Tag Archives: prison

Are We Still Talking About This Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman Thing?

Are We Still Talking About This Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman Thing?

trayvon-Armed with

I have mentioned in previous articles that I believe there is a huge push to distract the planet from the real issue in this case.  The real issue is that a min hid in the bushes, armed with a gun, followed a young man (who was armed with candy and a soda) stalked this man for several blocks, spoke to the police who told this man to stop following this man and leave him alone, then this man jumped out at this man in a threatening manner, got into a fight with this man (and apparently got the snot kicked out of him), then shot this man that he had been stalking and hunting down to threaten and possibly beat up.

Today, I saw that the lawyers for this George Zimmerman person released a picture of Mr. Zimmerman with a bloody face and swollen nose saying that it supports his story.

The problem I have with all of this is that Mr. Zimmerman’s story is one of breaking the law, ignoring the police, attacking a man he had been stalking for no reason except for the fact that this YOUNG BOY looked scary to a man hiding in the bushes looking for people who look scary.  In Mr. Zimmerman’s story he ends up shooting this man and it is okay because, in defending himself in perfectly legal manner when being stalked by an armed idiot in the middle of the night, young Treyvon Martin kicked the snot out of him.

I am absolutely befuddled by the fact that this is even a serious conversation and that George Zimmerman has the support of anyone that he is not related to or that is not locked up in some compound off in the woods living off of canned food in camouflage with their rifle awaiting some weird new world order.

Have we really come to a point that any idiot who can get access to the media can drive public opinion to absolutely ridiculous ideas as truth?  The lawyers for Mr. Zimmerman have been able to manipulate public opinion to the place where there is even a discussion about if it was warranted for this ridiculous stalker to shoot this man he watched, stalked, attacked and killed while the police were telling him not to do it.

If this man is found not guilty, it would make an absolute mockery of our entire legal system and ability to manage our right to bear arms.  How do we stand before the entire planet and say it is okay in our country to chase down and fight with any person we are not comfortable with.  That is the primary problem her and the primary offense is that Zimmerman was already engaged in an egregious act of breaking the law before the conflict with Martin took place.  Then his confrontation of Martin was a whole other egregious act.  In the act of committing these crimes (against the law and crimes against humanity) he wound up killing a young man who according to the evidence, was only guilty of eating candy and drinking canned iced tea (drinking soda being illegal only in New York as far as I know).

I don’t know how this is a case and a story.  WTH!?  The only story is why is this man not strapped to somebody’s electric chair yet for such a horrible act.  How does a parent swallow the idea that their child was stalked, fought and killed by some wannabe vigilante running the streets of the United States killing innocent children and that he might be within his rights to do this according to the courts?

Could somebody explain to me what Trayvon Martin was guilty of that deserved the death penalty at the hands of the idiot.  George Zimmerman is an embarrassment to our entire nation and its legal system.  We need to deal with this and his legal team’s use of the international media to expand the coverage of this has forced our hand.  This must be handled in an extreme and public way or we have said to the world that on the streets of the United States you can stalk and kill people who you are scared of.

😦

Alethinos Paradoxos

Advertisements

Oh Shih-Tzu This Election is Dog Eat Dog!

Oh Shih-Tzu This Election is Dog Eat Dog

Okay this is an official WTH!  I’ve been catching bits and pieces of this and it is all just coming together in my mind, so bear with me as I sort it all out…!

So this Romney person took a family trip at some point in history and strapped his dog on the roof of the car…  WTH?!?!  This story hits the news and goes all viral.

Then someone finds some evidence that this Obama character ate dog as a small child…  (remember all that dog shopping they were doing when he first came into office, HMMM?).

I have been pretty busy the last few days and just decided to look this story up and I stumbled across what I presume to be the next viral trip in this really weird saga:  The Romney camp or someone is releasing a story that he once saved a dog from drowning using his jet ski.  I have to admit, my mind is having a really hard time making the jump from dude who strapped the family Irish Setter on the roof of the car in a cage for family vacation to cool super-hero, dog saving guy who is in his disguise as a mild mannered presidential candidate.

Here is my real question:  WTH!?!?  What are we talking about this for?  I suppose the strapping the dog on the roof in 1983 is a bit unnerving and disturbing, but I am not sure that alone would eliminate a person from being able to run for president.  (for those of us who remember the early eighties, just about any information that surfaces from that period should probably be ignored – what a weird time in history).

On the other hand the eating dog in another country as a child story is even less earth shattering to me.  The fact that as a child in another country someone had you eating something that you are probably now grossed out by really bears no impact on which way I vote at all.

Now that Romney super dog saver stuff starts to sound a bit desperate.  I suppose it would have had an impact on me if I had heard it prior to the strapping the dog on the roof story, but suddenly hearing it for the first time now cheapens the story a bit.

What’s next; Ron Paul is going to announce that he was raised in the wilderness by a pack of wild dogs?  Newt Gingrich is really a shaved down Shar-pei?

I am not actually as amazed at these three stories as I am at the energy that many outlets of the media and particularly the campaigns and the supporters are putting into all this dogfight stuff.  The internet is all abuzz with these serious sounding rants trying to really prove one candidate or another is completely disqualified for president because of some dog incident and now dog heroics make the better president.

 

I did however, while I was writing this stumble into new information in the saga (which I have not verified and could be totally fictitious) stating that this Romney character is listed two different national animal cruelty websites for other major animal cruelty incidents.  In light of that I might want to slow down and start taking some of this more seriously.  If this is a habit and not an old, isolated incident, we might have a real problem.

Let me help you catch up to my change. I stopped typing to get some good, all-American food (got some nuggets from under the golden arches) and stepped away for a minute.  I decided to look at some of the current waves of web dog fighting and stumbled across http://www.dogsagainstromney.com/ .

As I said, I just saw all of that and have yet to verify any of it, but if it does turn out to be true there really is a serious problem in the Romney camp.

Why my change of tone?  If a person is not qualified to lead a sports team due to animal cruelty and needs to spend time in prison to leave and have a terrible time finding the next job (even though that person is a star athlete) then a repeat offender that is running for president is going to be a hard sell.  

I am of course describing quarterback Michael Vick.  Especially with all of this racial tension or whatever it is that weaves its way in and out of all things political lately, the idea that a rich Caucasian gentleman can get caught for animal cruelty and run for president no problem while an African American athlete who gets caught for animal cruelty gets the book and the kitchen sink thrown at him will not go over well.

I actually do find that the dog-fighting was probably considerably more egregious, but it’s not just about what I think. 

I am however quite concerned that there may be this tendency and this particular site says that he is not allowed to adopt pets because of these animal cruelty entries.  I suppose I will keep an eye on this for a few weeks before I deem it to be just silliness.  If he turns out to be a serial offender, there could be major fallout.   COULD RON PAUL END UP AS THE REPUBLICAN NOMINEE?

And yes my nuggets were made of chicken (as far as I know 100% white meat)

 

Til next time

Your Dawg, Alethinos

Distracting From The Real Issue

Distracting From The Real Issue

 

I’ve been thinking over this Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman thing (as it is all the rage in the news these days) and a sudden thought hit me today.  Why is the discussion only about race?  WTH!? (What the Heck!?)  There is a much bigger issue here and it is crazy!

So as I pondered all the racial questions, the motive behind this, the whole hoodie and Skittles thing, the right to bear arms thing, listened to the police call over and over again etc. I missed one glaring thing that is the overarching key issue here. 

Let me slow down and get you to where this all came from:

A guy, who is supposed to be a neighborhood watch guy is neighborhood watching (not neighborhood defending because that is the job of the police).  This guy has a gun he has legally.  He sees somebody he perceives to be a threat or dangerous or suspicious or whatever.  This person looks at him and (I guess) heads in his direction then walks briskly away.  This neighborhood watch person then follows this person (apparently even going so far as to drive after the person and then a ways down the road getting out of the car near this person.  Then this neighborhood watch person is so scared of this person that he walks this scary person down, pulls a gun on this young man (who is apparently armed with a bag of Skittles) and shoots him out of fear.

The real question at hand is:

Is there a law someplace in the United States that says a person can feel intimidated by a person he/she sees on the street, chase the (potentially unarmed person) down the street, run up on this person, and shoot this unarmed person in cold blood and be perfectly within the law because he or she found that person to scary, intimidating or to look shady.

If there is such a law, there is a list of people I need to be scared of in the next couple of days.

This is without even considering the police officer on the phone trying to talk this guy out of following Trayvon or even considering what made this young man armed with Skittles seem so dangerous to Mr. Zimmerman.

Government agents, law enforcement, military personnel, armed security guards, armored car drivers etc. none of these can chase down people simply because the are intimidating or look suspicious and shoot them in cold blood.

As a matter of fact, an armed person (who does not have a badge on) following an unarmed citizen of the United States is not only an aggressor, but if the police showed up, I have to ask myself which one should their guns be pointed at? 

In other words, if Treyvon had hit this strange man with a gun that was following him all over Florida with a brick or a bat, I think he would have been the innocent one.

The other big question is: How is this even a case?  This should be automatic.  This guy chased down and murdered a kid.  The race thing is a secondary issue.

A real shocking thing for me is the people who protest against this guy being charged and want this guy to be set free with no charges.  Who are you and what country do you live in (or planet do you live on).  Are you sure you want to set a precedent that a parson can say that a person looks suspicious, follow them down the street, shoot them in cold blood with no real reason and not even be charged with anything.  That can’t possibly end well.

I am a firm believer in the right to bear arms.  I also believe in the right for people to get drivers licenses.  I don’t believe in the right to cold blooded, unprovoked murder and more than I believe in the right for a person to drive on the curb and run someone over that they are scared of or looks suspicious.

If we get past all of the hype, this is just common sense.  This Zimmerman guy has a real problem.  He, as a private citizen, chased down a young, unarmed man, shot and killed him.  Black, white, Chinese, Latino, or whatever; it is a crime.  A very serious one.  This man, did a premeditated murder.  I am not convinced that I have evidence that he didn’t really believe this guy might have done some crime or that his intentions were to kill a black person or anything of that nature.  What I do know is that he followed a young man that turned out to be unarmed , shot and killed him.  He was willing to risk prison and the death penalty to seriously harm or kill another person and has earned that.

All of the racial profiling talk, right to bear arms talk etc. are discussions for after this guy is in prison for such an egregious crime. 

 

Some thoughts…