Posts Tagged ‘murder’

To the Trayvon Supporters and Zimmerman Haters

Posted by Troy on 14th July 2013 in Current Events, Political

Okay, you are being mislead.  Seriously.

I have thought long and hard.  If the situation were reversed, (ie, the black guy was Zimmerman), I would still support this decision.  Your side cannot say the same.

Could you imagine if Trayvon pulled up in his car and saw a skinhead acting suspicious in his neighborhood.  Trayvon called the cops, and the cops tell him to stay in the car.  Trayvon disobeyed the order and gets out.  The skinhead, who had just went out for a pack of cigarettes and nothing more, jumps on top of him because he is pissed off that Trayvon is following him.  He’s on top of him beating the crap out of Trayvon.  Trayvon pulls a gun and kills him.  The state tries Trayvon for second degree murder…and wins!  Do you think Al Sharpton would praise the courts for upholding justice?  Hell no!  This is exactly what he would say:

“A black man!  A Ba-Lack man was pinned down by a Wa-hite man.  He was getting beaten by this white man.  He defended himself, and we put him in jail!  A black man isn’t even allowed to defend himself in his own neighborhood!”

That’s exactly what would be said.  This isn’t about the facts.  This is only about skin color to those who wish to capitalize on it either for monetary or political gain.  Everything you said about Zimmerman, you can attribute to Trayvon.  You say Zimmerman shouldn’t have gotten out of the car.  Fine.  We’ll assume we live in a police state where the cops can tell us what we can or cannot do at all times.  Trayvon could have avoided the confrontation by: 1) keep on walking, 2) run like hell, 3) talk calmly to Zimmerman until the cops arrived and sorted things out, or 4) just not jumped on top of Zimmerman and beat the snot out of him.  You say Zimmerman is racist (despite any explicit proof provided that I know of), but Trayvon called Zimmerman a cracker, so he was just as racist.

Finally, when someone is on top of you beating you senseless, you are not in a thoughtful frame of mind.  That is survival, and that’s that.  There is no, “Huh, I’m being beaten up.  What would be the best way I should handle this?” ability.

Long Live the Constitution!

Bob Costas Promotes Gun Control on Sunday Night Football

Posted by Troy on 4th December 2012 in Current Events

Hello Swamp Foxes!  I apologize for leaving you adrift without my words of wisdom, but even a patriot needs a vacation sometimes.  Now I’m back, refreshed, and ready to Swamp Fox the World! 

In case you didn’t know, Kansas City Chief, Jovan Belcher, shot and killed his girlfriend before committing suicide with the same gun.  Bob Costas came out and said that this never would have happened if there was no gun.

Congratulations, Captain Obvious!  Wow, so if the gun was there, no one would have been shot?  Your powers of logic astound me!  Yes, and if there were no rain, I wouldn’t have gotten wet.  Duh.  Right, but let’s examine his argument.  Guns are handy at killing folks.  This is true.  However, the fact of the matter is that Jovan was a pretty big guy.  If he had murder in his heart, that girl stood no chance.  He could have choked her, stabbed her, broken her neck, or just beaten her to death.  Now, I will say that his suicide may or may not have gone off without the gun.  I do not know his brain.  He could have chosen a different method, or perhaps he would have chickened out.  However, I am not interested in saving his life.  He needed to die and saved us a lot of money.  I would even reimburse for the price of the bullet personally.  If Jovan had hit the girl with his car to kill her, do you think we would have Bob Costas saying “If the car wasn’t there, this wouldn’t have happened?”  That is equally valid.  Is it not?

Close to sixty percent of all gun deaths are suicides.  It’s interesting that the same people that love euthenasia are for banning guns because people use them to kill themselves.  Isn’t it?  Kinda funny there.  The next biggest slice of the pie is homicides.  Granted.  However, do you know what they include in that?  Self-defense (technically homicide).  Drug deals.  Gang violence.  So forth.  The number of homicides is about 16,000.  Of that, the bulk of it is gang or drug related.  New York City ALONE accounted for 2,000 of these homicides from gangs.  Most of the victims are criminals themselves, so we are probably saving court costs here.

Guns have been around since our founding.  Gun violence has never been a problem until recently.  This is due to the breakdown of the American family with missing fathers, particularly in poor neighborhoods.  Guns are used to kill 16,000 people a year (most of which needed killing anyway).  Americans use guns over 60,000 times a year to defend themselves.  Why give up our rights?  See how the numbers ACTUALLY stand up.  If not, then let’s get rid of all cars since occassionally people use cars to kill people.

Oh, and don’t watch Michael Wilbon on ESPN.  He doesn’t care if he ticks you off by promoting gun control so let him reap what he sows. 

Long Live the Constitution!

Busy day at the Supreme Court

Posted by Troy on 25th June 2012 in Current Events, Political

I’m probably not the only one that checked the headlines every five minutes, hoping for the ruling on Obamacare, but alas it was not to be.  I am glad that they had the heart enough to let us know that it was going to be Thursday.  However, it was still a big day.

The first ruling I would like to talk about is their ruling that minors cannot serve life without parole for murder.  I have mixed feelings for this.  I remember there was a case where a thirteen-year-old killed a six-year-old just to see how it would feel and kept her skull as a trophy.  In her diary, she talked about how thrilling it was and that she would write more after she got home from some party.  The Court ruled that putting a child in prison for life is cruel and unusual or excessive, and as such, unconstitutional.  I see their point, but I’m not entirely sure if I agree.  I still think that excessive fines for piracy  should be visited.  How is $100,000 per illegal download NOT excessive?!  Still, I will give them the benefit of the doubt since they at least tied it to the Constitution.

The second ruling is to reaffirm that corporations have the right to political speech.  I agree with this decision.  Corporations are collections of individuals and should have the right to defend themselves against the free speech of special interest groups and politicians that malign them.

The final ruling is about the Arizona immigration law.  The court struck down most of it but upheld the controversial section which states that the police can check the suspect’s immigration status.  In response, President Obama has instructed ICE not to send agents if AZ finds someone who is there illegally (unless they are wanted for a major felony at least–can’t have THAT making headlines in an election year, can he?).  I think that the Court nailed the decision.  There were some problems with the law that would lead to profiling, but there is no reason why the police cannot check someone’s immigration status if they arrest them.  However, it is clear that Obama has no respect for the rule of law.  He is so hungry for the Latino vote that he is actively undermining the laws that are on the books.  This goes a step worse that just ignoring a law and telling his federal officers not to enforce it.  Now he is thwarting the efforts of the states to enforce laws that they view as vital for the safety of their citizens.  Everything he does is political, and this is inexcusable.

I would like to congratulate the Supreme Court today.  They had an excellent record today in upholding the Constitution and it was across “party lines.”

Long Live the Constitution!

Amanda Knox returns

Posted by Troy on 5th October 2011 in Current Events

I’m not entirely sure how innocent she is.  Honestly, I don’t see her motivation to killing this girl while in a foreign country.  I don’t see the gain, and there’s a ton of danger.  Also, her changing her story is probably due to the 54 consecutive hours of questioning.  You question me for thirty hours and I’ll confess to killing Hoffa just to get some sleep.

That being said, her homecoming was spot on.  That was how the stupid hikers should have acted.  She was thankful for the support.  She declared her love of her family, and above all, she was grateful to be back home.

Anwar Al-Awlaki Killed/Assassinated/Executed

Posted by Troy on 3rd October 2011 in Current Events

I have always said that American citizens must have Constitutional rights.  So, where do I come down on Anwar Al-Awlaki?

1)  He is a US citizen with full rights thereof.

2)  He was involved with various plots to kill other US citizens.

3)  He fled to another country to escape justice.

Okay, first off, one could make the argument that Anwar Al-Awlaki was either a traitor or actively in a state of war with America.  There are problems with this.  Even if he was a traitor (and he was), Congress still has to find him guilty of it.  That leaves the “State of War” issue.  That one we could argue until we are blue in the face as to what constitutes a war.  Typically, this is between two countries.  However, is it not possible to have a state of war of two nations (nations being a different concept here) such as in the Crusades when all Christians and all Muslims were “at war?”  I think he could qualify as such.  If someone is shooting at soldiers in a fire-fight, do they have to verify which ones are American-born and arrest them?  Of course not.

The fact of the matter is that, even with all this, he should have been arrested and tried.  However, this is idealistic at best and dumb as hell at worse.  What were we going to do?  Invade a country?  Fight a war in which he would probably escape.  Stay there for decades?  Or could we just pop him with a bomb and save billions of dollars and thousands of lives (on both sides)?  Then again, I’ve always been a fan of assassination in war (see my post in defense of assassination).

We romantize it often, but how is this any different than the old west’s “Dead or Alive?”

In this case, I agree with the President.  Bombs away.

Ummmm…Long Live the Constitution?

Stand Your Ground Law

Posted by Troy on 12th September 2011 in Current Events

Florida has a Stand Your Ground Law.  This replaced the “Duty to Retreat” law.  By the duty to retreat, a citizen was obligated to run away, even if the situation dictated to them that their best chance at survival is to defend themselves.  Gun control advocates despise Florida’s new law since it allows a citizen to arm and defend themselves. 

In this case, Monahan shot two people who boarded his boat without permission.  One was drunk and the other was high on drugs.  Monahan shot them while they were twenty feet away.  What the gun control people won’t readily point out is that Monahan is 65 years old.  Also, you would be very surprised how fast someone can cover twenty feet on a boat in which cover and retreating options are extremely limited.  Monahan was in fear for his life and reacted rationally and appropriately.  These individuals were already breaking the law by trespassing and being high on illegal drugs.  This should show that they could be willing to break other laws.  It’s almost impossible to judge Monahan’s state of mind at the time of the shooting.  Since there is only one witness (Monahan), his version of events must be accepted.

Let the gun control idiots complain that this case is being dismissed.  They should take a gander at Georgia’s law.  If someone is 65 or older, Georgia gives them permission to use any force necessary to defend themselves and they cannot be charge.  Go Georgia!

As my dad always told me: “When in doubt, it’s better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.”

Long Live the Constitution!

Judge not

Posted by Troy on 5th April 2011 in Current Events

In the news, there was a story about a woman who was being charged with the murder of her three-year-old son.  I unfortunately didn’t catch the names or location.  I tried to search for it, but apparently there are a lot of murders of 3-year-olds, and I didn’t wish to search through them all trying to figure it out.  Regardless, I will say what I wish to say.

The woman’s husband was an abusive man.  He had beaten the boy on two other known occasions.  The third beating resulted in the boy’s death.  The woman is being charged for murder because she stood by while this happened.  It is very easy for us to look in on this situation and say, “She should have thrown herself into between them,” or called the cops, or what have you.  However, we were not in her shoes.  Perhaps experience had shown her that trying to intervene only fueled his rage, made him more dangerous.  Perhaps if she interfered, she would be beaten along side the boy, and no good would have been accomplished.  Perhaps she feared that trying to stop him would make him kill them. 

Personally, I find it sick that she is being tried for his murder.  Her husband committed murder, not she.  When you walk past a homeless man and don’t give him food or money for food, are you guilty of murder?  Think of every time you failed to do something that could have made this world a better place.  Perhaps you saw her husband screaming at her in a restaurant.  Did you tell him to stop?  Or did it occur to you that doing so might lead to a fight, and you didn’t want to risk that.  Afterall, you just wanted a to eat your dinner in peace.  Besides, the man looked crazy and was yelling.  He could have a gun or something…  Or maybe you took it further and realized that maybe he would beat her later for you saying something.

The only thing she probably could have done safely was kill him.  Honestly, the world would probably have been better off without him.  I think a three-year-old would have agreed with me.  I hope a jury does too where he is concerned.  However, she has probably suffered enough at his hands and at having to burying her son.