Posted on 03/24/2012 4:27:07 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi
The minute that Sharpton & Jackson got involved the TRUTH went out the door. The have proven many times the truth is not on their agenda.
Tawanda Browley proved that along with Freddies and many others. . . . .
Agreed 100%, V.
In this context, the word "privilege" is just a term of art. The question is whether or not you have a right to hit somebody. In the general, the answer is "no." But, if you apprehend unwelcome contact, then the law will permit you to use force - even to be the first one to use force.
-- The very idea that self-defense is "a privelege" subverts common law as it has stood for centuries ... --
I don't know what term of art was used say in 1400, regarding the use of force. At any rate, the law says essentially the same thing you do, the use of physical violence in self defense is justifiable.
Dunno ‘bout that.
Seems like governments can get the results they want if they see fit to exert themselves. After all, they have pretty good control on who gets to say what, what evidence is introduced, etc. Then there is judge and jury selection. All they have do is shop the right district and right judge...
Thanks for the clarification/correction.
Disagree with this. As Rush Limbaugh says, "words mean things", and the definition of the word 'privilege' has a specific meaning. A 'privilege' can be withdrawn by the entity which grants it, at any time, and for any reason.
The assertion that "self defense is a privilege" is inherently wrong on two counts. It assumes that the *privilege* of self-defense is granted by government, and secondly, that government may withdraw that privilege whenever it sees fit to do so, with no recourse.
Self defense is a *right* under both natural, and common law, and as I stated, under Blackstone, a right is defined as "a just and lawful claim". World of difference there...
the infowarrior
They don't want their church burned down!
“Rodney King didn’t die; there were no murder charges...”
I know. I said the cops were accused of Attempted Murder in the first trial. They were over-charged by the DA. In order to find guilt, they had to prove that the cops were going out that night to end King’s life...wasn’t going to happen.
“The cops were accused for the beating, and cleared by a jury (who saw the WHOLE tape - it was evidence)....”
I referenced the tape’s use but was referring to the way the media played the [incriminating] excerpts from the tape. I watched that trial on TV and remember watching the defense attorney playing the part seldom seen in the media—the part where King was tazed by the cops...then got up and rushed toward them. That’s when they started the serious beat-down that came to be known as “the Rodney King tape”. This part, which set most of the actions of the police in motion, was seldom seen by people unless they happened to tune in to the trial.
Did they become excessive in their beating of King? Probably (though, I’m no expert—just trying to remember my own reactions when I saw/heard everything from the trial.) Should they have had to go to jail? Heck no! King was high on PCP, showing no signs that tazing him was having any effect, displaying aggressive behavior, and showed an unwillingness to cooperate. Suspension/fine? Sure, I can see that. Criminal behavior? Sorry, the police did their job on someone who was acting criminally that night.
That selective showing of the Rodney King tape has to be the worst journalistic malpractice I can think of that I recall, and the people’s deaths in the riot that followed can be laid at the feet of the “media”.
“Clearly, the “stand your ground” law eliminates a “duty to retreat”, which includes by implication a “duty to de-escalate”.”
Zimmerman’s Stand Your Ground protections were lost when he chose to get out of his car and pursue this person who was obviously trying to avoid Zimmerman. I hate what the race baiters are doing in this case but Zimmerman screwed up as a gun owner, screwed up as a CCW permit holder, and screwed up as Neighborhood Watch participant.
I checked the SF newspaper and there isn't any major front-page coverage of the story (at least in the online edition). The reaction here seems almost subdued. The first thing that someone jumping to conclusions would do would be to compare the Zimmerman/Martin case with the Mehserle/Grant case (BART cop shot someone behaving in an unruly manner Jan. 1, 2009, ruling was involuntary manslaughter, see story here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/06/13/BAIJ1JT7CV.DTL). You would think the SF Chronicle would be working this angle heavily, but no. Reasons? One would be that the Zimmerman/Martin case is too geographically far away to have any immediate impact here. Another (and many local readers of the Z/M story have pointed this out): there are so many homicides in the SF East Bay (Oakland mostly, also in Berkeley, Richmond, and San Leandro) that are black-on-black and happen so often, with no "official" reaction: no community outrage, no cries for "social justice," no petitions, no marches, etc. that people have become jaded and cynical.
The (almost) non-coverage of the Zimmerman/Martin story here in the SF Bay Area is almost a story in itself (at least to me).
I honestly believe that once the “media” realized that Zimmerman was a very “Hispanic looking” Hispanic, there was no story it cared to report on. It had jumped to conclusions initially, then had to react as photos of the shooter circulated; he wasn’t “white”, so they lost interest.
Interesting theory. So if Mr. Zimmerman looked more "white" you think he'd be compared to Johannes Mehserle, the BART cop?
Absolutely.
This involves 2 ethnic groups the Dems need to play nicely together (though they don’t), and I believe they made assumptions about Zimmerman right off the bat for their “racial conflict” story that is no longer convenient.
Hispanics have no “white guilt” at all.
I’m starting to come around to the other POV on this matter.
Especially as I watch the naked attempts to railroad Zimmermann and start a race war over it.
We don’t know the truth yet, but there’s *plenty* of room for reasonable doubt that he killed the kid in cold blood.
This is about the individual right to self-defense....and has nothing to do with Martin per se. When Gunwalker/F&F failed....Obama and Holder are now gonna go after gun rights from the bottom up.
That’s all that still potentially stands in their way as they intend to prevent, forcefully, certain voters from voting in November
There is no doubt.
There was pure defense with no shred of premeditation and hence not in cold blood
The larger lesson for Al Sharpton and the other blacks wanting war........ be careful what you ask for. Zimmerman writ large is out there.
It would be good if the attorney were black or hispanic (which he’s not) - otherwise he will be discredited.
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.