Posted on 04/17/2012 10:31:04 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
This piece is wrong in so many particulars, and on so many levels, that it would make a great target for analysis in a course on how to spot sloppy and deceitful political writing.
Sadly, even a few freepers have wondered if you should shoot someone if they are “just” beating you up.
Oddly enough, in my liberal state of Washington, the law considers it a lawful shoot if it is used to stop a felony. Such things as assault, robbery, theft over $250. Even shooting at a fleeing violent attacker if you think they run the risk of attacking someone else. Just last week some guy shot at a truck fleeing his home after the guys were banging on his front door trying to break in. The only comment the police had was “the rear window in the truck may be broken”.
Maybe not the wisest move considering one’s individual state or city, but as in another recent home invasion (among many recently), the cop said, after the suspect was killed by the owner “It seems to be open season on criminals here”.
To panty-pissin' hoplophobes like Kenny boy, EVERY armed citizen is a "vigilante." In his world, only cops and jackbooted government thugs have "legal" guns; all others are "illegal".
Yes, it's a sick and unconstitutional mindset. So why is his side winning? Power.
Whatever else we learn from this opinion piece, one thing seems clear: Trainor starts with a preconceived conclusion and twists the facts to fit.
There is no evidence I've seen that warrants Zimmerman being knocked down, his nose broken and his head smashed into the concrete.
If we ever hear of it happening to Trainor, I guess we can say, "He had it coming".
Look to England if you want to see the role model for government thugs and the lefties who love them.
In England, citizen self-defense is a much more serious crime than attacks on the lives or property of citizens.
It’s what the lefties here want for us.
You have to think, what is the goal here? Is it to change laws? Of course that’s on their wish list but they have to realistically know that’s not going to happen. At least not now.
Is the goal to make citizens personally doubt their right to defend themselves? Maybe. But again, they have to know that’s a long shot.
No, I think the main goal here is to convince the Trayvons of America that the citizens are weak and that the rioting can now begin.
The goal is to encourage race riots.
Problem is, race riots usually end up burning down their housing and driving stores out of their neck of the woods. In other words, it hurts the rioters, not the “weak citizens.”
Maybe, but it's better than being beaten to death.
That is why it is called self defense.
“By the time he ended it, was his life in danger? Or was he merely in danger of getting a sound thrashing? There’s a difference...”
No, there’s not actually a difference. People can die from a single punch, so anytime you are in a fight, your life is, by definition, in danger.
Probably saved a lot of trouble down the line as there will now be no further victims of said thug.
The people pushing for these race riots don’t care about the well-being of the rioters or their neighborhoods.
Obama needs an excuse to through the “kill switch” on the constitution.
That baseball fan at Dodgers stadium got a thrashing and was in a coma for months and is severely brain damaged to this day. Is that what Zimmerman was supposed to endure.
Actually in the movie (which Iam sure was much later than 1992) Eastwood kills to collect a bounty or reward. This makes him more like the New Black Panthers than George Zimmerman.
By the time he ended it, was his life in danger? Or was he merely in danger of getting a sound thrashing? There’s a difference, but a guy with a gun is not likely to make such fine distinctions. <<
This is not a case of a referee and shaking hands and wearing protective gear. This is being attacked by someone breaking your nose and pounding your head into the pavement. He had every reason to think his life was in danger.
Was that comment serious or sarcasm?
Was that comment serious or sarcasm?
This is why our loss of Ann Coulter to the cult of Romney is all the more tragic. She was one of the few conservatives who could and did go toe-to-toe with the left and carried the battle to their turf. She fought by their rules and they didn't know how to handle it.
Ken’s comments about vigilantes are entirely appropriate, for actual vigilantes, which have a long and well-documented history in America. Vigilante movements invariably went bad. Those few that didn’t had precisely defined objectives and disbanded as soon as they were achieved.
But self-defense against an attack has nothing at all in common with vigilantism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.