patrick.net

FaithInHim says

1. You dont know all the facts

You don't know all the facts.

FaithInHim says

2. Liberalism is destroying the country, not conservatism.

While this issue is more complex than lib v. con "who is destroying the country", the GOP (i.e.- "modern" conservatives) is doing more damage to this country than "liberals".

FaithInHim says

Let me list all the things liberals have done to destroy this country

Hmmm... Let me see the list of things that you are correct about.

FaithInHim says

1. Safe sex education=high std and pregnancy rates

Wrong.

FaithInHim says

2. Detroit

Wrong.

FaithInHim says

3. Gay rights=destruction of marriage

Wrong.

FaithInHim says

4. Prayer banned in schools=kid shooting rampages

Wrong.

FaithInHim says

5. Separation of church and state=Obama presidency

Wrong.

FaithInHim says

6. Fair housing for everyone=Section 8 and crime spreading

Wrong.

FaithInHim says

7. Welfare= life time laziness

Wrong.

FaithInHim says

8. Legalize marijuana=drug abuse rates skyrocketing

Wrong.

FaithInHim says

9. Abortion=nice word for racial cleansing

Wrong.

FaithInHim says

10. Gun bans=higher crime rates.

Wrong.

And apparently the list can go on.

FaithInHim says

Sorry, this was the fault of liberals, not conservatives.

Sorry, no it is not.

Bap33 says

Dan, you just said that cameras are the most effective tools for deterring crime. I disagree. I see it this way, strengthening families and neighborhoods, punishing criminals swiftly and surely, controlling illegal drugs, and a society that is armed and ready and willing to defend itself is the most effective way to deter crime. The Death Penalty is the most effective way to end repeat offenders.

The things you mentioned are tools but vague goals. And the goals may be good, despite being vague (what does it mean to strengthen a neighborhood?). However, as far as tools go, a camera is a pretty effective one.

As for the death penalty, there has been no evidence that it deters crime, and plenty of studies say that is does not. The chief problem with the death penalty is that if you kill an innocent person, you can't undo it. And that's already happen, probably thousands of times, but we have absolute proof that it has happened at least once.

Nevertheless, doing what you suggest is not mutually exclusive with everyone having a smart phone with video recording and real-time uploading capabilities. So why argue?

I will agree that had Martin been armed, he might still be alive today. Then again, Zimmerman might not be. I think Zimmerman would have thought twice had Martin been carrying an AK47 on his shoulder.

leoj707 says

Actually you are both wrong. The most effective way of deterring crime is family planning so unwanted children are not born -- this includes the use of abortion.

If we're expanding the scope of the conversation to find the most effective ways of preventing or deterring crime, then I say we go to the source.

The primary cause of violent crime is poverty. Eliminate poverty and violent crime will be rare.

leoj707 says

It has the same effect as life in prison without the possibility of parole and life without parole is significantly cheaper than the death penalty.

I didn't believe this when I read it, so I looked it up. You're right. It does cost more to do the death penalty. Surprising, but true.

http://www.deathpenalty.org/section.php?id=13
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
http://www.ncadp.org/affiliate.cfm?affID=23

Still, the expense isn't what's important. Had the death penalty be cheaper, I would still be weary of it.

It is fascinating that liberals (even if white) seem quick to see what they think is an obvious racist component to this (on Zimmerman's part) and also tend to think that it's extremely likely that Zimmerman committed murder.

And hardcore conservatives seem quick to want to defend that Zimmerman may have been within his rights and that the "stand your ground" law (or whatever it's called) may apply.

Forgetting whos view is correct, can we agree how fascinating it is that something so removed from politics seems, at least for many, to fall this way ? Really it is kind of astonishing. From what I have heard a lot of talk radio chatter has been in defense of Zimmerman.

Vicente says

I think most people have no idea how strongly this story resonates with African-Americans, and expect this to have a far larger impact than Rodney King.

This is very true, and it points to how clueless the idiots are who criticize Obama's "if I had a son" comments.

This incident happened on February 26, and blew up big time among African Americans on social media for weeks before it the hit mainstream media.

As someone who works with children, I can only say about Zimmerman, what a completely sick and ignorant asshole Zimmerman (the other child in the story) is. (and Bap - you really should be ashamed of yourself).

Dan8267 says

The primary cause of violent crime is poverty. Eliminate poverty and violent crime will be rare.

The gang violence you see isnt about being in poverty but drugs, money and protecting their turf. And they will kill anyone including bystanders when someone tries to take over their turf. Fact it is a pretty big money making enterprise and organization on its own. Your area of Florida, is the old Gambino family turf.

FaithInHim says

I have a honest question for anyone here who is a liberal.

1. Why do liberals hate guns?

What do you mean by liberal? I'm a social liberal, which means I believe that as long as adults aren't hurting anyone, they should be able to do what they want free of government interference.

I'm a political conservative in that I think government should be small, transparent, and have only the power necessary to do the specific things it is tasked with. Being a political conservative means I have to be a social liberal. After all, a small government does not interfere with what consenting adults do behind close doors.

I'm also a secularist, which means I believe in an absolute separation of church and state. Does that make me liberal or conservative? I thought it made me both.

I also believe in low taxation and low spending, but I want the rich to be taxed more than the poor and middle class. So do I count as liberal or conservative to you?

I don't believe in bailouts, but I do believe in investing in infrastructure, education, technology, and capital goods. I hate the Keynesian obsession with "stimulus", but I would support the Austrian economics idea of spending in areas that will yield a beneficial long-term return. In other words, don't pay men to dig a whole and fill it up, pay them to build an island and then put hotels and tourist attractions on it.

I also believe in conserving the environment like Republican president Teddy Roosevelt, not because I like to hug trees, but because I like to breath clean air and live a long life. Does that make me a conservative or a liberal?

Well, whatever you decide. I don't hate guns. But I do hate the violence glorifying gun culture that America has. Other countries, notable the Swiss, have lots of guns but they have a more rational and respectful culture towards the gun. America, has a shoot 'em up cowboy/gangster culture which is highly repugnant. Personally, I wish America was more like Switzerland when it came to guns, but we're not and I don't know how to make us like them.

FaithInHim says

Why does Wyoming have a lower crime rates than DC? Both maintain the same population.

Yeah, but not the same population density! I think that answers your question.

Population density X poverty = violent crime

thomas.wong1986 says

The gang violence you see isnt about being in poverty but drugs, money and protecting their turf.

What the...?

How many gang bangers do you think come from middle class backgrounds ? The values and beliefs that cause someone to take school seriously and to see mainstream economic success as an option are entirely about socioeconomics. That is, middle class kids tend to usually grow up with these beliefs, those in poverty often don't. This is true, not to suggest it's simple or that this explains everything about violence.

FaithInHim says

negro group

I think we've identify the problem with social conservatives. They are still living in the 19th century. You can tell by their 19th century language.

thomas.wong1986 says

The gang violence you see isnt about being in poverty but drugs, money and protecting their turf

Does gang violence happen often in rich neighborhoods? Drugs are a source of money in a poor environment. Your example illustrates my point.

Poor people desperate to escape poverty and with little to lose will take far greater risks including partaking in violent crime than people relatively well off.

does teen mothers happen much in rich hoods?
does dropping out happen much in rich hoods?
does grandma have to raise the grandkids becasue Shaneeskra just can't seem to stay off the pipe, in rich hoods?

@marcus,
I don't know what you are talking about. You are calling Zimmerman a murderer, I am calling him a citizen that refused to be the victim. Not sure where the shame is rooted.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Bap33 says

Not sure where the shame is rooted.

I guess that's why why I said you "should" be ashamed of yourself rather than you "are" ashamed of yourself.

But I have a really tough time believing you don't see it.

Bap33 says

I am calling him a citizen that refused to be the victim.

Really ?

So following and confronting a child for the crime of being in your neighborhood, and then shortly thereafter killing him is your idea of refusing to be a victim ? Really?

a 17 year old male out walking your streets and prowling around - in the late night dark - you call a "child"? Really? Then I guess the parents will be charged with neglect and endangerment? Right?

I do not feel any shame, even though you feel I "should". I do not feel you should call Zimmerman a murderer.

Bap33 says

I do not feel you should call Zimmerman a murderer.

Even if the fucked up "stand your ground law" holds, and he isn't arrested, let alone convicted, yeah, he's a murderer.

Although before all I said was that he probably is. I'll go further now and say he is a murderer.

Question: If he didn't have a gun, do you think Zimmerman's life would have somehow been threatened by this kid ?

(By the way video out today indicate that Zimmerman's supposed injuries were a total fabrication or at least extreme exaggeration).

I think we all know, that if he didn't have a gun, he wouldn't have confronted the kid. How can it not be murder ?

OH, yeah I forgot. The kid was in his neighborhood (you say "prowling around.") and Zimmerman just had to confront him so that he wouldn't be a victim.

Bap33 says

I am calling him a citizen that refused to be the victim.

Sounds like that was what Martin was doing as well, refusing to be a victim.

marcus says

Even if the fucked up "stand your ground law" holds,

The stand your ground law has a valid intention: to protect people who are legitimately in danger from risking their lives because they fear being prosecuted for murder. However, it is not the intent of the law to protect someone who actively instigated a situation.

The letter of the law may or may not be good -- I haven't looked at the exact text, and I'm not a lawyer -- but I wouldn't argue against the law's intention.

Some new evidence...

Shooter George Zimmerman appears uninjured in police video on night of shooting

Explosive video reveals that George Zimmerman appeared uninjured when he arrived at a Florida police station the night he shot Trayvon Martin — his nose is not broken or bleeding and the back of his head is unmarked by grass or bruising.

The security camera footage shot inside the police station directly contradicts a police report written that night.

Video on page with link.

I guess when Zimmerman has a gun and is asking you what you're doing in his neighborhood, "fuck off bitch" is the wrong response.

That gun must have made him feel really powerful. I can't help but wonder how he now feels about having shot and killed an unarmed teenager.

From MSNBC: "How 'super-Irish' activist sparked huge Martin protest"

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/29/10907662-how-one-man-helped-spark-online-protest-in-trayvon-martin-case

I knew the fucking Irish were behind this dastardly plot to stop the wanton killing of unarmed Negro children.

Dan8267 says

Some new evidence...

Shooter George Zimmerman appears uninjured in police video on night of shooting

Interesting. Was he taken to the hospital at all? Even if he was, doesn't look like he stayed there very long, considering he calims to have had a "broken nose" and likely a suspected concussion.

that's an odd position you guys have taken ... it is now "Zimmerman wasn't harmed enough to defend himself from the suspect!" How interesting. The police that responded said he was beat up and bleeding .... but the blood thirsty race-baitors want to add fuel to the flames of hate ... progressivism at full stride folks, nothing more.

Zimmerman carried out his duty as a citizen. I would rather live in a neighborhood full of Zimmerman's than a 'hood full of 17 year old drop out thugs that prowel around in the dark. But hey, that's just me.

marcus says

I think we all know, that if he didn't have a gun, he wouldn't have confronted the kid. How can it not be murder ?

really? How is it "we all know" that? I don't feel that is true at all. Unless "we all" read minds. After this, lets play the "what if" game. You know, like, "what if" Zimmerman was a golden gloves fighter, then he would have whipped the kids ass, held him for police, and been the vicitm of a drive-by a few days later (yes, that exact same thing has happened a few times, so go ahead and argue against it). I suspect that you have never, not once, defended yourself or someone else against being harmed or victimized. It is not fun, planned, or satisfying, but it is worth doing. Zimmerman was doing a good deed. The suspect was prowling around in the dark. If you lived next door to Zimmerman, and walked outside at night, who would you rather find at the end of your walkway? Lord Barry's own grandma would rather find Zimmerman walking his beat than a 17 year old negro prowler. Right? So would you.

Bap33 says

that's an odd position you guys have taken ... it is now "Zimmerman wasn't harmed enough to defend himself from the suspect!" How interesting. The police that responded said he was beat up and bleeding .... but the blood thirsty race-baitors want to add fuel to the flames of hate ... progressivism at full stride folks, nothing more.

Yeah, why should we trust our lying eyes!

Dan8267 says

Shooter George Zimmerman appears uninjured in police video on night of shooting

Dan8267 says

The primary cause of violent crime is poverty. Eliminate poverty and violent crime will be rare.

True, true, eliminating poverty would be the most effective way of reducing crime (violent or otherwise).

leoj707 says

True, true, eliminating poverty would be the most effective way of reducing crime (violent or otherwise).

Yeah, this Zimmerman guy would've be at work, rather than looking out for trouble.

Bap33 says

does teen mothers happen much in rich hoods?

Yes, but not at the same rate as in a poor neighborhood.

Bap33 says

does dropping out happen much in rich hoods?

Yes, but not at the same rate as in a poor neighborhood.

Bap33 says

does grandma have to raise the grandkids becasue Shaneeskra just can't seem to stay off the pipe, in rich hoods?

Yes, but not at the same rate as in a poor neighborhood.

leoj707 says

eliminating poverty would be the most effective way of reducing crime (violent or otherwise).

Poverty is a crime .

There is a cause for this poverty; and, if you trace it down, you will find its root in a primary injustice. Look over the world to-day—poverty everywhere. The cause must be a common one. You cannot attribute it to the tariff, or to the form of government, or to this thing or to that in which nations differ; because, as deep poverty is common to them all the cause that produces it must be a common cause. What is that common cause? There is one sufficient cause that is common to all nations; and that is the appropriation as the property of some of that natural element on which and from which all must live. - Henry George.

Having been both a teenage "prowler" (with 2-3ish school suspensions) and a 20 something with a license to carry a concealed weapon I have been somewhat on the fence about this situation.

The funny thing (weird, not haha) about the whole debate on the "stand your ground" law is that in any state you can legally shoot and kill someone who you feel threatens you or others. Usually when it comes to that "retreat" is not an option. If either Zimmerman's tale is true or the Trayvon boosters version of events is true it does not seem like "stand your ground" plays a role. However, I am not too familiar with the "stand your ground" laws so I am not sure what they add to this.

Anyway, as the evidence comes in I am increasingly convinced that Zimmerman should be arrested for at least manslaughter.

Is Zimmerman a racist? Probably, based on the way he seemed to profile people, but the 911 call does not seem to include a racist slur. I finally got around to actually listening to it last night, and any claims of a racist slur are silly.

Is Zimmerman's version of events true? No. Clearly from the police security footage Zimmerman was not damaged in anyway close to what he and his lawyer described. Having been on both-ends of repeated head-blows resulting in broken noses and blood loss they leave clear marks. A broken nose needs to be set if you don't want it to look like putty. Setting your own nose is not something you do on your own unless you are the type of person who cauterizes your own wounds with gun powder or sews them up with a fishhook and line.

Also, this may come as a shock to some, but police do indeed lie in reports in order to keep things tidy.

1st degree Murder? Very unlikely. Murder in the 1st degree is a premeditate plan to kill someone, usually someone you already know. In order to prove 1st degree, one would have to show that Zimmerman planned for killing someone -- anyone -- that night. That is not only very difficult to prove, but also unlikely that he even planned on killing Trayvon after seeing him.

With Zimmerman's history of violence it seems likely that he stalked Trayvon then bullied him provoking a fight.

Yes, so far I am more or less going to ignore the eye witness accounts. It was dark, the accounts are contradictory and eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable.

leoj707 says

eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable.

leoj707 says

Clearly from the police security footage Zimmerman was not damaged in anyway close to what he and his lawyer described.

let me quess .... your eyes work better than anyone who backs up Zimmerman? Or, is your eye whitnessing just better because you didn't have to make a really important choice in a very tense situation? Cmon!! You can't have it both ways. You cant suggest visually gathered info is crap and then base your position on visually gathered info!!! Arggg!!!

leoj707 says

Bap33 says

does teen mothers happen much in rich hoods?

Yes, but not at the same rate as in a poor neighborhood.

Bap33 says

does dropping out happen much in rich hoods?

Yes, but not at the same rate as in a poor neighborhood.

Bap33 says

does grandma have to raise the grandkids becasue Shaneeskra just can't seem to stay off the pipe, in rich hoods?

Yes, but not at the same rate as in a poor neighborhood.

I did not ask , "does it happen ever?" I asked, "does it happen much?" (I used "much" to match the previous poster, but should have went with "alot"). My bad.

http://www.9BMy3k_JMio

Bap33 says

let me quess .... your eyes work better than anyone who backs up Zimmerman? Or, is your eye whitnessing just better because you didn't have to make a really important choice in a very tense situation?

Are you saying that a video recording makes anyone viewing the recording an "eye witness"?

C'mon!!!

Bap33 says

You cant suggest visually gathered info is crap and then base your position on visually gathered info!!!

Apples and oranges.

Studies have show that "visually gathered" evidence from and "eye witness" then verbally relayed to others is unreliable. Even "flash bulb" memory is known to be fallible.

While video can be edited, it is a recording of an event unaffected by human bias, memory error and/or lies. Anyone can view it and see what actually happened.

Are you saying that on the video you see a man that has suffered from a bleeding wound on the back of his head, caused by blunt trauma, as well as a broken and bloody nose?

Bap33 says

I did not ask , "does it happen ever?" I asked, "does it happen much?" (I used "much" to match the previous poster, but should have went with "alot"). My bad.

OK, fair enough.

Zimmerman looked hunky-dory to me. Throughout, you can see his face, no broken nose there. At the tail end of the video, you can see about 2/3 of the back of his head, no visible damage, and with his buzzcut, it would be hard to miss.

Nice job with Atkins or 90X though, or he lost all his baby fat since his first mugshot years ago.

The nose may have been suspected to be broken, and if it was not broken it would stop bleeding pretty easily, and thus no bloody face for those on the Prowler's "side" to cheer about. Have none of you ever been popped in the snoz? It blurs your vision and hurts like a dickens, even without breakage. And my point stands, you feel Zimmerrman needed to be victimized to a higher degree BEFORE he could defend himself, and that is nonsense. THe whole idea of personal safety is to not be a victim. Geeez.

Bap33 says

The nose may have been suspected to be broken, and if it was not broken it would stop bleeding pretty easily, and thus no bloody face for those on the Prowler's "side" to cheer about.

Bap you are really starting to stretch here. A blow to the nose strong enough to cause bleeding, and be suspected of being broken is going to be accompanied with heavy swelling and one probably two black eyes.

Broken noses are usually pretty easy to identify. Massive swelling is one thing that can make a non-broken nose look broken.

It is very clear that Zimmerman lied about a life threatening assault before he chose to kill Trayvon. That really makes me question his entire story.

I doubt there is any law in Florida that allows one to kill in self-defense after pursuing, harassing, and bullying someone leads to a physical altercation. That scenario seems to be more consistent with the evidence, than Zimmerman's story.

Bap33 says

you feel Zimmerrman needed to be victimized to a higher degree BEFORE he could defend himself, and that is nonsense. THe whole idea of personal safety is to not be a victim.

No, I feel like Zimmerman was probably never "victimized". He seems to have instigated the situation.

I am all for personal safety and victims using deadly force when necessary. There are plenty of incidences where people have used guns/knives/fists to deter or kill aggressors. That's great, I for one would prefer that there were less victims in this world. However, Zimmerman does not appear to be one of those people.

leoj707 says

after pursuing, harassing, and bullying someone leads to a physical altercation.

well ... at least you are fair and balanced, using only hard facts for your position and zero guessing.