How about 87 of them?
That was the High temp yesterday.
On November 17th.
Soap Box, Ballot Box and Ammo Box –An average person's view on society, politics and firearms.
How about 87 of them?
That was the High temp yesterday.
On November 17th.
As I previously mentioned, without a lot of detail, I voted on Saturday. I’ve also previously mentioned that I have a Concealed Handgun License and generally carry where I morally and ethically can.
Some might wonder where the two statements intersect; the answer is in the law of course. Seems the Legislators think that those of us who carry firearms can’t be trusted to vote and not shoot up the place at the same time.
Sec. 46.03. PLACES WEAPONS PROHIBITED. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly possesses or goes with a firearm, illegal knife, club, or prohibited weapon listed in Section 46.05(a):
(1) on the physical premises of a school or educational institution, any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by a school or educational institution is being conducted, or a passenger transportation vehicle of a school or educational institution, whether the school or educational institution is public or private, unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the institution;
(2) on the premises of a polling place on the day of an election or while early voting is in progress;
There are more prohibited places but I want to just focus on #2 for now.
A couple of questions come to mind– I doubt if any anti-rights cultist will stop by and answer them but who knows. They might and the horse might learn to sing also.
After all, the firearm has to be concealed from detection by a reasonable person, right? And unless the volunteers staffing the polls have extensive training and experience; they are unlikely to be able to detect a concealed firearm.
This isn’t a rhetorical question; I am seriously interested in someone explaining just what harm, what damage to someone in our society was created if someone carried a firearm with them to vote?
There was no scuffle, no fights, no shootings, no threats made, no drama of any type involved in the voting process. I drove up, walked in, showed my voter registration card and driver’s license, signed by on the line, got my “I voted” sticker then spent 2 minutes at the booth.
I understand some proposals or elections may be a little contentious but that isn’t the norm. Most elections are dull, boring and completely drama free. I wonder why legislators felt it necessary to include polling places in the list of prohibited places.
Look through the penal code and the election laws; there is a limit on how close people can advocate for near a polling location. Other then that, no other crime is called out as especially prohibited at the polls. No “no sexual assault at the polls” laws, no “pick pocketing prohibited” on the premises, “no aggravated assault at the polls” is listed.
Nope, just a prohibition against carrying weapons at the polls. Isn’t it difficult to argue that the laws are designed to change behavior when they aren’t focused on behavior but inanimate objects.
The law doesn’t cover just those with a Concealed Handgun License; it covers everyone. It prohibits everyone from carrying a weapon past the doors of the polls. Of course, without a license a person is breaking the law. Wouldn’t a person breaking the law by carrying without a license ignore one more law ?
And and the same time, wouldn’t a person who goes through the trouble of getting a license be generally willing to follow the law and not cause harm?
A person doesn’t change their values, their principles, their entire philosophy just because they are carrying a weapon or not, just because they cross some imaginary line. Nope, they are the same person aren’t they?
I want to make it very clear — some anti right cultists are a little thick — I didn’t break the law regarding the carrying a weapon at the polling place. My wife and I drove up to the polling location, we voted and came back home. When I dropped off my wife at home, I donned my concealed handgun and then proceeded on the errands I mentioned yesterday. Notice how I was willing to follow a law even though I see no purpose in it. Notice how criminals will go about their purpose without regard to the law. There is a big difference there and it really matters.
Please join the discussion.
Can’t help but chortle when I read the news this morning.
Last year, 1,979 21-year-olds sought a license, as did 1,713 22-year-olds and 1,583 23-year-olds.
More people in their 30s generally seek their CHL than those in their 20s, and more 40-somethings appear to seek their license than 30-year-olds.
But 57-year-olds led the way in 2012, with 3,609 of them seeking a license.
They were closely followed by 64-year-olds (3,588), 53-year-olds (3,576), 54-year-olds (3,562) and 55-year-olds (3,542), the analysis shows.
The top five age groups seeking licenses in the past five years were all similar — and all featured Texans older than 51.
That’s right people; our old folks are leading the way- in record numbers.
And that was before the changes in state law this year.
Earlier this year, lawmakers passed several measures geared to give Texas gun owners more freedom — shrinking the required training time for those seeking concealed handgun licenses, letting CHL holders leave their weapons in parked vehicles on college campuses, even letting Texans renew their CHL licenses online without taking a renewal class.
Wieland said he believes the changes “will serve to increase interest and demand” in getting licenses.
Shorter class times, the ridiculous requirement regarding revolver/semi auto removed, only renewals without proficiency tests; all should make it easier for people to get and keep their licenses.
Statewide, there are more than 580,000 active licenses, with nearly 150,000 of them being issued last year, and Tarrant County has the second most active licenses, according to data from the Texas Department of Public Safety.
And historically the conviction rate of those with Concealed Handgun Licenses has been incredibly low; some where around 0.3% of all convictions — not all people. In 2011, there were 120 CHL holders convicted out of 63,679 convictions. That is with a total state population over 17 Million adults — 0.0007% of the total adult population.
Wonder how much more we have to do before the anti-rights cultists start going into fits?
We’ve all heard it, in movies, on television dramas, on reality shows (Cops, filmed on location) – the local law enforcement officer asks someone their name and tells them they have to provide it, their address, etc.
Must say I was surprised when I actually started reading what the law said.
Sec. 38.02. FAILURE TO IDENTIFY.
(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.
(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:
(1) lawfully arrested the person;
(2) lawfully detained the person; or
(3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense.
(c) Except as provided by Subsections (d) and (e), an offense under this section is:
(1) a Class C misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a); or
(2) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (b).
(d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the defendant was a fugitive from justice at the time of the offense, the offense is:
(1) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a); or
(2) a Class A misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (b).
(e) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under Section 106.07, Alcoholic Beverage Code, the actor may be prosecuted only under Section 106.07.
So unless a person is under arrest, has been detained or the police have identified that person as a possible witness it is perfectly legal not to identify yourself or give a false name.
So elements – not identifying and providing false identification but all of them are predicated on a.) being arrested, b.) being detained, or c.) a witness to a crime. Ex-Cop Law Student has a great post with citations to relevant court cases.
Of course, Concealed Handgun License holders are under different requirements Sec. 411.205 of the penal code requires a CHL holder to present not only his License but also his Driver’s License or State ID card if requested. This, of course, only applies if a person is actually carrying under the appropriate statutes regarding the license. Carrying on your own property, not carrying, etc means a person does not have to identify themselves to the police unless as shown above.
Section Sec. 521.025 of the penal code applies if a person is operating a motor vehicle — a license must be displayed on request. Of course that doesn’t stop people from driving without a license either.
And yes, this is applicable to my last couple of posts.
Please join the discussion.
Several new laws took effect on Sunday; luckily none of them roll back our right to keep and bear arms.
SB1907 — Colleges and universities, both private and public, can not back firearms from private vehicles on their property. This applies only to students and visitors and only to those with Concealed Handgun Licenses.
It doesn’t apply to faculty and staff. Nor does it seem to apply to those who legally carry a firearm in their car without a license. How does that make sense? One group of people can legally park their car in the lots but the other groups can’t?
SB 299 - This is a huge gain ! It changes the requirements from ‘intentionally fails to conceals’ (a very vague statement) to “displays the handgun in plain view of another person in a public place in a manner calculated to cause alarm and not pursuant to a justified use of force or threat of force”
Basically a person has to brandish a firearm now instead of just “printing” or having his/her cover garment ride up/ fly up and expose the firearm.
SB 864 – Wish this one would have been in effect back in April — Reduces the number of hours needed for a new concealed handgun license to 4 to 6 hours. My brother would have appreciated it.
I imagine many instructors don’t like this one and frankly I don’t get it. 10 to 15 hours (original time requirement) still isn’t enough time for a person to learn all the rules, all the laws, to consider even a fraction of the subject matter. The person with the license should be responsible enough to gain the necessary knowledge and proficiency outside of a class.
HB48 is another I wish was in place months ag0 — does away with the class room and demonstration of proficiency requirement to renew a Concealed Handgun License.
Again….many instructors don’t like this but how many incidents with Concealed Handgun License holders can be traced back to them not being properly instructed?
Updated — H.B. 1862 (2013) made it legal to possess, manufacture, transport, etc Switchblades !
Please join the discussion.
As soon as I started reading this, I knew I was going to have to break it down and tear it apart.
We must keep NSA’s call-records program
By Dianne Feinstein
Special to The Washington Post
The National Security Agency program that collects phone numbers and related data, based on section 215 of the USA Patriot Act, is often called a “surveillance program” or a program to “listen to phone calls.”
Right, keeping track of who I contact, when and how long I’m in contact isn’t ‘surveillance’. Dictionary.com has this definition:
close observation or supervision maintained over a person, group, etc, esp one in custody or under suspicion
– So how does that not fit?
It is neither.
Rather, this program collects only phone numbers and the duration and times that calls are made.
Right….and where exactly does the Constitution exempt who I call, when and how long from the requirement to have a court sign off on a warrant? Please point that out to me Ms. Feinstein.
When the NSA learns of a number used by a terrorist connected to al Qaida, it can search its database of phone records.
Only 22 highly vetted NSA analysts can approve a query of this database — and only when they have a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the number is connected to terrorism.
Gee,, I missed the part where we amended the Constitution to make the “22 highly vetted NSA analysts” part of the court system; where Congress has ‘advice and consent’ sessions on them. By the way, was Edward Snowden on that list? And while you are at it, could you lay our just what criteria meets the ‘reasonable articulable suspicion?
Maybe we can work together and find out why the Tsarneav brothers were able to make the plans they did, travel as they did unimpeded by this program, eh.
If the NSA analyst believes that circumstances justify the need to know the actual content of the call to probe further into what may be an active terrorist plot, the agency sends the numbers to the FBI, which requests a warrant from the court that oversees the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Oh yes one of my favorite courts. A secret court that answers to almost no one, the details of the cases brought, warrants sought, etc are all classified. Really reassures me that the government is watching what the government is doing.
Ultimately, this court determines if “probable cause” is sufficient to grant the warrant to collect the content of the call.
Makes me wonder how many times the court has refused permission and what guarantees do we have the NSA didn’t just go ahead and listen in on the call. It is nice to have confirmation that it isn’t just the ‘metadata’ being stored but the actual phone calls, emails, etc.
The NSA recently disclosed that 54 terrorist “events” have been interrupted in part because of information gleaned from this program and another recently declassified NSA program, called PRISM, based on Section 702 of FISA.
Wow…..54 ‘events’ — wonder if those were ‘events’ like the F.B.I. providing some poor schlub a phony bomb, a van and parking passes to a major terrorist target; then arresting him for trying to plant a bomb.
And for some reason, this quote springs to mind “Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
The NSA call-records program is reviewed and authorized every 90 days by the FISA court.
Edward Snowden leaked the court order reauthorizing the program but did not provide the corollary order containing the program’s many strictures.
So, how about providing those strictures and reassuring us what the limits are? The terrorists already know about the program, the government has already probably replaced it or implemented another invasion of our privacy; so spill the beans and tell us how the government is protecting our rights from the government.
Balancing privacy rights with our nation’s security is difficult to achieve, but I know of no federal program for which audits, congressional oversight and scrutiny by the Justice Department, the intelligence community and the courts are stronger or more sustained.
How about letting the people decide if they even want the program or not? Provide the details of the program, let everyone know just how the government is snooping on them. I’m betting the people might be just a little ticked off if they knew the true extent. And given that the Congressional approval rating is less than stellar; it is clear most people don’t trust you to manage a sno-cone stand much less an assault on our privacy.
I read enough intelligence on terrorists to know that if they can, they will attack us. New bombs and techniques are in the making.
Hello, that is why they are terrorists ! And what is your other rational response to people wanting to kill us – to try to disarm America. Let us worry more about our safety, why don’t you focus on issues like passing a budget, getting the government out of my medical concerns, removing the thousands of onerous laws burdening our businesses.
The Transportation Security Administration remains on alert. So should every citizen.
The TSA that hasn’t caught one terrorist but has groped millions of people ? I have a better idea; get rid of the TSA and give every adult passenger a pistol with 10 round of frangible ammunition each flight. Pass them out as they get on the plane, collect them as they leave. See how many terrorists survive another attempt, eh.
I intend to work with members of the Senate intelligence and judiciary committees to consider changes to the NSA call-records program in an effort to increase transparency and improve privacy protections. These changes would require that:
• The number of Americans’ phone numbers submitted as queries of the NSA database be made public annually, as well as the number of referrals made to the FBI each year based on those queries;
• The number of warrants obtained by the FBI to collect the content of calls be released annually;
• The number of times in a year that any company is required to provide data pursuant to FISA’s business records provision be released;
• All classified FISA court opinions and reports on U.S. persons targeted for surveillance under FISA be made available in a secure location to every member of Congress;
• The five-year retention period of phone records be reduced to two or three years;
• The ideological diversity of the FISA court be increased (86 percent of judges appointed to the court by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. have been Republicans and the vast majority were prosecutors, according to media reports); and
• The FISA court review each query of the database as soon as practicable to determine its propriety under the law.
Good ideas, don’t go far enough but good ideas. So what is stopping you? You’ve could have done that any time in the past several decades. You could have done so any time since the program was started. Sounds like to me you are just trying to come up with something to save your career now that the details of the program are being revealed.
In addition, the congressional intelligence committees should periodically review all intelligence data-collection programs involving Americans to ensure that the Justice Department guidelines are adequate and are followed.
How about reviewing them to see if they are constitutional first?? I would really appreciate that.
The bottom line is, actionable intelligence is the best way to prevent an attack against our country.
I agree but the price to obtain that ‘actionable intelligence’ is too high if it involves the wholesale invasion of our privacy.
In conjunction with programs such as PRISM, the NSA call records program has contributed to the disruption of terrorist plots and done so within a legal framework that provides strong privacy protections, court review and congressional oversight.
It is vital and necessary in protecting our country from future attack. It must be sustained.
Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat from California, is chairman of the Senate intelligence
No it must not be sustained. It must be removed and anything like it prevented from ever being implemented again. Love how someone who passed the law (without apparent consideration to her oath to uphold the constitution) — is defending it as being within a ‘legal framework’.
Strong privacy protections – BUNK. Who I call, how often I call, how long that call last is my business – without a warrant stating probable cause that I’ve committed (or about to) a crime, you have no business even knowing that.
Let’s see how much you truly believe the opposite Ms. Feinstein; authorize the NSA to release every detail of the ‘meta data’ they’ve collected on you. If you don’t have anything to hide, you shouldn’t have a problem with the American People knowing, right?
I’ll wait but I won’t be holding my breathe.
I’ve watched the run up and the trial of George Zimmerman carefully. I started getting interested in this case when the Martin Family hired an attorney to push for charges. To be honest I started researching it to figure out what mistakes Zimmerman made, what decisions were wrong. I initially went into it thinking that Zimmerman had done something wrong; that he had screwed up in a major way.
Michael McDaniel provided a running commentary on the case but his wasn’t the only source I used. I’ve listened network news reports, I’ve read local and national print/online media, I have actually read many of the documents released through discovery. On the points I raise, I will try to link to as many sources as I can. On some, I will not cite sources; like in the case of a alumni from High School that not only unfriended me last night, she actually blocked me. All because I asked her to support with evidence her belief the jury made the wrong decision.
What I’ve learned is many people are unwilling to see the issues from both directions. They want to approach the information as if it flows only one way — against Zimmerman.
Many people point to the legal proposition that information about Trayvon’s past couldn’t be used by Zimmerman. I’ll cover what information later. This is where the one way street starts; Zimmerman couldn’t know that Martin was in Sanford because he was suspended (and possibly kicked out of his mom’s house) from school.
Fine but doesn’t that also point out the simple fact that Zimmerman could not have known Martin was staying in a town home there?
There isn’t a shred of evidence to indicate that Zimmerman had ever seen Martin before that night. Certainly nothing to indicate that Zimmerman had seen Martin dressed in a hoodie that covered his face.
Zimmerman could not have known that Martin was ‘just going to the store for Skittles and Iced Tea’.
Basically Zimmerman could not have known that Martin was NOT one of the people responsible for the rash of break – ins at the gated community.
The act or process of extrapolating information about a person based on known traits of tendencies, specifically: the act of suspecting or targeting a person on the basis of observed characteristics or behavior.
Okay, let’s assume that Zimmerman is ‘guilty’ of profiling. McDaniel points out that profiling is normally done by law enforcement; think New York City “stop and frisk’ program. Is profiling wrong ? Most people would say no; simply abusing the power is wrong. The F.B.I. Behavioral Analysis Units are a great example of using profiling to help solve crime.
In conjunction with other government and academic entities, NCAVC personnel conduct research into violent crime from a law enforcement perspective. Of primary interest to researchers are how offenders commit their crimes, how they attempt to avoid detection, and how they are identified, apprehended, and convicted. The research is designed to gain insight into criminal thought processes, motivations, and behaviors.
Long way to get to the point but needed to get to the point of raising the point where the narrative flows only one way — Was Zimmerman accurate in this case of profiling Martin?
The burglary of Olivia Bertalan’s home was just one of at least eight reported over the previous 14 months—several of which, neighbors said, involved young black men. On Feb. 26, the odds were stacked against Martin: he was a young black man in a neighborhood that was feeling besieged by crime and blaming it—fairly or not—on people who looked like him.
Three weeks before Martin’s death another Twin Lakes resident arrived home to discover a kitchen window open and a laptop and gold necklaces missing. Two witnesses said they saw a young black man standing nearby, but they did not see the man break into the home, according to a police report. One witness said he believed it was the same man who had stolen his bike. The next day officers responding to a call confronted three black men and one white man on bikes near the neighborhood. The same witnesses identified one of the men as the same man they saw near the burglarized home. The officers found the laptop in the man’s backpack.
If people want to accuse Zimmerman of profiling; we have to, simply have to determine if the person observed met the profile of the people recently committing crime in the area. Unless you are the TSA then it makes sense to strip search babies and elderly grandmothers in the pursuit to reduce terrorism. But many people don’t want to take that view; do they?
And let’s not forget that a trained dispatcher agreed enough with the ‘profile’ that Zimmerman presented to send out a responding officer. Should the dispatcher face charges also?
Unless you are talking about Martin; right? Zimmerman’s two brushes with the law were used to paint him as physically violent or aggressive. Never mind the reality of the charges. One was a domestic violence issue which while serious was also 8 years prior and mutually dropped. Given what passes (and some day I will tell you exactly how I know — but things aren’t resolved at this point) acceptable charges regarding domestic, I find it difficult to label the man as a physically violent based on that alone.
The other charge should have been accurately described as ‘contempt of cop’ charges
For those unfamiliar with the case, Zimmerman was with a friend in a bar when several plainclothes alcohol agents, without identifying themselves, drug Zimmerman’s friend out of the bar. Thinking his friend under assault, Zimmerman followed and placed his hand on one officer’s shoulder. He was arrested for assault on a police officer, a felony. The charge was quickly changed to a misdemeanor, and Zimmerman was allowed to participate in a pre-trial diversion program. He completed it, and the charge was dropped entirely. Zimmerman has no criminal record.
Ohhh, such a scary violent man. Too bad the narrative wouldn’t allow anything other than that one way street; information regarding Trayvon’s brushes with the law, not allowed. Nope, ‘an innocent boy’ was simply walking home.
The new claims, revealed in a leaked report, paint a different picture of a teenager who frequently found himself in trouble with authorities.
It was also revealed that he might have attacked a bus driver, according to a Twitter account that it is claimed belonged to the teen.
The Miami Herald claims that in October, he was caught with a ‘burglary tool’ – a flathead screwdriver – and 12 pieces of women’s jewellery. Martin insisted that they did not belong to him.
Earlier, he had been suspended for skipping school and showing up late to class. And most recently, in February, he was suspended again when officials found a ‘marijuana pipe’ and an empty baggie with traces of the drug.
Did the media who knew about these issues report them? Did the Martin family lawyers discuss them as the reason why Martin was even in Sanford Florida? Nope, that wasn’t allowed ! Because Trayvon’s past didn’t matter because Zimmerman couldn’t have known about it — more cynically I believe they didn’t report it because it would have destroyed the narrative of the “innocent child”.
I don’t see how it is fair to claim events 7 and 8 years prior are relevant to Zimmerman’s frame of mind and not show recent events in Martin’s life may have shaped his frame of mind.
At least for Trayvon Martin – No One Talks About Fight Club. Zimmerman’s training was covered in depth at the trial and before hand. Everyone was willing to discuss how much training and what type of shape he was in.
But Trayvon’s texts discussing his fights; given to the defense days before the trial began and little media coverage. Travyon’s texts about how he will fight a guy again because he didn’t bleed enough; not admitted into evidence.
How about the cousin asking if Trayvon took a swing at the bus driver; not discussed in the trial.
Mark O’Mara covered why those texts and school records were relevant in a press release
They argued, in part, that George Zimmerman did not know Trayvon Martin before the night of February 26, 2012, and so the nature of Trayvon’s character as revealed in the school records is irrelevant to the case at hand.
The Judge ruled that the defense should have the records. This ruling was based, in large part, on a case called State v. Munoz, 45 So 3d 954 (3 DCA 2010). That case holds that, under the right circumstances, a person’s reputation for violence may be admissible in a case, even if the person accused of the crime was unaware of the reputation. The case focuses on the issue of the whether the person with the reputation may have acted aggressively in this case.
Have to ask even if the court didn’t allow the information; why did the media keep quiet about it? Even now after the trial few of the news reports or opinion sections I’ve seen even acknowledge that Trayvon could have been anything other than a perfect angel.
Zimmerman’s racist, uh, well…he….em — well because Trayvon was BLACK. NBC edited the non-emergency dispatch call in order to make Zimmerman appear racist and that impression has stuck with millions.
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy – is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.
But even the admission in court, under oath (something that came out for the first time in court) that Martin called Zimmerman a “creepy ass cracka” isn’t sufficient for most people to even consider that Martin was exhibiting a little racism.
This is one that really I don’t understand; Zimmerman should have followed the orders of the 911 dispatcher/police. First, as the testimony in the case showed, the dispatcher isn’t a law enforcement officer and his statements or suggestions carry no weight of law. Second, people simply get the timeline wrong ! They keep saying that “Zimmerman got out of his truck after the dispatcher told him not to do it.” – Simply not true listen to the call tape (link courtesy of Weerd Beard). Zimmerman was out of his vehicle and walking long before the dispatcher said “Okay, we don’t need you to do that.” And Zimmerman said “Okay” then started discussing where to meet the cops.
But let’s back up — something the media and the people pushing the narrative don’t want us to do. Let’s back up to the conversation before Zimmerman got out of his vehicle.
Zimmerman -Somethings wrong with him. Yup, he’s coming to check me out, he’s got something in his hands, I don’t know what his deal is.
Dispatcher – Just let me know if he does anything, ok?
Zimmerman – (unclear) See if you can get an officer over here.
Dispatcher – Yeah we’ve got someone on the way, just let me know if this guy does anything else.
Twice Zimmerman is asked to ‘let me know’ if he does anything else. Wouldn’t running away and where he ran to fall into that category?
Something to think about; Zimmerman could not have known Trayvon was staying in a townhome there (Go back to the 1st Block). For all Zimmerman knew, it could have been either an innocent person or another attempt at a home invasion like the one that was discussed at the trial. How would you feel if you had driven on and the person you saw broke in and terrorized a neighbor?
Everyone wants to castigate Zimmerman for making bad decisions and there is an element there. At least I would argue he might not have made the best decisions but certainly he didn’t make — as far as we know and the evidence shows — any illegal decisions.
Every decision Zimmerman made; Carrying a gun, how he loaded the pistol, starting the neighborhood watch program to getting out of the vehicle has been scrutinized and Zimmerman blamed for contributing to the chain of events.
Does anyone want to look down the street and examine Martin’s actions, his decisions? Very Few. But those decisions hold as much of an influence over the chain of events as Zimmerman’s, if not more.
Had Trayvon not had a bag with marijuana residue he might not have been kicked out of his mom’s house and school.
Had this been the first brush with breaking the rules; he might not have been packed up to serve his suspension in Sanford nearly 250 miles away.
Had Trayvon not gone to the store to purchase two of the three ingredients needed for “purple drank” or “lean” — whether he intended to make it or it was simply a coincidence — then nothing might have happened
Had Martin followed the advice of his friend to head straight to the house he was staying at; then nothing might have happened.
Who started the actual physical confrontation? I don’t know. I do know the evidence supports Zimmerman’s account that it was Trayvon’s decision to assault him.
I did start reading about this to find out what I would do or try to differently and there are a couple that I came up. I’ll discuss those later. What really struck me as I watched this case evolve was just how much effort went into not looking at the whole picture.
It does the country and our society no good to insist on presenting only one side of the issue. It divides the country and casts people in the worst possible light without the opportunity to show what really happened.
Maybe I’m wrong, maybe there shouldn’t have been a two way review of this. What do you think?
Please join the discussion.
Switch to our mobile site