RT is Russia’s English language TV thing. And that may be why their talking head seems to be under the impression that the only way to find out what happened in the Trayvon Martin shooting is to arrest and prosecute George Zimmerman. She’s evidently unfamiliar with the fact that the cops and prosecutor who initially investigated the shooting ruled it justified self defense – rightly or wrongly – and chose not to charge him based on the evidence. Yeah, the rule of law – such as it is – works a little differently over there. Not that a CNN or MSNBC hostette would have been much better. But . . .
Steven Crowder manages to point out that he, just like everyone else in the commentariat confidently pontificating on the what they think happened, actually has no idea what went down on that dark and stormy night. OK, so Crowder isn’t exactly a ballistics expert – his explanation of the use of FMJ vs. JHP may be a tad confused – but he does what few others in the media have managed to do so far; he provides a cogent defense of the rationale behind and need for stand your ground laws. It’s worth watching for that govno-eating grin he affects at the end, too.
How hard is it for people to understand if the prosecutor doesn’t have a case it would be wrong to arrest somebody and put them on trial just for show? People never learn from history. The Duke kids never should have been arrested either. Do they realize how stupid this would be? If I claimed Barack Obama punched me in the face yesterday would these same people actually expect it to go to trial to get the truth?
The Duke kids never should have been arrested either.”
I have to admit I had to re-read that sentence a few times to understand what you were referring to. My first thoughts were that Bo and Luke were never caught, much less arrested.
I had to re-read your comment to recall who Bo and Luke were. Now Daisy, how can anyone forget Daisy?
They may or may not have ever been arrested, I can’t remember, but I do recall hearing that they’d been in trouble with the law since the day they was born.
Yeah, but they were some good ol’ boys, and they never meant any harm…
Argh. That mass media. Complete bullshit.
You know – we have here Shows where someone insists, that death was caused by airsoft wound. Yes, seriously.
And yes – that shit goes right from government owned channel, so you can imagine, what they think about privately owned firearms.
Hell, our courts exists not to define guilty or not, but to sentence. Over 99% of all judgments is – guilty. “If there’s a body – there need to be a culprit”. So even if it’s clear self defence – you have to be ready for jail.
So, we prefer act like was said once: “Never read Soviet newspapers before dinner”.
“Not that a CNN or MSNBC hostette would have been much better.”
It’s really nice to see accurate information (FMJ vs JHP explanation notwithstanding) put out there.
As to the quote above, there is no way in hell, not ever, not until pigs fly and they’re ice skating in hell, that an American network talking head would ever let one person talk as long, uninterrupted, as the hostette did in the clip above, especially if what that person was saying was in opposition to the narrative the talking head was attempting to espouse. They would be shouted down, ignored, or cut short eleven times out of ten on CNN/MSNBC/Fox.
Back in ’08 and ’09 I watched several episodes of RT covering the US/global economy, the Federal Reserve, gold, finance, etc. They were actually very good. They interviewed leading economists for the free market (Austrian Economics) and included some of the world’s top investors.
When I was running TTAC, Al Jezeera always gave me a fair shake. Let me say my piece. As I let my opponent say his. Something not entirely unlike reasoned debate, in fact.
Good to know. I cannot remember any reasoned debate coming out of a big main stream media organization. Some of the micro sites have featured guest experts with opposing views to discuss issues and the interaction was calm, more reasonable, and rational. The rude shouting matches in the main stream media leads, for me, to just more confusion on an issue. A few years back, I came across a good pro gold, pro hard currency, finance news site based in Saudi Arabia. It was far removed from the bs daily insanity of American financial reporting.
RT also hosts Paul Craig Roberts. Its debates on finance are miles ahead of fox news, MSNBC, and CNN.
And all major media outlets are “government owned”. In one way or another, they are part of the special interest groups.
Regarding the FMJ vs. JHP concern, Crowder has been on another discussion board stating his reasons for incorrectly using the two. While knowing the differences between FMJ, JHP, JSP, OTM etc., he used those two specifics so as to put it in terms she could understand without getting too technical and confusing his hostess and the audience not in the know. He admits that the heat of the moment played a role, of course. He explains himself here: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1308056_Crowder_OWNS_Anti_Gun_Chick__ROUND_2__.html
Sorry in advance if you don’t allow linking on your site. Please remove this if necessary.
Honestly, I kinda assumed he knew the correct terminology/usage, and was either dumbing it down for her, or his mouth just got ahead of his brain due to overexuberance. I was much more concerned that he got the legal stuff correct.
Matt, out of curiosity, is Florida’s SYG law worded any differently than any of the other states’ SYGs? I know Florida was the first to enact one… did states that follow suit add extra clauses or language to prevent misinterpretation or add clarification?
I don’t have a detailed answer for you, beyond saying that I just looked up “stand your ground” on Wikipedia, and the laws that are quoted there (which I’m going to assume for this conversation are accurate) do not differ substantially from Florida’s. If anything, Florida’s law is more specific in its language than the rest. It certainly appears to use the largest number of words in its description.
There’s really only so many ways you can say, “A person who is somewhere he has a lawful right to be has no duty to retreat,” and that’s what most of these laws come down to.
Comments are closed.