(Edited and Expanded)
I watched with interest briefly the political demonstration one of the Congressmen from the State of Illinois, Rep. Bobby Rush, enacted before a session of Congress today supporting the media frenzy which has accompanied the Trayvon Martin case.
Mr. Rush's point seemed to be that hoodies and sunglasses did not a criminal make.
I hope he remembers that analogy the next time there is some news story in the media about a rapist that was released or found not guilty due to the fact that a woman was wearing a short skirt at the time the crime was committed.
In other words, she was "asking" for it.
It amazes me the lengths and bredth this hate crimes legislation has engendered in such a very short time since passing this questionable legislation.
Attempts to legislate human emotions and engrained or learned behavior patterns will not go away with such legislation.
Nor the motivations for some of these crimes as clear cut as the liberal media bias would have you believe.
The facts are, there ARE more property crimes committed statistically by young, black youths. There is a reason why, and maybe addressing the causes progressively might be where energies need to be directed. Why is that?
Lack of opportunity? The EEOC and non-discrimination laws have been on the books for literally decades.
There is an increase now in black on black crimes even, so just what gives?
And although I still believe the fundamental question remains as to just what actual "threat" Mr. Zimmerman believed was present is the crux of the matter (had there been a rash of crimes in this neighborhood previously?), this "cause" has taken on a life of its own without even so much as a true investigation having been undertaken.
A tape was released today showing a rather calm Mr. Zimmerman after just having shot Mr. Martin.
But if he believed it was justifiable homicide, would he not have been rather calm?
No blood was present, but then the angles were a little off on that one.
Just what would Al Sharpton and Mr. Rush have to do if the race situation was actually left to die its natural death, and crimes were investigated as to the actual crime, with motivation of clear prejudicial bias a "contributing" factor calling for a higher or longer penalty, rather than what has progressively occurred since this legislation was passed.
And surprisingly at a time when in most areas of the country, blacks have been given preferential treatment in the tax credits and such given for hiring minority workers since that Civil Rights Act was passed? And there are more POSITIVE role models for black youth than ever before?
Strange this media blitz also is coming at a time when that health care legislation was being argued, isn't it?
Or maybe it is just coincidence, once again.
Geraldo took a beating due to his comments on the hoodie commentary.
I hope he again in the future takes such a stand on the next woman who is put on trial during a rape investigation or criminal trial.
The Fox boycott by women will then be across the board, but I do think the male audience is their primary demographic anyway what with all those "legal analysts" and such and the legs on display during some of those "chat" political programs.
Geraldo seems to have changed quite a bit from his hard hitting liberal crazy period.
I wonder...just how much will the civil rights lawyers under that federal statute that affords payment by the taxpayers for their legal fees make when all the dust is cleared on this one, on the civil suits that will be eventually filed?
Unfortunately, the hate crimes legislation doesn't apply to rape, against some of those male "haters" out there and the 17 year old girl who might become the victim due to their upbringing, our overtly sexualized cultural mores in television and movies, or the length of her skirt...
Showing posts with label hate crimes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hate crimes. Show all posts
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Trayvon Martin: Hate Crime or HOA Paranoia?
I have recently been following the Trayvon Martin case which has been widely publicized in the media the past several days.
In fact, there have been protests as far as New York City in light of the wide publicity this case has engendered.
Ever since the passage of the "hate crimes" legislation, there has been an increase of reports of crimes which are being widely publicized as "racial" in nature.
What has been so odd to me is that prior to the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and subsequent legislation, I could understand the push for federal legislation that also addressed crimes which could reasonably be suspected to be racially motivated.
I mean, there was a great deal of prejudice against the African American community in many pockets of the country which continued post the American Civil War.
But it seems whenever there is a crime which is committed by or against people of different "races," or "sexual" orientation the "hate crime" media mill begins.
In this case, it seems to me that Mr. Zimmerman, the man who shot Trayvon Martin, a black youth, appears to have had control issues from what has been leaked through the media.
He had at one time even considered entering law enforcement as a career, and had been in a few confrontations prior to the events which transpired recently.
But I just wonder if there wasn't something else at work here...
Such as the fact that this crime occurred in an HOA community - one of those gated communities in Florida.
Communities which have had their share of legal wranglings since so many have been built by those huge developers since the 1980's.
I just wonder if all those Board meetings about dues, safety issues, etc., contributed to the events which transpired which led to this young man's death.
The fact that these communities are considered "private" and any "strange" individual within the community almost immediately suspect.
The police have not undertaken any investigation due to a law in Florida cited as the "Stand Your Ground" law which, I am sure, was meant to reinforce and protect a citizens right to defend and protect his own property and person with deadly force, if necessary.
Problem was, Trayvon Martin was "suspect" from the outset in this gated community.
And Mr. Zimmerman most likely felt he had the "right" to defend and protect not simply his own property, but that of the "community," as quite clearly an active member of this community's homeowners association.
In fact, one of the Board members was interviewed on mainstream television testifying how Mr. Zimmerman "had prevented several crimes" in the community previously due to his vigiliance.
Seems to me, those "Stand Your Ground" laws need review in Florida - and quickly.
Clearly spelling out the limits of the law if it is so broadly worded or interpreted to afford these communities to act whether there is any overt act or suspicion.
With limits placed on individual members of the community from taking such action unless it is their property or person endangered, unless acting as a paid agent or private security officer for the community.
Seems to me due to the fact that this man followed this youth through the common area of this community, with this young man being a "suspect" from the moment he entered the "gated" community, race could have been a contributing factor...
But most likely, it was the entire HOA gated community paranoid mentality at work here...with him instead "profiled" as an "outsider."
But playing the race card makes for bigger ratings, and headlines.
And just maybe, a future payout if the local police are blamed once again for the legislative failings of the state (and federal government, since these gated communities are also spreading throughout the country PROGRESSIVELY).
In fact, there have been protests as far as New York City in light of the wide publicity this case has engendered.
Ever since the passage of the "hate crimes" legislation, there has been an increase of reports of crimes which are being widely publicized as "racial" in nature.
What has been so odd to me is that prior to the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and subsequent legislation, I could understand the push for federal legislation that also addressed crimes which could reasonably be suspected to be racially motivated.
I mean, there was a great deal of prejudice against the African American community in many pockets of the country which continued post the American Civil War.
But it seems whenever there is a crime which is committed by or against people of different "races," or "sexual" orientation the "hate crime" media mill begins.
In this case, it seems to me that Mr. Zimmerman, the man who shot Trayvon Martin, a black youth, appears to have had control issues from what has been leaked through the media.
He had at one time even considered entering law enforcement as a career, and had been in a few confrontations prior to the events which transpired recently.
But I just wonder if there wasn't something else at work here...
Such as the fact that this crime occurred in an HOA community - one of those gated communities in Florida.
Communities which have had their share of legal wranglings since so many have been built by those huge developers since the 1980's.
I just wonder if all those Board meetings about dues, safety issues, etc., contributed to the events which transpired which led to this young man's death.
The fact that these communities are considered "private" and any "strange" individual within the community almost immediately suspect.
The police have not undertaken any investigation due to a law in Florida cited as the "Stand Your Ground" law which, I am sure, was meant to reinforce and protect a citizens right to defend and protect his own property and person with deadly force, if necessary.
Problem was, Trayvon Martin was "suspect" from the outset in this gated community.
And Mr. Zimmerman most likely felt he had the "right" to defend and protect not simply his own property, but that of the "community," as quite clearly an active member of this community's homeowners association.
In fact, one of the Board members was interviewed on mainstream television testifying how Mr. Zimmerman "had prevented several crimes" in the community previously due to his vigiliance.
Seems to me, those "Stand Your Ground" laws need review in Florida - and quickly.
Clearly spelling out the limits of the law if it is so broadly worded or interpreted to afford these communities to act whether there is any overt act or suspicion.
With limits placed on individual members of the community from taking such action unless it is their property or person endangered, unless acting as a paid agent or private security officer for the community.
Seems to me due to the fact that this man followed this youth through the common area of this community, with this young man being a "suspect" from the moment he entered the "gated" community, race could have been a contributing factor...
But most likely, it was the entire HOA gated community paranoid mentality at work here...with him instead "profiled" as an "outsider."
But playing the race card makes for bigger ratings, and headlines.
And just maybe, a future payout if the local police are blamed once again for the legislative failings of the state (and federal government, since these gated communities are also spreading throughout the country PROGRESSIVELY).
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Hate Crimes Bill: Federal Overreach Again Undermines States, Citizens
Apparently, the "Hate Crimes" bill which passed the House last April is now coming up for a vote in the Senate as reported in the mainstream media earlier today.
The Democratic Global Socialists, of course, are ecstatic since it appears this time they may just be able to sneak this one through due to their majority status, of course with the assistance of a few of the Republican Global Socialists who are not up for re-election in 2010.
As most citizens have become aware, the federal government in the last decade now has become nothing more than dictatorship of 535 out of control nutjobs. The only time reality actually sinks in is apparently close to election time, or when the budget requests come through for more and more increases in expenditures for added security measures for federal and state office buildings.
You would think those requests and measures alone would provide a clue to the discontent of many in this nation with the Washington wackos.
This measure is being pursued in order to expand a prior unconstitutional measure addressing ill defined "hate crimes" against selected minority groups. The degree to which these "misrepresentatives" defend the bill as simply an "enhanced version" of existing law, and not in any way meant to criminalize "perceptions of intent," or infringe free speech of various religious groups in their biblical teachings speaks volumes right there, since the inclusion now of both homosexuals and the disabled are being included.
The disabled were included for purely political reasons apparently, since targeting a truly defenseless person either mentally or physically handicapped actually is something most juries throughout the country at least in this generation would find repugnant and reprehensible.
Homosexuality, of course, is a little different to a great many in this country since there is a biblical moral prohibition to its practice, and fundamentally has religious then overtones in all three of the major religions, and many groups fear politically motivated actions then also potentially could be the result because of the rather open ended language contained in the bill.
Legislation now is written primarily in order to stimulate the economies of the judiciary members (lawyers) it appears most of all. Since they, of course, are huge contributors to both federal and state public office campaigns.
In fact, there are still a few rather outdated laws on the books in some states prohibiting its practice (most of which have not been enforced, however, for literally decades), so the federal government is actually attempting to again assert its authority over the states and local governments on this as it has in so many other areas, and never more so than during the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama now eras.
Of course John McCain, in order to keep his name and presence in the media and in the forefront due to his upcoming re-election run in 2010 is objecting on religious and moral grounds as also potentially a bill which could target pastors and religious leaders for teaching biblical doctrine with respect to homosexuality, although did bring the Constitutionality issue up as a side note.
Arizona does have a heavy Mormon population, and also formerly was a more "conservative" state, although that has not been the case for many years due to the number of California refugees and East Coast retirees now living in Arizona after fleeing their own states due to impact in taxation of their former states liberal agendas, and Arizona's was formerly less expensive than some of those more liberal states as a result of its conservatism. That was about 25-30 years ago, however.
But the true measure actually of how redundant and unconstitutional it is is that there are already laws in 45 states addressing these "mitigating" circumstances in any criminal proceeding. Since the states have authority over criminal matters which occur within their boundaries as "crimes against the state," in general and not simply against the victim.
Pre-meditated murder, stalking, assault and other criminal actions targeting anyone for any reason are punishable in every state in the nation, irrespective of the motivation other than self-defense, or proveable precipitating circumstances.
Our criminal code is already a matter of settled law with respect to criminal actions based on proveable evidence, and such motivation is clearly something for a jury to determine. Upping the penalties for those crimes against anyone equally is Constitutional, not "piling on" additional punishments and penalties based on purely motivation, since there is leeway in the sentencing of many of these crimes also - and the more evidence and proof of criminal intent and motivation, the harsher penalty most juries or judge if they are also fulfilling their legal duties and functions would be.
It does appear at times our federal government just simply wishes to flex its muscle, or prove that those Senators and Congressman deserve those six figure salaries, pensions and expense accounts.
Since in a Republic, it is clear these would be matters for the state and "people" against whom that crime is committed in their communities, and not the "distant ruler" to "lawfully" under our existing law determine.
And with a foreign war now going on eight full years with no end again in sight but following the Bush plan and with America's southern border the true national security threat, an economy in the toilet due to federal negligence with respect to oversight and regulation of the banks and lending institutions in this country and their practices, and homelessness and joblessness increasing by the day yet passing now additional taxes on the air Americans now breathe, the moral outrage most Americans at this point have isn't at all directed in any respect for the gays or gay community - but those on the Hill.
Who truly do not acknowledge the boundaries of their power, nor true legal responsibilties.
And it is interesting to note that a push for this bill would also be made now publicizing also the former "hate crimes" legislation, just prior to also another contentious measure in which Washington is attempting again to put its will over that of the rights of the lawful American citizens and their Bill of Rights, the illegal immigration "reform" bill - of course, without addressing the state of our open borders and daily flow which will not cease until those borders are secured, and now also eight years after 9/11 and three years after the Secure Fence Act was passed, and after many Americans have died since at the hands of unlawful foreigners - appears also the timing is politically related as a precusor to another "in your face," Washington move.
The Democratic Global Socialists, of course, are ecstatic since it appears this time they may just be able to sneak this one through due to their majority status, of course with the assistance of a few of the Republican Global Socialists who are not up for re-election in 2010.
As most citizens have become aware, the federal government in the last decade now has become nothing more than dictatorship of 535 out of control nutjobs. The only time reality actually sinks in is apparently close to election time, or when the budget requests come through for more and more increases in expenditures for added security measures for federal and state office buildings.
You would think those requests and measures alone would provide a clue to the discontent of many in this nation with the Washington wackos.
This measure is being pursued in order to expand a prior unconstitutional measure addressing ill defined "hate crimes" against selected minority groups. The degree to which these "misrepresentatives" defend the bill as simply an "enhanced version" of existing law, and not in any way meant to criminalize "perceptions of intent," or infringe free speech of various religious groups in their biblical teachings speaks volumes right there, since the inclusion now of both homosexuals and the disabled are being included.
The disabled were included for purely political reasons apparently, since targeting a truly defenseless person either mentally or physically handicapped actually is something most juries throughout the country at least in this generation would find repugnant and reprehensible.
Homosexuality, of course, is a little different to a great many in this country since there is a biblical moral prohibition to its practice, and fundamentally has religious then overtones in all three of the major religions, and many groups fear politically motivated actions then also potentially could be the result because of the rather open ended language contained in the bill.
Legislation now is written primarily in order to stimulate the economies of the judiciary members (lawyers) it appears most of all. Since they, of course, are huge contributors to both federal and state public office campaigns.
In fact, there are still a few rather outdated laws on the books in some states prohibiting its practice (most of which have not been enforced, however, for literally decades), so the federal government is actually attempting to again assert its authority over the states and local governments on this as it has in so many other areas, and never more so than during the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama now eras.
Of course John McCain, in order to keep his name and presence in the media and in the forefront due to his upcoming re-election run in 2010 is objecting on religious and moral grounds as also potentially a bill which could target pastors and religious leaders for teaching biblical doctrine with respect to homosexuality, although did bring the Constitutionality issue up as a side note.
Arizona does have a heavy Mormon population, and also formerly was a more "conservative" state, although that has not been the case for many years due to the number of California refugees and East Coast retirees now living in Arizona after fleeing their own states due to impact in taxation of their former states liberal agendas, and Arizona's was formerly less expensive than some of those more liberal states as a result of its conservatism. That was about 25-30 years ago, however.
But the true measure actually of how redundant and unconstitutional it is is that there are already laws in 45 states addressing these "mitigating" circumstances in any criminal proceeding. Since the states have authority over criminal matters which occur within their boundaries as "crimes against the state," in general and not simply against the victim.
Pre-meditated murder, stalking, assault and other criminal actions targeting anyone for any reason are punishable in every state in the nation, irrespective of the motivation other than self-defense, or proveable precipitating circumstances.
Our criminal code is already a matter of settled law with respect to criminal actions based on proveable evidence, and such motivation is clearly something for a jury to determine. Upping the penalties for those crimes against anyone equally is Constitutional, not "piling on" additional punishments and penalties based on purely motivation, since there is leeway in the sentencing of many of these crimes also - and the more evidence and proof of criminal intent and motivation, the harsher penalty most juries or judge if they are also fulfilling their legal duties and functions would be.
It does appear at times our federal government just simply wishes to flex its muscle, or prove that those Senators and Congressman deserve those six figure salaries, pensions and expense accounts.
Since in a Republic, it is clear these would be matters for the state and "people" against whom that crime is committed in their communities, and not the "distant ruler" to "lawfully" under our existing law determine.
And with a foreign war now going on eight full years with no end again in sight but following the Bush plan and with America's southern border the true national security threat, an economy in the toilet due to federal negligence with respect to oversight and regulation of the banks and lending institutions in this country and their practices, and homelessness and joblessness increasing by the day yet passing now additional taxes on the air Americans now breathe, the moral outrage most Americans at this point have isn't at all directed in any respect for the gays or gay community - but those on the Hill.
Who truly do not acknowledge the boundaries of their power, nor true legal responsibilties.
And it is interesting to note that a push for this bill would also be made now publicizing also the former "hate crimes" legislation, just prior to also another contentious measure in which Washington is attempting again to put its will over that of the rights of the lawful American citizens and their Bill of Rights, the illegal immigration "reform" bill - of course, without addressing the state of our open borders and daily flow which will not cease until those borders are secured, and now also eight years after 9/11 and three years after the Secure Fence Act was passed, and after many Americans have died since at the hands of unlawful foreigners - appears also the timing is politically related as a precusor to another "in your face," Washington move.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
