05-17-12, 11:08 AM #21
05-17-12, 11:15 AM #22
05-17-12, 11:39 AM #23
if i say its right, they say its wrong..
so it doesn't do much good for me to push the issue too far..
as far as this issue, i will just inform the chief of police,and let him deal with it, this course has the least amount of risk to me, and the easiest chance of correcting the problem.
05-17-12, 12:43 PM #24
What you post here is more of an encouragement that I'm not alone in it... Because I often feel like I live in a society that has gotten complacent with taking oppression and even, abuse.
And look at the media trial over the Treyvon Martin case.
The shooters medical report demonstrates he was attacked and did have his head pounded into the pavement. An eyewitness reported seeing Martin reach for his gun, at which point the shooter grabbed it first and fired.
But due to the very publicity that you are proposing: The public is out for blood. They don't want justice, they want revenge and they will justify it however they can.
Public support is not usually based on a fair and keen intellect. It's based on selfish wants and politics. And being politically correct means protecting children! From evil parents that dare try to give them independence instead of spoon feeding them until they are 18.
05-17-12, 01:03 PM #25
05-17-12, 09:28 PM #26
So claims that he shot Martin in the back were erroneous after all.
Claims that he stood over Martin repeatedly firing- yes, I heard that one too...
And while the shooter had swelling and blackened eyes, plural, his head slammed into pavement cutting his scalp open, probably a broken nose...
Martins only injury (Aside from a fatal gunshot wound...) was an abrasion on a Fist.
And I get a real kick out of this one:
But after questions about possible racial motivation for the slaying – Martin was black; Zimmerman is a white man of Hispanic heritage
Now don't get me wrong. My heart really goes out to Treyvons family. He was just a kid and maybe he was doing something dumb that night... Maybe he wasn't and all he wanted was some snacks. Whichever, it wasn't worth dying for and now, the family must not only suffer the loss of a son (I'm a father...) but have their deceased son dragged through the media.
My heritage is Lakota (Sioux). My people have a saying, "It is impolite to speak of the dead."
And here we are, rude.
Maybe more evidence will come to light. But I think this was a case of stupidity, all the way around. Tragically, someone died and tragically, someone else must live with the taking of a life (I can assure you, it is a haunt you can never ever let go of).
Possibly, Martin thought he was being followed (Was Zimmerman wearing a jacket that said in bold letters, SECURITY on it?) and, fearful for his safety, tried to get one up on his possible attacker.
And Zimmerman, suspicious of perceived errant behavior in an area he was supposed to protect, suddenly found himself jumped from behind and defended himself from his attacker.
It's a shame their tussling with each other didn't knock some sense into both of them.
But I suspect that had Martin not jumped the man and banged his head into the pavement, he would never have gotten shot.
I, for one, am tired of every incident getting warped by politics, racial b.s. (O.J. Simpson Murder trial, anyone?) Racism should not be tolerated. But playing the race card at every single opportunity is equally intolerable. Unless they have evidence that Zimmerman only profiled black people and had a standing history of racism (Which seems the opposite so far-- from reports), then, innocent until proven beyond reasonable doubt- they need to drop the politics and grow up, already.
A man is being criminalized, while real criminals await trial or, silently and unreported in the media, get away with their crimes. He is not being criminalized because he set out to kill. But because he wanted to make right. To do the right thing. He was trying to be a good person.
And you know what they say about the road to hell- It is paved with good intentions. He had good intentions, maybe got over-zealous about his duties. And it tragically blew up in his face.
And on the back of his head.
Last edited by Neverfly; 05-17-12 at 09:55 PM.
05-17-12, 09:48 PM #27
05-17-12, 10:05 PM #28
An unarmed man was shot to death. At the very least a jury should sort it out based on the facts of the case, and I can abide by their verdict whatever that might be.
05-17-12, 10:21 PM #29
An unarmed KID was shot to death. A kid that won't get to finish up being a kid and move into manhood.
A kid that left behind bereaved family members, who will spend a very long time agonizing over his loss, constantly facing reminders that he won't be coming home. Uncertain of whether to pack up his things or leave his room as a shrine.
And crying everytime it wakes them up at night.
An unarmed KID was shot to death when there, at least for NOW, is plausible grounds to believe he was not 'up to no good.'
An unarmed kid was shot to death, when he ran up behind a grown man and attacked him. He managed to take down a security (Neighborhood watch) man who was older, more experienced, and bigger. He managed to slam his head into the ground, more than once, while facing that man, not doing it with the man pinned facedown.
He managed to blacken both his eyes and fracture his nose. And he managed to only abrade his fist in the process.
An unarmed kid was shot to death when he surprised and assaulted an armed man.
I grieve for the family.
But let's not lose focus- if we condone criminalizing people that set out to make right, to be good- What are we?
If we condone revenge- pure, primitive and simple- for the sake of a scapegoat, what are we?
Treyvon Martin made a very bad choice. He snuck up behind an armed man and attacked him.
He had managed to get out of a watchmans view. He was free and clear. He could have run on home.
But he didn't. He decided to take it upon himself to attack an armed watchman. And he got himself shot.
I cannot abide on whatever decision is reached. My mind may change later if more evidence is revealed showing that the shooter was a racist, evil, murderous killer.
But as it is, if Zimmerman is criminalized- it will be a blow to racial rights. It will be a racial crime of it's own. Not the shooting... the verdict would be a racial crime.
NBC had aired an edited version of Zimmerman's call from the night of Feb. 26. It was trimmed to suggest that Zimmerman volunteered that Martin was black. But the deleted portion had the dispatcher asking Zimmerman if the person was "black, white or Hispanic." Zimmerman responded, "he looks black."
Last edited by Neverfly; 05-17-12 at 10:30 PM.
05-17-12, 10:43 PM #30
The point is I don't know what the truth is, and I just can't take everything I read as the truth. So I want to see a trial with a jury hearing all the facts and then a decision made. Regardless of what you might think, this case is made for a jury trial and I believe most of the people across the country think so to. Otherwise it wasn't going to happen.
05-17-12, 11:09 PM #31
As you say, you cannot simply accept what people say.
However, we are looking at medical reports, not listening to spirited talks, eh?
We are looking at police reports and facts, not just heresay.
So how much are we reading? How much is true? I've gleaned very little from the news which wasn't about racial profiling and the shooter having to go into extreme hiding because of death threats.
The "facts" are constantly being mired in politics and the media trial is in process, not that I like it. And you are right... one must be pretty discriminating about what they're being told about this racially profiling murderer.
05-17-12, 11:59 PM #32
I would guess the cop had in mind something like child endangerment, but there are probably any number of less obvious laws that could be used.
Cops are the law, because that's how we built the system. Judges can overrule them, but they can't make them think.
Keep in mind the cops attend training and briefings that encourage them to take a bite out of crime by prevention, and by community interaction, and so forth. That stuff may be great in theory, but if the cop's a knucklehead, all theory breaks down in practice.
Who knows? Maybe the cop was involved in recovering the body of a missing child and was crusading for a serious cause without even realizing it.
05-18-12, 12:12 AM #33
what motivated the cop to bring her home?
assumption is that it was not a mean/devious/Ill intentioned thing,i am sure his heart was in the right place and his motives were good..
what did the first cop say to the second cop?
this is where it starts to smell funny..I dunno if the first cop was complaining to the second cop, or if he was instructing the second cop to 'watch me',
or what was said..
Where exactly did the second cop notice that we didn't have the car seat?
i could argue that the angle wasn't right to see anything till we parked...but that is just an assumption as i do not know what he saw..
If i did not see the first cop talking to the second cop, i do not think i would suspect any (i still don't know the exact word to put here..) indiscretion?collusion?prejudice? can't seem to find the right word..
05-18-12, 12:24 AM #34
If there's not a lot of crime in your area, the cops may be spending too much time at the donut shop comparing notes. Having your hackles up like this might just be a sign of a healthy community.
05-21-12, 11:55 AM #35
Just finished talking with the Chief of Police..
told him everything including it was not my intention to belittle my responsibility in the matter or to get the officers in trouble..
although i was left with the impression(don't think it was irrational) that he was more concerned with the issue from a legalistic point of view, than anything..
he did look it up in the law book and said that the child endangerment laws would qualify the firsts officers stance of it being illegal for a 5 year old to walk home by herself..(he did not touch the 12 year old issue, i think because it wasn't applicable to my situation)
he did say he would look into it including watching the video from the camera and asking the officers what was said during the conversation..
he did not say anything about whether he would or wouldn't support my idea of having the officers help with my tuition fee ($30) for the traffic school if he did find any impropriety, (which i did say that it was only a request and not an expectation)
he also said that it was his job to scrutinize his officers and if any improprieties were discovered that is was his responsibility to fire the officers guilty of such..(which i did/do not want to happen)..(which brings up the issue of punishment vs correction and the political pressures involved with his responsibilities and the reasonabilities of such)
what do i expect now?
I expect that nothing will happen except i will get a couple more tickets in the near future..
I hope at the least that, that he will call me back and just say that he talked to the officers and that the issue has been corrected..
at the most i would hope that they will help with the traffic school fee..
will update when new info become available..
05-21-12, 12:00 PM #36
05-21-12, 12:41 PM #37
and i never said the Cop was unjustified in giving me the ticket..
one of my points was the cop that followed me LOOKING for an excuse to give me a ticket..
would you want to live in a society where every move you made was scrutinized with the intention of finding fault in your life?
(are you pro-big brother?)
05-21-12, 01:11 PM #38
no matter what situation i am currently in,
and no matter how emotionally attached i am to any given situation in my life..
I titled the thread 'Law vs Freedom'
because there are issues of us losing our freedoms as more and more laws are being put into effect,
I/we are losing our freedom to determine where we spend out money(insurance laws)
I/we are losing our freedom to determine how we raise our kids
(teaching responsibility vs teaching compliance)
I am not an expert in law or the constitution, so my attitude can only go so far.
my Intention for creating this thread was to have others share stories like the Treyvon Martin case or others that show a fine line or a clear idea of the cases that infringe on our fundamental freedoms, of how Freedom and liberty of which our country(USA) was founded on, is slowly being legislated away..
05-21-12, 01:44 PM #39
some links that i have found..
Freedom vs democracy
A quote from it:
To achieve a free and peaceful world, we must restore freedom and individual liberty, not democracy.
“We (in the Legislature) have to weigh law enforcement practices with individual freedoms.
Why do we have seat belt laws?
Do you think it's because our government wants to keep us safe, think again.
We have seat belt laws simply because people with money wanted us to have seat belt laws. They lobbied for it, they pushed for it, and they eventually got it. And if you look closely, you'll find that many other laws are on the books simply because insurance companies wanted them there.
Are seat belts a good thing? Sure. Statistics have shown us time and time again that properly worn seat belts reduce the chance of injury and save lives. But a law? Why a law? Because it saves the insurance companies money if we get hurt less, and it gives them a reason NOT to pay for injuries if seat belts are not worn.
I am proud to say that in my entire time serving as sheriff I never issued a seat belt citation, and neither did any of my deputies. We talked to the people about wearing seat belts; we encouraged them to be safe, especially where children were concerned. But we could not in clear conscience enforce a law which violated the personal freedoms of the people, and thereby the principles of the constitution!
I'm not saying that we should all refuse to wear seat belts. The issue is not whether or not it's a good idea. The real danger here is that when we allow government to enforce these kinds of laws, we are surrendering our ability to think and act for ourselves.
From the same website about 'A recipe for Tyranny.'
was absolutely amazed by this Judge as the trial against Halajian proceeded. For many years now I
have heard several “patriots, constitutionalists, freedom lovers, right wing kooks,” whatever they are
called these days, say that they have taken certain traffic citations to court and that the judge warned
them that “the constitution would not apply in his courtroom.” I have to be totally frank here, I did not
always believe such claims.
(yes neverfly, i did read through most of them..)
05-21-12, 01:59 PM #40
Laws concerning kids are for their protection. Laws like that don't get passed without a good reason, whether your aware of those reasons or not. You have access to the Internet and should be able to do some research on specific laws. Take a look first and then if you still feel like complaining you will be doing it from a more knowledgeable position.
Where does my freedom to do as I want interfere with your freedom not to be victimized? Guess we need a law to resolve that problem don't we?
By Fraggle Rocker in forum General PhilosophyLast Post: 02-26-12, 08:41 PMReplies: 34
By Asguard in forum Ethics, Morality, & JusticeLast Post: 02-06-10, 02:49 AMReplies: 26
By Norsefire in forum General PhilosophyLast Post: 07-07-09, 04:36 PMReplies: 138
By spidergoat in forum PoliticsLast Post: 12-08-07, 09:56 AMReplies: 18
By S.A.M. in forum Art & CultureLast Post: 08-25-07, 02:13 PMReplies: 0