Did ALEC Kill Trayvon Martin? AFL-CIO Bigwig Seems to Think So.

|

The Daily Caller's Michelle Fields caught up with AFL-CIO executive vice president Arlene Holt Baker and asked "to get your thoughts on the tragic incident with Trayvon Martin in Florida."

Holt Baker started talking about the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which stands widely accused of writing Florida's Stand Your Ground law. ALEC, says Holt Baker, are

"…the same folks who want to kill workers' rights in the workplace are the same folks who want to kill voters' votes—a targeted group of voters—in the voting booth. They want to kill the dreams of immigrants. Now they are literally supporting legislation that is literally killing our children."

Interestingly, ALEC actually says that Florida's law provided the basis for model legislation that the group circulated to lawmakers and policy people in other states:

Florida's 'Stand Your Ground' law was the basis for the American Legislative Exchange Council's model legislation, not the other way around. Moreover, it is unclear whether that law could apply to this case at all. 'Stand Your Ground' or the 'Castle Doctrine' is designed to protect people who defend themselves from imminent death and great bodily harm. It does not allow you to pursue another person. It does not allow you to seek confrontation. It does not allow you to attack someone who does not pose an imminent threat. What it does is allow you to defend yourself and your family from immediate and real danger.

As noted at Hit & Run on March 20, whatever else you can say about Florida gun laws, any changes in them have not led to an increase in the number of homicides in the Sunshine State.

Based on what I've read of the case, it seems to me that because George Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin even after a 911 dispatcher told him not to, he will have a tough time pushing a Stand Your Ground defense. And that's even if it turns out his version of events—in which Martin had pinned him down and punched him repeatedly—is borne out.

However things get sorted out legally, what happened in Sanford is a bad deal all around, and precisely the sort of highly charged situation in which lots of people say really stupid things. But how you get from the Martin shooting to an accusation against ALEC in this case (or the Koch Brothers of all people, whom an MSNBC anchor called the "the Typhoid Mary for this horrible outbreak"!) is beyond me.

Here is a terrifying thought for liberals and conservatives alike who are desperate to use the Martin shooting as some sort of commentary on just how apocalyptically awful race relations, welfarism, gun rights, gun control, hooded sweatshirts, or whatever is in these United States: Perhaps this case is not particularly representative of larger trends in contemporary America. This doesn't mean it isn't a horrible tragedy that has probably already shattered the lives of all the people involved, and it doesn't mean that justice can't or won't be served. But the incident may not really shed any light on larger social issues or trends. And attempts by either the right or the left, or unions or the NRA, or whomever to straitjacket  the event to fit a pre-existing agenda don't reflect well on combatants.

Click on image above to watch vid. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

205 responses to “Did ALEC Kill Trayvon Martin? AFL-CIO Bigwig Seems to Think So.

  1. Good thing Reason isn’t jumping on the media hype train in order to get the most out of this story.

    1. Yeah There for a moment I thought they were.
      Only a dumb fuck would quote anything MSNBC said.

  2. Now they are literally supporting legislation that is literally killing our children.

    Figuratively speaking, of course.

    1. You mean they’re physically holding up a murderous piece of paper?

      1. “I cut’chou, mang.”
        -The Legislation In Question

        1. Death by 2700 cuts.

      2. Death of a thousand paper cuts.

    2. So is it literally or not? You can’t be “like literally” anything.

  3. Koch Brothers… whom an MSNBC anchor called the “the Typhoid Mary for this horrible outbreak”

    I am shocked.

    1. Try gamboling friskily around Dave and Chuck and you’ll be shotgunned into oblivion before you can say, “Harrison Bergeron.”

    2. Nick is Desperate.

  4. I blame the Kennedy family.

    and the Jews.

    1. We’re with you on the Kennedy thing, but we will never be able to forgive the Jews.

  5. It’s a good thing this incident wasn’t politicized. It might have become absurd and annoying beyond belief otherwise.

    1. It’s pretty much a fundamental truth that legislation written and named for dead kids is always shitty. Let’s hope it doesn’t happen with Trayvon Martin.

      1. There has already been a Trayvon’s law proposed to require the police to use the cell phone of any dead body found to try to contact next of kin. The Amber Alert folks are behind it.

        1. It seems like it would be a good practice in investigations anyway.

          1. Oh shit, just had a great idea.

            Whenever something like this happens, we slip some libertarian law in as Dead Kid’s Law. No one will vote against it.

            “Jaycelyn, a 7 year old, died from smashing a toy to bits with a hammer and then eating the pieces. Today, we propose Jaycelyn’s Law, which will protect our children.

            Uh, this law just legalizes all drugs.

            That’s right. To protect our children. How can you oppose Jaycelyn’s Law?? You monster!”

        2. Hi, this is your dead kin calling. Or Hi are you related to the deceased—-?

      2. This right here is why limited duration legislative sessions rock. Ain’t gonna be no Trayvon’s Law in FL before February 2013. Long after this case is relegated to tabloid fodder.

        1. IIRC the terry schaivo case was dredged up as a rider on the end of a special legislative session in the middle of the summer to decide if the scripps research institute could buy land for their florida campus. Don’t ask me how I know these things.

      3. I’MA POUR SUM SKITTLES OUT FOR YOU HOMIE

    2. They just wanted you to miss the thoughtful dialog surrounding the OJ Case.

      1. Actually the dialogue around the OJ case was thoughtfull compared to this shit.

  6. Hasn’t it already been well established that Stand Your Ground doesn’t apply here? Is Stand Your Ground even the reason the police haven’t charged Zimmerman? Was the Stand Your Ground law running through Zimmerman’s mind when he pulled the trigger? And, most importantly, what ethnicity is Arlene Holt Baker? (So I can judge her intent.)

    1. I second that. We need to know is she black, white, black-white, Spam, sausage-black-white-Spam, Spam-hispanic-black…

      1. Her Facebook page says she’s “an African American trade union activist”. So I suppose she’s Jewish.

        1. Could be. Is she wearing a yarmulke in any pictures? Revealed vs. Stated Ethnicity, you know.

        2. Or Norwegian…Holt.

      2. MMMMM spam.

    2. Supposedly, the investigating detective wanted to press charges, but was told by the state attorney’s office to drop the case because they wouldn’t be able to get a case due to the SYG law.

    3. Arlene Holt Baker (born 1951) is an African American trade union activist and labor leader. A staff assistant with the AFL-CIO since 1995, she was appointed Executive Vice-President of the labor federation by the AFL-CIO Executive Council in 2007 and won re-election in 2009. She became the first African American in the federation’s history to serve as an officer.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlene_Holt_Baker

      1. Isn’t interesting how someone rises to the upper echelons of a labor union without being involved in anything that could be reasonably called “labor”?

        1. Sitting on your ass and ceaselessly spewing putrid bullshit is hard on the muscles in the face and neck and, considering her weight, the ass.

    4. No, that has not been established.

      “776.041 Use of force by aggressor.

      The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

      (1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

      (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

      (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant;

  7. Hypothetical: If you ran across a woman being mugged and raped, would you intervene, or would you call the cops and stay out of it?

    1. On this board you need to ask how many would join in on it.

      1. Fuck you, asshole.

        1. Take it away, STEVE SMITH!!!

      2. STEVE SMITH ONLY CERTIFIED RAPIST ON BOARD!!!!

        1. certified? You statist.

    2. Depends. Am I or the rapist armed? I think the best weapon for protection on the streets is a club, not a gun.

      1. You’re armed with a gun, and you’re not sure whether the rapist is armed.

        1. I don’t know how to shoot, but assuming I did I point the gun at him and demand he release the woman. I then ask the woman to call 911 while I hold the man at gunpoint. If he flees, I let him go rather than pursue.

          1. If he flees, I let him go rather than pursue. While filming his retreat with my phone.

            ftfy.

          2. That would be the right course of action. Assuming they were entangled, you are just as likely to shoot the woman as you are the rapist. And if the rapist flees, you have no right to shoot him.

            1. What if the law permits or even encourages citizens to participate in the apprehension of offenders in such cases? A cop would shoot him, so why can’t I?

              1. A cop would shoot him. But I don’t think a cop should shoot him. And you don’t have a union to protect you.

                You might get away with shooting him. But you might not. If he is running away, he is no longer a threat. I am all for revenge and all. But at that point it is not worth the trouble. And what if you miss and hit an innocent person? Why risk that?

                1. If he had killed the woman, do you still let him run away as “no longer a threat?”

                  1. As a technical legal matter, yes. You only have a right to self defense in response to threats to yours or others’ safety. So if he is running away, you have no right to self defense. Self defense does not equal revenge.

                    1. Depends on the state, and the offense. I can shoot people to stop them running away with my stuff. Oddly, I cannot shoot them if they quit trying to committ offenses against my (or another’s) person.

                  2. Charlotte:

                    1) I’d shoot a violent rapist and mugger gladly and proudly, in truth.

                    2) I don’t think it would be anywhere near as difficult as that, especially in a state with powerful citizen’s arrest provisions or even Stand Your Ground, but I guess it would depend on the DA.

                    3) Unless I’m in a crowd (which I wouldn’t be if I came across a woman being raped), and unless the perpetrator’s got a rocket up his ass, you could shoot him and harm nothing else.

                    Mohawk:

                    In that case, any possible conflicts disappear for me. If he’d killed the woman before taking off, I’d shoot him — that is, if I still could (might be a particularly fast son of a bitch).

                    1. RPA,

                      I would gladly shoot one too. But I think if you shoot a mugger or rapist in the back as he flees, and assuming you are not in your home and are able to avail yourself of the castle doctrine, you are going to be charged. You can’t do that.

                    2. And if the woman is was your wife and you have a clear shot, same answer?

                    3. You might be able to get away with it. But that wouldn’t mean you wouldn’t be guilty of a revenge murder. Suppose the man rapped your wife and you saw him two days later on the street.

                      Assuming you have a clear shot, you okay with killing him rather than calling the cops? If not, why not? How is that any different than killing him when he is running from the scene. He is not a threat and just as guilty in either case.

                    4. What if I shot him because he raped and murdered a woman and was an extremely serious threat?

                      If it were two days later, I’d call the cops, but I’d also make sure I kept him in my sight (I’m armed in this scenario).

                    5. Me, personally? If I saw him two days later and had a clear shot, I’d shoot to kill and roll my dice with a Texas jury, if it got that far.

                      I’m not saying that’s the practical thing to do, and I admire your consistency against it, but I’d want him dead.

                      As a practical matter, it’s a bit different from shooting him at the scene because the chances of misidentification at the scene are nil but greater than nil two days later.

                    6. If I knew with 100% certainty he was the rapist, you’re damn right I’d shoot him.

                      I’m not an advocate of the death penalty by the state. But I wholeheartedly support the idea that if you are proven to be the perpetrator of a violent crime (ie: rape or murder) your ass now belongs to the family of the victim.

                    7. Of course you won’t know with 100% certainty. And that is the problem.

                    8. YES THEY DESERVED TO DIE AND I HOPE THEY BURN IN HELL!

                    9. RRA, I hope for your sake that you never happen upon such a situation, cause if you do what you say you will do, you will be one sorry mofo after you get drug through the legal knothole you are headed for.

          3. Hand the gun to the woman and let her decide if he walks or not.

            1. You know, I could get behind that.

    3. I’m always looking for an excuse to kill a motherfucker and get away with it. Not trying to be a badass here, but someone would likely get the wrong idea that my intentions were good ones when really ‘free murder!” is the driving force.

      1. Hypothetical: If you ran across a woman being mugged and raped, would you intervene, or would you call the cops and stay out of it?

        Of course I’m only having some fun because this incident is now blown out beyond any proportions. How would I react? I’d intervene by tapping the rapist on the shoulder and asking, ‘sloppy seconds?’

        Assuming, of course, she dressed liked she had it coming. If he was raping a nun doing that would not look so good in court.

        1. I’m really, really pushing myself to tell you you’re being an unserious douche, but that shit’s funny, so I can’t. An Internet — you have earned it. *Hands over 1 shiny Internet*.

          1. Thanks! I kept it straight up for the first dozen threads on the topic, now I just can’t do it. Lack the masochism.

    4. How do we know she’s being mugged and raped? Maybe it’s just a couple out for some rough public sex.

      1. Lol.

      2. Carve first and ask questions later.

      3. “When a naked man is chasing a woman through an alley with a butcher’s knife and a hard-on, I figure he isn’t out collecting for the Red Cross! “

        1. Well, when I see five weirdos dressed in togas stabbing a guy in the middle of the park in full view of 100 people, I shoot the bastards.

          1. If I see see 5 senators stabbing another senator, I applaud.

            1. Lmao. +1

      4. That’s funny. There was a report of a “naked woman in the back seat of a car” reported in Portland, Or. Turns out it was -exactly- a couple of crazy kids out for a kinky hot time.

        The cops managed not to shoot anyone.

    5. If you ran across a woman being mugged and raped, would you intervene, or would you call the cops and stay out of it?

      Both. I’d call 911 and intervene. If the fucker doesn’t run and instead comes after me, he’s going to need an ambulance (if not a casket) anyway.

    6. Intervene. If she’s being mugged or raped, the most important thing is to stop the act in question. By the time trained professionals could get there, it would be too late.

  8. From the “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander” file:
    It is not a crime to follow someone. It is not a crime to follow someone while lawfully carrying a gun.
    It is not a crime to follow someone for good reason, no reason at all.
    It is not a crime to ask someone on the street who they are or what they are doing there.

    It is a crime to attack someone for doing this. Whether they’re carrying a gun, carrying a microphone, carrying a TV camera or a protest sign.

    The is no justification for assault under these circumstances. The justification for shooting someone is “the dude was assaulting me”

    This has nothing to do with “Stand your ground”

    1. Yes, but you forget that Zimmerman picked the fight.

      How do we know this?

      Because of the color of the skin of the parties involved.

      It’s racist to suggest anything otherwise.

      Now that you have identified yourself as racist by suggesting Martin started the fight, everything you said doesn’t matter because you’re racist.

      Though you can redeem yourself and prove you are not racist by demanding that Zimmerman be executed in the street, and accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being racist.

      See?

      1. As this is, like, your 1500th post that includes some variation of “you have identified yourself as racist by suggesting Martin started the fight” I am gonna go out on a limb here and say that you are too focused on the racial issues in this case.

        The “race baiting” that you seem to be complaining about requires a reactive audience to work. It seems to have found that audience in you.

        “Racist is the n-word for white people” Key & Peele

        1. I took everything “sarcasmic” said as very tongue in cheek… sarcastic even.

          I think you need to lighten up, Francis.

          1. You realize I just referenced a comedy routine, right? I am as light as helium.

            But the weight of sarcasmic’s thousands of tongue in cheek references to race baiting are like ballast man, annoying squawking ballast.

            1. Teh interwebzz have an off switch

            2. Missed it- srry.

      2. There is a part of the 911 call that tends to get cut off on the TV.

        When Zimmerman says he is following Martin, the 911 operator says, “We don’t need you to do that.” Zimmerman responds with a single word. “Okay.”

    2. That’s one way to look at it.

      There’s another way:

      It is reckless to go after someone you have no reason to believe is committing a crime, for the purpose of making sure they don’t “get away”, while carrying a gun.

      It is reckless to start trouble while carrying a gun. And its not unreasonable to suppose someone acting recklessly to begin with wouldn’t continue acting recklessly.

      We don’t know who actually started the physical altercation. The surviving witness has every reason to lie about it, and was acting recklessly to begin with, though, so I see no reason to assume it wasn’t him.

      1. It is reckless to go after someone you have no reason to believe is committing a crime, for the purpose of making sure they don’t “get away”, while carrying a gun.

        Do you have any reasoning behind that statement? It would seem to me that reckless would at least imply a high probability of tragic outcome. Was there really a high probability of that? And if there was here, aren’t you really making an argument against carrying guns at all? If this confrontation is reckless then most confrontation are.

        And lastly, if you think his actions were “reckless”, then really isn’t that supporting the whole “never act leave it all to the police” attitude that is generally and rightfully bemoaned on here?

        1. It’s reckless to leave the house- or buy lotto tickets with the odds stacked 170,000,000:1 against, or climb into a tin can and fly to the moon. Thankfully it’s not a crime to be reckless.

          1. Thankfully it’s not a crime to be reckless.

            Hi Mark.

            I don’t think we’ve been properly introduced.

            1. So carrying a gun and getting into an argument is now “reckless endangerment”. That will do wonders for the conceal and carry market.

              1. So carrying a gun and getting into an argument is now “reckless endangerment”.

                No, but that’s not what Mark said.++++++++

                1. True I said it’s not a crime to be reckless. In the case of “endangerment” the operative word is “endangerment”. Reckless is a modifier- one that carries no legal status in and of itself.

                  1. Reckless is a modifier- one that carries no legal status in and of itself.

                    Actually the semantics of “reckless endangerment” are pretty clear. The “endangerment” is not illegal UNLESS it is reckless. So it is probably more accurate so say that “reckless” is the operative word.

                    1. There isn’t anything on the books for “reckless” jaywalking, “reckless” sidewalk spitting or “reckless” removing the “do not remove” tag from your mattress. Semantically speaking, the inverse of “reckless” i.e. intentional is implied. Endaggerment, jaywalking, spitting on the sidewalk and removing the “do not remove” tag are the “crime”.

                    2. Sorry, but “intentional” is not the inverse of “reckless.”

                      Reckless behavior is intentional behavior…it is just intentional behavior that disregards potential negative consequences. The inverse of “reckless” is “responsible” or “careful” or “cautious”, but certainly not “intentional.”

                      “Intentional endangerment” is implied by “reckless endangerment.” “Unintentional endangerment” would imply that you were not reckless.

                    3. Wrong, but no need to split hairs.

                    4. Ok- Let’s split hairs. There are 2 components to a charge like “reckless endangerment” The mental state and the culpable act. A prosecutor needs to prove both. The mental state can be intentional, reckless, or criminally negligent. In the case at hand there are really only 2 choices- was Zimmerman acting intentionally or recklessly (unless you can come up with some pretzel-logic that he was criminally negligent- like handed the gun to a 5 year old- I wouldn’t put it past our media 😉 )

                    5. You’re trying to attribute what’s known in the law as “malice” to “reckless” behavior.

      2. Reckless does not equal criminal nor can we assume he initiated criminal behavior because of it. Zimmerman is entitled to due process and a presumption of innocence until prove otherwise. At this point Martin’s family may be better off just suing for wrongful death in civil court.

      3. It is reckless to start trouble while carrying a gun. And its not unreasonable to suppose someone acting recklessly to begin with wouldn’t continue acting recklessly.

        If that is true, then isn’t any security guard or cop for that matter whose job it is to confront people carrying a gun then reckless?

        I have to admit RC, I had no idea you were so opposed to an armed society.

        1. He isn’t. He’s just pointing out that in these circumstances, the proper point of having a gun is for defense, not hunting.

          1. Mr. Dean has lost his normally reasonable mind on this issue. But I don’t think even he would say that Zimmerman was “hunting” Martin.

            The problem is that people are so wrapped up with the idea that Zimmerman followed Martin and confronted him, that they forget that there is pretty good evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman. We don’t know for sure. But if he did, Zimmerman has a pretty solid defense here.

            1. There’s only evidence that Martin injured Zimmerman before being shot. There’s nothing conclusive about who started it.

              1. There is Zimmerman’s testimony and his injuries that confirm the other witness’ testimony that Martin was beating him pretty badly.

                Is that conclusive? No. But it is certainly reasonable to believe Martin started the fight.

                1. It’s also reasonable to believe that Zimmerman started it by following Martin all over the neighborhood after being told not to.

                  1. Sure it is. So at worst you are left with, you don’t know. Hardly something to get upset about.

                    And let’s say he did start it. We know from the witness that Martin had Zimmerman down beating his head against the side walk. It is difficult to imagine Zimerman doing anything that justified Martin using that much force in response. If I punch you, you have a right to punch me back. You don’t have a right to jump on top of me and pound my head into the sidewalk any more than you have a right to shoot me for it.

                    So if Martin responded with unlawful force, and it appears he did, that vitiates any legal rights he had because of Zimmerman being the aggressor.

                    1. And let’s say he did start it. We know from the witness that Martin had Zimmerman down beating his head against the side walk.

                      “Know” is a pretty strong word here given the unreliability of eyewitness accounts (one witness – the 13 year old – has already recanted saying he couldn’t really see because it was too dark) AND we should also be clear that the witness did not say anything about “beating his head against the sidewalk”. Unless you are citing some eyewitness report other than “John.”

                      It is difficult to imagine Zimerman doing anything that justified Martin using that much force

                      How about Z following him and confronting him in a threatening manner…in that context, at the point M finds out that Z has a gun, HE is the one with a legitimate self-defense claim to use everything including deadly force.

                    2. Considering that the two people were of different races, hard to imagine John confusing who was on top. And he has no reason to lie. And his statement is pretty clear, he say Martin top of Zimmerman beating his head against the side walk and hear Zimmerman yelling help. “John” since he knew neither party and has no reason to lie, is probably the most reliable witness we have.

                      As for your second, paragraph, sure. It might have happened that way. And it might not have. We don’t know. So, so what? Is it possible that Zimmerman is guilty? Sure. No one to my knowledge as denied that. But it being possible is a long way from it being true much less true beyond a reasonable doubt.

                    3. his statement is pretty clear, he say Martin top of Zimmerman beating his head against the side walk and hear Zimmerman yelling help.

                      His statement is pretty clear. But that is not what he said.

                      The witness, known only as John, told Sanford police that 17-year-old Martin was attacking Zimmerman … “The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me, ‘Help, help?’ and I told him to stop and I was calling 911,” John told Fox 35 in Orlando.

                      “When I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on top beating up the other guy was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point.”

                      More here
                      http://themoderatevoice.com/14…..zimmernan/

                  2. Prove that he did.

                    https://reason.com/blog/2012/03…..nt_2952130

                  3. assumes facts not in evidence- Next-

                  4. 1. Following someone all over the neighborhood is not a crime.

                    1a. Even if it was a crime it is unlawful to attack someone for doing it. He should have called the cops instead of calling his girlfriend.

                    2. Having a dispatcher say “we don’t need you to do that” is not “You are being told by an officer not to do that”.

                    2a. Everyone conveniently seems to think the dispatcher was ordering Zimmerman to desist. They weren’t. They were actually protecting Zimmerman. No officer will ever say to a citizen “follow that bank robber”. Their default position is not to put the public at any risk, ever.

                    3. There is no evidence that he continued to follow Martin after the dispatcher said “You don’t need to do that”.

                    So you can take from this that everything you “reasonably believe” is wrong. Have a nice day.

          2. having a gun is for defense, not hunting.

            Hunting the most dangerous game of all… Man.

        2. Charlotte, my point is that you carry a gun for self-defense. And that, while carrying a gun, you should avoid trouble, not go looking for it.

          You want to get into a fight? Fine. Leave your gun at home. You’re carrying a gun? Fine. Don’t go out looking for a confrontation.

          Going out looking for a confrontation while carrying a gun is reckless because you are carrying a gun.

          When Zimmerman said he was going to make sure this one didn’t get away, and took his gun with him, he was acting recklessly, by going looking for a confrontation with a gun in his pocket.

          Most security guards, BTW, don’t carry guns.

          1. Its impossible to know who escalated this thing. But, given what Zimmerman said about this one not getting away, and what he did (took a gun with him), I see no reason to assume that he did not escalate the situation.

            Which many people seem to be assuming, based on nothing more than Zimmerman’s word. Which, as I have pointed out, should not be relied on uncritically.

            1. Sure it can’t be relied on uncritically. But it can’t be dismissed either, especially considering the testimony of the witness who saw Martin beating him. And that is what you seem to be doing.

              Isn’t it possible that Zimmerman is telling the truth?

          2. Most security guards, BTW, don’t carry guns.

            Many do. And by your definition isn’t that reckless? Of course confronting a stranger without being armed, seems pretty reckless too doesn’t it? You have no idea if he is armed or really any way to defend yourself.

            In the end, we are left with the idea that confronting anyone about anything armed or unarmed is reckless in your view. That strikes me as a very odd view of things. And something that is completely at odds with your normal Texan take care of things yourself attitude. I think you are letting your prejudice against Zimmerman get the better of your judgment.

    3. It is not a crime to follow someone.

      There are laws against stalking.

      1. citation needed: bonus points of you can make a cogent argument that Zimmerman was “stalking” Martin as defined by anti-stalking law.

    4. t is not a crime to follow someone. It is not a crime to follow someone while lawfully carrying a gun.
      It is not a crime to follow someone for good reason, no reason at all.

      Hi, Mark.

      I don’t think we’ve been properly introduced.

      1. You’d have a hell of time fitting Zimmerman’s conduct into Florida’s stalking law.

        1. Judges?….
          1 point for the citation (thanks for that) Bonus points TBD.

        2. You’d have a hell of time fitting Zimmerman’s conduct into Florida’s stalking law.

          A gifted enough lawyer could fit his opponent’s client into anything

          1. Maybe so, but an argument that Zimmerman “repeatedly” followed Martin isn’t going to pass the laugh test.

          2. I find most people who spend all day arguing on the internet to be far from “gifted”. But let’s not jump to conclusions- let’s let “stalking laws” make his case.

            1. So it’s been a few days.
              Judges ruling: If it takes a “Gifted” lawyer, as opposed to “any half-wit lawyer on the planet” to make the case that this has anything to do with “stalking” as defined by FL law- then the ruling is: “This ain’t the same thing, it ain’t the same ball park- thius ain’t the same MotherF*&^* Sport.”

              Points awarded: 0

      2. Also, “derp”, does not apply. Thanks for playing.

    1. Born in the…, born in the… man it’s right on the tip of my tongue.

      1. Oosah?

        1. “Oosah? Who the fuck wrote this shit? Oh, wait…”

          1. Fuck it, I’ll just lip sync like Madonna.

      2. …bayou?

    2. Go fuck yourself San Diego! Wait…

  9. “…the same folks who want to kill workers’ rights in the workplace are the same folks who want to kill voters’ votes – a targeted group of voters – in the voting booth. They want to kill the dreams of immigrants. Now they are literally supporting legislation that is literally killing our children.”

    I don’t think I’ve ever seen so much fail in one paragraph before. I’m as pro-immigration, pro-right for immigrants to work in the US as anybody here, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable that only citizens should be allowed to vote.

    Also, historically, weren’t most “big” unions anti-immigration, because it flooded the work force with cheap labor?

    1. Immigrants and black people. Unions have never liked black people.

    2. I think the “targeted group” is “people without ID.”

      1. I think it’s “people who are ineligible to vote due to lack of citizenship or having already voted elsewhere”.

  10. Enough about this case until the grand jury. Now, will the Pens suffer their third loss in a row tonight on the road in Buffalo and let the Filthadelphia Criers tie for fourth place? This is the important question of the day.

    1. The Pens are doomed because beating the Sabers would allow the Capitols to make the playoffs. And the Capitols are cursed. Sorry. But the Capitol curse beats all.

    2. Are you playing for the Pens? Dennis Miller was right – you ARE in everything.

    3. The Rangers’ second round playoff loss this year is going to be sweet. That is not a team built for the spring. The tears will be even more yummy if it’s the Devils that get to do the deed (though with the way NJ is playing, a loss to the fucking Panthers of all teams seems likely).

      EC Playoffs:
      NYR over WAS/BUF (6)
      BOS over OTT (5)
      NJD over FLA (6)
      PIT over PHI (5)

      PIT over BOS (7)
      NJD over NYR (7)

      PIT over NJD (5)

      WC Playoffs
      LA over STL (7)
      VAN over PHX (5)
      DET over DAL (5)
      NSH over CHI (6)

      VAN over LA (6)
      NSH over DET (7)

      NSH over VAN (7)

      PIT over NSH (6)

      1. Zach Parise’s huge playoff performance nets him a huge contract not in NJ. That and another cup for that dbag Crosby means I ragequit the NHL until December.

  11. ALEC does sound rather neferaious, like some evil organization out of a James Bond movie.

    1. Or a Get Smart episode.

      1. Would you believe?

  12. Now they’re blaming this on Alec Baldwin?

    Okay, I can see that.

    1. Dumb asses. You blame it on Alec Guinness. He’s dead and can’t fight back, even if he is a Jedi knight.

      1. Coffee is for closers.

  13. A very special species of stupid:

    …the same folks who want to kill workers’ rights in the workplace are the same folks who want to kill voters’ votes – a targeted group of voters – in the voting booth. They want to kill the dreams of immigrants. Now they are literally supporting legislation that is literally killing our children.

    One incident that on a highly superficial level seems to confirm her bias and she feels vindicated for every nonsensical sentiment to which you hold dear? The only thing he seems to miss there is global warming. Can she really be that Goddamn non-cognizant?

    1. Damn rebellion in the pronouns! Get back here. I erased several sentences in the middle, but missed making the ‘you’ and gender in one instance agree. Sorries.

    2. My children have never been in a fight in their lives. How violent are her children that they stand a good chance to be shot to death under the stand your ground law?

      1. Literally zero, literally.

    3. Is it a coincidnce that the shooter here is registered with the same Party as Bull Conner and the rest of the Klan?

      I think not.

      1. Well, you got ’em there.

  14. Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin even after a 911 dispatcher told him not to

    Yeah that isn’t a known thing, which is why the prosecutors told the cops to go get some evidence before they arrest a guy for manslaughter.

    Here’s what’s actually known by us:

    1. Zimmerman said he lost Martin, bailed on following him, and was en route back to his car when he got jumped. Nothing in the evidence we have controverts this. The 911 tape can be understood to confirm this, in part, but not to contradict it.

    2. Zimmerman’s dad says approximately the same thing, with additional detail that’s probably nonsense, because it’s second hand.

    3. Martin’s girlfriend says she was on the phone with Martin, told him to put his hoodie up to hide from a guy following him, and then the call was interrupted by Zimmerman’s ambush. Nothing we know supports her story.

    4. U RACISS

    1. The reaction on this board to this story has been interesting. The people here are most certainly not racists. But they do have prejudices. And one of the biggest prejudices on this board is against cops and by extension security guards. Since Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch guy, some people on here think that everything he says must be a lie and Martin must be completely without sin.

      What makes this all the more fascinating is that neighborhood watch is the kind of private, take care of yourself, security measure that libertarians normally love.

      1. I totally acknowledge my penchant to scrutinize the cops more harshly than normal people (they’re cops- they can take it). One of the things that surprised / made an impact is how professionally the SPD chief has been dealing with this circus; first inviting a 3rd party investigation then stepping aside with no fuss. This doesn’t smell like someone who is playing CYA to me.

        1. I agree. And it is also interesting that a libertarian web board seems to be upset that a DA used proprietorial discretion in favor of a defendant.

          1. I’d be willing to bet that there are more non-libertarian commenters here than libertarian ones. Strictly speaking of course, but I could be wrong.

            1. [citation required]

              JUST kidding!

            2. Surely someone here is qualified to judge who is or isn’t a libertarian.

              1. If you agree with all my opinions you’re a true libertarian. Otherwise you aren’t. Duh.

      2. Some of us here believe there hasn’t been enough information released to clearly say which side is in the right. Sometimes we refute possibilities that others put out just for the sake of having two sides to the argument. That doesn’t mean we’re taking sides, it just means we’re making sure both sides are represented.

        Also, I think I can speak for many here in saying it’s pointless to continue publishing ANYTHING about this story until all of the facts are clear. I’m all Trayvoned out.

        1. I think a lot of the people think that entirely reasonable thing. But a few, seem to think that there is no question Zimmerman was in the wrong. And I am not seeing that.

      3. What makes this all the more fascinating is that neighborhood watch is the kind of private, take care of yourself, security measure that libertarians normally love.

        You mean Martin was on Zimmerman’s lawn when he questioned him?

        1. I will remember that distinction the next time the anarcho capitalists are on here waxing poetic about the beauty of private law enforcement instead of a police force.

          1. The only difference between private law enforcement and a police force is one of scale.

            Each man should protect himself.

            1. But if there is no police force, you better believe that me and my neighbors are going to work together to protect our property and ourselves. Being an anarcho capitalist does not mean objecting to communities working together.

    2. There is no evidence that confirms (1), just Zimmerman’s claim.

      His father wasn’t there or even on the phone, so (2) is supported only by what Zimmerman told his dad and what his dad inferred. With a basic understanding of human nature, it’s going to naturally be the most self-serving version of events.

      There is as much evidence supporting (3) as there is supporting (1). If anything, there’s more, since Zimmerman admits to following Martin, with jibes with her statement.

    3. Exactly what I was going to say.

      911 Op: “We don’t need you to do that”

      Zimmerman: “OK.”

      That’s the only evidence we have – a stated agreement not to continue to follow him. If he continued to do so (and he certainly might have), I’d like to see your proof/citation.

      However, I doubt he decided to run up and deck Martin just cuz when he knew police were coming and he told the 911 operator to stop following Martin. That would increase his risk of liability if he disobeyed the operator’s advice and provoked an attack.

      Please, Reason, I love you guys but stop stating unsubstantiated speculation as fact.

  15. It is not a crime to ask someone on the street who they are or what they are doing there.

    It may not be a CRIME, but don’t exp0ect any answer other than “FUCK OFF” if you try it on me.

    1. That would be my exact response too. I didn’t say “you have to answer” 🙂

      Now if someone grabbed me, or threatened me in any way based on that response- they’d better be carrying something more potent than Skittles.

    2. Sure. But you can’t expect the person not to attack you and beat your head into the side walk.

      1. “But you /can/ expect the person not to attack you and beat your head into the side walk.”

    3. You commonly tell inquisitive property owners to FUCK OFF when you are a guest on the common areas of their property ?

      1. a new unfamiliar guest

      2. “…It is not a crime to ask someone on the street…”

        What part of “on the street” are you not getting?

  16. Why would ALEC, a group that profits from people being put in prison, want more lenient laws for self-defense? Surely this would put less people in prison.
    Someone, explain this to me.

    1. I’m not going to explain it twice.

      1. I’ve not heard an explanation once, can you direct me to your first one?

        1. It was in a little paper called the New York Times? Maybe you’ve heard of it? I think I have an extra copy but it’s underneath my Nobel Prize, and I don’t want to get barbecue sauce on it.

          1. I don’t read the NY Times as it isn’t available in my country. If you could give me the title of your article I’ll read it online.

  17. neighborhood watch is the kind of private, take care of yourself, security measure that libertarians normally love.

    Not when it veers into “pre-crime” territory.

    1. How is asking someone what they are doing “pre crime”? Martin has a right to walk there. But Zimmerman has a right to ask him what he is doing. That part gets left out.

      1. But Zimmerman has a right to ask him what he is doing. That part gets left out.

        And if that’s all he did, I’d have no problem with it.

        1. Is their any reason to think otherwise yet?

  18. Why should anyone care what the AFL-CIO executive vice president has to say about the Trayvon Martin case? What exactly does that have to do with organized labor? Sheesh.

  19. “And attempts by either the right or the left, or unions or the NRA, or whomever to straitjacket the event to fit a pre-existing agenda don’t reflect well on combatants.”

    Commendable even-handedness! Assuming both sides are exploiting the case equally, as opposed to one side exploiting the hell out of it and the other side responding the first side’s exploitation.

  20. CHICAGOLAND: Hoodie-Wearing Gunmen Kill 1, Wound 5 in Bobby Rush’s District

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-G…..o-District

    1. Oh my God! Were they wearing shoes too? How about underwear? Or any other commonly worn item of clothing?

      1. I think you are being obtuse with respect to Gus’s comment. In my neighborhood, the liquor store will not let anyone in with their hoodie up. It’s the owner’s store so he sets the rules. The reason why this rule is in place is because until it was implemented, people would come in with their hoodies up, grab a bottle and run out. I don’t know where you live but in my neighborhood, wearing a hoodie (especially when it’s 90+ degrees out) it a pretty reliable tell for potential criminal activity.

        1. I’m not supposed to wear sunglasses into my credit union. I think the ban hats too.There is always an off duty cop who acts much more serious than the usual security gig and the tellers are behind several inches of plexiglass like in a ghetto liquor store.

  21. Dems use Trayvon ‘Hoodie Rallies’ to register voters

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/03…..-on-scene/

    1. You don’t think this is all about politics, do you? That would be craven. Poor Trayvon died, and the Dems are using that just to be sure that Michelle gets four more years of exotic vacations on the tax payer dime? It sounds like they are “never letting a disaster go to waste”; that would just be cynical.

  22. “…the same folks who want to kill workers’ rights in the workplace are the same folks who want to kill voters’ votes – a targeted group of voters – in the voting booth. They want to kill the dreams of immigrants. Now they are literally supporting legislation that is literally killing our children.”

    If only ALEC had a cooler acronym, like SMERSH, those guys would make *great* Bond villains.

  23. All of the criticism of the SYG law that I have heard tells me that the people voicing opposition to it have absolutely no idea what the law says. This Baker bitch is a perfect example. In fact, the minority of people I have talked to on the issue even understand the concept of self-defense. Many seem to think it has something to do with ‘respect’. Fucking idiots.

    See Suderman’s article on the liberal legal bubble.

  24. Better dead than Red

    1. Your party is done dude, you fuckers spent us into oblivion.

  25. Justice for Trehorn

  26. Wow, OK I never thought about it like that before.

    http://www.Anon-Nets.tk

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.