Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Conceal Carry, the 2nd Amendment, & Vigilantism

Conceal Carry, the 2nd Amendment, & Vigilantism (Page 36)
Thread Tools
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2014, 02:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
is all your history knowledge as full of fictional stereotypes and soap opera plots? Perhaps ignoring the rewrite of history the libs are doing and go back and read newspapers from the era. You can find them on microfische at your library. Great history education awaits. BTW - the civil war was about the feds stomping over many states rights. We are the UNITED STATES. Words mean something.
And are you utterly incapable of actually refuting what I stated backed up with facts and evidence? Or is mere dismissal the extent of your repertoire?

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2014, 02:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
…and what do you think the popular consensus on the confederate battle flag is?
From personal experience I'd say that's almost 100% dependent on which side of the Mason-Dixon you happen to be on.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2014, 02:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Which I actually thought was pretty funny in a cleverly racist sort of way. But some people swear on a stack of bibles that it has nothing to do with race though.
The irony of combating racism with racism.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2014, 02:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Not as seen by most in the South, as I stated above.
Seen? They explicitly left because Lincoln was elected. Not anything he actually did. Northern tyranny hadn't actually occurred when they seceded. Unless you count losing votes "tyranny".

Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Conjecture.
Oh shut up. Like your perspective is all "facts."

Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
The Southern secession wasn't an individual state, it was a large number of them. If 1/3 of US states voted to leave the US now, it would be handled much differently.
How in the hell could Federal government regulate this? States can secede but only in large numbers? If one or more state can secede at any time, the ability of the United States to govern is completely compromised.

Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Not even close to being on the same order of magnitude.
You're walking past the point, Shaddim. I didn't say they were the same "magnitude." The correlation is the point.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2014, 02:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
…and what do you think the popular consensus on the confederate battle flag is?
Depends on where you're from.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2014, 02:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
"Repurpose"? No, and that's where you're stumbling, it was always that purpose.
Purpose ≠ intent.

Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Again, it's about perspective.
Like I said, they know how it's perceived, they just don't care, because…?
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2014, 03:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
From personal experience I'd say that's almost 100% dependent on which side of the Mason-Dixon you happen to be on.
Theres's not a significant enough presence of blacks in the south to undermine this?

If someone knows whether Americans have been polled on this, I'd love to see the results. I'd be interested international, too, but I imagine they're opinion doesn't count or something.
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2014, 03:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Again, you're wrapping the whole of the South's feelings around what a very small minority were trying to hold on to. Most Southerners didn't derive their income from slavery, in fact, slavery was taking most of their income, because slaves were essentially free labor.
Ok. Let me try this from another angle. Did everyone in the South who had a job that was rooted in or supported by the cotton industry derive their income at least indirectly from slavery? From the guy that worked in the cotton mills on the banks of the Savannah River to the shopkeeper selling imported goods obtained by exporting cotton? And consider this before you answer ....

King Cotton was a slogan used during the American Civil War by the Confederacy (1860–61) to support secession from the United States, claiming that cotton exports would make an independent Confederate States of America economically prosperous, ruin the textile industry of New England, and—most importantly—would force Great Britain and France to support the Confederacy in the Civil War because their industrial economy depended on cotton textiles. The slogan was successful in mobilizing support: by February 1861, the seven states whose economies were based on cotton plantations had all seceded and formed the Confederacy. While the cotton south seceded, the other eight slave states remained in the Union.

To demonstrate the power of King Cotton, southern cotton merchants spontaneously refused to ship out their cotton in early 1861; it was not a government decision. By summer 1861, the Union blockade shut down over 95% of exports. Since the Europeans had large stockpiles of cotton, they were not immediately injured by the boycott; indeed the value of their stockpiles went up. For Britain to intervene meant war with the U.S. and a cutoff of food supplies, so it did not intervene. Consequently, the strategy proved a failure for the Confederacy—King Cotton did not help the new nation.
King Cotton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OAW
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2014, 03:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
The irony of combating racism with racism.
So wearing a Malcolm X t-shirt constitues "racism" in your estimation? Ok.

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2014, 03:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Seen? They explicitly left because Lincoln was elected. Not anything he actually did. Northern tyranny hadn't actually occurred when they seceded. Unless you count losing votes "tyranny".
and the Southern Cross wasn't even alive yet.

Oh shut up. Like your perspective is all "facts."
Grow up and stop trying to just enrage people you disagree with.

How in the hell could Federal government regulate this? States can secede but only in large numbers? If one or more state can secede at any time, the ability of the United States to govern is completely compromised.
It changes perspective and inertia when it's a whole bunch of states rather than just one or two. Now, if it were Texas, for instance, they have enough resources and influence to possibly succeed.

You're walking past the point, Shaddim. I didn't say they were the same "magnitude." The correlation is the point.
Scale matters, like I stated above. People in the South weren't going to go to war over civil rights, but they were more than willing to fight over states' rights. Frankly, it all comes back around to being told you're going to do something, and there's nothing that will make Southerners "bow-up" quite like that.

Outsider: "We think that <insert issue> is important and we need to have a long talk about it."
Southerner: "Okay, sounds fine."

versus

Outsider: "You're going to do this, end of discussion."
Southerner: "Oh really? Is that right?"
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2014, 03:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Purpose ≠ intent.
It was their intent, too.

Like I said, they know how it's perceived, they just don't care, because…?
Yeah, I think a lot of it comes down to "Yankees" not being able to understand just how stubborn people in the South can be. The Southern Cross means a specific thing to them, and it's not about slavery. The fact that it does harken back to slavery for people in other parts of the US, doesn't matter. They don't care what you think, and you don't care about what it means to them. So, we have this, everyone talking in circles, and that's why that flag will likely never rest in peace.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2014, 03:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Frankly, it all comes back around to being told you're going to do something, and there's nothing that will make Southerners "bow-up" quite like that.
Like being "told" it's a wrap on slavery and Jim Crow huh?

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2014, 03:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Like being "told" it's a wrap on slavery and Jim Crow huh?

OAW
That's your perspective.


I've spent too much time on this today, I'll get back to it tomorrow.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2014, 08:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
And are you utterly incapable of actually refuting what I stated backed up with facts and evidence? Or is mere dismissal the extent of your repertoire?

OAW
I research MY STATE, Virginia, and its railroads as a hobby. I've been reading various newspapers from 1848 and forward. Been doing this since the early 1980's. Perhaps if you actually tried to understand the times IN CONTEXT, not the PC correct lies you've been taught as part of the reinvention of blacks in history by the liberal racists. I am not going to waste my time giving you an insight to our real history as reported in town newspapers. You'll have to read them yourself to get the flavor, intent, attitudes and such of the times. The laws were different, the technology was different and fewer people were liberals.
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2014, 08:41 AM
 
Of course your'e assuming that the local papers from that time, owned and written by white men with money and power, were 100% accurate and unbiased in all that they reported... I kind of doubt that is entirely a reliable benchmark. Not that it is without merit, but you probably need to get more than that point of view to understand what really happened. Just sayin'.....

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2014, 10:25 AM
 
They may have been mostly 'white' men but not too much money and little power. We are talking about newspapers with a circulation of maybe a few thousand and many were just barely 1000 copies printed. I am not talking about 3-4 papers but dozens all up and down the mid-atlantic area. The people reporting the news wanted it correct or the locals would not buy the papers. This was back when integrity meant something, not like the propagandists in the MSM today.
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2014, 05:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW
And are you utterly incapable of actually refuting what I stated backed up with facts and evidence? Or is mere dismissal the extent of your repertoire?

OAW
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
I research MY STATE, Virginia, and its railroads as a hobby. I've been reading various newspapers from 1848 and forward. Been doing this since the early 1980's. Perhaps if you actually tried to understand the times IN CONTEXT, not the PC correct lies you've been taught as part of the reinvention of blacks in history by the liberal racists. I am not going to waste my time giving you an insight to our real history as reported in town newspapers. You'll have to read them yourself to get the flavor, intent, attitudes and such of the times. The laws were different, the technology was different and fewer people were liberals.
So that would be a NO. Carry on.

OAW
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2014, 08:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
They may have been mostly 'white' men but not too much money and little power. We are talking about newspapers with a circulation of maybe a few thousand and many were just barely 1000 copies printed. I am not talking about 3-4 papers but dozens all up and down the mid-atlantic area. The people reporting the news wanted it correct or the locals would not buy the papers. This was back when integrity meant something, not like the propagandists in the MSM today.
I was thinking more of Hearst-type influence, but with papers that small, that's a different thing. Still, how "enlightened" would a local white businessman be during that period? Reprting the "truth" often means selecting which angle and spin to place on a story, and this has been true for a very long time.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 22, 2014, 08:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
So that would be a NO. Carry on.

OAW
And you haven't really posted anything that shows you know anything of the real south, but you do know all the stereotypes.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 22, 2014, 08:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
I was thinking more of Hearst-type influence, but with papers that small, that's a different thing. Still, how "enlightened" would a local white businessman be during that period? Reprting the "truth" often means selecting which angle and spin to place on a story, and this has been true for a very long time.
An event would occur, and the news of it would spread around town. The newspaper reporter would try and interview all involved parties (unless some were dead...) and he would print the story. Because the story was already known around town, the reports in the papers needed to be correct or they weren't doing a service but being a political rag etc. Those papers didn't mean much to the regular folks except for entertainment. Mostly it was reports of tragic events, bad luck by some, new stores opening, new births, events from nearby and some national news. Most national news was days or weeks old until the advent of the telegraph. I specifically follow the railroad purchases of land, how they developed it, either for right of way or coal or other products. Train wrecks happened lots before and just after the Civil War as the technology was new, metals were still soft, and that pesky learning curve got in the way. Before the major highways, it was the railroads and the towns sprung up along those routes.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 22, 2014, 11:37 AM
 
It depends on what period you're talking about.

Pre-television, papers were political rags. That's why you had papers named "The Peoria Democrat".

TV had to cater to a national audience, and risked the FCC on their heinies if they weren't "fair and balanced", so they introduced the idea of (relatively speaking) unbiased political coverage.

To compete, newspapers started to follow that model, or they died.


As I've mentioned before, that's more or less reverted with the ascendancy of the Internet. No FCC to run interference, and no outlay of expense (relatively speaking) to be nationally accessible. Now, it's the outfits which do try and cater to the entire national audience which are on the ropes, and the partisans are thriving. Note this switch started to come along with 9/11, so there's a particularly acrimonious tone to the whole thing.
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 22, 2014, 04:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
And you haven't really posted anything that shows you know anything of the real south, but you do know all the stereotypes.
Ok I get. So the south having a slave based economy even though most residents weren't slave owners is a "fictional stereotype". And the 3/5ths Compromise is just a "fictional stereotype" as well even though it's written into the Constitution. Ok.

OAW
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2014, 11:02 AM
 
Explain the 3/5 Compromise tp our non US members.
( Last edited by Chongo; Sep 3, 2014 at 01:22 PM. )
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2014, 09:35 AM
 
A slave based economy where most didn't own slaves seems pretty non-existent. How many elected officials owned slaves? Isn't that how Washington DC first became a black city, during the Civil War, with the entrenched politicians having their slaves with them?
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2014, 08:42 AM
 
It was a "cheap labor" and "forced servitude" -based economy. Before the Civil War there wasn't a whole lot of political or economic difference between white share croppers and slaves. When the big land owner tried to reconsolidate their holdings after the war, the Northern emphasis on slavery was something they latched onto, and they began systematically setting white against black, starting with white sharecroppers, who had no education or resources, and who had everything to lose from not agreeing with the big land owners. This was the genesis of "poor white trash," and of course the concept of segregation.

Considering all of the "this is a matter of honor" rhetoric that the rich men of the South spewed before and during the war, this has always struck me as the most cruelly hypocritical shift they could have made, and is to me much worse than anything imposed by the Union forces or the Carpet Bagger-era laws after the war. "Honor" went out the window when, after their "noble cause" was lost, these wealthy and privileged men saw their fortunes about to go down the drain.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2014, 12:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
It changes perspective and inertia when it's a whole bunch of states rather than just one or two. Now, if it were Texas, for instance, they have enough resources and influence to possibly succeed.
That doesn't change succession being an untenable situation.


Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Scale matters, like I stated above. People in the South weren't going to go to war over civil rights, but they were more than willing to fight over states' rights. Frankly, it all comes back around to being told you're going to do something, and there's nothing that will make Southerners "bow-up" quite like that.
Well, obviously Lincoln should have let the US collapse in the name of protecting Southerners feelings in the face of being the minority in some democratic matters.

Edit: Once again, Lincoln didn't actually do anything. No one had told them to do anything, but they left anyway.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2014, 08:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Explain the 3/5 Comprise tp our non US members.
This is likely one of the most misinterpreted legal elements of history.

Your State's population totals are what dictate how many representatives you can have in the House of Representatives. The Southern "slave" States wanted to count their slaves as a full person to bolster their population totals and garner more seats in the House of Representatives. The Northern States and abolitionists maintained that this gave the Southern States an unfair advantage in population totals; that non-slaves were reaping the benefits of non-voting slaves and therefore slaves should not be counted as a full person for the purpose of a population count.

The 3/5ths compromise was reached in 1787 to reduce the number of seats granted the Southern States in the House of Representatives as the slaves were not able to vote and therefore should not provide the Southern States a larger share of representation in Congress.
ebuddy
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2014, 11:17 PM
 
^^^

This! So hopefully everyone can see why this particular aspect of Constitutional history doesn't sit well with African-Americans to this day. And why it is so ridiculous for people to try to pretend that slavery wasn't the issue when even Stevie Wonder can see that it was.

OAW
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2014, 01:16 PM
 
This dirt bag is lucky he isn't dead
911 recording: Homeowner shoots intruder
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2014, 01:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Explain the 3/5 Compromise tp our non US members.
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
This is likely one of the most misinterpreted legal elements of history.

Your State's population totals are what dictate how many representatives you can have in the House of Representatives. The Southern "slave" States wanted to count their slaves as a full person to bolster their population totals and garner more seats in the House of Representatives. The Northern States and abolitionists maintained that this gave the Southern States an unfair advantage in population totals; that non-slaves were reaping the benefits of non-voting slaves and therefore slaves should not be counted as a full person for the purpose of a population count.

The 3/5ths compromise was reached in 1787 to reduce the number of seats granted the Southern States in the House of Representatives as the slaves were not able to vote and therefore should not provide the Southern States a larger share of representation in Congress.
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
^^^

This! So hopefully everyone can see why this particular aspect of Constitutional history doesn't sit well with African-Americans to this day. And why it is so ridiculous for people to try to pretend that slavery wasn't the issue when even Stevie Wonder can see that it was.

OAW
Would those who complain about the 3/5 compromise be happier if they (and natives amaeicans as well)were counted as whole persons for purposes of representation, yet not considered human and have no rights as a result of Dredd Scott?
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2014, 05:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Would those who complain about the 3/5 compromise be happier if they (and natives amaeicans as well)were counted as whole persons for purposes of representation, yet not considered human and have no rights as a result of Dredd Scott?
African-Americans and Native Americans had no representation at all so there was no need to count any of them as long as that was the case. That was the Northern and logically valid argument. Hence, the "compromise" between counting NONE as the North favored and counting ALL as the South favored.

OAW
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2014, 05:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
^^^

This! So hopefully everyone can see why this particular aspect of Constitutional history doesn't sit well with African-Americans to this day. And why it is so ridiculous for people to try to pretend that slavery wasn't the issue when even Stevie Wonder can see that it was.

OAW
Thought experiment: How long does slavery last if the South doesn't have the 3/5th compromise bolstering their representation?

Edit: Arguably, the civil war may have happened earlier. But maybe not, since the problem was exacerbated by the new territories being considered for statehood.
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2014, 05:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Thought experiment: How long does slavery last if the South doesn't have the 3/5th compromise bolstering their representation?

Edit: Arguably, the civil war may have happened earlier. But maybe not, since the problem was exacerbated by the new territories being considered for statehood.
I'd argue that it would have ended sooner. The 3/5's Compromise enshrined in the Constitution is what granted the South the political power needed to force the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and the Compromise of 1850 which both sought maintain a political balance of power between Free States and Slave States. If the South only had the Congressional representation afforded to it by its eligible voting population then there would have been no reason to make such appeasements.

OAW
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2014, 05:50 PM
 
An inducement for slave states to accept the Compromise was its tie to taxation in the same ratio, so that the burden of taxation on the slave states was also reduced.
So essentially, the South paid for having more representation. Blarg.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2014, 05:53 PM
 
More reading on wiki:
However, after the Reconstruction era came to an end in 1877, the former slave states subverted the objective of these changes by using various strategies to disfranchise their black citizens, while obtaining the benefit of apportionment of representatives on the basis of the total populations. These measures effectively gave white Southerners even greater voting power than they had in the antebellum era, inflating the number of Southern Democrats in the House of Representatives as well as the number of votes they could exercise in the Electoral College in the election of the President.
Well, that's irony.
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 12, 2014, 04:18 PM
 
Meanwhile back at the ranch .....

The skinny black kid who ran away was trashed as a "thug" to get this fool off. While ole George continues to demonstrate how he's the epitome of passivity and non-aggressive behavior.

A driver says George Zimmerman threatened to kill him, asking 'Do you know who I am?' during a road confrontation in their vehicles, a police spokeswoman said Friday.

The driver, whose name hasn't been released, told Lake Mary police officers that a truck pulled up to his car Tuesday, and the driver yelled, "Why are you pointing a finger at me?"

The truck's driver then asked the man, "Do you know who I am? I will kill you," the man told police officers, said Officer Bianca Gillett, a police spokeswoman.

The man said he recognized the truck's driver as George Zimmerman. The man pulled into a nearby gas station and called police officers, but the truck was gone by the time they arrived, Gillett said.

Two days later, the man said that he saw Zimmerman in his truck outside his work.

"He was in fear of having encountered the vehicle a second time," Gillett said.

The man called police, and officers who arrived confirmed the truck driver was Zimmerman, the police spokeswoman said.

The man declined to press charges, Gillett said.

Zimmerman's divorce attorney, Howard Iken, didn't return an Associated Press phone call Friday.

Zimmerman was acquitted last year of second-degree murder for fatally shooting 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman, who was a neighborhood watch volunteer, said he shot the unarmed, black teenager in self-defense during a confrontation in February 2012 inside a gated community in Sanford, just outside Orlando.

Relatives of Martin accused Zimmerman, who identifies himself as Hispanic, of racially profiling the teen and instigating the fight. The case triggered a national debate about race and an examination of self-defense laws.

Since his acquittal, Zimmerman has had several brushes with the law:

Last year, he was arrested on charges of aggravated assault, battery and criminal mischief after his then-girlfriend said he pointed a gun at her face during an argument, smashed her coffee table and pushed her out of the house they shared. Samantha Scheibe decided not to cooperate with detectives and prosecutors didn't pursue the case.

Earlier that year, Zimmerman was accused by his estranged wife of smashing an iPad during an argument at the home they had shared. Shellie Zimmerman initially told a dispatcher her husband had a gun, though she later said he was unarmed. No charges were ever filed because of a lack of evidence. The dispute occurred days after Shellie Zimmerman filed divorce papers.

— Zimmerman has also been pulled over three times for traffic violations since his acquittal.
Police: Zimmerman Accused of Threatening Driver - ABC News

He's following this guy around two days over a road rage incident. But there's NO WAY he was stalking Trayvon Martin and initiated a physical confrontation!

OAW
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 12, 2014, 04:23 PM
 
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2014, 01:50 PM
 
I apologize for string the pot, OAW, but any thoughts on the John Crawford thing?
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2014, 06:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I apologize for string the pot, OAW, but any thoughts on the John Crawford thing?
Unfortunately it is all too typical. An unarmed black man holding an unloaded BB rifle in a Walmart. A product that Walmart sells. Leaning up against it with the barrel on the ground like it was a can. Talking on a cell phone with the mother of his children. As he's walking in the aisles no other customers are demonstrating any concern or alarm.

Surveillance video shows this to be true.

Some white dude calls 911 and claims a black guy is walking around with an assault rifle waving it around and pointing it at people.

Surveillance video shows this NOT to be true.

When pressed on his account the white dude retracts most of these claims. Surveillance video also shows that when the two white officers approached Crawford he was still leaning against the rifle with the barrel on the ground ... still talking on the phone. They claim they ordered him to drop the weapon and he didn't comply with their commands. Blah blah blah. That's what they always say. But the video shows he had no reaction to them and was still talking on his cell phone in the moments before they killed him ... leading many to suspect that they simply shot him on sight and gave no such order. Oh and did I mention that Ohio is an open carry state?

What this shows is that it is extremely difficult to get a police officer even indicted let alone convicted of excessive force. And if the victim is black it's damned near impossible.

Even with video evidence.

There's an old saying that a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich if a prosecutor asks them to. It would appear no such request was made. Now do you understand why the black community in the STL area has no confidence that the local prosecutor will indict the killer of Mike Brown? Even though he was unarmed and gunned down in broad daylight with several eyewitnesses saying he had his hands in the air? None of that matters when dealing with a judicial system that systematically devalues black lives. All a white cop has to do is toss up any old cockamamie excuse ... even if it's controverted by hard evidence ... and more often than not the grand jury which is typically majority white will buy it nonetheless.

OAW
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2014, 12:12 AM
 
Check out the video for yourself ...

Wal-Mart Surveillance Video Of John Crawford III Shooting - Digg

But surveillance video, shown publicly for the first time, shows the circumstances that led to yet another young black man dead at the hands of law-enforcement. While police were responding to reports of a man waving a gun in the store, the footage shows Crawford walking casually — talking on the phone — with an air soft rifle (a BB gun, essentially) that he picked up, un-boxed, from the Walmart shelves.

In the 911 call from a concerned customer, 24-year-old Ronald Ritchie, who is white, describes Crawford "walking around with a gun in the store ... like, pointing it at people." Later in the call, Ritchie says, "He just pointed it at, like, two children." None of that is on the tape.

Just before the officers arrive, Crawford can be seen swinging the pellet gun nonchalantly with no one else in view. At one point, Crawford drops the gun and appears to fall, just as cops can be seen rushing toward him with their guns drawn. Seconds later, Crawford is dead.
As I said before Ohio is an open carry state. Who here thinks a white dude walking around with an ACTUAL AR-15 would have been gunned down like this? In fact, given the various reports of such "2nd Amendment Enthusiasts" walking around in public places of business doing this very thing ... can anyone name a SINGLE TIME a white dude doing so has been shot and killed by the police? IJS

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Sep 25, 2014 at 12:25 AM. )
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2014, 09:37 AM
 
You left out my favorite part: The ex-marine who called the cops on him. I'll see if I can find the story later.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2014, 09:41 AM
 
If a white dude were brandishing and swinging a real rifle around like that in a Wal-Mart he'd deserve to be shot.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2014, 10:52 AM
 
Source: Ohio Walmart "gunman" John Crawford, fatally shot by police, was carrying toy rifle - CBS News
April and Ronald Ritchie, of Riverside, told WHIO that they were in the hardware department Tuesday around 8:20 p.m. when they saw a man walking the aisles carrying what they thought was a real gun, pointing it toward the sky. The couple called 911.

The couple said they followed Crawford at a safe distance. "Anytime I saw people walking his way, I would get their attention," April Ritchie said. She said the man was cradling a cellphone between his left ear and shoulder while he messed with the rifle.

"He just kept messing with it and I heard a clicking," April Ritchie said.

Ronald Ritchie said Crawford "was just waving [the gun] at children and people...I couldn't hear anything that he was saying. I'm thinking that he is either going to rob the place or he's there to shoot somebody.

"He didn't really want to be looked at and when people did look at him, he was pointing the gun at them. He was pointing at people. Children walking by," Ronald Ritchie said.
Doubts cast on witness's account of black man killed by police in Walmart | World news | theguardian.com
One month later, Ritchie puts it differently. “At no point did he shoulder the rifle and point it at somebody,” the 24-year-old said, in an interview with the Guardian.
Ritchie told several reporters after the 5 August shooting that he was an “ex-marine”. When confronted with his seven-week service record, however, he confirmed that he had been quickly thrown out of the US marine corps in 2008 after being declared a “fraudulent enlistment”, over what he maintains was simply a mixup over his paperwork.
After Ritchie said Crawford appeared to be “trying to load” the gun, the 911 dispatcher relayed to an officer that it was believed the gunman “just put some bullets inside”.
From what I understand, loading real bullets vs. BBs looks completely different.


“And even still, it’s a gun in Walmart, in a public place, inducing panic,” said Ritchie.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2014, 11:06 AM
 
None of those folks are even touching their rifles. (It still looks absurd, get a handgun you attention whores.)

I'm not saying the police didn't overreact, obviously they did, but I am saying that if the guy were white, yellow, brown, or plaid, it would have probably ended up the same way.

(Also, attaching an ammo magazine on to many airsoft guns looks the same as with a real rifle, it's a part of the whole authenticity in airgun design to make them more appealing to their fans.)
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2014, 11:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
None of those folks are even touching their rifles. (It still looks absurd, get a handgun you attention whores.)
That's a fair point, but it was more about the drama queen witness playing things up.

Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I'm not saying the police didn't overreact, obviously they did, but I am saying that if the guy were white, yellow, brown, or plaid, it would have probably ended up the same way.
Again, I don't disagree, but the probabilities are worse if you're black.

Anyway, the underlying point is I blame this wannabe hero far more than the cops. He incited the incident by overplaying if not completely lying about the situation, then changed his story a month later. If the guy was as threatening with the rifle as he leads us to believe, you'd think someone else would have called the police as well.
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2014, 12:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
You left out my favorite part: The ex-marine who called the cops on him. I'll see if I can find the story later.
No I didn't. I mentioned him in my first post.

OAW
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2014, 12:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
No I didn't. I mentioned him in my first post.

OAW
Sorry
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2014, 01:37 PM
 
Dakar,

See my latest post in the Ferguson thread. I think this Walmart situation and the situation I commented about there are more relevant to that topic.

OAW
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2014, 11:39 AM
 
Are these incidents of police shooting unarmed people on the rise? There seems to be a lot of them these days.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2014, 06:49 PM
 
I doubt it, however dash cams make it harder for prosecutors to let them go on grounds of insufficient evidence.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:19 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2