If you'd like to call in or hear me speak on some current issues -- I'll be on the Bob Harvey Radio Show this Sunday, June 3, at 7:30 pm. The show broadcasts on 106.9FM; 95.9 FM; 106.9 AM; and also simultaneous on the web at www.sflagunschool.com.
My slot will be about a half hour's worth. It is a call in format.
Friday, June 1, 2012
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Correction to page 28 -- Dual residency
Thanks to a reader I was alerted to a change in the law that I'd missed. (yeah -- can happen to anyone) The federal "Real ID Act" requires that all identifications recognized by federal authority comply with the Act. Florida has complied -- and one of the requirements is that you can only have a drivers license or identification card from a single state. So -- per Florida Statute 322.08(6) -- no more driver licenses to dual residents unless they give up their other license or i/d card! The Dept. of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles acknowledges that they have a contrary rule that needs to be updated (15A-1.005) -- but obviously -- the statute controls, and they follow the statute.
So . . . you're obviously gonna have a problem purchasing a firearm in Florida -- even if you are a true "dual resident" -- if you still have your license from another state.
Sorry about any confusion.
So . . . you're obviously gonna have a problem purchasing a firearm in Florida -- even if you are a true "dual resident" -- if you still have your license from another state.
Sorry about any confusion.
Friday, May 11, 2012
"Warning Shot" -- dangerous and unfair Florida law
Marissa Alexander, a black woman, was recently sentenced to a mandatory twenty year prison sentence up in Jacksonville -- for firing a "warning shot" to stop her husband from beating her as he approached to attack. The twenty year sentence is the MINIMUM penalty in Florida for discharging a firearm in a forcible felony (aggravated assault). While I have not seen the trial transcript -- my belief is that the conviction likely stems from a very serious problem within Florida case law that considers a "warning shot" to be the use of "deadly force" -- as a matter of law. In other words -- even if the shot was placed so it was impossible to injure anyone -- a jury is still instructed that, as a matter of law -- it is still the use of "deadly force". Of course, this is a terribly unfair and inappropriate interpretation -- and needs to be changed by the Legislature, as it is unlikely the courts will reconsider the issue.
Why?
Well . . . the theory by the court is that once a bullet is launched from a firearm -- it has the propensity to do deadly harm if it passes thru a wall, or ricochets into someone . But -- while anything is possible -- such a result is purely speculation and conjecture. In fact -- the normal purpose of a "warning shot" is for the explicit purpose of AVOIDING the use of deadly force -- and thus AVOIDING the infliction of death or great bodily harm -- and therefore -- a jury should be allowed to find it is the use of "non-deadly force" -- so long as no person or animal is injured by the shot.
So . . . for now . . . firing a warning shot in Florida -- even if a very good idea -- is almost never a good idea. You're probably better off shooting the son-of-a-bitch than firing a warning shot under current Florida law.
What would I propose as a solution? I think something like this would work:
"Where a person has a reasonable belief they are threatened with imminent death or great bodily harm from the attack of another, it is for the jury, or finder of fact (ie: the judge in a non-jury trial) to determine if a warning shot from a firearm fired to stop or prevent the attack is the use of deadly force or non-deadly force. However, if a person or domestic animal is injured by the projectile, the discharge of a firearm shall be considered the use of deadly force.
"No person shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum prison term pursuant to Florida Statute 775.087 for the crime of aggravated assault, aggravated battery, or manslaughter, where they used a firearm or other deadly weapon in an effort to stop or prevent what was reasonable to believe was the imminent commission, or attempt to commit, a felony upon themself or another, and such person shall be sentenced within the range otherwise allowed by law."
Quite frankly -- I think all gun owners will at some point need to band together, rally, and push for such legislation. The mandatory penalties in Florida law are "chilling" to your right to use lawful self defense. In the meantime -- if you like the suggestions -- forward them on to the Stand Your Ground Task Force. I listed their email in a previous posting.
jon gutmacher
Why?
Well . . . the theory by the court is that once a bullet is launched from a firearm -- it has the propensity to do deadly harm if it passes thru a wall, or ricochets into someone . But -- while anything is possible -- such a result is purely speculation and conjecture. In fact -- the normal purpose of a "warning shot" is for the explicit purpose of AVOIDING the use of deadly force -- and thus AVOIDING the infliction of death or great bodily harm -- and therefore -- a jury should be allowed to find it is the use of "non-deadly force" -- so long as no person or animal is injured by the shot.
So . . . for now . . . firing a warning shot in Florida -- even if a very good idea -- is almost never a good idea. You're probably better off shooting the son-of-a-bitch than firing a warning shot under current Florida law.
What would I propose as a solution? I think something like this would work:
"Where a person has a reasonable belief they are threatened with imminent death or great bodily harm from the attack of another, it is for the jury, or finder of fact (ie: the judge in a non-jury trial) to determine if a warning shot from a firearm fired to stop or prevent the attack is the use of deadly force or non-deadly force. However, if a person or domestic animal is injured by the projectile, the discharge of a firearm shall be considered the use of deadly force.
"No person shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum prison term pursuant to Florida Statute 775.087 for the crime of aggravated assault, aggravated battery, or manslaughter, where they used a firearm or other deadly weapon in an effort to stop or prevent what was reasonable to believe was the imminent commission, or attempt to commit, a felony upon themself or another, and such person shall be sentenced within the range otherwise allowed by law."
Quite frankly -- I think all gun owners will at some point need to band together, rally, and push for such legislation. The mandatory penalties in Florida law are "chilling" to your right to use lawful self defense. In the meantime -- if you like the suggestions -- forward them on to the Stand Your Ground Task Force. I listed their email in a previous posting.
jon gutmacher
Friday, April 20, 2012
The George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin shooting -- second degree murder case -- bond hearing
The George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin shooting -- The Bond Hearing of April 20, 2012:
copyright 2012 by jon gutmacher
For those of you who were unable to watch the bond hearing this morning for George Zimmerman -- here are some of the highlights -- and insights.
First -- the prosecution did their best to try to improperly influence the potential viewer jury pool by bringing up Zimmerman's prior arrest for battery and obstruction of justice as showing he had a "violent" nature, and therefore should not be released as he was a "danger" to the public. Instead, what we found out was that plain clothes investigators from the State Alcohol and Tobacco division grabbed one of his friends (several years ago) without identifying themselves -- and George went over to help. When he found out they were law enforcement, he immediately backed off -- although there was some very minor jostling in the process. For anyone familiar with this type of enforcement -- very typical. Even the presiding judge, Judge Kenneth Lester, Jr. -- said that. Then they raised the fact of another older incident where there were mutual injunctions when George had a scuffle with a former lady friend who had actually attacked him -- and in return, he slapped her, and pushed her off onto a bed so he could leave. Again -- more of an attack on character than having any real relevance to anything. There was also an attempt to suggest he "racially profiled" Trayvon Martin -- which was rebutted by the fact that Zimmerman had been a mentor for almost two years to two African American children in a mentoring program. (And . . . you might remember he had a number of friends on the news who were of African American origin). And -- a very big surprise move when Zimmerman actually took the stand at the end of the motion simply to apologize to the Martin family for the death of their son, and to express his sorrow. Something that appeared very sincere -- rather than as a media ploy.
What was the other "evidence"? Not much.
While it appears that Zimmerman did continue to follow Trayvon Martin after making a non-emergency call to police for a unit to investigate -- and while it also seems likely that Martin was worried about who was following him, and why -- there was no evidence to contradict that Trayvon did not confront Zimmerman in the end, or assault Zimmerman first. Nor, was there any evidence to controvert that Zimmerman had lacerations on the back of his head consistent with being pounded into concrete, had swelling on his face due to injuries, and had his nose broken . And -- while there was evidence that Trayvon's mother said she recognized the person screaming for help was Trayvon -- no other family member was able to do this. There was also important evidence that Zimmerman fired only one cartridge into Trayvon's chest at point blank range -- and according to Zimmerman's statements to police, Zimmerman pulled the firearm while he was on the ground at a point where Trayvon allegedly had both hands on Zimmerman's face. By implication -- this was obviously after his nose was broken, and after he received the injuries to the back of his head. Also important is the fact that Zimmerman gave multiple statements to the police for two days immediately after the shooting that are not inconsistent with his defense -- and also volunteered to come in for another statement to the new State Attorney only a few days before charges were filed -- which offer was apparently declined.
In other words -- at least from a true legal analysis -- the police had no evidence contrary to the case being one of self defense -- and the only open issue was whether Zimmerman used "excessive force" (which would be manslaughter -- not second degree murder) -- and that at the time of the initial investigation (and probably now) -- law enforcement didn't have any evidence that controverted Zimmerman suffering "great bodily harm" (the broken nose) -- nor -- did they have any evidence contrary to his assertion that he was in reasonable fear of further serious injury or death.
What was left out?
Well . . . some of the key issues we still don't know:
1. What was the distance Zimmerman was following Martin from?
2. Did Zimmerman ever actually run after Martin?
3. Where was Zimmerman when Martin approached -- assuming Martin really did -- and where was this in relationship to Zimmerman's vehicle?
4. Were photos taken of Zimmerman's injuries by the police before they were cleaned up?
5. Is there any blood stain evidence -- how much -- and where?
6. Who actually was screaming for help? (the FBI allegedly did an analysis -- but this was not introduced)
7. Is there any other physical evidence that supports or discredits the prosecution or defense?
8. What was the extent of the head injuries?
9. Were there any injuries on Trayvon Martin besides the gun shot wound?
10. Were there any other injuries on Zimmerman?
11. Is there anything significantly inconsistent about the statements Zimmerman gave to the police?
Anyway -- the judge set a bond of $150,000.00, with other conditions including GPS monitoring. This is not atypical for such charges, especially where the State Attorney is asking for no bond. (Actually -- they wanted a million dollar bond -- which would mean the same thing). Of course, Zimmerman doesn't have those kind of funds -- and he, and his family have just about zero money. However, there is a fund set up on the internet for donations [http://www.therealgeorgezimmerman.com] for his legal defense, that would also be important for bail. Assuming you really want "justice" -- feel free to donate five bucks or a hundred bucks. You can't fight these things without money.
As you can probably tell from how I reported this hearing -- I'm leaning more to the self defense claim being legit. Under any circumstance -- I stick to my original analysis -- that Sanford Police Department did the right thing by not arresting him -- because it is clear -- they did not have probable cause to disbelieve the self defense issues. In fact -- I have serious doubts that there is probable cause at this time, despite the fact that the State Attorney filed charges. However, I also stick to what I originally said -- that it was a major mistake to refuse releasing information on why Zimmerman was not arrested. In fact -- it was contrary to the public interest to refuse doing that -- and was a complete and utter failure to see and understand the obvious need -- that has led to this "public lynching" of the self defense laws, Zimmerman, his friends, and his family.
Last -- a teaching point. Using a firearm should be an absolute last resort. If you do -- make sure you have lots of money to defend yourself -- and get to a lawyer who knows this stuff -- QUICKLY! Not days or weeks after -- but hopefully within the first few days! Even if it cost you five hundred or a grand to talk to the guy (or gal) -- it's gonna be worth it.
As to the Governor's Task Force . . . well . . . I personally think that will turn into a "witch hunt" on all the alleged "evils" of gun ownership. A few of the appointees are violently anti-gun -- and I'm not sure any of them really have the experience you and I would hope would be on the panel. I sure as hell wasn't asked. So , we'll see where that goes -- and that may require some real work on the part of those who believe in the Second Amendment -- to legally survive.
copyright 2012 by jon gutmacher
For those of you who were unable to watch the bond hearing this morning for George Zimmerman -- here are some of the highlights -- and insights.
First -- the prosecution did their best to try to improperly influence the potential viewer jury pool by bringing up Zimmerman's prior arrest for battery and obstruction of justice as showing he had a "violent" nature, and therefore should not be released as he was a "danger" to the public. Instead, what we found out was that plain clothes investigators from the State Alcohol and Tobacco division grabbed one of his friends (several years ago) without identifying themselves -- and George went over to help. When he found out they were law enforcement, he immediately backed off -- although there was some very minor jostling in the process. For anyone familiar with this type of enforcement -- very typical. Even the presiding judge, Judge Kenneth Lester, Jr. -- said that. Then they raised the fact of another older incident where there were mutual injunctions when George had a scuffle with a former lady friend who had actually attacked him -- and in return, he slapped her, and pushed her off onto a bed so he could leave. Again -- more of an attack on character than having any real relevance to anything. There was also an attempt to suggest he "racially profiled" Trayvon Martin -- which was rebutted by the fact that Zimmerman had been a mentor for almost two years to two African American children in a mentoring program. (And . . . you might remember he had a number of friends on the news who were of African American origin). And -- a very big surprise move when Zimmerman actually took the stand at the end of the motion simply to apologize to the Martin family for the death of their son, and to express his sorrow. Something that appeared very sincere -- rather than as a media ploy.
What was the other "evidence"? Not much.
While it appears that Zimmerman did continue to follow Trayvon Martin after making a non-emergency call to police for a unit to investigate -- and while it also seems likely that Martin was worried about who was following him, and why -- there was no evidence to contradict that Trayvon did not confront Zimmerman in the end, or assault Zimmerman first. Nor, was there any evidence to controvert that Zimmerman had lacerations on the back of his head consistent with being pounded into concrete, had swelling on his face due to injuries, and had his nose broken . And -- while there was evidence that Trayvon's mother said she recognized the person screaming for help was Trayvon -- no other family member was able to do this. There was also important evidence that Zimmerman fired only one cartridge into Trayvon's chest at point blank range -- and according to Zimmerman's statements to police, Zimmerman pulled the firearm while he was on the ground at a point where Trayvon allegedly had both hands on Zimmerman's face. By implication -- this was obviously after his nose was broken, and after he received the injuries to the back of his head. Also important is the fact that Zimmerman gave multiple statements to the police for two days immediately after the shooting that are not inconsistent with his defense -- and also volunteered to come in for another statement to the new State Attorney only a few days before charges were filed -- which offer was apparently declined.
In other words -- at least from a true legal analysis -- the police had no evidence contrary to the case being one of self defense -- and the only open issue was whether Zimmerman used "excessive force" (which would be manslaughter -- not second degree murder) -- and that at the time of the initial investigation (and probably now) -- law enforcement didn't have any evidence that controverted Zimmerman suffering "great bodily harm" (the broken nose) -- nor -- did they have any evidence contrary to his assertion that he was in reasonable fear of further serious injury or death.
What was left out?
Well . . . some of the key issues we still don't know:
1. What was the distance Zimmerman was following Martin from?
2. Did Zimmerman ever actually run after Martin?
3. Where was Zimmerman when Martin approached -- assuming Martin really did -- and where was this in relationship to Zimmerman's vehicle?
4. Were photos taken of Zimmerman's injuries by the police before they were cleaned up?
5. Is there any blood stain evidence -- how much -- and where?
6. Who actually was screaming for help? (the FBI allegedly did an analysis -- but this was not introduced)
7. Is there any other physical evidence that supports or discredits the prosecution or defense?
8. What was the extent of the head injuries?
9. Were there any injuries on Trayvon Martin besides the gun shot wound?
10. Were there any other injuries on Zimmerman?
11. Is there anything significantly inconsistent about the statements Zimmerman gave to the police?
Anyway -- the judge set a bond of $150,000.00, with other conditions including GPS monitoring. This is not atypical for such charges, especially where the State Attorney is asking for no bond. (Actually -- they wanted a million dollar bond -- which would mean the same thing). Of course, Zimmerman doesn't have those kind of funds -- and he, and his family have just about zero money. However, there is a fund set up on the internet for donations [http://www.therealgeorgezimmerman.com] for his legal defense, that would also be important for bail. Assuming you really want "justice" -- feel free to donate five bucks or a hundred bucks. You can't fight these things without money.
As you can probably tell from how I reported this hearing -- I'm leaning more to the self defense claim being legit. Under any circumstance -- I stick to my original analysis -- that Sanford Police Department did the right thing by not arresting him -- because it is clear -- they did not have probable cause to disbelieve the self defense issues. In fact -- I have serious doubts that there is probable cause at this time, despite the fact that the State Attorney filed charges. However, I also stick to what I originally said -- that it was a major mistake to refuse releasing information on why Zimmerman was not arrested. In fact -- it was contrary to the public interest to refuse doing that -- and was a complete and utter failure to see and understand the obvious need -- that has led to this "public lynching" of the self defense laws, Zimmerman, his friends, and his family.
Last -- a teaching point. Using a firearm should be an absolute last resort. If you do -- make sure you have lots of money to defend yourself -- and get to a lawyer who knows this stuff -- QUICKLY! Not days or weeks after -- but hopefully within the first few days! Even if it cost you five hundred or a grand to talk to the guy (or gal) -- it's gonna be worth it.
As to the Governor's Task Force . . . well . . . I personally think that will turn into a "witch hunt" on all the alleged "evils" of gun ownership. A few of the appointees are violently anti-gun -- and I'm not sure any of them really have the experience you and I would hope would be on the panel. I sure as hell wasn't asked. So , we'll see where that goes -- and that may require some real work on the part of those who believe in the Second Amendment -- to legally survive.
Friday, April 13, 2012
What exactly is the "Stand Your Ground" law???
Stand Your Ground explained, and made ridiculously simple
copyright 2012 by jon gutmacher
OK . . . it's come to this. Even after spending a chapter in my book explaining it -- some of my readers still don't seem to understand it. So . . . to make it as simple as it can ever get:
"Stand Your Ground" is one subsection of F.S. 776.013(3) -- and I'll break it down into steps:
If you're not engaged in unlawful activity
If you are actually illegally attacked by another person
If you are in any place where you are allowed to be at the time
You may "stand your ground" -- and meet force with force in defending yourself or another - rather than retreating or trying to retreat.
However -- if you decide to use "deadly force" -- you still must have a reasonable belief of imminent death or great bodily harm -- or -- if the other person is committing or attempting to commit a forcible felony (actually engaged in such or imminent) (not just any felony -- but must be a "forcible felony") -- then, you may use deadly force to stop that forcible felony if the use of deadly force is objectively reasonable. If it's not -- then you've used "excessive force" -- and you could be prosecuted from anything from aggravated battery to manslaughter.
That's it. Nothing more. Nothing less
Hope that helps
jon gutmacher
copyright 2012 by jon gutmacher
OK . . . it's come to this. Even after spending a chapter in my book explaining it -- some of my readers still don't seem to understand it. So . . . to make it as simple as it can ever get:
"Stand Your Ground" is one subsection of F.S. 776.013(3) -- and I'll break it down into steps:
If you're not engaged in unlawful activity
If you are actually illegally attacked by another person
If you are in any place where you are allowed to be at the time
You may "stand your ground" -- and meet force with force in defending yourself or another - rather than retreating or trying to retreat.
However -- if you decide to use "deadly force" -- you still must have a reasonable belief of imminent death or great bodily harm -- or -- if the other person is committing or attempting to commit a forcible felony (actually engaged in such or imminent) (not just any felony -- but must be a "forcible felony") -- then, you may use deadly force to stop that forcible felony if the use of deadly force is objectively reasonable. If it's not -- then you've used "excessive force" -- and you could be prosecuted from anything from aggravated battery to manslaughter.
That's it. Nothing more. Nothing less
Hope that helps
jon gutmacher
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Sure . . . she's not biased! BS!
Yesterday -- April 11th -- State Attorney Angela Corey held a press conference announcing that she had decided to by-pass the Grand Jury, and brought charges against George Zimmerman for second degree murder. She also stated she was only interested in "justice" -- and had no bias in the case.
REALLY???
Because this is the FIRST TIME in forty years of practice that I've ever heard of a prosecutor having a prayer vigil with the family of an alleged victim in a hotly disputed case! And . . . if that doesn't tell you that this is probably THE MOST BIASED PROSECUTOR you will ever come across -- then there's something wrong with your thinking!
If the Governor has any sense of justice (and he won't -- because this is a political powder keg) -- he'd remove her immediately -- and assign a new prosecutor! Quite frankly -- while this satisfies those calling for Zimmerman's blood -- regardless of guilt or innocence -- it has nothing to do with "justice" -- and everything to do with "politics". The almost gleeful press conference was -- at least to me -- disgusting. As is most everything else about this case.
That being said -- let me tell you what the issues really are going to be:
1. Did Zimmerman approach and confront Trayvon Martin -- or was it the other way around? The fact that Zimmerman followed him for a portion, or all of the situation is legally irrelevant -- whether from a distance, or not.
2. Was Trayvon Martin the initial aggressor? That is -- was he the first to use physical violence? Poorly chosen words are not unlawful -- just stupid. But . . . the use of physical force against another is a crime unless done in lawful self defense.
3. If Martin actually sucker punched Zimmerman -- was Zimmerman's nose actually broken? If so, Martin committed an aggravated battery -- which is a "forcible felony" -- and had he survived -- he would be the one being charged with a serious felony.
4. Was Zimmerman actually getting his head pounded into the concrete -- or was it a grass surface? Conflicting stories on that. Getting your head pounded into concrete is normally a life or death situation (or a coma in the hospital) -- grass is grass. It may give you a bad headache -- but it usually isn't life threatening.
5. When did Zimmerman pull the gun? Was it before he was on the ground -- or only after having his head pounded? Very important issue!
6. Were there any bruises on Trayvon Martin aside from where his hands were allegedly striking Zimmerman? A heavy indicator who was the actual aggressor.
7. Who was really yelling for help? If it was Zimmerman -- it really helps his defense. If it was Trayvon -- and it was before he was shot -- it would be a very heavy point for the prosecution. Big question.
As to the Department of Justice's ("Justice"???? Really???) investigation on whether this might be a "hate" crime. Please!!! Have the guts to admit there is zero evidence to show that -- tell the public rather than continue to unfairly prejudice the state criminal proceedings -- and move on to something that isn't pure politics! Of course -- Eric Holder isn't gonna do that -- and the fact that Obama still has him in that spot may be a prime reason to vote for somebody else in the next election. Just a thought. All the evidence that exists shows that Zimmerman was anything but a racist! Whether he acted properly or improperly is another question yet to be resolved. But a racist??? NO WAY!
So . . . the circus plays on. The media plays it for all it's worth -- I'm still seeing the photo of Martin when he was years younger. Those who depend on racial strife for their livelihoods -- are playing it up big time. The anti-gunners are having a field day on something they don't understand -- and don't want to. And politicians are just playing it for the votes. Trayvon's family -- well, that's just truly sad, because they seem to be terrific people -- and no matter what happened, they lost a loving son. So . . . where the hell it will all wind-up is a total guess. But "Justice"????
Nah . . . .
Has nothing to do with that!
Let's hope that changes -- and that everybody finally realizes that whatever the outcome -- as long as it's based on the facts -- real facts -- justice will be done.
REALLY???
Because this is the FIRST TIME in forty years of practice that I've ever heard of a prosecutor having a prayer vigil with the family of an alleged victim in a hotly disputed case! And . . . if that doesn't tell you that this is probably THE MOST BIASED PROSECUTOR you will ever come across -- then there's something wrong with your thinking!
If the Governor has any sense of justice (and he won't -- because this is a political powder keg) -- he'd remove her immediately -- and assign a new prosecutor! Quite frankly -- while this satisfies those calling for Zimmerman's blood -- regardless of guilt or innocence -- it has nothing to do with "justice" -- and everything to do with "politics". The almost gleeful press conference was -- at least to me -- disgusting. As is most everything else about this case.
That being said -- let me tell you what the issues really are going to be:
1. Did Zimmerman approach and confront Trayvon Martin -- or was it the other way around? The fact that Zimmerman followed him for a portion, or all of the situation is legally irrelevant -- whether from a distance, or not.
2. Was Trayvon Martin the initial aggressor? That is -- was he the first to use physical violence? Poorly chosen words are not unlawful -- just stupid. But . . . the use of physical force against another is a crime unless done in lawful self defense.
3. If Martin actually sucker punched Zimmerman -- was Zimmerman's nose actually broken? If so, Martin committed an aggravated battery -- which is a "forcible felony" -- and had he survived -- he would be the one being charged with a serious felony.
4. Was Zimmerman actually getting his head pounded into the concrete -- or was it a grass surface? Conflicting stories on that. Getting your head pounded into concrete is normally a life or death situation (or a coma in the hospital) -- grass is grass. It may give you a bad headache -- but it usually isn't life threatening.
5. When did Zimmerman pull the gun? Was it before he was on the ground -- or only after having his head pounded? Very important issue!
6. Were there any bruises on Trayvon Martin aside from where his hands were allegedly striking Zimmerman? A heavy indicator who was the actual aggressor.
7. Who was really yelling for help? If it was Zimmerman -- it really helps his defense. If it was Trayvon -- and it was before he was shot -- it would be a very heavy point for the prosecution. Big question.
As to the Department of Justice's ("Justice"???? Really???) investigation on whether this might be a "hate" crime. Please!!! Have the guts to admit there is zero evidence to show that -- tell the public rather than continue to unfairly prejudice the state criminal proceedings -- and move on to something that isn't pure politics! Of course -- Eric Holder isn't gonna do that -- and the fact that Obama still has him in that spot may be a prime reason to vote for somebody else in the next election. Just a thought. All the evidence that exists shows that Zimmerman was anything but a racist! Whether he acted properly or improperly is another question yet to be resolved. But a racist??? NO WAY!
So . . . the circus plays on. The media plays it for all it's worth -- I'm still seeing the photo of Martin when he was years younger. Those who depend on racial strife for their livelihoods -- are playing it up big time. The anti-gunners are having a field day on something they don't understand -- and don't want to. And politicians are just playing it for the votes. Trayvon's family -- well, that's just truly sad, because they seem to be terrific people -- and no matter what happened, they lost a loving son. So . . . where the hell it will all wind-up is a total guess. But "Justice"????
Nah . . . .
Has nothing to do with that!
Let's hope that changes -- and that everybody finally realizes that whatever the outcome -- as long as it's based on the facts -- real facts -- justice will be done.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Hear the other side! George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin shooting
Hal Uhrig told it like it was today at a video'd press conference! If you wanna know why the cops didn't arrest Zimmerman -- here's a real look at the other side from a guy who really knows how to tell it. Masterful!
It's a bit long -- but well worth watching -- especially seeing how the media dogs try to manipulate and screw with him, and keep it on a racial, visceral track -- yet fail every time. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/george-zimmerman-attorney-hold-press-conference-4-30pm-203437097.html
It's a bit long -- but well worth watching -- especially seeing how the media dogs try to manipulate and screw with him, and keep it on a racial, visceral track -- yet fail every time. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/george-zimmerman-attorney-hold-press-conference-4-30pm-203437097.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
