Trayvon Martin's Death Due to Conservative Policies?

This proves that the left has no respect ... If I were this boys parents, I would really go off about her statement... She is as bad as Obama, if he had a son, he would of looked like this boy... duh? How does he figure this? Her saying, that now they are killing our kids... Excuse me, did she go into labor for this child, or support this child? Her kid... sounds as if she wants to try and make a name for herself and again, the left never misses a chance to cash in on someone else's misery...This is no different than inciting violence... These people should NOT be allowed to rant on to the public and try to stir them up... This is hate speech at its finest.... The panthers, Spike, Roseanne.. Oprah seems to be the only celeb that I have heard about that can say something civil. I havent heard where she is calling for violence... But I dont hear Obama coming out and calling out to the people NOT to have violence... He could say, NO enough is enough, no more violence... But of course not as he too, is going to milk this as much as he can for political gain too...

"This is no different than inciting violence"

No, you & your cronies are inciting violence by demeaning anybody & everybody who speaks on behalf of Trayvon's parents. You & your cronies are spewing hate speech & condemning a child in defense of the shooter. By the time this over & done with, you & your cronies will be eating your words...then I hope y'all rot in hell!

Well said Vickey.

The left is in desperation mode because they were given full filibuster-proof reign on this country 3 years ago and they can't boost about their accomplishments so they regurgitate the great right boogeyman from their againg 1960s playbook. Expect everything said and everything done from the right to be an attack against one victim or another...

Nice article Margie! You are so right, and the Dems helped pass it, too. Let the law do it's job. Wait and see, and stop making about race...and a call for lynching. We are still a nation of laws.

"President Arlene Holt Baker claimed that it is 'conservative, right-wing policies that are to blame' for Trayvon's death.

I just love the way they think they veil their hatred and contempt for conservatives by saying that it's the policies, as if the policies spontaneously combusted and people were not involved. Another of the typical, hypocritical clerisy showing her true "blue."

"This needs to be about a young man who shouldn't have died"

You are absolutely right!

no august - this should be about a young man that MAYBE should not have died - or he maybe caused it.

you dont know, i dont know.

apparantly some immediately thought zimmerman was guilkty, and others decided he may not be.

leave the conviction, and execution to the law.

if he is guilty - i will be one of the first to say he should get the chair.

Right, let's not talk about the law that helped in allowing a murderer to walk free, or the organization (ALEC) that drafted the bill. Of course this is about a young man who shouldn't have died, but why shouldn't we be talking about the stand your ground law (drafted by ALEC) that certainly came into play when Zimmerman claimed self defense?

"stand you ground" is merely an extension of the right to self defense.

at this point - zimmerman and SOME witnesses say he acted in self defense and other say he did not.

until we know all the details and facts, we are simply being ignorantly arrogant, in demanding that we know the truth.

i do know putting out a bounty on someone is wrong, and making an address public, knowing there are those ignorant that want to be judge a and jury, and have a vigilante killing seems a lot like soliciting a hit is wrong.

then add the address was someone totally seperate and unrelated - a couple in thier 70's now afraid to return to their home, and are in hiding.

but - being arrogant, ignorant of the relevant facts, and acting stupidly are not crimes - so you are free to go.

matt
Right, let's not talk about the law that helped in allowing a murderer to walk free

and how do you know he is a murderer???????????

has he been tried and convicted and you were the judge??????

i am NOT saying - repeat NOT NOT NOT saying zimmerman is innocent.

but you can not yet say he IS guilty! neither can i!!!

wait for the facts - as i said - i will be right there to demand the death penalty IF he is guilty!

unless of course you know the future that well - in which case you need to work at the psychic hot line - they get up to 5 bucks an hour and are worthless.

The facts are already out in the open in this case. If you choose to wait for someone in authority to tell you what to think that's your business.

well maybe you are all correct - and lets not forget to kill that duke lacrasosse team, and the klan members that raped tawanny.

good gawd - do you NEVER tire of being this way?

for gawd sakes - if you MUST know - i think zimmerman is PROBABLY guilty, from what i know about it.

but obviously the facts are NOT all in, because there has not even been an indictment yet, let alone a trial and conviction!

or are you paranoid conspiracy nuts that think it is all rigged????

and r.f - IF he is found innocent - then the stand your ground extention is NOT a problem. if he is, as i think he is, it will need to get looked at!


you people are as bad or worse then the old klan.

YOU decide he is guilty - so hang him.

amazing.

and i marched and was beat up for THIS bullshit, arrogant judgementalism?

what a fool i guess i was to stand up for civil rights, anc the beatings and death threats - all that happened is a change in the direction of the insane hysteria.

good luck in the riots youj help create.

i am done with you.

i tried to make open minded statements, based on there still being 2 sides.

and all you want is blood vengeance.

you are a disgrace to america, juris prudence, and by those acts, to the human race.

good day.

there is npothing to indicate that the syg law is bad - UNLESS zimmerman is convicted.

and if he is not arrested, and not convicted, that indicates the law is not to blame for anything, and there was indeed conflicting facts on his guilt.

by immediately using him, as a reason to say the entire law is bad, is indeed stating that he is guilty - otherwise why bring the law up other than your own opinion.

again - that is NOT the kind of tripe i was abused for while marching in the 60's/70's.

"lets not forget to kill that duke lacrasosse team"

Not that it's relevant, but I did read the book "Until Proven Innocent," about the false allegations against 3 Duke lacrosse players~a chilling read (& highly recommended), but still no relevance to this case.

all you want is blood vengeance.

Really? You're the one who said you would be in favor of the death penalty should he be found guilty. Now there is no argument for the death penalty being self defense, what does that make it? That's right, blood vengeance.

Given the known facts this is a clear case of self defense.

Right. Clearly Trayvon was going to stone Zimmerman to death with his skittles.

The SYG has a provision that he can't even be arrested if he is claiming he is innocent under SYG. They have to accept his defense, or prove is will not stand, before he is arrested, by law. At least, that's what I read. It sure sounds like he will get to use the SYG unless he is the aggressor, or is proven to have been committing an illegal act. I know everybody says he is the aggressor, because he talked to Trayvon, followed him, but I don't see how that holds, since neither was illegal. I guess we'll see.

"Given the known facts this is a clear case of self defense."


And, what known facts are those, Flicker???

"I know everybody says he is the aggressor, because he talked to Trayvon, followed him, but I don't see how that holds, since neither was illegal."

Still, he was told not to pursue, he did~Zimmer put himself in the position of stalker~any half-way decent federal prosecutor will have a field day with this. Bark all you want Conservatives (a recent poll pegged you guys), but this case is going to trial, like it or not!

I don't not like it, I just think it is going to be hard to convict him. Not because I don't want to, but the evidence isn't there. I said the same thing with Anthony. Why did everyone think she would be convicted of murder, when they never even proved there was a murder, much less that she did it? It's about the facts, not what anybody wants. That's the way the law works.

And BTW, there won't be a federal prosecutor unless they can prove it was a violation of federal law for some reason. The State has the jurisdiction so far as I know.

Char, I think they will arrest him and charge him with a hate crime. The public pressure is intense, DA's have caved on a lot less.

I guess we'll see.

"He has not been arrested because his father Robert Zimmerman sat on the bench and is a is a retired US Magistrate judge and his mother was a court clerk."

Wow, finally the truth comes out~this is some heavy sh**, and def explains why Zimmer hasn't been arrested. The State Att'y's Office should be ashamed for caving in to influence, covering this up, and giving false statements. I'm surprised too, that MSM hasn't run with this~something disgusting is going on behind closed doors...

I did hear his Father was a judge. That doesn't change his right to any defense. The Police Chief said there was evidence to support his claim for self defense. This may present an insurmountable problem for the prosecution. We will see. One thing for sure, if his Dad was a judge, he will avail himself of all his rights. That is for sure. His may not be any different than someone else's, but you can bet Dad will know what they all are!

Good info RF~not a "real judge," but here in MA, they have the same power. A magistrate decided my divorce settlement and saw fit to give me 1/4 of the marital home (which I bought, BTW!).

The left never leaves an opportunity that divides a nation alone. Obama the uniter? All I hear is blacks against whites, women against men, Catholics against non-Catholics, cops against civilians, rich against poor. This guy in office is a sleazy politician. Nothing more, nothing less...

"Fox box," good one RF~I'll be chuckling over that 'til bedtime...But in response to Jeff H's convoluted comments, oh God, their so convoluted, I have no response!

""Hey, Jersey Boy, maybe if you stopped listening to your Fox box you'd hear something different. ""

Yeah, I hear Al Sharpton is your guy now on MSNBS. Smart choice. "You isn't stupid"

""Divide and conquer is what the rich have been doing for long before this nation was founded. The rich have only one thing to fear from the rest of us and that is our numbers. ""

You really are too ignorant to see how you contradict yourself...

"The evil right divides us!" "The rich are out to get the poor!" "Catholics hate women!" "Whites are speaking in racist code when they want government to spend less!"

""Oh and the right tries to divide us because they want less taxes which means they hate everybody!!""

Yeah, that's the ticket...

Maybe that strategy will work better this year than it did in 2010 even though you had the numbers in 2010 too. Maybe...

""Why don't you educate me since you support cutting school funding in our state.""

Please don't tell me you are a Wisconsiner.

I didn't contradict myself. I was mocking you but I do realize it went over your head. I'll try to keep it more simple next time.

""Some of the smartest people in the world will tell you to explain things to them like they are a 5-year old.""

Fox box tell you that?

That explains why you aren't making sense...

dispatcher that told him to stay put.

that is still up for the law to find out.

you can not in any way shape or form say he "flat out ignored".

he might have - he might not have.

when told he did not need to do that, he said"okay", and SOME evidence suggests he DID stop, and was returning to his vehicle.

now - dont lnow yet, which story is true - but neither is absolute.

zimmerman may deserve the chair - and he may not.

well part of that disappeared lol.

first line should read It's doubtful he thought much of any law since he flat-out ignored the 911 dispatcher that told him to stay put.

"dispatcher that told him to stay put."

I'm half deaf, and I heard the dispatcher, so you're either totally deaf or totally ignorant~you choose!

i also heard he dispatcher - and i heard him say "okay" and heard his car door chiming as he opened the door.

appears it is you that may be the stupid one.

and i did not say what truth is - i didnt interview six witnesses as the police did, i did not have unresticted access to all evidence.

wha are you so arragant that you think you know all the facts?

i am merely saying - we do not know yet - so do not rush to judgement.

THAT is the intelligent thing to do.

you on the other hand???????

you decide for yourself, based on ignorance of all the details. i will wait till all the facts are in.

I have no idea what you're talking about, "intelligent one," as long as we're resorting to name calling...

But Del, I'm willing to bet I know more about this case than you do~I don't listen to just one-sided opinions, & with your use of words like stupid & ignorance, I'm willing to bet I'm a helluva lot smarter than you~got a Master's???

you are the one that siad that I am either totally def or ignorant.

i gave the benefit of the doubt - and stated that we are ALL ignorant of the details - and each can decide to rmain that way or not.

dont have a masters, but have a bachelors summa cum laude - is your masters in crime enforcement? law? some related field? or are we simply claiming that sheepskin proves intelligence, when it has been repeatedly proven it may only prove an ability to memorize.

i too do not only listen to one side - and if you bothered to read, and not just regurgitate bolviated rhetoric - i stated my opinion is he is probably guilty.

and yes the dike lacrosse team incident has everything to do with the of those that have already tried and convicted and are dmanding punishment.

none of us knows ANYthing about this for certain - we all know bits and pieces - much the police and prosecutor have not revealed - if they did it could jeapordize their case.

so why not state what our opinions are AS opinions, and not state them as absolute fact, when we were not there, did not interview winesses, see the crime scene, or investigate a damned thing about it.

but if you want to match intelligence - go for it = shopenauer? nitsche? rule of 9's? heck rule of 78's - and is it different than sum of the digits, or maybe the rule of 7's? why it is impossible to save 3000% on health insurance costs? the difference between sociopath and psychopath? the pros and cons of dyhydogen monoxide? what good things happen because of co2? maybe you prefer religion - according to roman catholics what is the immaculate conception? is there only one catholic doctrine? what is the southern baptist tulip doctrine? what are the ways some believe to be 'speaking in tongues'? the economy - explain the creation of money via the reserve requirement. how does the federal reserve cause a change in consumer interest rates on deposits and loans? maybe us history - who are the rosenbergs? what exactly was the crime of benedict arnold? where was general custer born and where did he die? what was andrew jacksons claim to fame as president? what were gw bushs faults and why? what was nixons major crime? what was clintons major crime? what was the probable crime committed by teddy kennedy? who is hanoi jane? what is the 3/5ths rule, why is it important, and what was it meant to accomplish?

i can dicuss or define any of them off the top of my head - buit what does that prove?

I am sure you have your own list as well.

does ANY of that give us the right to decide who was in the wrong in this?

not to an intelligent person - unless driven by agenda.

we can have an OPINION - but it is foolish and ignorant to claim our opinion is fact at this point.

even tho we both have the same gut instinct.

yes and for both a lack of training (memorization) compounded by physical ailments that interfere - i make many typos - any word you are not able to decipher - let me know.

I added the 'It's doubtful he thought much of any law since he flat-out ignored the 911 dispatcher that told him to stay put.' because I read in several places, and heard in the audio that he was clearly told to stay-put.

margie,
you missed my point entirely.

there are conflicting views about whether he obeyed or not.

yes he was told it was not needed. but he said ok, indicating he would stop. the next tape you hear his dinging bell from opening his car door. that would indicate he had returned to his truck,

but we do not know.

so to state he ignored them as a fact is wrong. it is maybe.

From politics, comes policy, policy beget laws, thus...bad politics, makes bad policy, which (with the help of the NRA) makes bad laws, one of which is precisely why Trayvon's death is relevant and germane to "talking politics."

""That's also why the righties don't want to talk about it.""

Says who?

When a bunch of black thugs attacked people leaving the Wisconsin State Fair last year, I didn't see YOU talking about it. Jumping on peoples' cars, punching old ladies in the face...

Guess what? Concealed carry law was passes since then. I hope, for their sake, that they don't try to repeat their typical performance. I'll be there...

R.F., Anytime you resort to calling me names, I will delete the comment.
I stand by my statement that I believe Zimmerman wasn't thinking about or concerned with the SYG law when he killed Trayvon. Personally, I think he has a huge problem with black people and was so worked up he didn't think at all. Yes, I do lean to conservative, obviously, but you were wrong about my position. Regardless, no reason to be rude and call me names, this isn't Jr. High.

I deleted one comment where you called me a name, it had nothing to do with 'You can't make a cogent argument so you delete'.

""Well, maybe you were too busy doing the Fox trot. ""

Yeah, when a bunch of thugs attack people, flash mob and vandalize stores, etc... It's only because of Fox news. Fox News is clearly bias because instead of reporting that Obama sends tingles up their leg they report about the deterioration of a race that represents 50% of the murder victims in America and over 90% of the murderers of the said victims are of the same race. They report the fact that Obama cares about one particular case because the victim looks like the son he never had and for once the murderer doesn't and it's their fault? Honestly, I bet you watch Fox News more than me because I never get a chance. I get 90% of my news from Drudge.

""I don't recall if I was in any conversations about the incident or not. But before you accuse me of NOT being in any such conversation, you should do a little research first.""

This after saying...

""That's also why the righties don't want to talk about it.""

On an article by an admitted conservatives in which you call names? You didn't even have to do research and you still put your foot in your mouth.

margie,
I stand by my statement that I believe Zimmerman wasn't thinking about or concerned with the SYG law when he killed Trayvon. Personally, I think he has a huge problem with black people and was so worked up he didn't think at all.

i only agree with part of this - but i stand by your right to hold that opinion - even when i have a slightly different one.

as long as we all remember - we only have opinions so far.

the only absolute fact, is a young man is dead, and that is a tragedy.

Great Post, Margie........

SYG encourages abuse; vigilantism; Barney Fife-ism; the misperceptions of altercations and confrontations; the misperception of circumstances that may SEEM like threats, but aren't; and the flat-out encouragement of bias against, `the Other'--whether such adverse profiling is the result of attire, skin color, gait, facial featurs, tone of voice, etc.

Zimmerman may have been guilty of some, or all, of the above.

Unfortunately, however, none of us were there. And, so far, any witnesses and evidence--including the video that showed Zimmerman in brief custody--seem to be inconclusive.

Voice-print technology may interpret those haunting screams/wails--so as to determine whose voice that really was on audio.

But absent an eye-witness(es) or an actual video, there's no way of knowing who the aggressor was--with or without the cries.

It is conceivable, as has been pointed out, that Martin might have been exercising his own SYG perogative.

However, where does SELF-DEFENSE begin?

At the point of the start of the pursuit?

And if so, is the persuer bereft of such a Right and is always the aggressor?

Or is the persued ALWAYS in the Right of Self-Defense and never the aggressor?

It seems to me that when a man is being choked, strangled, or otherwise potentially threatened--such as when someone brandishes a weapon--then you are officially in a situation where Self-Defense is absolutely allowable.

But, by then, IT MAY BE TOO LATE.

Which begs the question:

When do you know your life is actually in danger?
When do you know your life could be in danger?

There cannot be actual answers to these questions, it seems to me, in many situations.

And there, very well, may not be any answers in the death of Trayvon Martin.

Do you have kids? If you do, I think you'd be able to recognize their voices if they were screaming for help. Trayvon's parents have done this.

I am NOT suggesting that the voice is not Trayvon Martin's voice.

I am suggesting that the facts are NOT in, yet--as evidence, either before a Grand Jury or in a court of law.

Simply because you take the word of the deceased's parents does not make it true.

NOR does it make it UNTRUE.

We simply don't know.

You may have also heard that the voice was identified as Zimmerman's voice--by those who know him.

I happen to believe that the voice is the voice of a very young man--but that doesn't mean that I'm right.

While I may believe that the voice is more likely, therefore, the deceased's voice, does not mean that it is.

Nor does it mean that the voice belongs to Trayvon Martin, if YOU believe that it does, based on the deceased's parents experience.

We might both relatively agree, about whose voice it is--you being more certain than I--but that doesn't mean that it's definitely true.

If we prejudge opinions and they become facts in our minds, then I think we are doing nothing but adding more bias to the evaluation of essential and vital matters.

SYG applies if you are facing death or serious bodily injury. So if Zimmerman was returning to his vehicle Martin can't use this as provocation for attacking Zimmerman as both Zimmerman and witness(s) claim.

Are there eye witnesses who saw the entire incident clearly?

Who says that the so-called eye witnesses saw anything clearly enough?

Are you saying that more than one eye-witness--or so-called eye-witness--has said that Zimmerman was retreating when Martin attacked Zimmerman?

It is a common opinion/perception, in this case--that Zimmerman was the aggressor and was in violation of the law.

How, tell me, does anyone really know?

Only two people really knew. And only one of them is still alive.

I read one report of a witness that said Martin attacked Zimmerman, but there are other witnesses.

What evidence that Zimmerman was the aggressor or in violation of what laws? This may be a perception but where's the evidence? Hopefully a police report will be released with all the facts and witness statements.

If you read all my comments above, you will see that I am strongly suggesting that we cannot arrive at any final conclusions, about what happened.

Sure I don't think we can either.

brett c,
i am in total and complete agreement with you - well one minor difference but it isnt relavant(that syg causes abuse, vigilantism - it may - not sure we know) .

but to every other word - i have been on the same message.......... we ............. do ..........not..................... know.................... yet ..........

and we may never know - the grand jury may well say that there is an abundance of evidence that it was self-defence.

they may say the evidence points to murder.

we are not privy to what they see.

and wow - the names i have been called for simply stating that opinions are not facts.

personally, i think odds are zimmerman messed up and is guilty of a crime - but ........................ i was also sure the duke lacrosse team was guilty - having know of some klan members, i was sure tawanny was raped by some of them.

i was dead wrong on both.

we MUST wait and let the

the people that see the info - decide.

Gosh, what a surprise. Someone uses a tragic event as raw material for a partisan political comment. This is a dog bites man story. I know that stuff like this surfaces in the news media all the time coming from all parts of the political spectrum. Sometimes I enjoy it because the comments are interesting because of the clever use of language and other times because the reasoning is so tortured that it's good for a laugh. The reason people make statements like that is to get people stirred up. The outrage generally only lasts till the next trumped up atrocity.

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad, Nippy! "The outrage generally only lasts till the next trumped up atrocity." True.

R.F. left a link here that was 'interesting', however I deleted his comment because he again resorted to calling me a name. If someone calls me a name, I will delete. If someone calls you a name, please send me a message and I will delete the comment, I don't look at my comments very often.
The link he left was:
How Right-Wing Bullies Blame and Attack the Victims of Violence and Oppression
A great article demonstrating how extreme liberals attempt to demonize people who disagree with them.

It must be so gratifying, and exciting, to exercise censorship, pretty much, arbitrarily.