The right is just more sly about how they do it. Good for Joe Scarborough for calling them out on it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...n-martin-conservative-websites_n_1392019.html "Why is it that some on the right are actually taking this up as a cause?" Scarborough asked. "As National Review said almost immediately after it happened, this has nothing to do with gun rights, this has nothing to do with the Second Amendment, this has nothing to do with stand your ground laws, this has nothing to do with the NRA. This has everything to do with a guy that's trying to play security cop, who is unhinged, who chased down and shot a 17-year-old kid armed with Skittles and iced tea.'" Scarborough warned that conservative sites should follow the National Review and "not take this up as a cause." He took issue with their portrayal of Martin in particular. He said, "some racist websites, but also sadly some fairly mainstream websites are actually going into Trayvon Martin’s social media pages, be it Twitter or MySpace, and they're trying to find ominous looking pictures while skipping over pictures of him holding up a birthday cake smiling, him fishing with his dad, him standing outside proudly of his home dressed in a tux ready to go to prom." "This is beneath contempt," Scarborough railed. "These people on the far right are being fools to try to make this a political issue.” "Some out there are marginalizing themselves, making fools of themselves," he continued. He speculated that they took issue with President Obama's remarks about Martin's death. "I guess in their warped, twisted, distorted, political worldview, that makes this dead 17-year-old boy — who was kept in the morgue for three days before they even notified his parents of his whereabouts — I guess that makes it okay?" he said.
Of course there are, but I only see one side constantly blaming irrelevant deaths/violence on the other. Don't forget Gabby Giffords got shot because of Sarah Palin . The term 'radical' is relative.
I think the fundamentalist radicals of the conservative party that seek to revitalize theocracy is more concerning that democratic radicals playing the blame game.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/29/zimmermannofzinger-fix-now-a-fact/ Zimmerman not allowed to possess guns.
This type of talk does not help http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Ci...ence/-/1637132/9863196/-/owq31pz/-/index.html
He knows who butters his bread. Big deal. From day one, this story has been massaged from the left, not the right, and disgustingly so. I've been a progressive my whole life, but we really do go off the rails when it comes to race, and we pay a high price for that.
Depends on the caliber but normally you will have a permanent cavity and a temporary cavity. The temporary cavity is what was stretched by the bullet and the permanent is what was destroyed. This changes with the changing properties of the soft tissue encountered as something like the heart and lungs will rip if in the temporary cavity area because it is unable to stretch. Perm in black
The issue is not how Martin may have "felt" about it; the issue is the suggested attempt to assign intention by using a word like "chased" rather then "followed." If Martin intentionally escalated the pace, so be it. Yes, one is way less creepy and hostile than the other. Why would the gun-holder be held responsible for the responses of the other party? It would be one thing if the weapon were used to instigate an event but there are not reports of the gun being used to intimidate Martin but only to stop Martin. Also, I read somewhere that this took place in close proximity to Martin's father's girlfriend's house: why didn't he just duck in there instead of confronting Zimmerman?
Creep been following me in his car...he just got out and is coming towards me...better show him where my family and younger brother live! Yeah, that's a great idea!
1. Police dispatcher: “Are you following him?” Zimmerman: “Yeah.” Police dispatcher: “Okay. We don’t need you to do that.” (Sounds pretty explicit to me) 2. Why couldn't Martin act in self-defense? Hmm, someone is following me (I know it's different if I am a woman), yet still regardless of gender, age, race, or other factors. I think most people would act in the same way. If some weirdo, overzealous (obese) man started to follow me around in his car, then gets out of his car to question me, as he some kind of cop. I would not know how to respond in that situation, either, especially being 17. I would've either called cops, or tried to hit the guy with something. Maybe, just run. This is part of what's wrong with vigilantism, or someone taking the law in their own hands. An innocent party can get hurt in the process.
That gun-holder [followed, pursued, or chased] and confronted [or escalated] the conflict ... against a dispatcher's orders. Zimmerman having a gun in one sense is irrelevant, yet in another sense he possess a deadly weapon and disobeyed an official's command to not follow a potential suspect around the neighborhood. That self-defense argument is somewhat laughable, considering that the person with the weapon yielded the most error in judgement in the situation, completely disregarded what he was asked to do (leave the situation alone, and let the proper authorities handled it), and not play up the "hero complex." His error in judgement lead to the death of a teenager. Yes, he should have to pay for that in some form of a prison sentence, especially if he was cognizant. Like, I said earlier, Martin could've done 100 different things, yet it is not his fault in anyway that he was killed by a strange, overzealous neighborhood watchman who cannot even follow the rules of the law.
Going and getting in his face is a much better idea? If Trayvon were really concerned he would have gotten off the phone with his GF and called 911, I think. The point is that he wasn't really concerned for his safety.
Doesn't even matter. Look at his history. Dude has anger issues and his bout of extreme anger was triggered by Martin being black. I'm not going to dodge his race, because it clearly is a key issue. I think his dad should be incarcerated too for using his judicial powers to bust his son out of trouble multiple times.
Right right right, so he wasn't fighting for his life because Zimmerman was a very real and serious threat who was following him around, he was just like "lol whatevs I'm gonna hit this guy". So because dialing 911 didn't pop into his mind he didn't care about his well being! Genius! Hey hold on guy who's confronting me, let me go ahead and call 911 right quick, just stand there for a sec K? You should teach a class man, people need to know these things. Eyeroll smiley.
if feel sorry for you guys who continue to argue with the resident idiot. martin must have not been too concerned because he didn't call 9-11. brilliant
It is just beyond the pale what an unbelievable creep you stoop to becoming on this board. A 17 year old kid being followed in the dark by a grown man with a weapon just wasn't concerned enough for his safety so he's dead. Nice.
While I take that link with a grain of salt, can you tell me why that part is untrue? Does he not have the restraining order it mentions, or does the law not forbid him from carrying a gun? I haven't seen it reported elsewhere, which would be surprising if what the article says is true.
