More of what's wrong with America! Sick! - Page 3

airportcop · 04-11-2012, 07:58 PM

MM only works when minorities are involved. Then it becomes newsworthy to them! All lives are precious and a gift or blessing. Truly sad how the MM picks and chooses what to report on. Sensationalism sells and so does racism and hatred. All about the dollar!

**Jiro** · 04-11-2012, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by airportcop

MM only works when minorities are involved. Then it becomes newsworthy to them! All lives are precious and a gift or blessing. Truly sad how the MM picks and chooses what to report on. Sensationalism sells and so does racism and hatred. All about the dollar!

so is it a big problem for you?

airportcop · 04-12-2012, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

so is it a big problem for you?

I certainly don't like it and don't think it's fair or right! A lot of people base their knowledge of truth on what the MM reports. Not me of course!!!

rolling7 · 04-12-2012, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by airportcop

I certainly don't like it and don't think it's fair or right! A lot of people base their knowledge of truth on what the MM reports. Not me of course!!!

Best post of the day!...........(but, of course, the day is young)

armando · 04-12-2012, 07:53 AM

Wow!! Wrong people. Many wrong!!

Grayma · 04-12-2012, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

Maryland doesn't have stand your ground law so he will arrested for murder or manslaughter, depending on state law about definition of crime.

Not all states have stand your ground law.

Stand Your Ground law had nothing to do with Zimmerman. It doesn't have anything to do with a case like this, either.

Grayma · 04-12-2012, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

There are just a few facts you may not have been taught in school about the Civil War.

3) The war was fought over "state's rights" and slavery became a political issue 3 years after the war started.

Another little known fact- the Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave, nor was it intended to.

Your other facts were sound, but this 3 one is incomplete. The war was fought for many reasons and slavery was one of them from the first. It's also more 'nuanced.'

The South withdrew from the Union over 'States' Rights' but the only right they felt was being violated was the 'right' to bring their personal property into the territories. That 'property' was human beings, and the reason the South could not bring slaves into the territories was because of their own Missouri Compromise, which they had agreed to. Furthermore, you can read what they say were the reasons they were withdrawing from the Union- statements were made at the time, and these are widely available on the web. Without any exception I know of, in every case where a state's representatives published a statement about the reason for secession, slavery was the top of the list. Read also the Southern constitution, which clearly states that slavery is the reason for the Southern Confederacy.

They weren't that interested in 'States' Rights,' or there would never have been a fugitive slave law, which violated the rights of the free thinking citizens of the North, not to mention the rights of free blacks who were often scooped up under the FSL, and the rights of blacks who managed to escape, for some time before the Civil War. It also violated Old Testament law which many white slave owners clamed was the basis for their slavery- in the OT it was illegal to return a slave who fled.

The Southern politicians in Washington had also been violating the right to petition the government (a first ammendment freedom) for decades before the Civil War. They controlled Congress and for over thirty years they refused to permit any petition which mentioned slavery to be brought to the floor. It was pretty ugly and pretty much completely unconstitutional.

They also sought to have the local postmaster in each town read all the mails and burn any document that criticized slavery, however private or mild the comment- a violation of free speech.

Some on the South were fighting over tarriffs and other issues, but slavery was indeed a politicial issue from the get go.

In the North, there was definitely a substantial minority who were fighting to free the slaves from the beginning- the abolitionists.
There were others who cared about the slave issue because they resented the free labor and the economic advantage it gave the south, and the trouble it causes free whites who wanted jobs.

Lincoln definitely didn't care much one way or the other about slavery- he fought to preserve the Union, as did many Northeners. But the abolutionists convinced him that slavery was the issue and that his wishy-washy attitude about it (and that of the north) was at least one reason why they weren't winning. They convinced him that morally, unless the North took a stand about slavery, it would lose. He did change his mind over the course of the war.

Strongly recommend reading Arguing about Slavery by Miller. Outstanding book. It's huge and looks intimidating, but it's very engaging reading, well documented, well researched.

CrazyPaul · 04-12-2012, 10:25 AM

At school, I was taught that Abraham Lincoln declared a civil war against the South because they refused to let black slaves go free. His famous quote was "All men are created equal". After the North won, the slaves got freedom.

rolling7 · 04-12-2012, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyPaul

At school, I was taught that Abraham Lincoln declared a civil war against the South because they refused to let black slaves go free. His famous quote was "All men are created equal". After the North won, the slaves got freedom.

Maybe you should find a copy of Grayma's book and study it. Seems to me, you were taught the "usual" history, a completely glossed-over version given to school children. Our education should not stop with graduation ceremonies.

CrazyPaul · 04-12-2012, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rolling7

Maybe you should find a copy of Grayma's book and study it. Seems to me, you were taught the "usual" history, a completely glossed-over version given to school children. Our education should not stop with graduation ceremonies.

Ok, so suppose there was no slavery at that time, would the President declare the civil war?

**Jiro** · 04-12-2012, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyPaul

Ok, so suppose there was no slavery at that time, would the President declare the civil war?

yes

Grayma · 04-12-2012, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyPaul

At school, I was taught that Abraham Lincoln declared a civil war against the South because they refused to let black slaves go free. His famous quote was "All men are created equal". After the North won, the slaves got freedom.

Most of us were taught that, but the truth was more complicated.

Abraham LIncoln went to war with the South because southern states seceded from the Union, and he believed his view as President required him to preserve the Union. The southern states also fired on the North at Ft. Sumter. Had the southern states first freed the slaves and then seceded from the Union, Lincoln would still have gone to war, although he would probably have gotten less support from northeners.

Abraham Lincoln did not say 'all men are created equal.' that's from The Declaration of Independence, which was written a hundred years before the Civil War. It was the legal basis for abolitionists who insisted that slavery was a moral evil incompatible with the foundations of the United States.

Here's the first two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence:

Quote:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. ...

CrazyPaul · 04-12-2012, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grayma

Most of us were taught that, but the truth was more complicated.

Abraham LIncoln went to war with the South because southern states seceded from the Union, and he believed his view as President required him to preserve the Union. The southern states also fired on the North at Ft. Sumter. Had the southern states first freed the slaves and then seceded from the Union, Lincoln would still have gone to war, although he would probably have gotten less support from northeners.

Abraham Lincoln did not say 'all men are created equal.' that's from The Declaration of Independence, which was written a hundred years before the Civil War. It was the legal basis for abolitionists who insisted that slavery was a moral evil incompatible with the foundations of the United States.

Here's the first two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence:

Many thanks for the education. So basically the South wanted to be independent from the US and the President won't allow it. That's one of the reasons why we had the civil war, right?

Frisky Feline · 04-12-2012, 11:45 AM

At least the North won the civil war.

**Foxrac** · 04-12-2012, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grayma

Stand Your Ground law had nothing to do with Zimmerman. It doesn't have anything to do with a case like this, either.

You are talking in wrong way.

Stand your ground law has something with George Zimmerman because he mentioned that shot Trayvon Martin in self-defense.

I explained to Steinhauer about Maryland doesn't have this law and those man is in totally different situation, especially probably drunk.

rolling7 · 04-12-2012, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyPaul

Ok, so suppose there was no slavery at that time, would the President declare the civil war?

Do you realize that The War Between The States (the correct title) was fought over state rights?

Grayma · 04-12-2012, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyPaul

Many thanks for the education. So basically the South wanted to be independent from the US and the President won't allow it. That's one of the reasons why we had the civil war, right?

Kind of. It wasn't just the President, though. The President cannot declare War, only Congress can. So there would have been no war without Congressional support as well.

Also interesting.... a couple decades before The Civil War, a handful of hotheads in the north had advocated seceeding from the Union. They did not like the way the South controlled the government and dragged them into the War of 1812. The South was furious and insisted that there was no right of secession. The Constitution wouldn't allow it. Few in the north supported the secessionists, either, and those who had advocaated it prett much watched their own political careers go down in flames. So the South did not believe in being 'independent from the US' until it became obvious the were not going to be able to use the North or the territories to export their slaves (they'd begun breeding slaves for profit by the Civil War).

The South had promised not to bring their slaves into the territories. Now they wanted to break those promises.

The primary reason the South wanted 'freedom' from the US was so they could continue to deny freedom to others.

Grayma · 04-12-2012, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rolling7

Do you realize that The War Between The States (the correct title) was fought over state rights?

No, it wasn't. Or rather, yes, so long as you realize the ONLY 'states' right' in question was the so-called 'right' to own human beings.

You can find this out for yourself- read the Confederate Constitution or the declaration of secession where the southern states declared themselves their reasons for secession.

The idea that slavery had little to do with it is kind of recent in the scheme of things- it was only about fifty years after the war before people started talking about States' Rights being the main reason.

**Reba** · 04-12-2012, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rolling7

Do you realize that The War Between The States (the correct title) was fought over state rights?

Do you mean The Recent Unpleasantness?

Grayma · 04-12-2012, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

You are talking in wrong way.

Stand your ground law has something with George Zimmerman because he mentioned that shot Trayvon Martin in self-defense.

I explained to Steinhauer about Maryland doesn't have this law and those man is in totally different situation, especially probably drunk.

No, Stand Your Ground had nothing to do with Zimmerman's situation.

Quote:

The Truth about ‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws
By Ken Blackwell – Big Government

Sadly, some are exploiting the Trayvon Martin shooting to target self-defense laws that protect innocent lives. These statutes safeguard law-abiding and peaceable citizens, and are not to blame in the tragic Florida incident. Stand Your Ground laws did not apply in that situation, and statements to the contrary are irresponsible and misinformed.

In some states the law imposes a duty to retreat from physical confrontations. Whether in your home or on the street, if you stand and fight, you might be prosecuted as a criminal.

This duty was terrible law. It required you to turn your back on an assailant. Even if he doesn’t have a gun to shoot you in the back, if he can run faster he could attack you from behind, putting you at a serious disadvantage.

Some states did not impose this misguided rule. Instead, other states took a common-sense approach to self-defense, which the U.S. Supreme Court in Beard v. U.S. endorsed as early as 1895, when the Court unanimously declared that an innocent person under attack was, “not obliged to retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground, and meet any attack upon him with a deadly weapon, in such a way and with such force as … [he] honestly believed, and had reasonable grounds to believe, was necessary to save his own life, or to protect himself from great bodily injury.”

In recent years legislatures have enacted statutes to address this situation. Many are states where the legal rule was good but legislators wanted to reinforce it, others were enacted in states where the judges had rejected this common-sense principle embraced by the Supreme Court.

One legislative response to the wrongheaded duty to retreat was the Castle Doctrine. The duty to retreat in some states required you to abandon your own home if confronted with an invader, leaving all your possessions to the invader and possibly endangering others.

Castle Doctrine comes from the maxim that “a man’s home is his castle.” The idea is that if someone breaks into your home, rather than worry about how much evidence there is that he intends you harm and whether you could prove it in a court of law, the law presumes you have a reasonable fear of death or bodily harm and can respond accordingly.

Castle Doctrine doesn’t apply if you’re in a public place, however. Instead, some states have created a lesser form of protection in public places, called “Stand Your Ground” (SYG) laws. This is the law that has been mentioned in connection with the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman shooting.

But the law is not what you have heard reported by the media. Florida’s SYG law provides that a person under attack can use force—including deadly force—against his attacker if he, “reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm … or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.”

Several keys points. First, the threat must be deadly. It’s not just that someone punched you in the face. You must be threatened with force sufficient to kill you or cause massive bodily harm, or a similar forcible felony (such as rape).

Second, it’s not enough that the victim believes he is under a deadly threat. His belief must also be reasonable, meaning that under the circumstances an objective observer would likewise conclude the victim could be killed or severely injured.

Third, SYG only protects victims; it does not apply to attackers. If you’re attacking someone, you cannot claim SYG as a defense for what follows.

And fourth, it doesn’t apply if you cannot retreat. If retreat is not an option, then the situation is governed by ordinary self-defense laws, not SYG laws.

Under any version of the facts, Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law did not apply in the Trayvon Martin incident. If Zimmerman pursued a confrontation with Martin, then Zimmerman was an attacker and cannot claim SYG. If Zimmerman’s account is true that he was on the ground and Martin was on top of him, then retreat was impossible, so there would be no duty to retreat anyway. A victim in such a situation can use deadly force, but only if he reasonably believes he is being attacked with deadly force.

To our knowledge, that is the law in all fifty states. It was the law before SYG statutes were ever passed, and SYG did nothing to change it.

So why is this not common knowledge after all the reporting on the Martin shooting? Tragically, some anti-gun activists are misinforming the public. They are aided by media commentators who were either sympathetic to the leftists or failed the public trust by not researching and understanding the SYG issue before presuming to editorialize on it.

The police are usually not at hand when you are attacked by a criminal. The Second Amendment guarantees the right of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. And laws like Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground reinforce that right, especially in states where it had been eroded, not to take innocent life, but instead to preserve it.

Ken Blackwell is the former Mayor of Cincinnati and Undersecretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Breitbart legal columnist Ken Klukowski is on faculty at Liberty University School of Law.

**Foxrac** · 04-12-2012, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grayma

No, Stand Your Ground had nothing to do with Zimmerman's situation.

Why media and some people see George Zimmerman as protected under stand your ground law?

Grayma · 04-12-2012, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frisky Feline

At least the North won the civil war.

Yes. Although better still would have been if the South had taken advantage of the numerous opportunities they had to end slavery peacefully before it ever came to war.

And better still if we'd never allowed the institution on our shores.

Grayma · 04-12-2012, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

Why media and some people see George Zimmerman as protected under stand your ground law?

Several reasons, some of which were explained in the article I showed you:

Being uninformed= this is why it is so important not to rely on the mainstream media for all your information.

Knowing better, but wanting to use Zimmerman's case as a political tool to get rid of Stand your Ground laws.

Even before Zimmerman's arrest, the lawmakers who *wrote* the Stand Your Ground law said it had nothing to do with his case.

Grayma · 04-12-2012, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by airportcop

MM only works when minorities are involved. Then it becomes newsworthy to them! All lives are precious and a gift or blessing. Truly sad how the MM picks and chooses what to report on. Sensationalism sells and so does racism and hatred. All about the dollar!

Only in some cases where minorities are involved. It's really sad and disgusting, and this shouldn't be a partisan issue.

If a child is abducted or killed, the MSM mainly only cares if the child is white.

If a girl is raped, the MSM mainly only is interested if she is black and the accused are white. The MSM doesn't care about black girls raped by black men.

If a girl is raped and murdered, then they only care if she is white and pretty.

The only male murder victims who matter are minorities killed by whites. But if you are a minority killed by somebody of your own race, the MSM couldn't care less.

The MSM's tunnel vision and focus on what they consider sensational doesn't just hurt white victims.

In fact, I think it hurts the black community most of all.

**Foxrac** · 04-12-2012, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grayma

Several reasons, some of which were explained in the article I showed you:

Being uninformed= this is why it is so important not to rely on the mainstream media for all your information.

Knowing better, but wanting to use Zimmerman's case as a political tool to get rid of Stand your Ground laws.

Even before Zimmerman's arrest, the lawmakers who *wrote* the Stand Your Ground law said it had nothing to do with his case.

I know it doesn't apply to Trayvon Martin's case, according to politicians.

However, I found one.

Quote:

O'Mara, Zimmerman's attorney, said his client would plead not guilty and invoke Florida's so-called "stand your ground" law, which gives people wide latitude to use deadly force rather than retreat during a fight.

Zimmerman Makes Court Appearance In Trayvon Martin Shooting

**KristinaB** · 04-12-2012, 03:32 PM

Forgive me for being slightly ignorant on this whole mess. What does MM and MSM stand for?

**Foxrac** · 04-12-2012, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KristinaB

Forgive me for being slightly ignorant on this whole mess. What does MM and MSM stand for?

Mainstream Media

**KristinaB** · 04-12-2012, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

Mainstream Media

Thanks!!!

Grayma · 04-13-2012, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

I know it doesn't apply to Trayvon Martin's case, according to politicians.

However, I found one.

Zimmerman Makes Court Appearance In Trayvon Martin Shooting

Not just according to politicians, according to lawyers and legal experts.

how about some lawyers:

Quote:

Media coverage of Florida’s self-defense laws in recent weeks has often been very inaccurate. While some persons, particularly from the gun prohibition lobbies, have claimed that the Martin/Zimmerman case shows the danger of Florida’s “Stand your ground” law, that law is legally irrelevant to case. So let’s take a look at what the Florida laws actually say.

Fla. Stat. § 776.012. Use of force in defense of person

A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

So the general rule is that deadly force may be used only to “imminent death or great bodily harm,” or “the imminent commission of a forcible felony.” A person may only use deadly force if he “reasonably believes” that the aforesaid factual conditions exist. These standards are the norm throughout the United States.

Eventually, a grand jury will issue a report based on its investigation. In the meantime, there are two competing narratives. In one narrative, Zimmerman followed Martin, attacked him, and then murdered him. Let’s call this the “M narrative.” In Zimmerman’s account, he followed Martin, caught up with him, and then left; while he was leaving, Martin attacked him, knocked him to the ground, and began slamming his head into the pavement. Let’s call this the “Z narrative.”

I am not making any judgment about which narrative is more plausible. The grand jury will do that. For now, it should be noted that neither the M narrative or the Z narrative has anything to do with a duty to retreat. The retreat issue would only be relevant if Martin were the aggressor, and Z had the opportunity to escape from Martin in complete safety. Then, and only then, would different state standards about retreat be relevant. Simply put, everyone who has claimed that Florida’s retreat rule affect the legal disposition of the controversy is either misinformed or mendacious....

Jeralyn at TalkLeft:

Quote:

Self defense is an affirmative defense to the crime of homicide. It has the effect of legally excusing the defendant from an act that would otherwise be a crime.

Stand your ground is not a defense, but an immunity statute, providing immunity from criminal prosecution. It is a bar to prosecution (and yes, arrest.)

A defendant charged with a crime who wants to raise Stand your Ground files a motion to dismiss claiming stand your ground immunizes him from prosecution. Here is a typical motion, filed in another case in December, 2011.

A hearing is held before trial. The burden is on the defendant to prove by a preponderance of evidence that stand your ground immunity applies.

The judge weighs the facts. If the judge agrees the defendant has shown stand your ground immunity applies by a preponderance of evidence, the charges are dismissed. The defendant can't be prosecuted.

If the judge finds the defendant hasn't met his burden, (including if the disputed evidence is so equal on both sides the judge can't decide one way or the other) the case goes to trial to be decided by the jury. At trial, the defendant can still argue both self-defense and stand your ground immunity -- he only has to establish some evidence of his theory, which can be just his own testimony, that he acted in self-defense.

The prosecution must prove his guilt at the jury trial beyond a reasonable doubt. Which means, if the defendant raises self-defense or stand your ground at trial and gets the jury instruction, the state, which has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, must disprove self-defense. If the jury has a doubt, the defendant must be acquitted.

There's a lot more at both links, and both articles do a good job, I think, of explaining what the SYG law is and is not.

**Foxrac** · 04-13-2012, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grayma

Not just according to politicians, according to lawyers and legal experts.

how about some lawyers:

Jeralyn at TalkLeft:

There's a lot more at both links, and both articles do a good job, I think, of explaining what the SYG law is and is not.

It has with stand your ground law in Zimmerman's case and they are free to bring up.

Trayvon Case Investigation

04-11-2012, 07:58 PM	#61 (permalink)
airportcop Registered User Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Springfield, MO Posts: 1,088	MM only works when minorities are involved. Then it becomes newsworthy to them! All lives are precious and a gift or blessing. Truly sad how the MM picks and chooses what to report on. Sensationalism sells and so does racism and hatred. All about the dollar! Steinhauer likes this. __________________ Romans 12:12 (NIV) Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. Last edited by airportcop; 04-11-2012 at 08:00 PM. Reason: added

04-12-2012, 11:45 AM	#74 (permalink)
Frisky Feline Registered User Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 20,555	At least the North won the civil war. Grayma likes this.

04-12-2012, 03:32 PM	#86 (permalink)
KristinaB New SDIT Deacon Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Land of the backstroke Posts: 13,855	Forgive me for being slightly ignorant on this whole mess. What does MM and MSM stand for? __________________ Taking life one day at a time.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

04-12-2012, 07:53 AM	#65 (permalink)
armando Registered User Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: sandiego Posts: 24 Blog Entries: 2	Wow!! Wrong people. Many wrong!!

04-12-2012, 10:25 AM	#68 (permalink)
CrazyPaul Registered User Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 3,180	At school, I was taught that Abraham Lincoln declared a civil war against the South because they refused to let black slaves go free. His famous quote was "All men are created equal". After the North won, the slaves got freedom.