Rep. Allen West has it exactly right. And that is not something I’ve ever said before.

Rep. Allen West, he of my enlightened state of Florida, is a frequent target of my brethren on the left. He can get all ‘rancid right’ with the worst of them. But here’s what he wrote on his Facebook page today about the killing of Treyvon Martin:

I have sat back and allowed myself time to assess the current episode revealing itself in Sanford, Florida involving the shooting of 17-year-old Treyvon Martin. First of all, if all that has been reported is accurate, the Sanford Police Chief should be relieved of his duties due to what appears to be a mishandling of this shooting in its early stages. The US Navy SEALS identified Osama Bin Laden within hours, while this young man laid on a morgue slab for three days. The shooter, Mr Zimmerman, should have been held in custody and certainly should not be walking free, still having a concealed weapons carry permit. From my reading, it seems this young man was pursued and there was no probable cause to engage him, certainly not pursue and shoot him….against the direction of the 911 responder. Let’s all be appalled at this instance not because of race, but because a young American man has lost his life, seemingly, for no reason.  I have signed a letter supporting a DOJ investigation. I am not heading to Sanford to shout and scream, because we need the responsible entities and agencies to handle this situation from this point without media bias or undue political influences. This is an outrage.

Even a clock is right twice a day . . . .

18 responses to “Rep. Allen West has it exactly right. And that is not something I’ve ever said before.

  1. That seems right. I think the stand your ground law sounds like a crime to me. The shooter should have been arrested. He might have been exonerated and released ultimately, but to walk away scot free as adult who shot an unarmed kid on a public street seems inconceivable.


  2. I think it was mistake for the President to insert himself in this though. After the fiasco that lead to the Beer summit, I’d think he learn to not turn this into a national race issue, and I fear he just has as of today.


    • I wouldn’t say he inserted himself bruce. It was the news conference where he introduced hte new head of World Bank – and of ocurse the very first question was about the killing.

      I thought his commet measured and he made no comment on the case, was cllear that it’s in the hands of justice and police.


  3. Florida’s Stand Your Ground law is good law but even I, a firm supporter of the 2nd Amendment and the rights of people to take action to defend themselves, their families, and their property, think that various judges have messed it up very badly.

    Yes, Judges. They made a habit of summarily dismissing cases under the Stand Your Ground law when the defendant claimed self-defense, irrespective of the facts of the case. This made it a waste of the DA’s resources to bring such cases to trial which, in turn, made it a waste of the police’s resources to arrest people like Zimmerman.

    And yes, were I the DA involved, I would have charged Zimmerman exactly for the reasons the West stated. Moving to engage when nobody and nothing is under immediate threat is not standing your ground; it’s being the aggressor.

    One sad thing to consider though – If the media had got Zimmerman’s race (Hispanic) right from the start, of all of us on this blog, only Moe would have stood a good change of hearing of this.

    White-on-Black is news. Black-on-White, Black-on-Black, Black-in-Brown, and Brown-on-Blacks as in this case, are ignored by the media because those crimes don’t meet the LSM’s agenda and don’t raise ratings / commercial spots values.


    • I replied to you on another blog about this ‘hispanic’ race thing.

      First, how is Zimmerman, a 100% white caucasion born here of an American father, hispanic mother, and with absolutely no discernable accent, make him any other race but caucasion?

      Second jonolan, I’ve heard in most news reports Zimmerman referred to as hispanic.

      Finally though – ‘hispanic’ is NOT a race, anymore than ‘European’ is a race. . ‘Hispanic’ is someone descended from (usually) Central or South American, bound to an ethnic – not racial – group by a common language. Ergo, we refer to Spanish speakers as ‘hispanic’.

      That it has come to suggest a racial category is, I think, evidence of extreme bias against hispanics. (My sister in law, very blond, very blue eyed, bi-lingual and US educated, is an ‘hispanic’ from Puerto Rico. Her children identify themselves as of Irish heritage from their father. And, of course, it means nothing.)


      • Everything is race, Moe. We use it as shortcut and as an excuse to either blame or excuse various cultures.

        And don’t get me started on very, very White my friend who, upon occasion, decides to mess with people by accurately describing himself as African-American. He’s a naturalized US citizen born and raised in South Africa.


        • I know, I can’t deny at all the power of race in human actions – it’s very ingrained; it’s been our responsibility as modern people, via our laws and changing cultural norms, to try to overcome so many of our primitive instints.

          I still say ‘black’. It’s generational I guess. And most blacks of my age – except the professional ones like Jackson – say black too. I’ve always thought African-American an odd descriptor for a people whov’e been in this country for hundreds of years, when most of us are second or third generation. I also dislike Hispanic. I think both words create distance and end up working against what we all desire to be working toward.


  4. A person certainly has the right to defend their home and property. But stalking a person on the street, especially after the police said don’t do it…big no no. It might have just been a homeless person, or as in case, an apparently innocent child on his way home. Why on earth wasn’t Zimmerman given a psychological test. This self-appointed vigilante could start a trend if he’s allowed to skate on this issue.


    • Not a big point in the grand scheme of things but possibly a big point if this ever goes to trial – a 911 dispatcher asked Zimmerman not to follow Martin, not the police. 911 is has no authority to tell anyone to do anything.


      • The 911 operator told Zimmerma not to follow because ‘we dispatched a car’ at which point they were acting on behalf of the police.

        And if the ‘dont follow’ instruction was wrong or careless and caused Zimmerman harm, who gets sued?


        • 911 isn’t the police. As I said, in the greater context this is immaterial. It may, however, be of importance in a courtroom. I rather doubt it though; just as Roeder was wrongfully, insofar as the law is concerned, convicted for killing Tiller Zimmerman would be convicted irrespective of any arguments or laws involved.


          • Zimmerman’s lawyer is now saying they won’t use the ‘stand your ground’ defense, but instead iwth claim pure self defense. But they’re both weak argumwents. He’s not really covered by that law and how can it be self defense when you follow and challenge someone, who would immediately act in his own self defense.

            Zimmerman goes down. The law will demand it.


            • No. Public sentiment and political expediency – possibly also justice, but that’s a little fuzzy – might demand that Zimmerman goes down. The body laws, especially those of legal precedent, in FL don’t do so, though perhaps they should.


              • You’re right about the legal precedent in FL, but I’m sure this at least goes to trial here and then is appealed and could go all the way to SCOTUS, as a test of these types of laws.


                • There’s really nothing the SCOTUS can do about it. The law itself is fairly solid as it is written; the actions of various judges in summarily dismissing cases as soon as self-defense was claimed is the problem and there’s really no way to even appeal a dismissed case.

                  Oddly, the primary impetus for the specifics of the law was giving women the right to defend themselves, especially against domestic violence since the Castle Doctrine can’t apply when the aggressor is a resident of the same house as the victim.

                  It’s also predicated upon FL’s long-standing legal opinion that “threat” is the eye of the threatened, as is assault (as opposed to the empirical standards for battery).


                • What the SCOTUS can do depends on how the case brought to them is framed. It may be a solidly written law and have all sorts of precedents, but it’s a very bad law and the standards applied are ridiculously low. I think the Supremes would welcome a case addressing that. Especially when that ‘defending against a threat’ is take into the public space – what’s the deal when both parties claim they felt threated? . . . it’s bad law.


                • You’re not getting it, Moe. The law is solid BUT the precedents set by judges summarily dismissing cases brought before them are fucked up beyond all reasonable measure.


  5. Pingback: ¿Percepción razonable? | El Mundo de Luis Daniel Beltrán

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s