Stanek Sunday funnies 7-21-13
Here were my favorite cartoons this past week. Be sure to vote for your fav in the poll at the bottom of the post!
We start with a couple late additions to the “Liberal spin on pro-life victory in Texas” edition from last week….
by Matt Davies at GoComics.com…
by Steve Benson at GoComics.com…
and then back to reality, by Lisa Benson at Townhall.com…
moving on to the week’s biggest news, by Gary Varvel at Townhall.com…
and closing with a twofer by Michael Ramirez at Townhall.com…
[polldaddy poll=7265467]
Jul.21, 2013 10:19 am |
Cartoons |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Is there any pro abortion on demand cartoon that shows the child? (The elephant in the room…so to speak…that the cartoonist avoids.)
Zimmerman was innocent, based on the laws – just like how anybody who gets an abortion is innocent, based on the laws.
Sometimes, laws need to change.
Race shouldn’t be the conversation on the Martin/Zimmerman case. Stand your ground laws should be.
Since when is “compulsory pregnancy” the opposite of infanticide or feticide?
I suppose that “compulsory life” is the opposite of murder and suicide.
“That Del is such an annoying jerk. But due to the awful, fascist, draconian laws of this state, we are compelled to let him live. It’s just not fair.”
EGV,
I have maintained all along that if George Zimmerman had stayed in his vehicle and let the police do their job, this tragedy would have never happened.
You are 100% right Mary. Just a sad situation all around – two lives ruined (Zimmerman’s out, but his life will never be the same) for no good reason.
Hi Del,
Compulsory pregnancy is right up there with the coat hanger as battle cries of the abortion movement.
The “compulsory pregnancy” thing makes me want to pin people down and ask exactly WHO is trying to make pregnancy compulsory. Are those mean old Republicans chasing women down and inseminating them with turkey basters or something?
EX-GOP- Except that Zimmerman did not invoke the Stand Your Ground provision, and Zimmerman later waived his right to a pretrial immunity hearing under the Stand Your Ground procedures. He was acquitted because the jury decided, based on the evidence provided, that since he was laying on the ground getting his head bashed into to concrete, he was in genuine fear for his life and had the right to defend himself.
JoAnna – the Stand Your Ground provision definitely played a part in the overall trial:
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/07/14/legal-insights-on-the-zimmerman-verdict/
Anyway, tough to say what Zimmerman was thinking as he was getting beat up by a kid, at least according to the testimony. But he was not guilty because they couldn’t prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
EGV and Joanna
GZ’s injuries don’t look all that serious to me. He looks like someone decked him and he fell and hit his head. Also, if he was getting his head “bashed” into cement, was he checked out for possible skull fractures or concussion? Was he given a head injury observation sheet, which is what we always issued to people who had any kind of trauma to the head, however mild? Just asking.
Ex-GOP-
From the article you cited
Mr. Branca explained why the most recognizable aspect of the “Stand Your Ground” law didn’t apply in Mr. Zimmerman’s case.
“Stand your ground” is a legal release from the traditional duty to retreat, if safely possible, before using force in self-defense. When safe retreat is not possible, however, the duty does not apply. If the duty does not apply, “stand your ground” is not needed to release you from that duty. In this case, at the moment George Zimmerman used deadly force in self-defense his attacker was pinning him to the ground and reaching for his gun. [This is Mr. Zimmerman’s version of events.] Under such circumstances no reasonable avenue of self-defense exists, so there is no duty to retreat even absent “stand your ground.”
Mary – here is the paramedic’s report. http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/05/17/zimmerman.fdems.report.pdf
Joanna – and from the article, it clearly states that the Stand Your Ground laws played into the case.
Let’s just simplify this all, shall we?
– If Zimmerman had stayed in his vehicle, do you think Martin would be alive or dead today?
Thank you JoAnna,
It gives no indication of concern about his neurological status. Is he dazed, confused, c/o headaches, poor balance, etc.? The wounds sound minor. The EMTs apparently saw no need for transport either. Believe me I have seen my share of smashed heads and that compares to a child falling off his bike. Again IMO.
I would wonder if in the course of any follow up medical visits he was checked out for head injury. I can remember one woman who fell off her bike and hit her head. No apparent injury but her head had hit the cement hard enough that EMTs were concerned. Thankfully we x-rayed her, she had a skull fracture and was immediately put in ICU.
That’s why this whole thing raises a lot of red flags with me. Again, correct me if I’m wrong on any of this or there are some facts I’ve overlooked.
Hi EGV 1:37PM
I think both men would be home with their families and so many lives would not be devastated.
To the three commenting on Trayvon / Zimmerman,
No surprise I agree most with JoAnna. Though “Stand Your Ground” was mentioned in the jury instructions, it didn’t really apply. Not when you’re “lying on the ground” nearly helpless after a flurry of surprise blows.
GZ wasn’t hurt that bad? Did you see that first photo of his nose? He looked like a badly beaten boxer or, dare I say it, a stand-in from The Passion of the Christ. The body is a marvelous thing. He didn’t look that bad the next day, but how many head bashes to the sidewalk would you take?
Yeah, too bad he didn’t stay in the truck. Too bad he wasn’t changing the radio tuner when he passed by Trayvon. Too bad the dispatcher pressed him for information that he felt he needed to follow up on.
Too bad Trayvon didn’t just keep sidling up behind the houses to his apartment (if he really was the first teenager in history who was worried about a little rain) while George was sashaying on the sidewalk way behind.
Too bad all around. But all these protests and boycotts about the red herring of “Stand Your Ground” is ridiculous. They should be telling their youth NOT to stand their ground, not to worry about being “dissed”. To go on home.
Maybe I’m just being too much of a sap here – I just remember growing up, running around the neighborhood with my friends with no real care of whose yard we were in. Heck, we would play right under people’s decks from time to time – and it was just kids being kids.
Now we have seemingly intelligent adults saying that if they see somebody “suspicious”, it’s quite acceptable to confront them, and if they don’t do what you say, to shoot them.
God bless America.
Let me answer your question with another question, EGV:
If Trayvon Martin had simply gone to his father’s house after Zimmerman lost sight of him, instead of doubling back to instigate a confrontation with Zimmerman, would Martin be alive today?
Alternatively, if Martin had used his cell phone to call the police to report the “creepy-ass cracker” following him, instead of using it to call his girlfriend, would he be alive today?
Both men made poor decisions that night.
Hi Hans,
The potential for head injury is taken very seriously, no matter how “minor” the trauma. I nearly lost a dear friend when he suffered a head trauma, was determined to be OK, when he was in fact developing a small bleed that nearly killed him a month later. GZ looks to me like he got decked, but its the scalp wounds and head “smashing” that leave me with a lot of questions, like was he ever checked out for head injury and why were the EMTs apparently not so concerned about a possible head injury?
The dispatcher advised him he did not need to follow. GZ took it upon himself to do so.
I wasn’t there so I don’t know if TM reacted out of fear or being “dissed”.
Its a senseless tragedy that never had to occur. And yes, I agree its been exploited and turned into a political circus complete with those carnival barkers Sharpton and Jackson.
Interesting perspective, EGV. Did you and your friends regularly skulk around neighborhoods that had had to call police over 400 times in the span of a year due to a spate of robberies and break-ins (hence the need for a neighborhood watch)? http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/17/v-fullstory/2700249/trayvon-martin-shooter-a-habitual.html
Did you regularly instigate confrontations with neighborhood watch captains, punch them in the face, and bash their heads into the concrete?
Joanna – you didn’t answer the question. Mary said “I have maintained all along that if George Zimmerman had stayed in his vehicle and let the police do their job, this tragedy would have never happened.”
Do you agree or disagree with that statement? I know a lot went wrong after that, but can you at least acknowledge, or agree with Mary’s statement?
Hi JoAnna,
Neighborhood Watch has two strict rules.
1.No weapons
2.No confrontations, and that includes following.
My brother, who trained and directed NW volunteers for 20 years and is a former police officer, told me this was to prevent situations such as GZ/TM. They are to observe and report only.
BTW, I asked his opinion of this case, fully expecting he would support GZ. His response was its the result of an overzealous NW.
Again I stress I’m looking at this from a medical perspective. IMO some things here just don’t add up.
As I said, EGV, both men made poor decisions that night, and the tragedy could have been avoided if either of them had acted differently.
Do you think Zimmerman carries 100% of the blame for how events unfolded? You seem to be implying that Martin was an innocent 12-year-old, skipping down the street on a bright summer’s day enjoying his Skittles, when the evil racist Zimmerman leaped from the bushes and shot him in the back of the head.
That narrative, however, is not supported by the available facts and evidence.
Oh I really don’t want to argue about this case again. Like ever. I want it to disappear from national consciousness because it’s just depressing now. But:
” GZ wasn’t hurt that bad? Did you see that first photo of his nose? He looked like a badly beaten boxer or, dare I say it, a stand-in from The Passion of the Christ. The body is a marvelous thing. He didn’t look that bad the next day, but how many head bashes to the sidewalk would you take?”
They looked really minor to me. I believe that is a personal subjective thing, depending on how much violence/injuries someone has been around and what they see as “bad’. Regardless, even the medical report says that he’s fine. That doesn’t mean he can’t defend himself, but I still don’t see those as serious injuries.
Mary, I wasn’t aware that there were laws in place regarding policies and procedures for neighborhood watch groups. Are these federal regs or enacted at the state level?
Hi Joanna,
NW has very strict rules for its members to abide by. You can google for more info.
JoAnna – the very first thing I said in this whole thread was that he was innocent. If Zimmerman was 100% at fault, he’d be in jail right now.
I simply am disappointed at the number of people, including you, that can’t at least acknowledge that maybe this isn’t the society we want – in which grown men drive around with guns, get out of their vehicles, and after an altercation, shoot and kill somebody.
There seems to be this whole culture of paranoid mamsy pamsys out there that fear anybody and everybody out there, and there solution for making the world better is to arm everyone and allow them to shoot the moment that they are spooked.
Again, Martin could have done things differently as well.
But at the end of the day, we have a kid in the ground because a guy, pumped up and confident that he was packing, felt he was entitled to overrule what was told to him and go confront somebody that, for some reason, made him nervous.
Hi JoAnna,
TM had every right to be in the neighborhood and he was not committing a crime. Whether he was a saint or sinner is irrelevant.
Except that Zimmerman had lost sight of Martin and was heading back to his car when Martin confronted HIM – not the other way around. That fact kinda screws up your perception of events, doesn’t it, EGV?
Mary – having the right to do a thing is not all the same as being right in doing it. (that applies to both Martin and Zimmerman.)
Maybe I’m just being too much of a sap here – I just remember growing up, running around the neighborhood with my friends with no real care of whose yard we were in. Heck, we would play right under people’s decks from time to time – and it was just kids being kids.
You and me both, Ex-GOP. Of course we cut through yards. But this was a small, sparsely-lawned neighborhood of townhouse-style apartments. There may well be a narrow cenment walkway running behind all the houses with a narrow eave overhead. Many think Trayvon was avoiding the rain. And again, at that age I thought it was nothing to walk in a light rain for half an hour.
Now we have seemingly intelligent adults saying that if they see somebody “suspicious”, it’s quite acceptable to confront them, and if they don’t do what you say, to shoot them.
And now you have sunk to the level of the no-information man on the street. Trayvon wasn’t “confronted” for carrying Skittles. He did fit the general profile of people who had been committing crimes there. He was dawdling aimlessly – in the rain- like you see teens do at a mall. Zimmerman says he was looking into windows.
We can sense when someone is acting a little off. If I saw someone sauntering by my patio door at night I know I wouldn’t be too thrilled.
And again you echo that clueless congresswoman with the cowgirl hats: “Trayvon was hunted down like a dog.” All the evidence shows that GZ ADMITS and was constantly notifying authorities that he was following TM.
So where is the evidence that Trayvon “didn’t do” what he said, so he shot him? Listen to that 911 tape! That is a man in pain for almost a minute (from before when the call started). That is not one punch to the nose. That’s a beat-down.
If George was such a wuss about his injuries, why did he wave off the paramedics? He wasn’t acting out those yelps. He had no way of knowing they were being recorded.
I am more miffed at the tough-guy Trayvon, who had to confront George, yet couldn’t take a little walk in the rain like most people. Yes, I blame him ultimately for his death. It’s sad, but he made the graver errors that night.
Joanna – it’s tough to say what happened, seeing that we have Zimmerman’s account, and Martin is dead.
Regardless, I don’t believe Martin pulled Zimmerman out of his vehicle, correct?
Trayvon Martin was a loose cannon. If not George Zimmerman then he would be in the news for some other cracker to pile on and pound MMA style. That is the eye witness testimony of what transpired. You can make up something else but it doesn;t change the reality of what happened. That is why it was self defense and stand your ground was never needed as a defense. Trayvon Martin pounded a person who he ‘felt threatened by’ for following him or looking at him the wrong way. That is why he is dead. Zimmerman comes from biracial parents and all the investgation shows he has a sensitivity to people of all ethnic backgrounds.
Hi Joanna,
NW has its rules for a reason, to prevent tragedies such as this. My brother said in 20 years he never had a situation like this happen with any of his volunteers. He also never made an exception to the rules either.
“Mary – having the right to do a thing is not all the same as being right in doing it. (that applies to both Martin and Zimmerman.)”
Yes. Which is why people need to stop hailing Zimmerman as some type of hero and painting Martin as some type of thug. Both of them made poor decisions. The facts seem to support that Martin hit first (though no one but Zimmerman and Martin could know for sure, and one of them is dead and one of them certainly wouldn’t admit if it happened another way). Which was wrong, Martin should never have hit Zimmerman, simply yelling “hey man why are you following me” from a distance might have saved his life. But I do believe that Zimmerman doesn’t get to act like he didn’t make any stupid decisions that night, and Zimmerman supporters should acknowledge what kind of world they’re supporting if they think all his actions that night (assuming his story is correct, which can never be 100% proven) were justified.
And I keep asking people and never get an answer, why does Zimmerman’s prior police record get no attention when you’re all giving him “Concerned Citizen” awards? I am wary of men who are accused of hitting women and hitting cops, especially when they claim they’re just concerned citizens.
ts,
I never thought this was racial and as I said, whether TM was a saint or sinner is irrelevant. Had he let the police do their job, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
truth – did Zimmerman have any prior arrests/issues?
“Trayvon Martin was a loose cannon. If not George Zimmerman then he would be in the news for some other cracker to pile on and pound MMA style. That is the eye witness testimony of what transpired. You can make up something else but it doesn;t change the reality of what happened. That is why it was self defense and stand your ground was never needed as a defense. Trayvon Martin pounded a person who he ‘felt threatened by’ for following him or looking at him the wrong way. That is why he is dead. Zimmerman comes from biracial parents and all the investgation shows he has a sensitivity to people of all ethnic backgrounds.”
Nope, there was no eye witness to what actually started the fight, there’s a reasonable guess that Martin did, but the only people who actually know are Zimmerman and Martin, and one of them died. Just because Zimmerman was losing the fight doesn’t mean that he didn’t start it.
Zimmerman had prior domestic violence allegations, had been charged with resisting arrest from a police officer (dropped down from the felony of resisting arrest with violence) and had trained at an MMA gym. This isn’t a case of model citizen versus bad teenager. They both had their issues, you guys just like to ignore Zimmerman’s.
And none of us were talking race until you did truth.
“truth – did Zimmerman have any prior arrests/issues?”
They won’t answer you, it doesn’t fit their narrative. I bring it up a lot and people pretend they don’t see my posts or something.
I have maintained all along that if George Zimmerman had stayed in his vehicle and let the police do their job, this tragedy would have never happened.
Jack – well, according to Truth, Zimmerman seems to be some sort of second coming – I mean, he came from a family with strong Biblical values, and respected people of all ethnic groups.
Case seems to me like a couple of hot-headed guys making decisions that they probably wouldn’t make given hindsight. It’s tragic. May not be a crime, but it’s still a tragedy. I’m more concerned by the push from both “pro-Zim” and “pro-Tray” sides to make their chosen one out to be a saint.
I largely agree with you, Jack – both men made poor decisions that night.
However, regarding Zimmerman’s alleged criminal record – the restraining order was a mutual one. He had one against his ex, too. Apparently there was a fight, she hit him, he pushed her onto the bed. Both were granted restraining orders against the other, but neither were ever convicted of abuse or assault.
As for attacking cops, he waded into the fray of a bar fight one evening to help a friend of his who was getting pounded on, unaware that the other people involved in the fight were undercover cops. Again, charges were dropped and he was never convicted.
Kinda changes your perspective on his alleged criminal record, doesn’t it?
JoAnna – I must ask – are you related to Zimmerman or something? I mean, you really seem to be massively passionate about the subject, and blinded to the fact that he might be anything less than the poster child for the new America.
I’m being honest – what’s your horse in the race? Big fan of expanded gun laws – or did you know him – or once got dumped by a guy named Trayvon?
“However, regarding Zimmerman’s alleged criminal record – the restraining order was a mutual one. He had one against his ex, too. Apparently there was a fight, she hit him, he pushed her onto the bed. Both were restraining orders against the other, but neither were ever convicted of abuse or assault.”
I know he wasn’t convicted of it, and I know the situation. I do know that I’ve taken punches to the face from my ex and never pushed her or assaulted her back in any way, so I find it difficult to give Zimmerman a pass on that one. Seems like someone might have a problem with temper. I can think of very few situations where most guys could justify shoving a woman (maybe if she had a weapon) unless they have an issue with temper.
“As for attacking cops, he waded into the fray of a bar fight one evening to help a friend of his who was getting pounded on, unaware that the other people involved in the fight were undercover cops. Again, charges were dropped and he was never convicted.”
Charges were NOT dropped, they were diverted when he was allowed to go to drug/alcohol classes and such to avoid jail time or other sanctions. Again, I see this as evidence that he might be a bit of a hot head and might be responsible for some poor decision the night Martin died that he isn’t admitting to. We’ll never actually know, because there are no eyewitnesses alive from the start of the physical altercation besides himself.
To which I must reply, EGV – what’s your beef against Zimmerman? Are you related to Trayvon or something? I mean, you really seem to be massively passionate about the subject, and blinded to the fact that Martin might be anything less than the poster child for the new America.
I’m being honest – what’s your horse in the race? Big fan of overreaching gun control laws – or did you know him – or once got dumped by a girl named Zimmerman?
They are to observe and report only.
Mary,
That’s really what he was doing. Following someone who could outrun him at the drop of a hat is not confronting. He personally carried a gun. When is someone “on /off” -duty for “Neigborhood Watching”. It seems to me to be a rather gray area.
Jack – I believe Zimmerman told the cops on scene that he pushed her on the bed to get her away from him, since she had hit him. Maybe she was between him and the door, I don’t know. But given he was never charged or convicted, it seems the justice system didn’t find evidence to the contrary. Also, he is married now and there’s no police record of calls to the residence he shares with his wife, which would seem odd if the man truly is a serial domestic abuser.
Also, in the second case, I think that if Zimmerman had maliciously and deliberately assaulted police officers, he would not have gotten off with only anger management classes. As for resisting arrest, I gotta say that if I was in a bar fight and the guys beating up my buddy suddenly claimed they were cops and I was under arrest, I might be a bit loathe to believe them at first. :)
JoAnna – thanks for asking – I’ll answer, so that you can.
Not related to Martin, and as a reminder, I started the whole conversation saying that Zimmerman was innocent. My issue is that I don’t like the gun culture we are creating in this country. Mostly, I don’t like that it seems to feed and thrive of paranoia. I don’t like it because I think it goes against community, it leads to more deaths, and makes us all generally suspicious of each other. I know Martin could have done more to avoid it all – but I also know that if Zimmerman didn’t have a gun, both would be alive today.
Now, feel free to answer.
“I know Martin could have done more to avoid it all – but I also know that if Zimmerman didn’t have a gun, both would be alive today.”
Actually that might be reaching. People can die from fist fights. From the “severity” of Zimmerman’s injuries I really doubt he would have been killed, but we can’t really know. I would say, if Zimmerman didn’t have a gun and a physical altercation never occurred (whether Martin or Zimmerman started it), no one would die. It’s a good warning for teenage boys to be careful about confronting people following them at night (no shame in running home, boys!) and to “concerned citizens” about following people at night.
Jack -
Odds that Zimmerman gets out of his vehicle if he doesn’t have a gun?
10% 50% 90%
I know we’re just speculating here, but most of what’s been on here is speculation.
By the way, when do you think truth is going to answer my question?
I care about truth, EGV, and it really bugs me that the reporting on this story has been so one-sided and biased against Zimmerman, who should have been innocent until proven guilty but was tried in the court of public opinion (aided and abetted by Obama and the MSM) long before the trial started. It’s a travesty to both the justice system and the profession of journalism.
Even liberal Alan Derschowitz thinks civil rights charges should be brought against the FL prosecutor due to her mishandling of the case: http://www.newsmax.com/Newswidget/Dershowitz-Zimmerman-Prosecutorial-Misconduct/2013/07/14/id/514957?promo_code=11D44-1&utm_source=11D44Director_Blue_Blog_Spot&utm_medium=nmwidget&utm_campaign=widgetphase1
“Jack – I believe Zimmerman told the cops on scene that he pushed her on the bed to get her away from him, since she had hit him. Maybe she was between him and the door, I don’t know. But given he was never charged or convicted, it seems the justice system didn’t find evidence to the contrary. Also, he is married now and there’s no police record of calls to the residence he shares with his wife, which would seem odd if the man truly is a serial domestic abuser.”
Well domestic abuse charges are already a difficult situation when it comes to proving allegations, because people tend to change their stories and both people tend to claim self-defense or that the other person is the real abuser (or, sadly, the victim will defend the aggressor out of a sense of love). I still don’t see a reason to push and shove women if they’re hitting you with no weapon. Take a couple punches, they ain’t gonna kill you, and find a way to leave without using your superior strength to knock her down (men can easily accidentally hurt women). I would be suspicious about any dude who claimed he needed to use physical aggression against a woman to “defend” himself.
“Also, in the second case, I think that if Zimmerman had maliciously and deliberately assaulted police officers, he would not have gotten off with only anger management classes. As for resisting arrest, I gotta say that if I was in a bar fight and the guys beating up my buddy suddenly claimed they were cops and I was under arrest, I might be a bit loathe to believe them at first.”
Yeah I actually do see the point here. I just think that if people are going to bring up Trayvon’s consensual fighting (there were no “victims” to that, just stupid boys) as proof he’s some loose cannon, then people should examine Zimmerman’s life with the same type of judgement.
I would also like to know why Zimmerman was rejected from being a police officer, I don’t believe the reasoning for that was ever released. It could be enlightening.
Can we stop with this literal black / white argument? Both had mistaken assumptions. Both were EQUALLY paranoid to some degree. But as for “hotheadedness” the evidence points mostly to Trayvon.
Yes, Zimmerman had a few “run-ins” with the law. Everyone knows about that. But he also has a long association with authorities in the Neighborhood Watch. He was not afraid of constant contact with them that night. Not exactly furtive behaviour.
If any civil or federal action happens, they will actually have to include Trayvon’s more extensive “hotheadedness”. His propensity for fighting, his then-current suspension (which is why he wasn’t in Miami in the first place).
None of us thinks either is entirely blameless. But I see an anti-gun rights bias way more than a racial prejucice.
JoAnna – truth? that’s your motivation? You can’t even acknowledge that Zimmerman had a part to play without making sure that Martin’s role is fully spelled out and documented. You can’t even say that anything in his past might have been remotely his fault. Truth? I mean, I think Zimmerman’s own defense team wasn’t quite as zealous as you.
With all due respect.
” Odds that Zimmerman gets out of his vehicle if he doesn’t have a gun?
10% 50% 90%”
I don’t know. I’d put it at somewhat less than the possibility that he would with a gun, for sure, but I think other things in Z’s life might point to the fact that he would go looking for a confrontation of some sort. We’ll never know. All I do know is I think it makes for a nerve-wracking society if people are encouraged to follow people around with guns at the slightest hint of anything being “off”. It doesn’t make it Z’s fault if Martin attacked him, but it worries me. I don’t own a car anymore, I walk to and from the store all the time, I sincerely hope no concerned citizens thinks that following me with a gun is a particularly good idea.
but I also know that if Zimmerman didn’t have a gun, both would be alive today
Oh, no you don’t. One may well have died from an embolysm shortly thereafter. But that would have only made local headlines, since it would have been a much more common piece of statistical data.
Verdict: Innocent. Case closed.
Each day since the verdict was rendered some 3000 or so babies were killed in the womb before they had the chance to draw their first breath. Tomorrow it will be the same, and the the day after….and so on.
The way the media led frenzy takes people from one thing to another while ignoring the cries of horror and pain from the unborn is the biggest crime of all.
Jerry,
Those babies were “following” their mothers, so they were just asking for it.
Ooh, I feel queasy.
“Not guilty” is not the same as “innocent”. The jury didn’t find evidence that Zimmerman was not acting in self-defense, so he’s not guilty legally. Which is a just verdict regardless of my personal feelings about what could have been avoided or not. There was nowhere near the evidence for a murder or voluntary manslaughter conviction (in a state other than Florida, I think that some type of negligence could have been found, but that’s neither here nor there). So the verdict was just according to the law. That’s not the same as him being innocent though.
EGV, it’s not a good idea to lie about my posts when they are there for everyone to read.
Did you miss the (numerous) times where I said “Both men made poor decisions that night”? Absolutely Zimmerman’s poor decisions had a part to play in the tragedy. However, the narrative that you, Obama, and the MSM have presented is simply not the truth.
JoAnna – I’m saying that I don’t think you’ve called out Zimmerman on his own at any point.
When I asked you if you agreed with Mary’s assessment, you couldn’t even simply answer the question without making sure you roped Martin in on the comment.
I’ve also painted no narrative in this thread, other than Zimmerman got out of his vehicle with a gun, and Martin ended up dead. I also think I said Martin was beating him up – yes – scrolled up. Is anything incorrect in the narrative I’ve painted?
No, I haven’t, because BOTH MEN were at fault for what happened. BOTH MEN made poor decisions. However, Martin is the one who has practically been canonized as a saint by Obama et al, whereas Zimmerman has been portrayed as Satan incarnate. However – let me repeat again – BOTH MEN made poor decisions. Neither are saints.
Yes, I take issue with your narrative. Zimmerman didn’t “take his gun and go after Martin.” Let’s say that Zimmerman had not had a firearm and had used his car keys to stab Martin. Would your narrative be that Zimmerman “took his car keys and went after Martin with the intent of using his car keys as a weapon”?
Zimmerman chose to follow Martin to observe what he was doing, because he fit the profile of the perpetrator of numerous neighborhood break-ins. When he lost sight of Martin, he decided to return to his vehicle and wait for police (also contrary to your narrative that Martin was hunted down by Zimmerman). At that point, Martin appeared (when he could have continued home) and confronted Zimmerman.
You can claim that it’s all Zimmerman’s side of the story all you want, but at this point the available evidence supports his version of events, not yours. The jury agreed.
Hi Hans, 2:56PM
If he’s a member of NW, he follows the rules. I don’t know that people are “on” or “off”, I would thing watching your neighborhood is ongoing. After all, criminals don’t work “on” or “off”.
If he normally carries a gun then he should adhere to the rules. Call in a report and stay in your home or vehicle.
Hans, what if TM was armed or had unseen accomplices? GZ could have wound up dead. That’s why they have these rules.
I HAVE MADE NO CASE OF A VERSION OF A STORY.
How do you keep pretending that I’ve made up some long narrative. You are taking the bits and pieces of what I’m saying, and writing whatever else you want and saying that’s my narrative.
Did Zimmerman get out of his vehicle – Yes.
Did Zimmerman have a gun – Yes
Did Zimmerman and Martin get in a fight, in which it appears Matin was winning – Yes
Did Martin end up dead – Yes
What other narrative have I posted? What other narrative have I written?
One of the worst things you can do in life is ignore what anybody else is saying, make up what you want them to say, and then use that as your picture. That’s exactly what you’re doing here. Time to move on.
GZ’s injuries don’t look all that serious to me. He looks like someone decked him and he fell and hit his head.
Yeah, because being decked and falling and hitting one’s head is not serious. Jeesh, Mary. There are people who have been decked, hit their head, look 100% fine and keel over the next day.
I do know that I’ve taken punches to the face from my ex and never pushed her or assaulted her back in any way, so I find it difficult to give Zimmerman a pass on that one.
Not pushing someone away from you while they are throwing punches to your face is not in your best interest, Jack, and I don’t think anyone would judge you for pushing someone away from you, no matter their gender and no matter their relationship to you, to keep them from inflicting further harm. I actually think a push or kick is the natural reaction of many people who are being hit by someone. A hearty shove may give you added time to get away from the violent person.
Prax,
My point exactly. That’s why any blow to the head is treated as a potential head injury. Do you know if GZ was ever checked out for or diagnosed with skull fractures or concussions? We always gave instruction sheets to patients and family on what to observe for since head injuries may not manifest until hours, days, or even weeks later. Also, the EMTs saw no urgency to rush him to the hospital and seemed to have no concern about his neurological status. I find it curious to say the least.
” Not pushing someone away from you while they are throwing punches to your face is not in your best interest, Jack, and I don’t think anyone would judge you for pushing someone away from you, no matter their gender and no matter their relationship to you, to keep them from inflicting further harm. I actually think a push or kick is the natural reaction of many people who are being hit by someone. A hearty shove may give you added time to get away from the violent person.”
Well I get that, but I think it only applies to situations between adults that are remotely physically equal, two women or two men, really. It’s just biologically factual that men aren’t going to be in a lot of danger from an unarmed woman, most men happen to be a lot bigger and stronger than most women. I just don’t understand how people can see that as a justified response. It be like a grown man punching a twelve-year-old boy back for hitting him. It’s not equal. I just look askance at any grown man who claims he had to use a violent response against an unarmed woman. I’ve heard of too many dudes who claim to be defending themselves against women when they just wanted an excuse to hit her. Have you seen the men’s rights activists complain about not being able to punch women back for hitting men? “If she doesn’t want to be hit like a man, she shouldn’t hit like one”. It’s just dangerous reasoning in my opinion.
Now, if Z’s ex had a weapon of some sort I think a violent response would be justified, even someone smaller and weaker than you can do some major damage with a baseball bat.
And I will mention that pushing someone you outweigh and are stronger than can cause serious injury, you could knock her into something and she could hurt her head, she could break her wrist by falling, etc.
Natasha Richardson didn’t think she was seriously injured after her head injury.
While some of you have been quibbling, perhaps it has escaped your notice that the already-scandal-laden Eric Holder has been paying people like Al Sharpton to stir up the racial pot in 100 cities because the evidence and the trial isn’t holding up their racist narrative. We’re so racist our nation elected a half-black inexperienced amateur not once but twice. We’re so racist that nobody can criticize president idiot without being called a racist.
Yep. There it is.
Hi Ninek,
Apparently she refused paramedic treatment and transport, thinking it was just a mild bump on the head. As I said, every blow to the head has to be treated as a potential head injury. That fact was brought home to me by nearly losing a very dear friend.
No it hasn’t escaped my notice. Nothing Holder does surprises me and that carnival barker Al Charlatan wouldn’t have any other way to make a living if he wasn’t causing trouble. Same with Jesse Jackson. And to think I actually admired that man at one time. Talk about someone with the potential to do so much good who let his egomania get the better of him.
Ninek – that rhetoric simply isn’t based on facts. Obama’s criticized over and over again by the right, and the term racist is rarely thrown around as the reason for that criticism.
Weak logic to blow something out of proportion as your so-called ‘evidence’.
rarely? Sounds like you’ve swallowed the pro-choicer’s meaning of the word ‘rare.’ Lol!
So the verdict was just according to the law. That’s not the same as him being innocent though.
Just going on our constitution: “Innocent until proven guilty”.
Anyway, the point I am trying to make is that there are many more urgent things we should concern ourselves with when we are losing 3000 innocent babies every day. Word games are not high on my list.
Legally innocent, guilt to be determined by his Creator. I pray for mercy for him and for Martin.
Neither of whom is as innocent as the babies who are being killed by the thousands and demonized far more as the shackles which bind pregnant mothers.
I voted for Steve Benson’s Compulsory Pregnancy cartoon for sheer ridiculousness. As for personal favorites, I’m torn. I rather like the alien planet one, but the Rolling Stone cover speaks to the media pandering that is done in the name of sales/ratings/etc.
“determined by his Creator” is inaccurate. Assessed by his Creator is what I should have said.
“So the verdict was just according to the law. That’s not the same as him being innocent though.
Just going on our constitution: “Innocent until proven guilty”.”
Oh I gotcha. Yes legally there wasn’t evidence to convict Zimmerman of a crime, reasonable doubt prevailed and that’s good. I was just pointing out “innocent” is a weird term for this kind of stuff, in my opinion. Criminally, OJ never killed Nicole, he was “innocent” of that crime. Casey Anthony is technically innocent of killing her daughter. I wouldn’t refer to these people as “innocent” though, just not guilty. It’s more semantics than anything though. Like I’ve said before, I hope Zimmerman is safe from those who would do him harm and that he uses this experience for good.
I’ve heard of too many dudes who claim to be defending themselves against women when they just wanted an excuse to hit her.
I was talking about pushing someone away from you who is hitting you in the face. I only advocate pushing someone hard enough to get away from them. Smaller, angrier, drugged-up people can be scrappier and it isn’t always based on their gender. I would not feel guilty about pushing away a twelve year old if s/he was out of control and hitting me in the head. I wasn’t talking about knocking out someone who is way smaller than you but I think I made it clear that pushing someone away who is hitting you in the head in order to make an escape is legitimate.
Have you seen the men’s rights activists complain about not being able to punch women back for hitting men?
Yes, I have heard misogynists talk like this but, again, I wasn’t talking about punching women, I was talking about pushing away someone who is behaving violently so that you are able to get away regardless of who that person is. If you choose to stand there while anyone is punching you in the head, that is certainly your prerogative.
I was in a battered woman’s group so I’ve heard all kinds of stories about misogynists. Some never actually physically abuse women. They emotionally, psychologically and/or sexually abuse them. Then when he has her where he wants her and she is beaten down and she is probably abusing drugs/alcohol he does something that he thinks will get her to react physically in front of a witness(es). When the little lady slaps or hits him (and he’s not actually fearful or hurt) he laughs at her and tells the witnesses to look at this violent woman and what crazy crap he has to deal with. Then he also has proof of her violence if she ever decides to leave him and can use it against her.
” I was talking about pushing someone away from you who is hitting you in the face. I only advocate pushing someone hard enough to get away from them. Smaller, angrier, drugged-up people can be scrappier and it isn’t always based on their gender. I would not feel guilty about pushing away a twelve year old if s/he was out of control and hitting me in the head. I wasn’t talking about knocking out someone who is way smaller than you but I think I made it clear that pushing someone away who is hitting you in the head in order to make an escape is legitimate.”
I guess I can see what you’re saying, but personally I wouldn’t risk it. What if you pushed too hard inadvertently and she ended up falling and seriously hurt? I’d rather take my split lip or bruises than risk that. But maybe it’s just me. I just find it hard not to judge guys who claim that they couldn’t get out of a situation with a woman being violent without responding with pushing or whatever, it just seems dangerous.
Hi everyone. I’m just here to continue my tradition of telling everyone which one I voted for, and then I’ll be on my way because I don’t feel like reading the other 78 comments. I vote for #3.
” I was in a battered woman’s group so I’ve heard all kinds of stories about misogynists. Some never actually physically abuse women. They emotionally, psychologically and/or sexually abuse them. Then when he has her where he wants her and she is beaten down and she is probably abusing drugs/alcohol he does something that he thinks will get her to react physically in front of a witness(es). When the little lady slaps or hits him (and he’s not actually fearful or hurt) he laughs at her and tells the witnesses to look at this violent woman and what crazy crap he has to deal with. Then he also has proof of her violence if she ever decides to leave him and can use it against her.”
Yes, I was thinking of those kind of men. And the men who respond to getting slapped with a punch, or things like that. Not only do they hurt women, they hurt men who are actually genuinely domestically abused by their female partners, because people are going to assume that they’re like those misogynists.
OMG AGAIN. If you want to see where this ends up, you can read the thread on the NAACP saying Zimmerman’s right to life was violated. Mary, are you still here just to make a PSA or are we going to be honest this time?
“Mary, I wasn’t aware that there were laws in place regarding policies and procedures for neighborhood watch groups. Are these federal regs or enacted at the state level?”
No there are not. At all.
JoAnna, you know what you’re talking about. Stand your ground had nothing to do with this.
EGV – If Zimmerman is telling the truth, he’s not guilty in a moral sense, not just on a legal technicality. We can’t know for sure who started the fight, but you know what we do know for sure? The fight didn’t start when Zimmerman got out of his car. And that’s true in every state, under any version of the law.
Also, before the 911 operator told Zimmerman that he didn’t need him to follow Martin anymore, he twice requested more information on what Martin was doing, his whereabouts, and direction he was going. Once the operator told him he didn’t need to follow anymore, Zimmerman’s only response was “ok”. We have no evidence that he didn’t start heading right back to his truck at that point.
CT -
Are your legal credentials more impressive than Michael Moritz – who is a professor of the OSU College of Law? I’m just saying, you seem pretty sure of yourself in your statement. Moritz disagrees with you – so if you can just let me know some credentials, then I can make a decision.
EGV – spare me the credentialing one-upmanship. If you agree with this guy then agree with him b/c what he’s saying meets your standards of reason, not b/c he has a position that you think is prestigious. I’ve seen the law school hiring process, and let me assure you, the rules about watching sausage being made definitely apply there. Anyway, I am an attorney, and I can read. Even if I lacked the first credential, the second would be sufficient for these purposes. Florida’s revamped self defense law packaged a number of changes together under the title of stand your ground. However, no one is arguing about the burden shifting. No one. Even the article you linked to said as much. Did the burden shifting matter here? To the way the defense presented its case – yes. To the outcome – no. The people arguing for a change in the law are talking about the duty to retreat (and a misunderstanding of that concept at that).
Thanks for the brilliant insight CT – much appreciated.
Edit to my 9:22 post – obviously I meant to say the post about the NAACP claiming **Martin’s** right to life was violated.
CT,
What are you babbling about?
Didn’t I say those are the NW organization’s rules?
Hi Hans,
Following someone, whether they can outrun you or not. is potentially dangerous, and confrontational. The person may very well be armed and not happy about the fact you are following them. It violates the rules of NW. GZ was armed. Like I said he could have remained in the vehicle, called the police, given them what info he could while remaining in his vehicle, and let them do their job.
Mary,
You didn’t answer her question. So I did.
I pointed out that NW is an organization with their own rules, which I told her to google for more info on.
However, thank you for pointing out there are no federal state laws.
Also, were GZ following the rules of NW, he never would have been following TM at all. If TM was still in GZ’s sight, which apparently he was, the police may well ask what he’s doing. If you observe a prowler in your neighbor’s yard, the police may ask you what that prowler is doing while you are able to observe him. It doesn’t mean they expect you to leave your home and go check him out.
Jack: “I still don’t see a reason to push and shove women if they’re hitting you with no weapon. Take a couple punches, they ain’t gonna kill you, and find a way to leave without using your superior strength to knock her down (men can easily accidentally hurt women).”
And women can easily hurt men accidentally and certainly on purpose. If a woman is punching a man in the face and he does nothing but knock her down, he’s already showing more restraint than he needs to. I’m against anyone hurting anyone but self-defense is a natural thing and the right of any person. If I go into a bar and punch a larger in the face, I can and should expect to be treated the same way in return.
“I guess I can see what you’re saying, but personally I wouldn’t risk it. What if you pushed too hard inadvertently and she ended up falling and seriously hurt?”
— then hopefully she’d learn the lesson of keeping her hands to herself, since she obviously didn’t have the character or ethics to do so.
And “men’s rights activists” does not equal “misogynists.” I know this because I am the former and not the latter. Just like “feminists” does not equal “misandrists.”
Mary,
The rules of a neighborhood watch are not rules of morality. They are rules of practicality. To violate one of these rules says nothing about the morality of your behavior. What is expected of you and your decision to go beyond expectations (for good or bad) are separate issues. You can clearly hear the car door open on the call. You can clearly hear him walking and breathing as if he’s walking and talking. The operator continues to ask questions during this time. At some point the operator says, “we don’t need you to follow him” and Zimmerman replies “ok”.
” And women can easily hurt men accidentally and certainly on purpose. If a woman is punching a man in the face and he does nothing but knock her down, he’s already showing more restraint than he needs to. I’m against anyone hurting anyone but self-defense is a natural thing and the right of any person. If I go into a bar and punch a larger in the face, I can and should expect to be treated the same way in return.”
No I do get this, but don’t you think the general differences in size make any difference? I outweighed my ex by fifty pounds and have much more muscle mass, a push by me has more potential for damage than a punch by her. Most men are going to be capable of more damage, that’s just biology. I don’t think that men should get hit by women or anything, but I do think people should think about things like this when they think about self-defense.
I just really think it encourages more violence. It’s infuriating getting punched in the face, and hard to moderate if you react with a violent reaction. That’s why I never did, I could see that it could easily turn into something seriously dangerous. My split lip vs her actually getting injured if I retaliated. Not even a contest.
Though maybe I am being tough on guys who responded with a push, I just hope it didn’t escalate things.
See bmmg this article recommends that men don’t respond physically to being hit by women, or restrain them (I guess that can be considered Criminal Confinement which is a felony). http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/domviol/men.htm
CT,
No, violating one of these rules doesn’t say anything about your morality, but it may not say much about your good sense. You could go beyond the duty of being a good neighbor and check out the location of the prowler, but it could very well get you killed. If you choose to go beyond what is expected, i.e. violate the rules, then expect there may be some very dire consequences for doing so. The rules are there for a reason. Didn’t you mention on the last thread that the rules may be in place for liability reasons as well? I was less eloquent than you and referred to it as “legal hot water”.
GZ only had to remain in his vehicle, call the police, and let them handle the situation. He had done his civic duty. This was no life and death situation. There was no crime in progress. The operator may not have immediately realized he was following TM, or so focused on getting information, and then asked him when he heard the walking and breathing.
Mary,
It wasn’t a lack of eloquence. We were talking about different things. You are still making the wrong assumption about that.
I really don’t care to restate everything you’ve already ignored on one thread. I understand what you are saying (I disagree with you, but I comprehend your point). You just refuse to admit what you’re saying – talking about blame and then retreating behind a concern for the safety of the person you are blaming. We don’t know with 100% certainty that Zimmerman is telling the truth (all evidence supports him, but the evidence is incomplete). But if he is, he is blameless for Martin’s violence. Blame-less. That is what we disagree about. A victim who makes an unwise decision with imperfect information in the moment (without the benefit of hindsight) is still a victim. All the rest of your facts (no crime, police were close) are irrelevant to this b/c they are facts that Zimmerman did not have. I know you will respond that following is dangerous, but save yourself the effort. No one disagrees with that point. It’s dangerous. But it’s not blameworthy. And it’s not blameworthy just b/c you would have done things differently.
Okay, I can’t sum it up any better than that, and won’t try to.
Mary, is there any way we can discuss Doctor Who, Bollywood movies, anything else?
I want us to be back on the same side again! :)
Odds that Zimmerman gets out of his vehicle if he doesn’t have a gun?10% 50% 90%
I do agree that carrying guns causes people, on the whole, to take risks they normally wouldn’t. I’m not sure what I believe yet specific to Zimmerman.
More guns = More gun accidents/shootings
More contraception/legal abortion = More unplanned pregnancies
Praxedes,
thank you so much for your comment. I have always been bewildered by conservatives who say that contraception causes people to have cause but guns dont empower people to shoot people.
The average American has 9 sexual partners in their lifetime. Only a fool would conclude that that number would be the same in the absence of contraception. Guns do the same thing, of course they make people more confident in confrontations.
Well, I’ll have to step back from this guns lead to overconfidence meme. This “got out of the car, followed with a gun” is obsessing on the wrong thing.
It’s the anti-gun zealots who try to convince us it’s the Wild West out there.
And I have no weapons in this fight. I had target practice with a pistol when I was nine and no other experience.
Jack,
You seem to be keeping up on all the contact Zimmerman has had with the police in his past. Did you happen to come across the one where he pulled an accident victim from an overturned truck last week?
Why yes I posted that on the other thread! Point?
I am glad you mentioned it on another thread I haven’t read. I hope when you brought it up that you also made the point that it shows Zimmerman acting like a man who cares for others and goes out of his way to help strangers; and not someone who would instigate a fight.
Hi Prax, 4:32am
As I said I like to get my brother’s experienced police opinion on these issues. He would agree with you. He thinks all too often a gun gives someone a false sense of security and power, and questions if GZ would have left his SUV without it. While he supports gun rights, he also has concerns about the all too often false, and sometimes deadly, sense of power and security a gun can give someone.
Hi Hans,
You know we are friends now and always :)
Oh mah goodness truth.
People have good and bad characteristics. You can struggle with addiction and still be a devoted father. You can have issues with your temper and still care about your neighbors. I’ve literally never said I think Zimmerman’s a bad guy. I think he’s a normal dude who has issues like everyone else, and I think he made some poor decisions leading up to the death of Martin. Him helping a family out of a turned over car doesn’t mean that he’s never made poor decisions, especially the night that Martin died.
CT,
You agreed that liability could be a risk. Given our lawsuit happy society it wouldn’t take much incentive for someone to file suit. Also a fired gun and an innocent person injured could lead to criminal charges. I was referring to both of these possibilities as “legal hot water”. Now that aside.
If I understand correctly, you think my pointing out that people setting themselves up to be victims is somehow “blaming” them for a criminal attack. Not at all. I point out how easy it is to set ourselves up to be victimized just by our every day activities like taking a morning jog on the same route at the same time every day, and yes, people make foolish decisions that put them in grave danger, i.e. the beauty queen incident. People do this unknowingly, naively, or think they are entering a situation they can handle, only to be overwhelmed. That does not exonerate the criminal or suggest the victim “deserved” what they got. The world is full of very dangerous people, and we have to be knowledgable and protect ourselves, not make it easy for them to prey on us.
My argument is that GZ set himself up to be a victim when he took it upon himself to follow someone in pitch darkness, carrying a loaded weapon. TM could have been armed, and a far better shot. He could have had accomplices. Maybe a gun gave GZ a false sense of security and power. Whatever. I have no idea if GZ threatened or started a fight with TM and TM acted in self defense, fearing for his safety, or if TM snuck up on and decked GZ. I’m sure you would agree that decking someone in self defense is acceptable. Since we will never have more than one side of the story, we can only speculate. If TM did indeed start the fight, then GZ is the victim. If GZ started it, then TM may well have been acting in self defense and he’s the victim. All I know is one person is dead and there are a lot of things that don’t add up, many of which I have posted already.
As for blameworthy, that’s not the point to me. If you are going to insert yourself into a potentially dangerous situation, as did GZ and the beauty queen, then there may be some very dire consequences.
I saw a young woman on TV who had been brually beaten, raped, and nearly killed by a man she picked up in the bar and brought home. Now would any of us argue this young woman deserved what she got? Absolutely not. Is the criminal free of any responsibility? Absolutely not. Should he be punished to the fullest extent of the law? YES!! Should this young woman have exercised better judgement and not set herself up to be a victim by putting herself into such a potentially dangerous situation? YES!!
I saw a young woman on TV who had been brually beaten, raped, and nearly killed by a man she picked up in the bar and brought home. Now would any of us argue this young woman deserved what she got? Absolutely not. Is the criminal free of any responsibility? Absolutely not. Should he be punished to the fullest extent of the law? YES!! Should this young woman have exercised better judgement and not set herself up to be a victim by putting herself into such a potentially dangerous situation? YES!!
If she had been able to kill her attacker during the beating, would she have had to go through the garbage Zimmerman has gone through and is going through?
Probably not, but if Martin were female I sincerely doubt Zimmmerman’s self-defense claim would be so easily believed (even with the same injuries), so that cuts both ways.
Nice speech Jack; now ask yourself why can’t you admit that the preponderance of the evidence points to Trayvon Martin starting a physical altercation and that was THE poor decision that lead to Martin dying that night?
I have already mentioned that. I’ve said here or the other thread that the evidence that we have points to Martin being the person who hit first. But, that’s simply unknowable for sure, the truth is between Zimmerman, a dead guy, and whatever deity you believe in. What I do know for certain is that one bad decision by Trayvon Martin does not cancel out any bad decisions by George Zimmerman.
hi Prax,
I’m only sorry she didn’t. It would be on less dirtbag on the planet. Absolutely she had every right to kill in self defense. But I’m sure you would agree though that exercising good judgment would have spared her this horror. Had GZ exercised good judgment, its highly unlikely he would have been in a fight with TM.
Most of GZ’s legal hassles, I will agree, are a political circus, exploited by both sides.
Why is everyone talking about the preponderance of evidence leads to Martin hitting Zimmerman first. We have absolutely no evidence of that.
We have a one sided story and witnesses who said they heard someone screaming but aren’t sure who.
The hysteria surrounding this case stems from the fact that there are two groups of people neither which have definite evidence for their case, all presuming based on bs and bias that their dude is right, and approaching the other man with skepticism.
Exactly Shannon,
You summed it up well!
Shannon,
One last summary of my own:
No, no one knows for certain what happened that night. All we can do is follow the lead of Sherlock Holmes. Eliminate the impossible and the improbable until we are left with the most probable general scenario.
1. Zimmerman was in on and off contact with 911 dispatch. You can hear him get out of the truck, you can hear his heavy breathing and the wind whistling. When they ask if he’s still looking for Trayvon, they say he doesn’t have to do that. He says okay and you can hear the breathing and wind slow down as he makes his way back.
2. At the same time Trayvon is on the phone with his friend and says he lost the guy following him. He’s not standing still or going home, though. She heard him confront Zimmerman and a thud.
3. Trayvon had no signs of receiving hits, GZ had plenty. It is improbable GZ attacked Trayvon. Have you seen how he towered over the 7 / 11 clerk who was an inch taller than GZ? Trayvon was known to get into fights, though that wasn’t allowed into court. Zimmerman did not get high marks in learning fighting techniques.
3. The screams on the 911 call sound like those of an adult with a higher pitch than Trayvon’s froggy teenage voice. This is a recording of Trayvon watching two homeless guys fight:
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/exclusive-audio-voice-trayvon-martin-19352398
4. We are left with the probable conclusion that Trayvon confronted and attacked Zimmerman. After all, so many focus on the gun. Wouldn’t Zimmerman have confronted with that gun? Tried to detain him for the police? Of course, that would have been foolish. But not as foolish as attacking someone who may well be carrying a knife or gun of his own.
Excellent summary Hans. I assume we’re talking about preponderance of the evidence in expectation of a civil trial. B/c in a criminal trial, preponderance of the evidence for the prosecution is an acquittal for the defendant.
Mary: “If I understand correctly, you think my pointing out that people setting themselves up to be victims is somehow “blaming” them for a criminal attack”
You understand me correctly, and that’s what you are doing. You can double talk all you want, but when the attack is over and done, you are putting the onus on the victim to have avoided it. You are obsessed with the potentially unwise over the definitely illegal when determining how you think the situation should have been avoided. Having admitted that we do not know who started the fight, you insist on charging Zimmerman with that responsibility even though you admit he could well be the victim.
Look, Mary, I agree with the gist of what you’re saying about safety. The path of least resistance for people to protect themselves is to take steps to preserve their safety. I don’t think saying that is victim blaming. However, tut tutting them after they are victims, analyzing their every decision with the benefit of perfect hindsight, and obsessing over their behavior rather than the criminal’s behavior crosses that line. And especially so when you further charge the victim with the responsibility for insuring the victimizer’s safety from the consequences of his actions, which is what you are doing if Zimmerman is telling the truth.
I agree that with all the benefits of our perfect hindsight, I wish Zimmerman could have stayed in the car, or that Martin could have just gone home, or that whatever happened in that confrontation to put Zimmerman on the concrete being beaten hadn’t happened. I wish anything, anything had gone differently so that Martin would be alive (whether he was a thug or an angel). But it didn’t. And if Zimmerman is telling the truth, then I’m not going to spend all my time focusing on his potentially unwise action over the illegal one in terms of who could have prevented this outcome.
CT,
I tried to make it as simple as possible hoping you would understand that yes, we can unknowingly and/or foolishly set ourselves up to be victims. In the very dangerous world we live in, we must all take some responsibility for protecting ourselves and acting wisely. Have I always done so? No. Have I barely escaped danger a few times because I acted carelessly and could well have ended up a victim? Yes. No that is not blaming the victim. No that does not exonerate the offender. For some reason it just doesn’t register with you.
Also, concerning GZ/TM, we will continue to view this from our own perspectives, as is everyone else on the planet.
Mary,
It is you who will not register that there is a difference between urging people to protect their safety and what you are doing.
My only perspective on this case is that acquittal was the only appropriate outcome, and that there is nothing wrong with following someone. Something more has to happen (chasing, threatening, pointing the gun etc) and we have no evidence of that. I’m not going to twist in knots speculating on things that didn’t happen or that we have no evidence of. I don’t judge Martin or Zimmerman for anything they were doing prior to that fight starting (or anything they did or did not do in the past). No matter how suspicious or unwise, respectively, there is nothing wrong with what they were doing prior to the confrontation.
Like I said CT,
I don’t know how to make it any more simple.
Also, GZ/TM will continue to be a matter of perspective. The verdict is what it is.
You claim you just want people to be aware of dangerous situations so they can keep themselves out of them, yes? I agree with that.
You claim you’re not saying anything further about blaming people who don’t heed your advice either out of naivete or b/c they decide to deliberately put their safety at risk for what they believe is the greater good.
If the first is all you’re saying, and you believe that your comments bear that out (I’ll let others judge for themselves), then I guess we completely agree with each other.
Simple.
CT
I’ll try again. Honestly, I never realized it was that complicated.
I say that people can unknowingly and/or foolishly set themselves up to be victims of criminal attack.
Unknowingly: You don’t stop to think that the morning jog you are taking at the same time and place every day is making you an easy mark for a predator, who might be the person who “coincidentally” is out walking or jogging every time you are or someone who is perhaps a local resident who watches you jog by every day.
Unknowingly and/or foolishly: You see what you assume is a prowler in your neighbor’s yard in the dead of nite and take it upon yourself to go check things out, intending only to be a good neighbor. You see someone suspicious walking in your neighborhood and you take it upon yourself to follow the person. Again, just being a vigilant neighbor. A good way to get yourself killed either way. Or you may have taken a weapon and the “prowler” turns out to be cousin Bill who the neighbors asked to check on the house while they’re gone, which cousin Bill is doing after working the late shift. The person you’re following might be someone visiting a neighbor who’s on his way home from the store. Either of these men may feel very threatened by you, and react, resulting in a deadly confrontation. It would have been far wiser to let the police check it out.
Foolishly: Bringing a strange man, or woman for that matter, who for all you know is a serial killer, into your home after briefly meeting them in a bar… and barely escaping with your life.
Simple as I can make it CT.
And I believe the simple point is that it is moot who made the most wrong decisions to lead to the confrontation. Who escalated at that point to result in one being dead?
We can argue ad infinitum wouldas and couldas and shouldas. This has always looked like a case of self-denense because the dead victim looked untouched except for that bullet wound, and the other VICTIM was beaten up.
We can’t close our eyes to that, as the protesters do. And there is no evidence that there was a pause in the beating that gave GZ an oppurtunity to take revenge by killing in cold blood, which was the prosecution’s last desperate theory (Maybe… Trayvon was leaning back. Yeah, that’s the ticket!).
I care only about who made the better decision at that last final moment. The rest is useless Monday-morning quaterbacking.
Hi Hans,
Good question. Who exactly escalated the confrontation? We can never know for certain.
TM may have looked untouched because TM immediately got the better of GZ. That doesn’t prove who initiated the fight. TM could well have been acting in what he sincerely believed to be self defense. He can’t give us his side of the story so we can never know.
“We can argue ad infinitum wouldas and couldas and shouldas. This has always looked like a case of self-denense because the dead victim looked untouched except for that bullet wound, and the other VICTIM was beaten up.”
Yeah, it is certainly reasonable doubt and there’s no way GZ should have been convicted, we agree on that. But I know you can’t tell who started a fight just by who is more beaten though. If I go punch a dude twice my size in the chest, leaving no bruise, and he immediately beats the tar out of me, my injuries to his none don’t mean that I didn’t start the fight.
We’ll never know for sure what all was said before the altercation, we don’t know if Zimmerman freaked out when Martin confronted him and started reaching for his gun, we don’t know if Zimmerman freaked out and took an ineffectual first swing at Martin. We’ll never know unless Zimmerman pulls an OJ and releases an “If I did it” type of book or statement contradicting his current story lol.
I’m only sorry she didn’t. It would be on less dirtbag on the planet.
But it’s only in hindsight that you know he’s a dirtbag. It’s only because she was raped and almost killed that you know the man was a monster.
Had she shot him dead when while she was being beat and ended with “only” a broken nose and cuts to the back of her head, you would probably say on the order of, “Well there is no proof that she didn’t start it with him, she set herself up to be his victim. Maybe she escalated the situation. After all, she followed him home and didn’t know him long enough. ” And you wouldn’t dare call him a dirtbag.
Btw, both of the men who raped me were men I knew most of my life. One was a close friend (I thought) and the other was my brother-in-law. So stranger danger only goes so far with me.
Jack: “No I do get this, but don’t you think the general differences in size make any difference?”
I think the general differences in size add an extra impetus for the smaller person not to attack a larger person. I say this as someone many would look at and label as a smaller person.
“I just really think it encourages more violence.”
I think it discourages it. We all know that a bully will usually continue his/her ways until someone finally stands up to him/her.
“See bmmg this article recommends that men don’t respond physically to being hit by women, or restrain them (I guess that can be considered Criminal Confinement which is a felony).”
I see plenty of “don’t” there but nothing about “do.” What do they propose a battered man do? Especially when his attacker is blocking his route of exit (just in case someone’s answer is “just leave”).
” I think the general differences in size add an extra impetus for the smaller person not to attack a larger person. I say this as someone many would look at and label as a smaller person.”
Well, yeah, I’m not a big guy either. I mostly worry (besides my worry that abusive guys could take advantage of this approval of self-defense to hurt women and claim that they needed to) that it could end up with a guy who is genuinely being domestically abused being accused of being the aggressor/abuser because he accidentally pushed too hard or left a bruise on her. Sadly, the cops are going to look at the guy as the abuser like 99% of the time unless he’s really careful. I’m pretty sure one of the things (besides my neighbors being fully aware she was the violent one) that kept me from being arrested when my neighbors would call the cops was because I didn’t so much as attempt to restrain her, leaving no possibility I could even accidentally bruise her. If I’m the only one injured I figured it was less likely to end in my arrest if I made her mad enough to try and blame me for the violence.
” I think it discourages it. We all know that a bully will usually continue his/her ways until someone finally stands up to him/her.”
Well yeah I do see that, I just worry people will lose control and then she’ll end up really hurt, and the poor sap who was trying to keep his nose from being broken will end up getting thrown in jail. I do think some women take advantage of the “don’t ever hit a woman” thing to batter on their men because a decent guy would be really reluctant to physically respond.
” I see plenty of “don’t” there but nothing about “do.” What do they propose a battered man do? Especially when his attacker is blocking his route of exit (just in case someone’s answer is “just leave”).”
Well, sometimes when you try to leave even if she isn’t blocking the door she’ll jump on your back and try to stop you. Anyway, I linked it because I think it’s a good example of what abused men have to think about if they decide to physically defend themselves. The cops and courts are going to be really reluctant to believe a guy could be beaten on by his 5’6, 100 lb wife, even a guy who’s not that big! I think guys in abusive situations should make sure they document everything, I took pics of bruises, split lips, whatever for over a year before I even thought of leaving my wife and hid them in a safe place, made sure that I had witnesses who would name her as the abuser, etc. It might take a while but I do believe that was the best I could do, the deck was going to be stacked against me, I didn’t need to add the possibility of accidentally injuring her and getting accused of being the one who was violent. You have to be careful. Men usually are stronger, it’s easy to injure someone you outweigh and are stronger than without meaning to, and the second she gets some proof like an injury you’ll NEVER get to leave without having to worry about her vindictively pressing charges against you. It’s not like it’s not a rough situation, and I have sympathy for guys still dealing with an abusive female partner, but you really have to be careful. It’s better to let her bust up your face and make a plan to leave then lose your children and home and be known as a wife-beater, in my opinion.
“Simple as I can make it CT”
You think a series of hypotheticals applying the rules of Mary is simpler than a concise summary of two options? Truly you have a dizzying intellect.
All of your scenarios can present a dangerous situation, which I’m all for people taking into account when making decisions about their own personal safety. We agree. In all you’re scenarios the person is also doing nothing objectionable or in any way inviting illegal violence. If you’re not victim blaming, we should still be in complete agreement.
Prax,
Yes, the woman found out after she brought a strange man into her home and was brutally raped and beaten that he was a monster. A good reason not to bring strange people who you know nothing about into your home. I would consider that very foolish and setting oneself up to be a victim. That’s not to say people we know and trust can’t turn against us as I’m very sorry to hear happened to you. A far cry from placing yourself in a situation that is potentially dangerous.
GZ no less placed himself into a potentially dangerous situation when he made the decision to follow someone in the dark. We do not know for certain who initiated the confrontation or if TM had reason to believe he was acting in self defense. There’s no reason to think the rapist/woman beater acted in self defense. The woman was posing no threat to him, if anything, she allowed him into her home! As much as I would like to see a rapist/woman beater offed, he’s alive to give his side of the story, TM is not.
CT,
Obviously I will never make it simple enough for you to comprehend.
So Mary, do you think John Hurt is the 13th (and last) Doctor?
Yeah, I wouldn’t answer the question either if I were you. Even Jack called you out last time.
Even Jack lol. I’m not that bad!
Haha,…no not at all! I just meant that you started out thinking similarly. That sounded bad though.
Lol well I have my issues, but it only took like three days of you all telling me the same thing over and over for me to come around!
All kidding and debate aside, I was very glad you did – for your own sake.
Hans,
I have no idea what you’re talking about.
CT 10:59PM
Are you addressing me? If so, please clarify.
Mary,
Yeah, I wouldn’t answer the question either if I were you. Even Jack called you out last time.
What are you babbling about this time CT?
I’m babbling about your dodging of my question to determine if you are in fact victim blaming. It’s ok. We all know the answer anyway, which is why you won’t just answer the question.
*Edit: Oh forgive me, this comment is addressing Mary.
Thanks CT. And I appreciate yall being patient and explaining it over and over until it clicked. Must have been annoying lol.
CT,
I’ve tried to make it as simple for you as possible and you still can’t see the difference between “victim blaming” and the fact that people can set themselves up to be victims. I’m not going over that with you all over again. Reread what I have already written slowly. Maybe you’ll comprehend.
Jack,
I say the same thing to the people who kept explaining the pro-life position to my thick pro-choice skull until it clicked. We all have our areas where we don’t see things as they really are. You have a much better reason for your thinking than I had for mine, that’s for sure.
Ok Mary, everyone has called you out for victim blaming. But it’s us, not you.
You used to be pro-choice CT? Wow, I wouldn’t have guessed that.
Mary,
Sorry. I thought I remembered you were a Doctor Who aficianado. I used to get you and Alice mixed up, for some reason. Maybe that was it.
Anyway, I’m about Zimmerman / Martined out.
“Anyway, I’m about Zimmerman / Martined out.”
I think most of the country feels the same way at this point.
CT,
Directly quote me victim blaming.
Hans,
You remembered wrong.
Oh yeah – pretty rabidly pro-choice til only about…wow I guess it’s been about 8 years ago now. I was also an atheist until about a year or two after that, when I came back to the Church. Guess I figured while I was reconsidering things, I might as well reconsider them all. lol.
“Anyway, I’m about Zimmerman / Martined out.”
Hans – truer words have not been spoken.
I tried to explain on the other thread with examples from my own life, Mary, but you didn’t agree that you were doing the same type of thing as the situation I used as an example. I get where you’re coming from but I think that saying people “set themselves up” is harsh and victim blaming, now that people kindly spent hours explaining where my thinking was wrong and how I internalized that kind of blame as something acceptable.
Wow CT I never would have guessed you used to be an atheist too, that surprises me.
Mary,
When I was pro-choice I used to make the distinction between being pro-choice and pro-abortion. There really wasn’t any. I just wouldn’t call it what it was. That’s kind of what’s going on here with your I’m not blaming the victim, I’m just saying they did set themselves up to be a victim thing. There’s no difference. If there was, you would have agreed with what I wrote, limiting yourself to the safety issue. But you wouldn’t. You’ve victim blamed all over the place on this thread and the other (with hypotheticals to boot!), but I could list three pages of quotes and you wouldn’t call it victim blaming. I cannot penetrate this disconnect for you. I just hope it clicks b/c as was said on the last post, it’s warped thinking to think this way.
Yup. It’s why I think I’m actually not very comfortable speaking the language of religion as fully as other people can here. I’m more comfortable with religion when it intersects with reason and what I consider to be more traditionally rational arguments. It’s an ongoing process to say the least.
I see, that makes sense. Probably why I enjoy having debates with you more than many people. I like it when people don’t appeal to faith because honestly I feel like a jerk for disregarding the argument for appealing to faith, but honestly it doesn’t apply to me.
And I find it interesting you went from atheist to religious. I haven’t met many people like that, it’s usually the other way around.
Hi Jack.
Honestly, this is not what I would expect to hear from you..
I have been a childhood victim of domestic violence and sexual abuse as you have been. I’m the sister of a police officer with a long and distinguished career. No one has any less tolerance for criminals or offenders of any kind than I do.
You are also a street smart person. Who better than you to know that we must be careful to protect ourselves from predators and not set ourselves up to be victims? That is not saying everyone sets themselves up, its not saying people aren’t innocent victims, its saying that there are predators out there looking for easy marks, and we can unknowingly, and sometimes foolishly by our actions, make ourselves easy marks or put ourselves in dangerous situations. That’s not victim blaming, its valuable information that can protect us.
If you warn someone to stay away from a dangerous neighborhood, what are you doing? You are trying to protect that person from being a victim.
No, not all victims of crime and predators set themselves up. Innocent people are victimized. I’ve been the victim of crime. My point is that we can put ourselves in the position of being victims. We need to take the responsibility to protect ourselves because no one else is going to do it for us.
CT, 12:02am
The direct quotes please.
“I feel like a jerk for disregarding the argument for appealing to faith, but honestly it doesn’t apply to me.”
I did the same thing. In fact, I think I still have an email debate where I said something like, “but what if I don’t accept the authority of that book” (meaning the bible).
I enjoy debating with you as well.
All your posts Mary. Every one. Get reading.
CT,
Direct quotes. You made the accusation. Back it up.
Also CT, I’m curious. Would you consider inviting a complete stranger you just met in the bar to your home in the middle of night potentially dangerous and setting yourself up to be a victim? Yes or no.
“We need to take the responsibility to protect ourselves because no one else is going to do it for us.”
But if you don’t, no one is to blame but them.
No matter what you do or don’t do, no matter how unwise to your personal safety, no matter how stupid your decision seems in hindsight with better information, it never ever ever ever ever invites violence. Even if violence can happen or is likely to happen. Even if you do everything “wrong” from your list of safety tips. If you walk into a bar naked get drunk and walk down an alley full of bikers at the same time every night, nothing you are doing is inviting their violence. Even though it is so seriously unwise that it strains the bounds of hypotheticals.
That’s my last effort. Night all.
Potentially dangerous of course. Setting yourself up to be a victim. No. See my previous post.
“Night all.”
Night CT.
Mary – everyone has made the accusation, not just me. Jack, who was the only one agreeing with you on the last thread has changed his mind. I’m not going to cut and paste every post from two threads so you can just reiterate your impenetrable conviction that your words don’t victim blame. What will quoting them do for that? I meant it when I said every post. So if upon reading your posts, you don’t think you victim blame, there is literally nothing I can say to change your mind on that.
Ok, bed for real.
CT,
Direct quotes please.
So you agree this is potentially dangerous. Thank you. You have just made my argument. I’m not saying someone deserves what they are getting or inviting violence. When you willingly allow a potentially dangerous person into your home, how can you not be setting yourself up to be a victim?
“When you willingly allow a potentially dangerous person into your home, how can you not be setting yourself up to be a victim?”
”
”
”
”
”
”
”
”
”
”
”
”
etc.
I’m glad you finally understand the point I have been trying to make CT.
Mary, I’m not trying to bash on you so I apologize if I was coming across as I was insinuating you had tolerance for criminals or anything like that.
” You are also a street smart person. Who better than you to know that we must be careful to protect ourselves from predators and not set ourselves up to be victims? That is not saying everyone sets themselves up, its not saying people aren’t innocent victims, its saying that there are predators out there looking for easy marks, and we can unknowingly, and sometimes foolishly by our actions, make ourselves easy marks or put ourselves in dangerous situations. That’s not victim blaming, its valuable information that can protect us.”
Yes, I am a street smart dude and have been a victim of a rather ridiculous amount of abuse and violence in my life. But, I was also a criminal. I know better than probably everyone reading this thread that there are people out there out for themselves, and some things people do are less wise than others. BUT, I also know there’s literally no action you can take that insures you’ll never be victimized. Most of the times when I stole from people I was in a public place, surrounded by people, in broad daylight. I usually cased a mall or shopping center waiting for someone to get distracted and turn their back while they set down their purse or wallet, or a shopping bag, and I would simply pick it up and calmly walk off. Only ever got caught once for that particular type of crime, and I was able to pass it off as an accident. I really don’t like talking about things like that I did, because I realize most people see me as a terrible person, but I think it’s important to know that it’s not just people who make the decision to walk home drunk at three in the morning who get victimized by criminals. Because criminals find vulnerability everywhere.
So, you can warn people that some actions (walking in the dark for example, or picking up a stranger for a one-night stand, or turning your back while your purse in on the table next to you) carry more risk than others. But, you can’t say people are setting themselves up for victimization. Because what that phrasing really does is remove the full responsibility from the perpetrator of the crime and put it on the victims. It’s a bad idea to never consider your actions and never think about what you can do to lessen your vulnerability. But you’re not setting yourself up to be a victim. Perps set people up for victimization, not the victims. Victims might make unwise decisions, but the perpetrator is the one who set them up. I don’t know how else to explain it.
And honestly, I would probably have been and now be a lot mentally healthier if people hadn’t blamed me for crimes committed against me, or told me how dumb I was, etc etc etc. I’m NOT saying that you’re trying to shame victims or anything like that, but I do think that hearing over and over that you made a dumb decision and that’s why you were in the position to be raped, or that’s why she was able to punch you in the face, etc etc etc can cause a lot of damage eventually.
And I’m not saying that any tips or suggestions you have about avoiding being victimized by violence or crime are wrong, or that it’s not wise to follow them. But it’s the perps who set the victim up. That’s all they were saying and what I understand now.
Hi Jack,
Thank you for clarifying that. I like and respect you a great deal and never want there to be any hard feelings. I also stress that no one is any less inclined to excuse criminals or offenders for their behavior than I am. I am as angered by the abuse you suffered as I am by those that abused me.
Of course we can never protect ourselves completely. We can take every precaution against being victims of crime, or having our homes burn, only to be victims of crime or a house fire.
Pointing out how people can unknowingly make themselves easy marks for a predator or put themselves in potentially dangerous situations is not blaming the victim. Its to better arm them against being victims. I’m sorry, but sometimes people do totally senseless things that put them in harm’s way. That’s not suggesting anyone deserves to be a victim or a criminal is excused.
The people who blamed you are in the same category as the people who argue that rape and domestic violence victims “ask” for what they get. Nothing enrages me more and I have ranted against these people plenty on this blog and watched women, including my own mother, endure abuse because ”good” wives weren’t abused, it had to be their fault.
At the same time, I am no less angered by people who carelessly and sometimes even foolishly set themselves up to be victims, especially when it results in senseless violence and loss of life, like the woman I mentioned who was brutally raped and beaten and the other one who was killed when she confronted the person who hit her car. That does not exonerate the criminals, they deserve to be punished to the fullest extent of the law. It doesn’t blame the victims. It only says we do not have to make ourselves easy marks for predators and criminals.
” At the same time, I am no less angered by people who carelessly and sometimes even foolishly set themselves up to be victims, especially when it results in senseless violence and loss of life, like the woman I mentioned who was brutally raped and beaten and the other one who was killed when she confronted the person who hit her car. That does not exonerate the criminals, they deserve to be punished to the fullest extent of the law. It doesn’t blame the victims. It only says we do not have to make ourselves easy marks for predators and criminals. ”
You really can’t be mad at that woman who was brutally raped and beaten for making a decision that was unwise and be mad at the people who were mad at me for allowing myself to be in abusive situations, it doesn’t make sense. This is getting really personal for me but I’ll try to explain. I knew living with my parents was basically guaranteeing me for further abuse, sure I was still a kid but by 13 or 14 I had plenty of street friends that I could have ran off and been a street kid with them at a much younger age then I finally did. But I didn’t leave until I was 17. There was 100% chance my father would abuse me again or my mom would beat on me again if I stayed, but I made the stupid decision to stay. So how can you think it was wrong to blame me for staying at home, setting myself up with a 100% chance of further rather horrific and humiliating abuse? But you’re okay with blaming that woman in your example for setting herself up by bringing some dude home, when the vast majority of random dudes wouldn’t rape and beat her? It’s not making sense to me why you see one type of blame as okay but the other not.
And there are no hard feelings and I’m not mad at you, I don’t hold things against people. Except truthseeker (kidding truth!!).
HI Jack.
I never said I was mad at the woman. The attack on her was no less horrific or justified than the attacks on you or a victim attacked in a parking lot. All the attackers in these cases deserve punishment. All the victims are victims.
Your options between being a street kid or abused at home don’t sound like much either way. Life on the street likely would have been just as brutal if not more so. I don’t know if there was help for you in any other way, such as a social service agency and its very tragic if it wasn’t. And for heaven’s sake Jack you were a kid! Like so many kids who are trapped in abusive homes, shuttled around the foster care system, or left to fend for themselves, you had no say in much of anything. The alternative was just as dangerous and potentially deadly. None of us kids left home either until my sister went to nursing school at age 18y/o. Where would we go? After all “good” wives weren’t abused so my mother must be “asking” for it. The police could do nothing because a man’s home was his castle.
Its very personal for me too Jack.
Now back to the woman. Yes, she may have brought men home several times, she may have brought this one home for the first time. Maybe most guys are just looking for a good time. Well so is the predator and he knows where and how to hunt. I think most of us would acknowledge that bringing a complete stranger you just met at the bar into your home is very dangerous and possibility setting yourself up to be a victim. This guy, or gal, could be a serial killer for all you know. Thankfully this woman escaped with her life. Hopefully she will exercise better judgment in the future. Hopefully her attacker is rotting in prison.
In fact Jack,
This weekend my brother and I are travelling out west to see my father’s last surviving sibling, “Uncle Will” who he hasn’t seen in 50 years. I’m meeting him there. I’m hoping that seeing Uncle Will helps to put a lot of the abuse issues that still torment my brother to rest. Not that we plan to discuss any of this with him, he’s a very old man in failing health who deserves to only be at peace. But it may give my brother a sense of peace just to talk to Uncle Will, who my brother always loved so dearly. Will let you know how it goes.