Mortgage Grapevine

Political: 78 Year Old White Senior Citizen Beaten By Six Black Youths Over Trayvon Martin Case

http://www.alipac.us/f9/78-year-old-white-senior-citizen-beaten-6-black-youths-over-trayvon-martin-case-254510/#post1270906

Ok Rev. Jackson and Al where is the call for protest??


by capital4u April 5, 2012 4:03 PM


Mr. Watts said it's possible the assault was retribution for the death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, who was fatally shot by George Zimmerman, a Neighborhood Watch captain in Sanford, Fla., on Feb. 26. Mr. Zimmerman has said he fired in self-defense and has not been charged with any crime.


For investigators, it's unclear whether the assault was motivated by an attempt to avenge the Martin youth's death or whether Mr. Watts' "Remember Trayvon" message was misinterpreted as threatening or racist.


"It's still up in the air who started the verbal confrontation," Sergeant Kennedy said, adding that stories given by the suspect and the victim conflict and the investigation is ongoing.


When asked about the Trayvon remarks, Mr. Watts said, "All I meant by saying 'remember Trayvon' is to remember what happened to him, don't duplicate it here," suggesting that he was minding his own business as he walked home.
by forgotmypassword April 5, 2012 4:13 PM


c'mon man!!!!
by forgotmypassword April 5, 2012 4:14 PM


Could that have been what Barack's white grandfather would have looked like.

1) Where is the Leadership from ALL sides these days? Oh yeah, they are all out raising money for their campaign efforts. While the peasants kill each other of course.

It is obvious that from Trayvon to Zimmerman to Watts and including the 6 alleged attackers there is not a whole lot of campaign donors in this group...

2) When/if Zimmerman is not found "guilty enough" to satisfy, how much more of this will take place? I am setting the over/under @ an 85% increase in violence.
by StephenF April 5, 2012 4:25 PM


Mr. Watts said it's possible the assault was retribution for the death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, who was fatally shot by George Zimmerman, a Neighborhood Watch captain in Sanford, Fla., on Feb. 26. Mr. Zimmerman has said he fired in self-defense and has not been charged with any crime.


For investigators, it's unclear whether the assault was motivated by an attempt to avenge the Martin youth's death or whether Mr. Watts' "Remember Trayvon" message was misinterpreted as threatening or racist.


"It's still up in the air who started the verbal confrontation," Sergeant Kennedy said, adding that stories given by the suspect and the victim conflict and the investigation is ongoing.


When asked about the Trayvon remarks, Mr. Watts said, "All I meant by saying 'remember Trayvon' is to remember what happened to him, don't duplicate it here," suggesting that he was minding his own business as he walked home.
by forgotmypassword April 5, 2012 4:13 PM


Yet that didn't stop most people from rushing to judgement on Zimmerman now did it.


by the cisco kid April 5, 2012 4:39 PM


George Bush is Baracks white Grandfather.
by Maximum Fees April 5, 2012 4:42 PM


Mr Watts has every right to stand his ground.


But now, Mr. Watts says he plans to buy a gun and obtain a permit to carry it.
"What happened to me down here on the corner, that changed my perspective on humanity," Mr. Watts said.

by you started it April 5, 2012 6:20 PM


http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/5753
by you started it April 5, 2012 6:22 PM


If he had and used a gun to defend himself the left would attack the stand your ground law.
by dead eye April 5, 2012 6:31 PM


Dead Eye,

In your perfect world, would everyone have the right to keep a concealed weapon with them while spending their days outside? If so, do you honestly think the surplus of armed citizens would eliminate violence, or would it simply lead to more unintended (or unneccesary) gun deaths?


by The Tolerant Educator April 5, 2012 6:40 PM


Let me say for the record that I fully support the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms. However, it's also pretty clear through statistics that the possession of firearms in the house lead to more accidental deaths (or murder) than using the firearm in self-defense.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html

by The Tolerant Educator April 5, 2012 6:44 PM


Let me say for the record that I fully support the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms. However, it's also pretty clear through statistics that the possession of firearms in the house lead to more accidental deaths (or murder) than using the firearm in self-defense.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html

by The Tolerant Educator April 5, 2012 6:44 PM

Ever wonder how much home invasions would increase if law abiding citizens were not allowed to possess a fire arm?


by Hey everyone, look at me! April 5, 2012 6:55 PM


more statistics:

""Marvin Wolfgang, the late Director of the Sellin Center for Studies in Criminology and Criminal Law at the University of Pennsylvania, considered by many to be the foremost criminologist in the country, wrote in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995:




"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country.

If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police ... What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. ["Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, published in that same issue of The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology] The reason



I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years,







namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. ...






I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research.




Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime?





It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected.






We do not have contrary evidence.




The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart Studies. ... the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. ... The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."
So this data has been peer-reviewed by a top criminologist in this country who was prejudiced in advance against its results, and even he found the scientific evidence overwhelmingly convincing."


http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/framedex.html


by FromTheRight April 5, 2012 6:56 PM


Dead Eye,

In your perfect world, would everyone have the right to keep a concealed weapon with them while spending their days outside? If so, do you honestly think the surplus of armed citizens would eliminate violence, or would it simply lead to more unintended (or unneccesary) gun deaths?

It would infact lead to less violence.

As far as unintended, accidental or unnecesary gun deaths...any gun owner responsible for this should be prosecuted.

I have a number of guns for security, protection and investment. When I have guest in my home that include minors, all my weapons are hidden and at least 6 feet above the floor. In addition, when any guest visits my home, they will/cannot see any weapon.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
by dead eye April 5, 2012 7:14 PM


Dead Eye,

In your perfect world, would everyone have the right to keep a concealed weapon with them while spending their days outside? If so, do you honestly think the surplus of armed citizens would eliminate violence, or would it simply lead to more unintended (or unneccesary) gun deaths?

It would infact lead to less violence.

As far as unintended, accidental or unnecesary gun deaths...any gun owner responsible for this should be prosecuted.

I have a number of guns for security, protection and investment. When I have guest in my home that include minors, all my weapons are hidden and at least 6 feet above the floor. In addition, when any guest visits my home, they will/cannot see any weapon.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
by dead eye April 5, 2012 7:14 PM

-----------------------------------------

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. Your belief that a more armed populus walking the street would lead to less violence is predicated on one important factor....that all of these armed citizens are responsible. We both know that we can't assume that most people will be responsible with a firearm? I'm glad that you keep your firearms hidden and protected at home. That is responsible. Do you honestly think most people apply that same behavior? I sure don't.


by The Tolerant Educator April 5, 2012 7:26 PM


Let me address this first>>>
In your perfect world...............

It does not exist.

Where did I say all armed citizens are responsible? Our Constitution guarantees our right to bear arms. It does not guarantee the right to bear arms by criminals, lunatics or liberals :))

Your: that all of these armed citizens are responsible. Did u read this: As far as unintended, accidental or unnecessary gun deaths...any gun owner responsible for this should be prosecuted.

Do you honestly think most people apply that same behavior? I sure don't. See Above

TFF, I think I am many years older than you.

Close to 30 years ago my son was playing soccer at a local sports field. A child found a gun under the seat in the parent's automobile and accidentally killed himself. At that time I felt a lot of sympathy for the parents. Today, I think the parents
should have been prosecuted.








by dead eye April 5, 2012 7:48 PM


I leave my loaded guns laying around for the grand kids to play army with; hey, they get good at it.
by you started it April 5, 2012 7:58 PM


You've said that an armed populus would lead to less violence. Assuming the gunowner isn't a criminal (or a liberal), you seem to conclude that if every person on your street owns a gun, that street will more safe. Correct? Now, how can we assume that these non-criminal/non-crazy/non-liberal citizens are responsible enough to safely keep a firearm in their house?

How can we assume these same people are responsible enough to walk the streets with their legal firearm? How do we know they've been trained to deal with conflict situations? As we both would agree, not every conflict requires the use (or brandishing) of a firearm.

You're assuming that this armed society will lead to less violence. I think the opposite. The more people with guns, the greater the likelihood of gun deaths that could/should have been avoided.



by The Tolerant Educator April 5, 2012 7:59 PM


DeadEye,

If I know that "X" Blvd. has 100 people there, most armed with guns...I will avoid that street at all costs. There are way too many stupid and irresponsible people to assume they know how to handle that responsiblity appropriately.
by The Tolerant Educator April 5, 2012 8:02 PM


Legally licensed gun holders seldom shoot. When they do, they are right and seldom seldom successfully prosecuted.
Are some of us nuts?
Yup
Are some of us nuts enough to kill you with a spork?
Yup
Will we lose some innocence and innocents along the way?
Yup
Will it deter the bad guys?
Yup
Will I use my gun to save your life?
Yup
Will your beliefs save my life or your life?
No
by turdly April 5, 2012 9:47 PM


Very well stated turdly!!
by capital4u April 5, 2012 11:37 PM


How can we assume these same people are responsible enough to walk the streets with their legal firearm? How do we know they've been trained to deal with conflict situations?

Licensed gun owners go through background checks and most have training in self defense and gun safety.

As we both would agree, not every conflict requires the use (or brandishing) of a firearm. YUP! Same applies to a knife, baseball bat, screw driver and jaw bone of an ass!

You're assuming that this armed society will lead to less violence.

I am not assuming anything.

http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/dc.png
by dead eye April 6, 2012 6:03 AM


DeadEye,

When I posed the scenario of everyone having a concealed weapon, your exact response was "It would infact lead to less violence". That sounds like an assumption to me.

I suppose we'll just agree to disagree on the issue of what more guns does for society. I do appreciate the civil debate, though :). Who says a social conservative and a social liberal can't discuss things reasonably?

Happy Passover/Easter!!!
by The Tolerant Educator April 6, 2012 11:38 AM


Reply

Username:
Password:
(No password? Register here)
Message:
(Don't be a nuisance.  Please avoid offensive language.  Advertisements are not allowed.)


Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
Already a subscriber? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.