Whatever you thought about the Martin/Zimmerman case, the big loser was the American media. They – and their leftyblog camp followers – did, almost to a fault, an unforgiveably bad job of covering the case – from NBC’s editing Zimmerman’s 911 call to try to make him sound racist to their seeming unwillingness to get even the most basic facts straigth. (Classic example: how many of you read media accounts that said Zimmerman has “a round in the chamber, his hammer cocked and his safety off?” For starters, virtually every person who carries a firearm for self-defense, including every cop you see on the street, has a “round in the chamber”. Beyond that, Zimmerman’s pistol was a KelTec 9mm, a type I’m intimately familiar with; it’s what’s called a “double action only” pistol; there is no safety, and you can’t “cock” the hammer except by squeezing the trigger.
I know. Technicalities. But it’s not just the gun-geek stuff that the media bobbles.
In the wake of the Zimmerman verdict over the weekend, an insufficiently bright liberal on Twitter issued a tweet that included a link to this deeply ignorant hit piece from CBS last year.
It’s just as wrong this year as it was last; I’ll emphasize the :
(CBSMiami.com) – As some state lawmakers are calling for a re-thinking of Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, which allows people to defend themselves from danger without the need to first try to get away, an analysis of state data shows deaths due to self defense are up over 200 percent since the law took effect.
“Up over 200 percent”.
That sounds like a big number. Especially as against the fact that murder in general, nationwide, is down nearly half in the past 20 years.
Seems like a…disconnect?
We’ll come back to that.
The shooting death of Trayvon Martin by an armed, self-appointed Central Florida crime watch volunteer who claimed he shot in self defense has sparked a national debate about Florida’s law, technically known as the Castle doctrine.
No. No, it is not “technically known” as “Castle Doctrine”, which relates to removing the “duty to retreat”while you’re in your home. Which was the law in Minnesota until the mid-2000s, by the way, but no longer.
Until 2005, it was generally considered self defense if someone tried to get into your home or invade your property, so long as you could show deadly force was the last resort. In 2005, the “Stand your Ground” law removed the need to retreat before using force, even in public.
And there you go. One of the reasons people on the left are so ignorant about Second Amendment issues is that the people they get their information from are, in fact, crushingly ignorant on the subject.
“Castle” referred to in your home. “Stand your Ground” was elsewhere.
According to state crime stats, Florida averaged 12 “justifiable homicide” deaths a year from 2000-2004. After “Stand your Ground” was passed in 2005, the number of “justifiable” deaths has almost tripled to an average of 35 a year, an increase of 283% from 2005-2010.
So what?
If all of those shootings – 12 or 35 – were people shooting because they were in legitimate fear of death or great bodily harm, and where lethal force was appropriate, and the intended victim wasn’t a willing participant, then that means there are 35 rapists, stalkers, robbers and thugs off the street.
Each death is a tragedy, sure. But so would be the deaths of those shooting in self-defense – and in every case, as a matter of law , that was the alternative with all 35 of those shootings; death, mutilation, kidnapping, rape.
Don’t they matter?
Minnesota needs a Stand your Ground law.
“…is that the people they get their information from are, in fact, crushingly ignorant on the subject.”
So I guess now you are going to tell me the crew of the crashed Asiana jet weren’t named Ho Lee Fuk, Sum Ting Wong and Wi Tu Lo? Sure Wingnut, sure…lulz.
As I believe Instapundit noted when some Democrat Dominated Media Culture type offered what they thought was a new take on the hook-up culture in our university & college system – “Gee, did these people have sex during college?”
It’s almost as if the lessons at journalism school are nothing but rote instructions: “Guns is bad; gun owners is evil; NRA is devil;” repeat ad infinitum.
“… an analysis of state data shows deaths due to self defense are up over 200 percent since the law took effect.”
Unless these cases were deemed criminal, that is, the shooter had no reason to use deadly force, the number of resulting deaths would be at least the same, if not more.
By law, the force used to cause the deaths was used to prevent the deaths of the shooters (or their great bodily harm, or those of innocent others).
So, the death count was virtually unchanged, but who did the dying and who did the killing was reversed. Some might call that a win for the good guys.
Others might call it an intentional obfuscation …
I averaged one cold a year before I had kids.
Last year, I had three colds.
Therefore, I’m 300% more likely to get a cold with kids in the house.
Therefore, I shouldn’t have kids.
I’m a journalist, so this makes perfect sense.
In the first place, it’s a logical fallacy to claim that a change in the Florida statutes “caused” an increased number of homicides. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, because B follows A, A did not necessarily cause B. Secondly, if the definition of justifiable homicide caused a reclassification of deaths, it’s tautological to claim that more people died. Perhaps the same number overall died, only now some individuals wouldn’t be prosecuted for murder if their acts were defined as justified. Third, and most important to the Zimmerman case, “stand your ground” had nothing to do with his defense. He was lying on the ground being attacked and had no opportunity to retreat. Shooting Martin under the circumstances would have been justified regardless. Let me add a fourth point, the American system of law requires the state to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. A defendant doesn’t have to prove his innocence. Florida failed to prove its case and the jury acquitted Zimmerman. Liberals who persist in railing about the verdict and dumb, dumb, dumb.
One of the issues we are having is that this case is being used as a proxy for our own positions in the larger debate about a range of political issues. Often we’re protecting our own position with no particular belief or acceptance of other positions. There are folks who have no concern for the humanity and would rather focus on the second amendment and stand your ground legislation.
Yes, “Emery,” by all means let’s do away with the rule of law and the 2nd Amendment in the name of “humanity” whatever that pabulum means to you.
The criminal justice system relies on information (proof), and favors defendants when we know little about a case. Zimmerman and Martin had a dispute of some sort that night. That’s going to happen in any society. Because Zimmerman was armed, Martin is dead. That’s the price we pay for being the only advanced nation that allows its citizens to carry guns.
Um, no. Martin is dead because instead of going home, or calling the police, or talking to Zimmerman, he initiated a fight. When you initiate violence against someone, you are opening a door, and you have forfeited the right to complain about what comes through it.
What the elite believe:
http://overland.org.au/2013/07/when-george-zimmerman-was-acquitted/
From Tim Blair.
The heinous nature of the crime can not be understood without knowledge of the Skittles.
We will never know exactly what happened that day in November, 1963, but apparently Mr. Oswald and Mr. Kennedy had a dispute of some sort . . .
“Because Zimmerman was armed, Martin is dead. That’s the price we pay for being the only advanced nation that allows its citizens to carry guns”
Because Zimmerman was armed,
Martin is dead. According to six reasonable women, had he not shot, he could very well have died or suffered a fractured skull or brain damage.
Had he been in the UK or Sweden or Japan, he’d likely be dead. That’s the benefit we get from being the only “advanced” country to trust its people with the means to defend themselves, and itself.
“Advanced” is synonomous with cool. That is, being something that you aspire to be but aren’t. Being advanced must not be all that it’s cracked up to be since more people from “advanced” countries seek residency in ours than ours do in theirs.
Criminal justice is not, in fact is rarely, pretty. Our society, like many men in search of a spouse, expect a victim to be absolutely pure and without fault. Unfortunately, Those that meet the qualifications are few and far between.
“Victim blaming” is an absolute taboo in certain criminal situations. Not here though, assuming that we believe that Zimmerman is the victim like I do …
What’d ya think, Sef.
EmeryTeh Peni has found lefty papspew so universally regurgitated, it’s impossible to pinpoint the source he’s plagiarizing!If you don’t like blacks, or you think blacks are dysfunctional because there is so much black on black violence then you’re more likely to side with Zimmerman. When I read comments that suggest Martin is guilty of his own death, we have a major problem that goes well beyond this case. The are other views that would suggest had Zimmerman followed law enforcement instructions and stayed in his vehicle, exhibited some restraint and less enthusiasm in his pursuit of Martin, we wouldn’t be having this conversation
First, GZ was already out of his truck and jogging after TM to see where he went when the 911 dispatcher, not law enforcement, said “We don’t need you to do that.” After which, if you listen to the tape, you can hear that GZ slows up (his breathing eases). And, second, all the evidence points to TM punching GZ in the nose, then, having knocked GZ down, straddling him and continuing to assault him. Doesn’t matter is TM is black, white, yellow or green at that point, GZ is entitled to defend himself. And GZ did so with a single shot, he didn’t empty his pistol into TM, and could not know that the single shot was going to be mortal.
This whole fantasy that GZ was hunting a black kid to shoot would not make a decent Hollywood screenplay. Killer calls cops and gets them to start coming before he commits the crime. Killer somehow arranges for his victim to straddle and pummel him for witnesses to see. Killer fires a single gunshot to the center of mass and “knows” that it will be mortal. All the while, not knowing when the police are going to arrive. Bah. What killer would premeditate that? What screenplay writer would write that?
This case has nothing to do with the color of either party. And for that matter, GZ could be counted as a black in college admissions form, as well as a Hispanic, so maybe it is black on black crime.
^Doesn’t matter IF^
Are you getting some miles on your bike this summer?
Emery, your 9:10 comment is a bizarre mix of unproven assumptions and falsehoods.
“If you don’t like blacks, or you think blacks are dysfunctional because there is so much black on black violence then you’re more likely to side with Zimmerman. ”
I ‘sided with Zimmerman’ for the same reason the jury ‘sided with Zimmerman’. Are we all racists?
“When I read comments that suggest Martin is guilty of his own death, we have a major problem that goes well beyond this case. ”
Jury, court of law, see above response. Do you understand the concept of ‘self-defense’?
“The are other views that would suggest had Zimmerman followed law enforcement instructions and stayed in his vehicle”
What law enforcement instructions? You are off in fantasy land, here.
” . . . exhibited some restraint and less enthusiasm in his pursuit of Martin’
So Zimmerman is responsible for Martin attempting to beat him to death. Got it.
EmeryTheSoci@listDegenerate gets p0wned and starts talking about non-sequiturs. Yep, par for the course for a bloodthirsty progressive who apparently has no probem whatsover seeing GZ in a cooler with a tag on his tow instead of TM – that is somehow absolutely acceptable in his vacuous Marxism-filled brain.
@ Terry
Read the comments on STiD regarding this case over the past few days. Some say Martin is guilty for his own death, others reference black on black violence in their comments. In the US, we are clearly prepared to live the constant low level of violence associated with a large fraction of the population owning guns. When there are armed people walking the streets every night, there will be people killed who would otherwise survive the night.
@ Loren
Actually, following kids of all races is pretty much what neighborhood watch committees do. And the neighborhood supports those efforts. What makes this case unusual is the dispute that developed. Most youths disappear when followed. What led Martin and Zimmerman to confront each other? The only one left alive who knows is Zimmerman, and he’s unlikely to ever tell us the unvarnished truth.
The deapth of derpavity EmeryTheSoci@listDegenerate goes to justify his opposition to the founding principles of this Unites States of America, nay the ability of a human being able to defend themselves, is astounding!
Emery, who do you think is responsible for Martin’s death? Zimmerman’s prosecution team couldn’t convince a jury that Zimmerman had done anything improper, let alone illegal, when he was attacked by Martin.
What comment on SITD are you talking about?
When there are armed people walking the streets every night, there will be people killed who would otherwise survive the night.
You missed my point, Emery.
In every single case of justifiable homicide with a firearm – every single one – involves a shooter who, absent the use of lethal force, was also highly likely to have died. If there was no legitimate fear of death, rape or very serious injury, it wouldn’t be justifiable homicide.
Why do you wish crime victims would die?
When I read comments that suggest Martin is guilty of his own death, we have a major problem that goes well beyond this case.
Your reading comprehension?
The are other views that would suggest had Zimmerman followed law enforcement instructions
The dispatcher wasn’t giving “Law enforcement instructions”. It was a very vague suggestion (“we don’t need you to do that”), done more to protect the county from liability than to tell Zimmerman what to do. Dispatchers aren’t cops, and their instructions have no legal authority, and they know it.
and stayed in his vehicle, exhibited some restraint and less enthusiasm in his pursuit of Martin, we wouldn’t be having this conversation
And those views are irrelevant, not to mention wrong.
Emery, please answer the following questions:
1) Was Zimmerman in a place he didn’t have a legal right to be?
2) What is the Florida statute against “showing enthusiasm?”
3) Since we’re talking self-defense; what action of Zimmerman’s justified an aggravated assault (which itself led to Zimmeran being in the fear of death or great harm that the jury validated)? Please be specific.
4) What does the fact that a jury agreed that Zimmerman had a legitimate, reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm (meaning life-altering maiming) and that the shooting was justified mean to you?
Please answer those four questions before commenting about anything else. Thanks.
@ Terry
The juror’s did what was expected of them. A jury should convict based on the evidence, not emotion.
Just a mom says:
“Meanwhile, the black-on-black holocaust continues in cities like Chicago – virtually unreported..]”
If you feel inclined, go back over the posts regarding this case and see for your self.
Split hairs much MBerg?
I disagree with your point #4, Mitch. The burden was on the prosecution to prove 2nd degree murder or manslaughter. They couldn’t do it, despite the fact that Zimmerman had indisputably fired the shot that killed the unarmed Martin.
In the end, the pocket full of Skittles was not the damning evidence the prosecution thought it would be.
gee Terry, I’ve been known to go hunting with gummy bears in my pocket; what kind of ofay degenerate does that make me?
Emery wrote: ‘When I read comments that suggest Martin is guilty of his own death, we have a major problem that goes well beyond this case.’
And as evidence submitted this SITD comment:
“Meanwhile, the black-on-black holocaust continues in cities like Chicago – virtually unreported..]”
Emery wrote: ‘What led Martin and Zimmerman to confront each other?’
‘Confronted each other’! What a magnificent term of art!
All evidence at the trial indicated that Martin ‘confronted’ Zimmerman, and then proceeded to assault him. Your fantasies about what may have happened are not based on evidence. You cannot convict a man based on what you imagined might have happened.
What form of reasoning do you think that you are using, Emery?
Kel, according to many people on the Left, buying Skittles proves you could never initiate an assault against another human being. Or signifies to all neighborhood watch volunteers that you have no ill intent, even if the neighborhood watch person has no idea that you have bought skittles. Unless they are evil, racist, ‘white hispanics’. The possession of Skittles has been known to drive ‘white hispanics’ into a killing frenzy.
The possession of Skittles has been known to drive ‘white hispanics’ into a killing frenzy.
No kidding, Terry. My preference for Lemonheads is the only thing that’s saved me from an early grave.
The libturd talking points bot generated reasoning of course! Was not there another libturd commenter with some serious reading and reasoning comprehension issues under a different nom-de-plume? Sounds familiar.
Split hairs much MBerg?
Strawman #2 in the same comment thread.
In other words, he can’t answer Mitch’s 4 questions because he knows the correct answers destroy whatever argument/narrative he is still grasping at.
Facts suck when they destroy your agenda.
Split hairs much MBerg?
It’s only “hair-splitting” if it’s not life or death.
Can you answer the questions?
@Doug Grow/alter ego “Emery wrote: “The only one left alive who knows is Zimmerman, and he’s unlikely to ever tell us the unvarnished truth.”
So the fact that Zimmerman has recounted a consistent story of the events of that evening; which matches both the physical injuries he sustained as well as the timing of events as recorded by the 911 operator; that matches with the witness accounts – both to police at the time of the shooting and afterward as well as at trial; and returned time after time at law enforcements request – without an attorney – to re-tell what happened means nothing to you “Emery”?
I can only hope that you never sit on a jury. You apparently presume the accused to be guilty on whom the burden falls to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is innocent. And since your standard is ‘unvarnished truth’ (my old philosophy professor would have had a field day with you) all persons the state accuses will simply be punished, with no real need for trials (beyond the odd show trials the state needs to make examples of those who need to be made examples of).
@Terry wrote: “What form of reasoning do you think that you are using, Emery?” What’s that old PJ O’Rourke joke… “The Thought Police couldn’t arrest him because there wasn’t enough evidence to effect an arrest?”
All I know is that if Trayvon Martin had gone directly from the convenience store to his father’s home, he’d still be alive today, and George Zimmerman wouldn’t have to fear for his life.
One of the reasons I tend to believe that the Zimmerman jury came to the correct conclusion is that it is difficult to see how Martin’s death could have been the result of something other than self-defense on Zimmerman’s part. If Zimmerman did not fear for his life, why did he shoot Martin? It wasn’t racial animus. If there was no struggle, it could be argued that Zimmerman shot Martin out of carelessness, but there clearly was a struggle.
The alternative explanations I have heard from people who believe Zimmerman should have been convicted simply don’t fit the evidence. If you believe that Zimmerman stalked Martin and shot him down in cold blood (as some do) you are not making sense.