The Exploitation of Trayvon Martin

[caroljane]

Yes, it is. I suppose it could be proved whether or not she was in the house at that time. Anyway the divorce doesn't shed any new light on the Martin case. And didn't George also lie in an effort to conceal his defence money from the court ?

I agree that he was probablylegally advised not to attend her hearing; she probably agreed with his absence. Divorce is all he said she said anyway.

Mikee, I don't see any big bucks here. Maybe she will write a tell-all though.

[caroljane]

Guys, I know Zimmerman has come to symbolize your deeply held values, but nobody has pretended that in himself he is any kind of hero. I am certainly willing to believe that even if he had never killed anybody, he was not a satisfactory husband for the woman he married.

[Selene]

Guys, I know Zimmerman has come to symbolize your deeply held values, but nobody has pretended that in himself he is any kind of hero. I am certainly willing to believe that even if he had never killed anybody, he was not a satisfactory husband for the woman he married.

Of course it must be him because it can never be the wife that does not uphold the marriage contract, right?

[caroljane]

Oh, come on. She is the one who filed. For all we know he is as fed up with her as she is with him.

[Selene]

Oh, come on. She is the one who filed. For all we know he is as fed up with her as she is with him.

Where are we going that you want me to "come on?"

I am always fascinated by the automatic identification with the plaintiff in a Domestic Relations case.

Carol, can you assert that the Plaintiff in a divorce filing has the high ground merely because they filed first?

A...

[caroljane]

Of course not! Divorce is not about moral high ground usually is it?

[Selene]

Of course not! Divorce is not about moral high ground usually is it?

I'm sorry Carol, did I misinterpret your post which implied that she had that moral high ground because she filed first?

Oh, come on. She is the one who filed. For all we know he is as fed up with her as she is with him.

I am confused...

A...

[caroljane]

There is no implication of moral high ground at all. She asked for a divorce, not him, implying that she is tired of him - that does not make her moral or him immoral. As I said, maybe he is equally tired of her. I thought divorces were less contentious these days, you don't have to prove yourself an injured party or the ex a monster.

[Selene]

What you have stated is the no fault scenario.

From a contract issue, that is not acceptable to many parties.

In the US, not sure how it works in Canada, Domestic Relations law is dependant upon each state de jure. However, de facto, the system functions on a "no fault" paradigm.

Not sure about Florida. However, I will find out.

A...

[Mikee]

Glad they don't have kids.

[Selene]

Not sure that is accurate,

However, if it is, it makes the divorce a basic business separation which simplifies the issue.

[Mikee]

She wants George to take out a life insurance policy on himself payable to her. And a share of "undisclosed" assets. Sounds like a win-win. If he gets whacked it's money in the bank. Ah, love. Actually, I don't know how many relationships would survive that kind of notoriety and stress. Being with George, you'd never know when the car your driving in blows up, or bullets fly through the windshield.

Maybe he should have watched his waistline. I've heard big bellies are the #1 turn-off for wives.

[caroljane]

The time frame is indicative. Every divorced person I know has said that five years was the point where they wanted out. Some held on longer, tried counselling etc., but by five or six years they knew they were hopelessly incompatible. No abuse or adultery involved. By contrast most luckily married people, including me, were even happier with their partner at that point than when first married.

[Selene]

The time frame is indicative. Every divorced person I know has said that five years was the point where they wanted out. Some held on longer, tried counselling etc., but by five or six years they knew they were hopelessly incompatible. No abuse or adultery involved. By contrast most luckily married people, including me, were even happier with their partner at that point than when first married.

Ah, the famous/infamous seven (7) year itch.

[caroljane]

Maybe you have some professional knowledge to support my anecdotal impressions. You do divorce mediation?

[Selene]

Maybe you have some professional knowledge to support my anecdotal impressions. You do divorce mediation?

First, step is stop tlaking in the media.

[Selene]

This may be a very interesting book.

More provocatively, “If I Had A Son” addresses the political and cultural dynamics that empowered the state of Florida to arrest Zimmerman in the first place. As Cashill points out, it was the first time in the history of American jurisprudence that a state, the Department of Justice, the media, the entertainment industry, the vestiges of the civil rights movement and the White House conspired to send an innocent man to prison for the rest of his life.

Cashill claims several factors came together to make Trayvon Martin’s killing a national firestorm, including the Obama administration exploiting the case during an election year.

“Trayvon Martin was shot in a battleground state during a presidential election year and for that story to gain traction beyond Sanford, Fla., it demanded a green light not only from the powers that be in Washington, but also the media powers,” Cashill explained to WND.

http://ww.wnd.com/2013/09/media-silence-another-white-man-shoots-black-teen/

[Xray]

I don't think it puts an end to the argument; for nowhere does it say that Rand's ideal of a rational society implied the notion of private citizens carrying weapons.

Rand may have found herself in a dilemma though as she became aware that to many Americans, the right of private citizens to carry a gun is regarded as a high value, and that suggestions to restrict that right would probably get a negative reaction.

Rand loved America - it stood for so many things she admired deeply.

That's why her answers on the gun control issue in the interview were a bit hesitant and unconfrontional.

Angela:

You must do a lot of Yoga in order to bend yourself into uttering this last post.

from the Letters of Ayn Rand, in a letter to a Mr. Flynn: "A man has a constitutional right to bear arms. But if a man has declared that he intends to murder you, it is not your duty to provide the knife and place it in his hands." This is the only instance I could find where the subject of a right to bear arms was directly mentioned. However, Rand only mentions in passing (on her way to an analogy) that such a right exists in the Constitution. She does not expound at all on what this right might involve.

and,

The exchange was as follows:

Raymond Newman: You have stated that the government ought to be the exclusive agent for the use of force under objective rules of law and justice --

Ayn Rand: That's right.

Newman: -- and yet at the same time today we see an alarming rise in violent crimes in this country and more and more people applying for gun permits and wanting to protect themselves. Do you see this as a dangerous trend, number one; and number two, do you favor any form of gun control laws?

Rand: I have given it no thought at all and, off-hand, I would say, no, the government shouldn't control guns except in very marginal forms. I don't think it's very important because I don't think it is in physical terms that the decisions and the fate of this country will be determined. If this country falls apart altogether, if the government collapses bankrupt, your having a handgun in your pocket isn't going to save your life. What you would need is ideas and other people who share those ideas and fighting towards a proper civilized government, not handguns for personal protection.

Selective distortion does not work, ever.

A...

Adam,

I can't see see any distortion. Rand merely quoted the constitution; she does not say whether this really reflects her own opinion.

But imo the idea of private citizens carrying weapons would contradict her philosophy on the issue (see Rand's essay The Nature of Government).

[Xray]

There's nothing dehumanizing about the term "scum". Only humans are capable of being scum.

But doesn't the slang use of the technical term "scum" intend precisely that: to dehumanize a person by comparing him/her to worthless matter?

4. Slang One, such as a person or an element of society, that is regarded as despicable or worthless.

Bingo.

Other terms that may fit: dross, waste, residue.

"The exceptions prove the rule" may be a useful concept, how would we even define civilized humanity without recognizing the exceptions? And naming them. These names are useful in that they recognize the lost potential of the greatness of humanity that is missing in certain individuals. They also serve (or they were intended to) to shun these individuals, perhaps into seeing the error of their ways and joining the ranks of the law abiding and productive. It is not dehumanizing to recognize people come in all categories, from the sublime to monsters.

There is ample evidence on Trayvon's social network records (facebook, twitter) that he had a fascination with drugs, punching people in the face, and guns. There is also evidence he was a thief, covered up by a school principle more interested in hiding evidence of criminal activity at his school than bringing budding criminals to justice. He was not a monster, he was a 17 year old male from a broken home and picked the wrong role models. It is unfortunate that he died, I do think he could have been rehabilitated given the right mentor. Like this guy, Mr. Julius Baker.

The problem I have with the use of the term "scum" in the context of the TM case: scum is something one wants to get rid of.

That's why I found the comment about TM ("I don't raise scum") disturbing.

[Brant Gaede]

I don't think it puts an end to the argument; for nowhere does it say that Rand's ideal of a rational society implied the notion of private citizens carrying weapons.

Rand may have found herself in a dilemma though as she became aware that to many Americans, the right of private citizens to carry a gun is regarded as a high value, and that suggestions to restrict that right would probably get a negative reaction.

Rand loved America - it stood for so many things she admired deeply.

That's why her answers on the gun control issue in the interview were a bit hesitant and unconfrontional.

Angela:

You must do a lot of Yoga in order to bend yourself into uttering this last post.

from the Letters of Ayn Rand, in a letter to a Mr. Flynn: "A man has a constitutional right to bear arms. But if a man has declared that he intends to murder you, it is not your duty to provide the knife and place it in his hands." This is the only instance I could find where the subject of a right to bear arms was directly mentioned. However, Rand only mentions in passing (on her way to an analogy) that such a right exists in the Constitution. She does not expound at all on what this right might involve.

and,

The exchange was as follows:

Raymond Newman: You have stated that the government ought to be the exclusive agent for the use of force under objective rules of law and justice --

Ayn Rand: That's right.

Newman: -- and yet at the same time today we see an alarming rise in violent crimes in this country and more and more people applying for gun permits and wanting to protect themselves. Do you see this as a dangerous trend, number one; and number two, do you favor any form of gun control laws?

Rand: I have given it no thought at all and, off-hand, I would say, no, the government shouldn't control guns except in very marginal forms. I don't think it's very important because I don't think it is in physical terms that the decisions and the fate of this country will be determined. If this country falls apart altogether, if the government collapses bankrupt, your having a handgun in your pocket isn't going to save your life. What you would need is ideas and other people who share those ideas and fighting towards a proper civilized government, not handguns for personal protection.

Selective distortion does not work, ever.

A...

Adam,

I can't see see any distortion. Rand merely quoted the constitution; she does not say whether this really reflects her own opinion.

But imo the idea of private citizens carrying weapons would contradict her philosophy on the issue (see Rand's essay The Nature of Government).

Rand would need to give the matter some more think thoughts.

You start with individual rights, thus get the nature of government.

The right to self defense means you have the right to defend yourself (from the initiation of force) which in turns means--implies--you have the right to defend yourself with something.

The "exclusive agent of force" in this context transliterates into the government, usually a state government, legally defining and sanctioning defensive, retaliatory force objectifying the issue within the law. This has been pretty well done in the United States and is pretty much a joke elsewhere.

--Brant

[Selene]

See, I knew Zimmerman was scum!

Fla. police called on George Zimmerman

MIKE SCHNEIDER 12 minutes ago

ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) — George Zimmerman's wife has called police to her father's house, saying the former neighborhood watch volunteer who was acquitted of murder threatened her with a gun.

Lake Mary Police Chief Steve Bracknell says Shellie Zimmerman called police shortly after 2 p.m. Monday.

Bracknell says Zimmerman hasn't been arrested and officers are at the house trying to determine what happened.

Shellie Zimmerman filed for divorce last week.

In the divorce petition, Shellie Zimmerman says she and her husband separated a month after Zimmerman was acquitted of any crime for fatally shooting Trayvon Martin last July.

Zimmerman's acquittal led to protests nationwide.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

What a shock! A divorce filing and within a week a domestic violence incident! Wow, I'll bet this almost never, ever happens in America.

A....

[Brant Gaede]

What a shock! A divorce filing and within a week a domestic violence incident! Wow, I'll bet this almost never, ever happens in America.

A....

It does in Canada!

--Brant

I was scum, scum, scum, until Daddy took the T-Bird away!

[caroljane]

Allegedly threatening an estranged wife - this is no way to become today's Liberty Valance.

[Selene]

Allegedly threatening an estranged wife - this is no way to become today's Liberty Valance.

Liberty Valence who was a drunken pyschotic cold blooded killer?

I think you should stick to those obtuse Middle English comparisons. at least those have no meaning to me.

[caroljane]

OK, sorry, the Man Who Shot Liberty Valance then.