Witness the unfolding campaign to strip your rights
There’s a new angle in the campaign to strip you of your rights to defend your self with the Constitutional tools afforded to you. In the wake of the Martin shooting in Florida comes a recent op-ed piece by Tom Brown for Reuters masquerading as reporting the “case” being built for the deconstruction of so called “stand your ground” laws.
On June 5, 2006, not long after Florida enacted the first “Stand Your Ground” law in the United States, unarmed Jason Rosenbloom was shot in the stomach and chest by his next-door neighbor after a shouting match over trash.
Exactly what happened that day in Clearwater, Florida, is still open to dispute. Kenneth Allen, a retired police officer, said he shot Rosenbloom because he was trying to storm into his house.
Rosenbloom told Reuters in a telephone interview this week he never tried to enter the house and was in Allen’s yard, about 10 feet (3 meters) from his front door, when he was shot moments after he put his hands up.
Now living in Hawaii, Rosenbloom said he had been unaware of the growing outrage over last month’s shooting in Sanford, Florida, of an unarmed black teenager by a neighborhood watch captain.
The language in the rest of the article only grows more grotesque. Then again this is the same agency which employs “journalists” to “embed” with insurgents in Iraq then has the audacity to complain when they’re caught in the cross fire.
UPDATE:
This morning the Christian Science Monitor ran an Op-Ed by NYU professor Jonathan Zimmerman, titled Where’s the Trayvon Martin petition about gun control?. It pretty clearly lays out, what I think will be, the strategy they’ll use going forward, race card and all.
…we need to ask whether any private citizen should be carrying a concealed weapon, and whether “Stand Your Ground” measures make people trigger-happy. And most of all, we need to think about the most common victims of our lax gun laws: African Americans.
Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists, Media
@198: Do you know any of the answers to the questions you are asking? It’s still an ongoing investigation, so those questions will be answered in due course. That information will be made public at the time of the trial, if there is one, not before. That’s what so many people are missing in this. They make assumptions based on their own bias, not on fact, and that is where it gets dangerous, because we still have the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law. Unfortunately, too many are concentrating on the court of public opinion without having the evidence.
ANN: I don’t know about taking the “trail” out of Sanford, but I’m pretty sure one can take a road and go elsewhere.
And I “twink” you need to work on your written English a bit before you comment here again.
Ann – I am goign to assume you actually speak English in answering this…
The trial can be taken out of the county that is the situs of the incident on a change of venue motion. However, because the trial would be the peopel of the State of Florida v. Zimmerman, it cannot be taken out of the state. That is just the way crimminal procedure works.
There is really no evidence yet of what the police did or did not do. If they took Zimmerman in, then they would have photographed him, if for no other reason than to protect against police brutality claims. I would suggest that we wait until the police and the grand jury have completed their investigation before we get all indignant. For all we know, the police did their job then and are continuing to do their job now and fully investigating.
Finally, the police would have needed a warrant to do a tox screen on Zimmerman unless his behaviour gave them substantial cause. If they were smart, they would have asked a judge who likely would not have signed-off on a tox screen. However, a tox screen is always done in an autopsy; it is just part of the deal.
Ya know, I swear I remember insipid saying he’d be back Tuesday (yesterday) to discuss the 2nd Amendment (comment 78 above). I guess he changed his mind.
Still no insipid? Yeah, he must have changed his mind about defending his position on the 2nd Amendment.