Posted on 03/25/2012 9:47:28 PM PDT by expat1000
On “Face the Nation” Sunday on CBS, Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum explained that his view of the Trayvon Martin shooting differed significantly from the one held by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
I wish. This isn't a dream - it's a waking nightmare.
“These kind of comments reinforce my notion that Santorum wants to help Romney win.”
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
It just makes me wonder whether he even has any idea what he himself does want. I rather doubt that he does. If Newt becomes the first person to win the SC GOP primary and NOT win the nomination then I may as well go and write him in as a protest, between Santorum and Obama or Romney and Obama what is the point?
The USA was a grand experiment.
Sanctorum is at it again. Can’t he keep his mouth shut until all the facts are known?
Oh ouch! So now Santorum is no more a conservative than Romney? (Embarrassing)
Rick Santorum just jumped the shark.
How hard it is for him to say only things hat he knows for sure? Instead Santorum piles on, assuming he knows Zimmerman’s motivations. Why does he have to add to the mountainous piles of misinformation and idle speculation about this case?
What does him making an ass of himself bring to the party?
And, then, when facts overtake the narrative, he is going to have to walk all of this back. What a maroon!
But not before Zimmerman said "he's coming over to check me out".
I haven't encountered this claim before - do you have a link? (It has been reported that Zimmerman's statement after the shooting stated that he was attacked on the way back to his vehicle.)
That's correct. Zimmerman had reported he was no longer following him and was going back to his vehicle. Martin then approached Zimmerman.
Have you listened to the entire, unedited 911 call from Zimmerman? It's about 4 minutes long.
I don't have to imagine it. We already have one.
He is somehow fully aware of the evil that lurks in the mind of George Zimmerman, yet last week when Glenn Beck asked him about the Obama regime’s allegations that the Vatican is a money-laundering organization (keep in mind that Santorum claims to be a devout Catholic), his response was along the lines of “Well, I don’t know, it’s too early to tell, I’ll have to wait until all the facts are in before I make up my mind on that one”.
George Zimmerman, however, has “a very sick mind”.
Hear, hear!!!
Yes it is shameful and disgusting...and that some even here choose to put such stock in whether or not Mr. Zimmerman uttered the word "coon," (nevermind that he has many black close friends and family members,) yet those same people choose to disregard the MANY overriding solid facts and subsequent contri-actions of Mr. Zimmerman DURING THE TIME OF THE POSSIBLE CRIME *EVENT*.
Unless Mr. Zimmerman used (clearly audible) words like "SHOOT" or "POP" or "KILL" or "TAKE OUT"...the innocence/guilt-deciding reliance of the "c" word in question is SO irrelevant. So hack. SO railroading. SO white and latino guilt. SO gestapo.
Mr. Zimmerman removed himself from the scene of any kind of a "follow" of Martin. Period. No words, no taunts, no threats, nothing.
His intentions were to get back into his truck. Retreat.
The ONLY crime of question is the physical contact between the two...and what transpired within.
I've felt all along (probably from many hours put in to different firearms training,) that it is SO easy and probable that, during the beating of Mr. Zimmerman, his gun came free of its holster--either by accident or design by either person involved.
And at that point--the point at which Mr. Zimmerman is on his back being beaten with no avenue of escape--and with a now loose chambered firearm--it's a proscribed sole matter of shoot or be shot. Period.
Tell me, which of the two outcomes would the "did he say coon?" hand-wringers and hacks strive toward?
I mean this "coon word" thing is absolutely ridicules and a total deflection from the true possible "crime" and truth. Let's have the facts of the true incident that MATTER.
Meantime, the race-baiters and gun-grabbers will party-on, Garth.
(pulling my hair out)
I agree completely, but that begs the question who are the people voting for him and why?
I wish to vote for a leader, not a demigod of any stripe.
Uhhh....that would be forwards for a liberal position.
(see tagline)
I didn't have time to follow up to this earlier, but I did a bit of reading.
Have you actually read the law, or are you repeating someone's convoluted interpretation?
I read the law:
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.
#1 is the one that addresses "reasonable fear". But, the subsequent (a) and (b) prerequisites are associated with a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle. It wouldn't apply to this situation.
#2 is a set of exclusions for #1. They wouldn't apply to this situation, either.
#3 is the one that applies:
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
I've highlighted the important part: meet force with force. Following someone is not force, and doesn't justify force (or deadly force) in response.
If you haven't read the entire law before now, I suggest you do so, rather than relying on someone else's interpretation (including mine).
Love your tag. ;-)
First, we have the incumbent. His primary qualification is that he recalls earlier times. Politically, he is one of FDR’s “Fellow Travelers”, steeped in Marxist ideals and goals. Personally, he seems to believe America never advanced in its race relations – that the anti-slavery amendments were never passed, the Civil Rights Act never enacted, Jim Crow laws are still in full force and that there is no chance America would ever elect a black President, evidence notwithstanding. (This may also explain why he has never buckled down to actually governing - just campaigning.) Nationally, he believes we are stuck in the oppressive Colonial Era.
The risible Republican candidates: Slick, Sanctimonious, SuperEgo and Screwball, would be less laughable had they no chance of actually landing the job – which, in reality, they may not. Each is grievously flawed, unable to withstand the onslaught of negativity marshaled against them by the coming billion dollars of opposition advertising. The flaws need not be discussed here. In a glut of debates these faults have been broadcast with shrill voices and pointed fingers. Many, if not most, are true and will be exposed ad nauseam in the coming months.
This begs the question: “Is this all there is?” In a nation of over 300 million, these are the best, brightest and most capable we can find? The answer is obvious, NO! So we must ask ourselves “What is the failure in the process that produces such a farcical collection of candidates for the most important job in the world?” American Idol consistently produces at least minor stars. Why can’t American politics do at least as well? Our future depends on finding the answer.
That's a good question. I think there's some uncomfortable truth here: Martin was sent by his mother to live with his father. I think it happened after he was suspended.
And then his father sent Martin to stay with his (father's) girlfriend -- which apparently shouldn't be confused with Martin's girlfriend on the phone.
What's up with that? Why was he being shuffled all over the place? Did his father not want to leave him at home, unsupervised?
0bomba is more than ill-informed, he is ill-intentioned and knowingly lies every time he opens his yap.
What a buffoon. The left goes full racist and this clown hasn’t got enough sense to demur from sounding like Pale Sharpton. Even Flipper sounded presidential.
You're kidding, right. The "kid" was 17 and 6' 2".
That section backs up what I mean by "feel threatened." Right now, it's a he said/she said situation. If Zimmerman is being truthful and Martin popped him in the face when Zimmerman merely asked "what are you doing here", then that statute could apply to him.
If Martin's girlfriend is telling the truth and Zimmerman initiated physical contact with Martin, then it could also be reasonable for Martin to fear for his life when a man he knew had been watching/following/looking for him...grabbed him or took a swing at him. Under that scenario, Martin would have no "duty to retreat" could "meet force with force, including deadly force" i.e. taking Zimmerman to the ground and pounding his head on the sidewalk.
All of us are just speculating and offering opinions at this point. Hopefully the police can sort out all the pieces and put together something relating to the truth.
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.