Regarding mayor-elect Johnson’s comments about the “rampaging youth” gathering downtown on the weekends, I really hope he comes up with some coherent plan before the 2024 Democratic National Convention.
We can expect Mayor Johnson, a Democratic Socialist, to encourage demonstrations by public employee unions and left progressives to influence national Democrats. We can also expect him to be tolerant of civil disorder and to claim it as emblematic of social needs. As a true believer, he will be indifferent to the needs of the national party.
My take on the Toledo matter is this. The cop made a tragic mistake. You can’t shout directions at an offender and kill them when they follow it without consequences. A cop who makes a mistake like that and kills someone is done. Not charged with murder. Free to go on with his life. Just not as a cop. That’s the consequence.
That's a tendentious way of explaining what happened. Yes, Adam discarded the gun he was carrying -- surreptitiously, quickly, behind a fence, where the officer couldn't see -- then wheeled around. The cop mistakenly thought he was still armed; mistakenly yet, it seems, understandably. Had Adam simply dropped the gun as he was running and THEN the cop shot him, that would have been worse than a mistake, I'm sure we agree there.
Yes. That would have been worse than a mistake and would have required more serious consequences than just losing your job. But a mistake ending in death means this job is no longer for you. Time to move on.
Eric, the police officer didn’t tell Adam to “drop the gun where I can see it.” Adam had no way of knowing that the police officer had even seen the gun. The cop told Adam to “stop” and “show me your hands.” Which is exactly what Adam did. And it makes sense that Adam ditched the gun before he turned around and showed his hands. If Adam had still had the gun in his hand, it would have been even more likely that he would have been shot. So you blame the 13-year-old boy for not figuring out, during an adrenaline fueled foot chase that he had to drop the gun where the policeman could see it when he didn’t know the policeman had seen the gun and no one told him to drop the gun. Okay, I guess. You suggest that there was something surprising about Adam “wheeling” around, but what would you do if your back was to a police officer, and he screamed at you to “show your hands”? You would probably turn around and show your open palms the way Adam did. We don’t have the death penalty for 13-year-old kids who accompany an adult who fires a gun within the city limits. I agree with Jo A. The officer should be disciplined for telling the kid to stop and show his hands, and then shooting the kid when he did just that. Of course, the city has limited the circumstances under which foot chases are permitted, probably because, as this case shows, the likelihood of an unnecessary death is high.
Toledo was following the instructions of his gang mentor to run and ditch the gun that they had just used to shoot into a car, He could have stopped running, or not run at all. He could have raised both hands without turning, and then dropped the gun. But he was intent on following his mentor's direction to first ditch the gun. Too bad his gang mentor wasn't more concerned for his welfare and a better trainer. A good trainer would have told him to toss the gun before he stopped running.
I believe that Ruben Roman was found not guilty of shooting into a car. The trial judge said that from the video, he could not tell if the two figures had been firing the shots, nor could he identify them as Toledo and Roman. There was no gunshot residue on Roman’s hand. People who do not follow trials often repeat statements promoted by the police or internet provocateurs as if they are well known facts. It’s tiresome. What is your source of information for your statement that Adam was following instructions of Roman at the time he was killed? Or that Adam was a gang member?
So, let's hear your story for why Roman and Toledo were out at 2:30 in the morning with a gun where shots were fired. They just happened to be out at the same time? The 13-year-old acted independently, had the gun and ran, but didn't shoot? Roman was just an innocent bystander who happened to be there? The police didn't notice the two other guys that were there that did the shooting? The inept prosecution and judge's decision aside, how is it possible that an adult, with previous gun charges, is out at 2:30 in the morning with a juvenile, with a gun, is guilty of nothing? Other than gangs, what is your explanation for the persons going out to shoot into a car?
So now Judge Burns is inept and the career prosecutors who presented the government’s case are inept. This is what I mean by tiresome. Everything that doesn’t fit the world outlook of certain people these days is written off as ridiculous, stupid, inept, etc. I have been out at 2:30 a.m. on several occasions, although I’ve never carried, much less shot, a gun. There might have been other people out at 2:30 a.m. Where is the car that was supposedly shot at? Who was in it? There is a case pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County filed by the family of Adam Toledo against Eric Stillman and the City of Chicago. I think it will be interesting to see how that case turns out. Of course, if it doesn’t fit conservatives’ world outlook, it will be because, the judge was inept, the jurors were ignorant, the City Council was stupid to vote for a settlement, etc.
"Blame" is an interesting word. Do I "blame" Adam for being out at 2:30 in the morning carrying a gun around Little VIllage. Do I "blame" him for running away from a policeman with a gun in his hand? Do I "blame" him for not simply dropping the gun as he ran -- something the cop would have probably seen -- instead of trying to hide it? I would say that's not a useful word to use under these circumstances, but since you want to assign blame to the police officer who had literally a fraction of a second to decide if Adam still had a gun in his hand and might shoot it, then I'll say OK, but what it looks like to me is that people made mistakes that night, the most tragic one made in a split second. You and others seem to want to run this whole terrible event in slow motion -- Adam discards the gun. Adam turns. He shows his hands. The officer decides to shoot and kill him anyway. That fits a narrative, just not the factual narrative.
Eric, you make some very good points about the timing of the events. And there were certainly many tragic mistakes that night. And the case certainly illustrates why foot pursuits should be limited. Not to pick at a scab, so to speak, but I wonder how people would feel about the incident if, instead of involving a policeman, the incident involved two private parties, one chasing the other, both armed. In order to use deadly force (force likely to cause death or great bodily harm) in Illinois, you have to have a reasonable belief that your use of deadly force was necessary to prevent the other person’s use of deadly force. Where the person who was killed never pointed his weapon at the other person, never threatened to shoot him, and was running away, I wonder if, under those circumstances, a jury would find that the person doing the chasing had a reasonable belief that his use of deadly force was necessary to prevent the other’s use of deadly force. Again, I don’t mean to argue with you unnecessarily about this. We are both entitled to our opinions.
I don't mind a civil disagreement at all! I don't know the letter of the law on this, but we do -- and I think we must -- afford police officers more latitude for self defense since we ask them to rush toward perceived danger and confront alleged/perceived malefactors.
I agree. We must….allow them more latitude to avoid criminal liability. But to avoid losing their jobs when others might go to jail? I do not think so. It was a mistake and as I have argued you can put a consequence on that. One that doesn’t take away an officers freedom. But does take away his badge.
"Very complicated interactions get reduced to “innocent, unarmed person gratuitously murdered” and then amplified into a cause for rage." As a fellow leftie, thank you for presenting a necessary counterpoint to the prescripted reaction when such tragedies are reported.
The Ardaway issue is why I disliked Johnson. It had become clear that the balance of public health issues weighed in favor of reopening schools. The 20-20 hindsight from very knowledgeable public health officials is that they shouldn’t have been closed as long as they were. That’s tough on teachers but sometimes the science doesn’t support what you want. Ardaway made the right call based on science. Being mad about that is immature and deliberately ignorant.
The only relevant issue to Johnson is getting the approval of the CTU before making any decision. He doesn't care about the science. Good public policy is synonymous with CTU policy.
Let's see if I get this right. A hard-working and valuable doctor is not fitting into Brandon Johnson's administration but rampaging teens should not be demonized for their destruction and violence?
I always appreciate the mailbag. Very interested to hear what actual Chicagoans and suburbanites (not just those who live online) think about news and issues.
Thank you for your continued emphasis about exploring the facts on police confrontations. Very intelligent people continue to get it wrong. One year ago, when John McWhorter told Glenn Loury "no normal liberal would want to go to the trouble to find the facts" about the Trayvon Martin case, it was unfortunate he wasn't familiar with your work. It's 4 mins in here:
I'll take a much bigger leap, beyond the importance to the cause of reform. If the movement that started in 2014 had focused on the most egregious cases and not jumped on the bandwagon for Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Jacob Blake, etc., IMO there would have been no President Trump, no 3 new conservative SCOTUS, no overturning of Roe V Wade, no Ferguson effect, less rioting & therefore no Kyle Rittenhouse saga, less victimhood, and a much smaller crime wave, if at all. A very different country.
Regarding the split seconds that police often have to make a decision whether to shoot, Reminds me of the old saying, “I’d rather be tried by twelve than carried by six.”
I know that the Oshita Bridge is not objectively or analytically the best joke there. But it was the only one that provoked giggling-while-alone, so I had to vote for it.
I'm beginning to worry that this Johnson fellow will never answer a question about anything ever and/or that, when he does, his answer will be wrong.
At the time, a lot of CTU was ready to go back. It wasn't only a science debate. The issues were more about clarification on policy, such as sick days, what would constitute going remote again, how to handle immunocompromised teachers / students, covid testing, masking, etc. As I understand it, CPS was not providing answers, just "time to go back". Johnson could be explaining that better, but regardless, that's not on Arwady. She just happened to be the face of "go back" in the minds of many at CTU.
Some would have our police officers have to wait until the bullet is in the air coming at them before permitting them to even unholster their service revolvers. That type of thinking will keep our Police Academy’s dwindling til the Out of Business sign is on the locked door.
Dear 18% of all Chicago voters who elected Brandon Johnson as Mayor of Chicago:
1. Do not feign surprise at Johnson's first inclination is to take out Doctor Arwady because she committed the grievous sin of "following the science" and directing Chicago schools to finally reopen to in person learning. The CTU elected Johnson, and they will now continue to call the shots for the next 4 years. Please do not try to say you did not know this would happen.
2. Don't you dare "demonize" the overwhelmingly black mobs of young lawbreakers who came downtown to commit property damage, terrorize and assault people and commit general mayhem in large groups. Anyone who did not recognize Johnson's penchant for excusing lawlessness in the streets, and passionate desire to defund and handcuff policing is not being intellectually honest.
(And a shout out to the 65% of Chicago voters who either did not bother to vote or like Eric, could not bring themselves to vote for Johnson's opponent - feeling a little regret yet?)
Yeah, we lefties who think bringing guns to a knife fight, or in the cases you cite, fist fight or skateboard fight, is a bad idea, are simply unable to see the objective facts. I mean, it can't possibly be that Kyle Rittenhouse and George Zimmerman were running around armed in situations where they shouldn't have been because they wanted an excuse to shoot someone? I do not in fact live in a liberal bubble, and too many 2nd amendment absolutists talk like they are itching to use those guns on people. This seems to me to be the motivation behind no permit, open carry laws. (In addition to the joy of "owning libs," of course.) A gun is an inherent!y dangerous product; unless you are in law enforcement or the military, a standard of strict liability should apply.
That's a good argument against allowing citizens to carry firearms. FIstfights and ass-whoopin's turn deadly. But making that argument by totally distorting the facts and circumstances of particular incidents is dishonest and ultimately unproductive.
I don't think they went "looking for trouble." Both saw themselves as enforcers of/protectors of the law. Zimmerman thought he was reporting a burglar skulking around the subdivision; Rittenhouse thought he was protecting businesses from rioters (speaking of those looking for trouble). Both were attacked. I looked at the facts of each case and predicted, correctly, that both would be acquitted on ground of self defense. Again, this is not to say I agree with concealed or open carry of firearms or that that permission didn't throw deadly gasoline on the flames.
We will have to agree to disagree on the definition of "looking for trouble." "Stand your ground laws" have twisted "reasonable use of force in self-defense" into a pretzel. In Florida, if someone flings a bag of popcorn at you in a movie theatre, you are within your rights to shoot them because flung popcorn makes you fear for your life. So if a black guy you've been following for no good reason gets pissed and punches you, it seems reasonable you will be acquitted for shooting him.
>>if someone flings a bag of popcorn at you in a movie theatre, you are within your rights to shoot them because flung popcorn makes you fear for your life. >>> This is not true.
Zimmerman was not "following" Martin at the time Martin attacked him. He was standing near a sidewalk intersection waiting for police to arrive. Martin didn't simply punch him -- the evidence is pretty clear that he was administering a solid ass kicking. "Stand your ground" had nothing to do with this case, and though you hate ever to see a fistfight turn deadly, it was Martin who came back "looking for trouble," something you seem otherwise to decry.
I suppose we should wrap this up. Just for curiosity's sake I reread some of the accounts, and I admit, they are conflicting and confused as to Zimmerman's "following." Zimmerman changed his own account several times. In fact, there appears to be evidence that Martin started really kicking Zimmerman's ass because he was afraid of Zimmerman's gun. This is not solid, eyewitnesses being as unreliable as they are, but makes the interesting argument of are you allowed to argue you are standing your ground with your fists.
Full disclosure: I owned a place in Florida in a gated community, as so many are in that paranoid state. The neighborhood watch and condo commandos did not impress me as having careful discernment or good grasp of gun safety. After hearing how one of them managed to shoot 2of their companions in their van on the way to a gun show....well, let's just say I am not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Mayor-elect Johnson's remarks on the youth violence over the weekend are seriously redolent of our former President's remark that were "fine people on both sides" in the white nationalist march in Charlottesville.
Also reminds me of a 1950s Feiffer cartoon, in which "Eisenhower" is speaking, saying, "We deplore extremism on both sides: both those who want to bomb the schools and those who want to keep them open."
Regarding mayor-elect Johnson’s comments about the “rampaging youth” gathering downtown on the weekends, I really hope he comes up with some coherent plan before the 2024 Democratic National Convention.
We can expect Mayor Johnson, a Democratic Socialist, to encourage demonstrations by public employee unions and left progressives to influence national Democrats. We can also expect him to be tolerant of civil disorder and to claim it as emblematic of social needs. As a true believer, he will be indifferent to the needs of the national party.
My take on the Toledo matter is this. The cop made a tragic mistake. You can’t shout directions at an offender and kill them when they follow it without consequences. A cop who makes a mistake like that and kills someone is done. Not charged with murder. Free to go on with his life. Just not as a cop. That’s the consequence.
That's a tendentious way of explaining what happened. Yes, Adam discarded the gun he was carrying -- surreptitiously, quickly, behind a fence, where the officer couldn't see -- then wheeled around. The cop mistakenly thought he was still armed; mistakenly yet, it seems, understandably. Had Adam simply dropped the gun as he was running and THEN the cop shot him, that would have been worse than a mistake, I'm sure we agree there.
Yes. That would have been worse than a mistake and would have required more serious consequences than just losing your job. But a mistake ending in death means this job is no longer for you. Time to move on.
Eric, the police officer didn’t tell Adam to “drop the gun where I can see it.” Adam had no way of knowing that the police officer had even seen the gun. The cop told Adam to “stop” and “show me your hands.” Which is exactly what Adam did. And it makes sense that Adam ditched the gun before he turned around and showed his hands. If Adam had still had the gun in his hand, it would have been even more likely that he would have been shot. So you blame the 13-year-old boy for not figuring out, during an adrenaline fueled foot chase that he had to drop the gun where the policeman could see it when he didn’t know the policeman had seen the gun and no one told him to drop the gun. Okay, I guess. You suggest that there was something surprising about Adam “wheeling” around, but what would you do if your back was to a police officer, and he screamed at you to “show your hands”? You would probably turn around and show your open palms the way Adam did. We don’t have the death penalty for 13-year-old kids who accompany an adult who fires a gun within the city limits. I agree with Jo A. The officer should be disciplined for telling the kid to stop and show his hands, and then shooting the kid when he did just that. Of course, the city has limited the circumstances under which foot chases are permitted, probably because, as this case shows, the likelihood of an unnecessary death is high.
Toledo was following the instructions of his gang mentor to run and ditch the gun that they had just used to shoot into a car, He could have stopped running, or not run at all. He could have raised both hands without turning, and then dropped the gun. But he was intent on following his mentor's direction to first ditch the gun. Too bad his gang mentor wasn't more concerned for his welfare and a better trainer. A good trainer would have told him to toss the gun before he stopped running.
I believe that Ruben Roman was found not guilty of shooting into a car. The trial judge said that from the video, he could not tell if the two figures had been firing the shots, nor could he identify them as Toledo and Roman. There was no gunshot residue on Roman’s hand. People who do not follow trials often repeat statements promoted by the police or internet provocateurs as if they are well known facts. It’s tiresome. What is your source of information for your statement that Adam was following instructions of Roman at the time he was killed? Or that Adam was a gang member?
https://chicago.suntimes.com/2022/11/18/23466667/not-guilty-verdict-for-ruben-roman-on-gun-case-tied-to-adam-toledo-death
So, let's hear your story for why Roman and Toledo were out at 2:30 in the morning with a gun where shots were fired. They just happened to be out at the same time? The 13-year-old acted independently, had the gun and ran, but didn't shoot? Roman was just an innocent bystander who happened to be there? The police didn't notice the two other guys that were there that did the shooting? The inept prosecution and judge's decision aside, how is it possible that an adult, with previous gun charges, is out at 2:30 in the morning with a juvenile, with a gun, is guilty of nothing? Other than gangs, what is your explanation for the persons going out to shoot into a car?
So now Judge Burns is inept and the career prosecutors who presented the government’s case are inept. This is what I mean by tiresome. Everything that doesn’t fit the world outlook of certain people these days is written off as ridiculous, stupid, inept, etc. I have been out at 2:30 a.m. on several occasions, although I’ve never carried, much less shot, a gun. There might have been other people out at 2:30 a.m. Where is the car that was supposedly shot at? Who was in it? There is a case pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County filed by the family of Adam Toledo against Eric Stillman and the City of Chicago. I think it will be interesting to see how that case turns out. Of course, if it doesn’t fit conservatives’ world outlook, it will be because, the judge was inept, the jurors were ignorant, the City Council was stupid to vote for a settlement, etc.
"Blame" is an interesting word. Do I "blame" Adam for being out at 2:30 in the morning carrying a gun around Little VIllage. Do I "blame" him for running away from a policeman with a gun in his hand? Do I "blame" him for not simply dropping the gun as he ran -- something the cop would have probably seen -- instead of trying to hide it? I would say that's not a useful word to use under these circumstances, but since you want to assign blame to the police officer who had literally a fraction of a second to decide if Adam still had a gun in his hand and might shoot it, then I'll say OK, but what it looks like to me is that people made mistakes that night, the most tragic one made in a split second. You and others seem to want to run this whole terrible event in slow motion -- Adam discards the gun. Adam turns. He shows his hands. The officer decides to shoot and kill him anyway. That fits a narrative, just not the factual narrative.
Eric, you make some very good points about the timing of the events. And there were certainly many tragic mistakes that night. And the case certainly illustrates why foot pursuits should be limited. Not to pick at a scab, so to speak, but I wonder how people would feel about the incident if, instead of involving a policeman, the incident involved two private parties, one chasing the other, both armed. In order to use deadly force (force likely to cause death or great bodily harm) in Illinois, you have to have a reasonable belief that your use of deadly force was necessary to prevent the other person’s use of deadly force. Where the person who was killed never pointed his weapon at the other person, never threatened to shoot him, and was running away, I wonder if, under those circumstances, a jury would find that the person doing the chasing had a reasonable belief that his use of deadly force was necessary to prevent the other’s use of deadly force. Again, I don’t mean to argue with you unnecessarily about this. We are both entitled to our opinions.
I don't mind a civil disagreement at all! I don't know the letter of the law on this, but we do -- and I think we must -- afford police officers more latitude for self defense since we ask them to rush toward perceived danger and confront alleged/perceived malefactors.
I agree. We must….allow them more latitude to avoid criminal liability. But to avoid losing their jobs when others might go to jail? I do not think so. It was a mistake and as I have argued you can put a consequence on that. One that doesn’t take away an officers freedom. But does take away his badge.
"Very complicated interactions get reduced to “innocent, unarmed person gratuitously murdered” and then amplified into a cause for rage." As a fellow leftie, thank you for presenting a necessary counterpoint to the prescripted reaction when such tragedies are reported.
I had a great laugh at the visual tweets this morning - especially the cupcakes and cat tweets. Nice start to the day.
The Ardaway issue is why I disliked Johnson. It had become clear that the balance of public health issues weighed in favor of reopening schools. The 20-20 hindsight from very knowledgeable public health officials is that they shouldn’t have been closed as long as they were. That’s tough on teachers but sometimes the science doesn’t support what you want. Ardaway made the right call based on science. Being mad about that is immature and deliberately ignorant.
The only relevant issue to Johnson is getting the approval of the CTU before making any decision. He doesn't care about the science. Good public policy is synonymous with CTU policy.
Let's see if I get this right. A hard-working and valuable doctor is not fitting into Brandon Johnson's administration but rampaging teens should not be demonized for their destruction and violence?
WOW, am I glad I do not live in Chicago
I always appreciate the mailbag. Very interested to hear what actual Chicagoans and suburbanites (not just those who live online) think about news and issues.
Johnson's rejection of Arwady makes one wonder...is CTU dictating the next mayor's agenda and priorities?
No need to wonder. Of course they are. But he is also a fully invested, true believer, so they have a willing partner.
Thank you for your continued emphasis about exploring the facts on police confrontations. Very intelligent people continue to get it wrong. One year ago, when John McWhorter told Glenn Loury "no normal liberal would want to go to the trouble to find the facts" about the Trayvon Martin case, it was unfortunate he wasn't familiar with your work. It's 4 mins in here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuEyDXsHux8
I'll take a much bigger leap, beyond the importance to the cause of reform. If the movement that started in 2014 had focused on the most egregious cases and not jumped on the bandwagon for Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Jacob Blake, etc., IMO there would have been no President Trump, no 3 new conservative SCOTUS, no overturning of Roe V Wade, no Ferguson effect, less rioting & therefore no Kyle Rittenhouse saga, less victimhood, and a much smaller crime wave, if at all. A very different country.
Regarding the split seconds that police often have to make a decision whether to shoot, Reminds me of the old saying, “I’d rather be tried by twelve than carried by six.”
I know that the Oshita Bridge is not objectively or analytically the best joke there. But it was the only one that provoked giggling-while-alone, so I had to vote for it.
I'm beginning to worry that this Johnson fellow will never answer a question about anything ever and/or that, when he does, his answer will be wrong.
It's an art.
I believe Johnson will be a one term mayor.
At the time, a lot of CTU was ready to go back. It wasn't only a science debate. The issues were more about clarification on policy, such as sick days, what would constitute going remote again, how to handle immunocompromised teachers / students, covid testing, masking, etc. As I understand it, CPS was not providing answers, just "time to go back". Johnson could be explaining that better, but regardless, that's not on Arwady. She just happened to be the face of "go back" in the minds of many at CTU.
Arwady failed to agree with the CTU that her recommendations should first be negotiated with them.
Some would have our police officers have to wait until the bullet is in the air coming at them before permitting them to even unholster their service revolvers. That type of thinking will keep our Police Academy’s dwindling til the Out of Business sign is on the locked door.
Dear 18% of all Chicago voters who elected Brandon Johnson as Mayor of Chicago:
1. Do not feign surprise at Johnson's first inclination is to take out Doctor Arwady because she committed the grievous sin of "following the science" and directing Chicago schools to finally reopen to in person learning. The CTU elected Johnson, and they will now continue to call the shots for the next 4 years. Please do not try to say you did not know this would happen.
2. Don't you dare "demonize" the overwhelmingly black mobs of young lawbreakers who came downtown to commit property damage, terrorize and assault people and commit general mayhem in large groups. Anyone who did not recognize Johnson's penchant for excusing lawlessness in the streets, and passionate desire to defund and handcuff policing is not being intellectually honest.
(And a shout out to the 65% of Chicago voters who either did not bother to vote or like Eric, could not bring themselves to vote for Johnson's opponent - feeling a little regret yet?)
Yeah, we lefties who think bringing guns to a knife fight, or in the cases you cite, fist fight or skateboard fight, is a bad idea, are simply unable to see the objective facts. I mean, it can't possibly be that Kyle Rittenhouse and George Zimmerman were running around armed in situations where they shouldn't have been because they wanted an excuse to shoot someone? I do not in fact live in a liberal bubble, and too many 2nd amendment absolutists talk like they are itching to use those guns on people. This seems to me to be the motivation behind no permit, open carry laws. (In addition to the joy of "owning libs," of course.) A gun is an inherent!y dangerous product; unless you are in law enforcement or the military, a standard of strict liability should apply.
That's a good argument against allowing citizens to carry firearms. FIstfights and ass-whoopin's turn deadly. But making that argument by totally distorting the facts and circumstances of particular incidents is dishonest and ultimately unproductive.
It's not distorting the facts to say that George and Kyle went looking for trouble, found it, and made the situation deadly by being armed.
I don't think they went "looking for trouble." Both saw themselves as enforcers of/protectors of the law. Zimmerman thought he was reporting a burglar skulking around the subdivision; Rittenhouse thought he was protecting businesses from rioters (speaking of those looking for trouble). Both were attacked. I looked at the facts of each case and predicted, correctly, that both would be acquitted on ground of self defense. Again, this is not to say I agree with concealed or open carry of firearms or that that permission didn't throw deadly gasoline on the flames.
We will have to agree to disagree on the definition of "looking for trouble." "Stand your ground laws" have twisted "reasonable use of force in self-defense" into a pretzel. In Florida, if someone flings a bag of popcorn at you in a movie theatre, you are within your rights to shoot them because flung popcorn makes you fear for your life. So if a black guy you've been following for no good reason gets pissed and punches you, it seems reasonable you will be acquitted for shooting him.
>>if someone flings a bag of popcorn at you in a movie theatre, you are within your rights to shoot them because flung popcorn makes you fear for your life. >>> This is not true.
Zimmerman was not "following" Martin at the time Martin attacked him. He was standing near a sidewalk intersection waiting for police to arrive. Martin didn't simply punch him -- the evidence is pretty clear that he was administering a solid ass kicking. "Stand your ground" had nothing to do with this case, and though you hate ever to see a fistfight turn deadly, it was Martin who came back "looking for trouble," something you seem otherwise to decry.
I suppose we should wrap this up. Just for curiosity's sake I reread some of the accounts, and I admit, they are conflicting and confused as to Zimmerman's "following." Zimmerman changed his own account several times. In fact, there appears to be evidence that Martin started really kicking Zimmerman's ass because he was afraid of Zimmerman's gun. This is not solid, eyewitnesses being as unreliable as they are, but makes the interesting argument of are you allowed to argue you are standing your ground with your fists.
Full disclosure: I owned a place in Florida in a gated community, as so many are in that paranoid state. The neighborhood watch and condo commandos did not impress me as having careful discernment or good grasp of gun safety. After hearing how one of them managed to shoot 2of their companions in their van on the way to a gun show....well, let's just say I am not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Mayor-elect Johnson's remarks on the youth violence over the weekend are seriously redolent of our former President's remark that were "fine people on both sides" in the white nationalist march in Charlottesville.
Also reminds me of a 1950s Feiffer cartoon, in which "Eisenhower" is speaking, saying, "We deplore extremism on both sides: both those who want to bomb the schools and those who want to keep them open."