere else, the termination is almost automatically self defense, though not always. Going outside to “fight”, is of course considered aiding in the escalation of a fight and usually negligent death or manslaughter charges can be successfully applied. If that fails, wrongful death or emotional damage suits may succeed. If all a person can say is “I got angry, we had a fight, he died”, there’s a problem there.
If all a person could say was “I didn’t feel comfortable or safe there, so I left, I saw someone following me so I ran, got tired and tripped. They tackled me, I fell on him, and he died. End of story. I called the ambulance and police (to clean up the bodies)”
He has a much better chance of safety. And if he wins the fight, calls an ambulance anonymously, and then just leaves the scene without pressing charges, usually the police will let it go so long as nobody died or got permanently maimed. The better one is at lethal force, the easier time of granting mercy to enemies is. The less competent one is, the more extreme methods are used in desperation.
In a sense, those who shoot people with guns have a higher evidence threshold in felony cases, since self defense is an affirmative defense. The defense has to present “evidence” that it was self defense, otherwise they can get you via the civil suits at least. Legal justifications are taught to CC license holders because the law is very strict on that. One mistake is all it takes for them to get you.
It’s much harder to argue that “I had a gun, it went off accidentally on the guy I was trying to run away from, so it shot him in the back from a richochet”. People are much more likely to blame that on the gun user. However, people who die in H2H fights accidentally, that is often blamed on the guy that was the aggressor or fight starter. Things are a bit more gray in that area. A good number of successful prosecutions against people who killed a guy with a punch, were due to the fact that the guy who “threw the first punch” was the killer. So physical evidence, number of blows to the head, how many stabs, etc are often heavily used in accidental death cases (self defense). Because it is extremely easy but also extremely hard to kill people with one movement of the body, the common sense interpretation is that there is “nothing there there” if someone got hit 2 or 3 or 4 times while standing or even in the back. Whereas the common sense interpretation for guns is that “one bullet kills, so 2 bullets means you wanted to slaughter someone for joy and giggles”. Something like that of a bias there.
One of the legal advice I’ve heard is to not “claim self defense” in the initial police report. “Everyone” involved in a fight does it, so don’t be “everyone”. Self defense is a claim that “I did something illegal, but I had a good reason to do so”. Let the police or prosecutor try to “come up with the reason” instead. If they do, then you can claim “self defense”. If they don’t decide to come up with a claim that you did something illegal, that’s good for you. But if you claimed self defense, they no longer have to prove that to a grand jury. They got you on record admitting that you used “self defense” as a reason why your crime was not a crime.
Zimmerman in his police interview walk through, did not claim self defense. Good for him, and probably a significant reason why the cops didn’t decide to jail him past a certain time.
The less movements a person needs to kill someone, the easier time they have explaining why they did what they did. The better they can kill a person while they are standing up, instead of having to use the easy prone position, the curb, or the planet, the easier of a time they have in explaining why they did what they did. “I tried to run away, but I don’t think I would have made it with my stamina. I was afraid I would fall down and get killed, so I hit him 2 times. Then he fell down and died. Then I called 911 for help. A couple of witnesses, these guys here and there with names of X, Y, Z, B, U, P heard me scream for help”.
“The guy came at me, he looked crazy scary. I tried to throw him off of me as he got a hold of me, and the guy went into the air and landed on his head. I don’t know what happened afterwards, I ran for it and got inside to make a 911 call”
Whether you “intentionally” slammed his head “on the concrete” to hit “him with the planet” is something the police and prosecution gets to prove to you. Not the other way around.
Phillep. Reminds me of a CSI episode where a guy, possibly a boxer, got such a hit in the head turning it hard to the left that the torsion stretched a neck vein–someplace behind the jaw–and tore it open.
Could be the same blow and same vein. This event would not have shown up on CSI because it was in Mexico “somewhere”.