Fair enough; my feeling is just that when barbarians show up, it behooves all reasonable people to show a united front. The best chance for someone like al27052 to understand why what he’s advocating is a terrible idea is to have it explained to him by someone who he sees as in some sense “on his side,” rather than an evil conservative lawyer like Bricker.
I want to strongly echo the point being made by furt.
I’m reasonably confident that what I say to someone like al27052 is immediately dismissed as biased commentary from someone who is (a) conservative and (b) a lawyer, which automatically makes me so biased I cannot provide either useful insight or accurate information.
I think there’s very little chance of changing al27052’s mind, unless it’s a personal appeal from George Soros and Barbra Streisand. But I do think there’s a chance to show the lurking readers, those who rarely post, that this is the kind of issue where the opinion is not one that’s limited to the right. And liberals strongly engaging the self-identified liberal and saying, “You’re wrong,” in clear and direct terms is (in my opinion) the most persuasive way to send that message.
It seldom happens. And part of me wonders how much of that reluctance is the very understandable rationale you offer, Telemark (no percentage in engaging w/ al27052 based on quality of his posts) and how much of it is “For solidarity’s sake, it’s better to criticize something the conservative guy said, even obliquely, than something crazy from ‘our’ side.”
If Zimmerman signed an affidavit lying about his finances (highly likely) or testified under oath, I have no problem with charging and convicting him for that.
I don’t see the evidence of a lunatic stalking blacks, and until there is evidence of that, I would not convict.
There are 3 solutions here. You people tell ME which one you like.
-
Stricter gun laws. Keep guns out of the hands of people like Cho Seung Hui and Zimmerman.
-
More careful monitoring of dangerous, unstable people like Zimmerman. This would require a lot of manpower and money.
-
Arming the populace so thoroughly that people like Zimmerman and Cho Seung Hui would be killed by armed citizens as soon as they go berserk.
1 and 2 will never happen, and I shudder to think of the consequences of #3, so that just leaves the status quo.
- Removing free speech rights from those who don’t know what they are talking about, make unfair comparisons, and generally argue from emotion based on little to no evidence…hmmm, with you as the example, I’m in favor.
So if you lived in Zimmerman’s neighborhood and he wasn’t able to defend himself then Martin would be in prison for assault or murder or both. That’s what prison is for and that’s where he would be had the police arrived 20 seconds earlier.
Assault is one thing, murder is another. Trayvon wasn’t armed.
God, what a pack of racists. Hide your racism behind the “rule of law”, why don’t you? Which one of you is New Deal Democrat? Maybe ALL of you are.
Against free speech? As usual, the extremist side of the argument shows its true colors by being the first to try to limit free speech. ROFL
It’s funny you mention that, I get the exact same reading from the opposition. I’m curious, for example, if we were to plop Bricker et al. in the early 19th century, would they fight what’s right or would they shrug and say, “Separate but equal! It’s the law! It has to be right!” or “It’s not against the law to have an all-white jury! Therefore it’s moral and OK with me!” What the law-people don’t get is that the “law” is not fair, equitable or right; therefore, I don’t treat it as some edict etched in stone from Mt. Sinai and, frankly, neither should you. MLK says it the best:
[QUOTE= Martin Luther King, Jr. ]
One may ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there fire two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the brat to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all” (emphasis added)
[/QUOTE]
- Honesty
There’s no reason to think that if Trayvon Martin were alive, he’d be in jail for murder. As far as I’m aware, Trayvon had no formal martial arts or defense training so unless he was an undercover X-men at the Xavier School for Gifted Youngsters, I doubt a 17 year old could kill a 28 year old man armed with Skittles, an iced tea, and his bare fist. Keep in mind, the vast majority of people get hit in the face and live to tell the tale. To think that Zimmerman would keel over and die after a few punches (if that’s even true) is simply hyperbole.
.jpg){kind=link}
- Honesty
Trayvon was absolutely armed. He was armed with his fists and all indications are that he used them in an extended beating. It appears that it was after a considerable amount of beating that Zimmerman finally defended himself.
Actually the person flinging race around without justification is you. You have done so irrationally regarding Zimmerman and now you’re projecting this on others. You have projected your irrational views on others an that is the working definition of bigotry.
You asked questions above as to whether any of us would want him as a neighbor or a BIL. As it stands now, I would assuredly take him over you as a neighbor. That may change in relation to him as the trial unfolds but not you. You have shown a complete lack of reasoning skills in this debate up to and including bigoted rants. You made assumptions about Zimmerman without being there and continue to do so. If you can’t rationalize a given situation for what it is you would be a dangerous neighbor. I would expect someone like you to strike first and ask questions later. This is how people end of dead for no good reason. A simple dialogue would have defused the situation with Martin and Zimmerman but that didn’t happen.
If it turns out that Zimmerman started the fight then he will be held to some account for the events that followed. If it turned out that Martin started the fight then he lost his life for both his poor judgement and the rage that followed. That’s what the trial is about.
al27052, you’re not allowed to insult and personally attack other posters in this forum: you can’t call them racists, and implying they are breaking the rules with sock accounts is also a bad idea. I’m giving you a formal warning here: don’t do this again.
There is no evidence supporting an “extended beating” save the self-serving claims of the shooter. The detectives didn’t believe it because it wasn’t supported by the physical evidence. You’re stating it as fact, when it clearly is not.
The right to free speech is seen as flowing from the value of the open exchange of ideas. Sometimes free speech, if it is given for other purposes, such as yours, which appears to be increasing trolling, isn’t seen as a virtue.
In any case, I was more hoping that you’d catch on that if you desire me to ignore the Constitution and the rule of Law, you are the first one I’d be willing to violate it for.
Quibble over the number of punches in a issue that only concerns itself with whether there was one or not?
Unless I missed an earlier warning, it might be prudent to warn on claims of lies and lying, too, as al was doing that a few posts back, as well.
There is a great deal of evidence supporting an extended beating. First you have Zimmerman’s statement. That aligns with a witness showing one person on top beating another. The extent of the beating is corroborated with the length of time screams and pleading are heard on the 911 call along with a single gun shot. All that is consistent with the injuries sustained by Zimmerman and not Martin. Those injuries include a broken nose, bruising, and wounds on the back of his head.
That is the evidence that I’m aware of currently and I’ve stated them as accurately as I can. It can certainly change. Hope springs eternal that the prosecutor has some additional evidence. That would change the situation.
I am stating that Zimmerman sustained injuries incurred by Martin over a period at least as long as the 911 call and that he shot Martin.
The witness statement was retracted, so no fact there, either.
The statement as to who was on top was retracted. It’s still viable testimony and fits with the other evidence. If both showed signs of a struggle I would say it’s useless but Zimmerman’s physical state at the time of the shooting is consistent with him being the person being assaulted.
IOW, you’re an extremist. That’s the hallmark of all extremists, a willingness to violate free speech.