Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Signed the Non-Creeps
So maybe some personal anger issues she needs to address?
All that said:
When will you all crazy americans understand that CIVILIANS SHOULDN'T OWN, CARRY OR KNOW HOW TO FIRE WEAPONS??? The fact that you're all armed generates the violence itself. It's barbaric, unintelligent, childish and dangerous.
Do picture yourselves in Norway, Sweden, Iceland for god´s sake carrying a gun like some cowboy. You´d probably go to jail for threatening national decorum.
Everyone here: If an Occupy protester got shot for verbally abusing a person wearing an "ELECT ROMNEY" button - would your views on the attempted homocide be any different?
Responsible use of violence is the cornerstone of any democracy. Knowledge of how to perform violence is absolutely necessary to prevent the myriad abuses that may befall the common man.
In short, you're a fucking pussy. Incidentally, in Finland, another Scandinavian nation for you geographically disinclined, gun ownership is ubiquitous--much like Canada, incidentally. From these examples we may concur that gun ownership has no necessary relevance to rate of murder.
Did I mention how much of a leaking, unwashed, hairy pussy you are yet? You smell like rotten bluefish. I much doubt even curry could conceal your absolutely foul aroma. I bet it hangs like sleeve of wizard.
You should douche, you douche.
Instead of yammering about my taking away my ability to protect myself (I do believe it was our forefathers intent to arm themselves against the Government they were forced to give birth to so that their tax dollars were impletmented as they saw fit by their votes) how about insisting that grown adults be held responsible for their actions?
Well done. That's what responsible gun owners do.
Sleep well. I know I would.
If you were following me down a street ranting about hairy, unwashed, rotten bluefish pussy, I'd shoot you with no regrets.
@ #10 - you think this was political? I didn't see anything about her screaming "Income Equality, Bitch!" before pulling the trigger. Hmm, perhaps you just jump at every opportunity to make a confusing attempt at discrediting the occupy movement by assuming that all lesbians are involved because you don't like lesbians or others you think are dirty liberals or whatnot. That's a big ole confusing bunch of conflagration you got going on there.
@ #11 - really? Big stinky infected puss is the go to insult here??? Are you in the 5th grade? I mean, it's ok if you just don't personally enjoy the clam burger, and having a little non-vitriolic fun with euphemisms about the ham wallet/ pink taco/ etc. is no biggie, but it's not ok to do what you did there. You equate what you perceive as some sort of ultimate weakness ( which is in fact, just another person's opinion and you have no clue to the strength the person does or does not possess) with what you apparently feel is the inherently weak and putrid female reproductive organ . I love my guns, all my lgbt and hetero friends, and my vagina, so you give me mental gas. Though you do sound like a hell of a descriptive story teller.
Anon was responsible, used her weapon properly, and may have saved her own life or that of her family members'. She may have pissed this guy off more, but I still doubt he'll charge at another woman like that again.
In any reasonable person's eyes, that's kickass.
@11: It's shitty that you're insulting someone because they oppose weapons which kill thousands of people every year, many of them on accident. And it's juvenile that you're using female genitalia as an insulting word. If you have a strong opinion on something, be smarter about voicing it.
I was comparing verbal abuse with verbal abuse. You need to work on your reading comprehension skills.
My not-so-subtle implication was that folks here were jumping to this woman's defense because she is a lesbian, and not because her violent actions were in any way justifiable.
FYI - Finland is a Nordic country, but not technically a part of Scandinavia. If you weren't aware: there are a number of significant cultural differences between Finns and Scandinavians.
Why be a dick just 'cause you don't agree with somebody? And why go so cartoonishly far with the calling the person a pussy thing? I know, I know, all people who aren't gun fans are criminally effeminate, right? That stupid shit's really weird and it really makes you sound like a misogynist. That doesn't at all make anybody very inclined to acknowledge your argument. Don't post stuff like that anymore. You're fucking up the internet.
@10 Harrassing a person who backs a candidate of whom you're not a fan iiiiisssss sssiiimmilaaarrr to gaaaaayyy baaasshhiiingg annnddd aatttteemmptiiinggg asssaaaullllttt, riiiiiggghtt? Dumb argument. Gay bashing, hurling verbal abuse at a person in front of her child, and inflicting violence upon that person will probably earn you a bullet if you're misfortunate enough to pick on an armed citizen.
Even if you're being a dick to a republican, I can't imagine you ought to expect to get shot. Unless that republican is Ted Nugent or one of his million retarded accolytes. In which case you ought to decapitate him before he busts a cap in you.
"The woman said something critical of his behavior and an argument ensued, passengers told police."
So, basically, she started something on a bus with a clearly psycho rider, and then shot him.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/lo…
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/43697…
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/lo…
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
Even in your own quote, she said something critical of his behavior. That implies his behavior came first. How is it that you interpret this as "she started something?"
There's something to be said for bashing back.
That pretty much depends. If it was a purely political interaction, no, I sure as hell wouldn't support violence.
On the other hand, if the situation was actually similar - the anti-Romney person got sufficiently heated that the Romney supporter got off a bus early with their family, and then the anti-Romney person followed them off the bus and ran screaming at them, calling them names?
I'd certainly be far more open to believing acting in self-defense was warranted.
Sorry, nice try. The woman actually did what "non stand your ground" requires - she got off the bus with her family and distanced herself from the situation.
Was she supposed to run away, abandoning her wife and children, once the guy started literally running after her?
If anyone in the Seattle city limits needs one, let me know and I will come by with a free hug just for you. (no loitering or groping please)
Whole thing sucks. Wonder if that guy ever got the mental health help he seems to have needed. Wonder if Sara ever mellowed and matured…
For my part, I support all of that - the general monopoly on violence held by the government, the government's license to citizens to commit violence, and the narrow restrictions on that license.
That said, this I Anonymous wasn't about the violence, or who is allowed to use it, but about how violence - particularly life-threatening gun violence - changes people. The people on both sides of the gun, as well as the witnesses, the families, and the community. It is life changing. It completely shifts your perspective by grounding it in reality. It is no longer a metaphor. Anyone who has been close to it can never refer to it glibly ever again.
Gun rights are something I am very glad to have in the world as I know it.
~~~~~
If the minimum standard for provocation in Seattle is based on the John Williams example, I'm surprised the streets don't run red.
.
.
.
Real event, but this smells a little too much of fakery.
He tried to gay bash her and her family, and took a bullet for his trouble. The world would be a better place if that happened to ever gay basher.
And so were its commenters. http://tinyurl.com/7z6g29c
This story is a good example of why I, as a small boned lady, am also an armed small boned lady. And she did everything right, at the time and I think her reaction after the fact, and today, is and was also appropriate. Grokking the enormity of what happened and what could have happened has changed her.
@5 In most scenarios I'd agree with you that two prior gun wielding incidents indicates that said person should not be carrying a gun in public. However, seeing as how those occurrences took place in Utah I'm willing to give this woman the benefit of the doubt.
I just wish the Slog would invest more time into pruning the useless, unconstructive trolls that only serve to shit-stir.
She has a history of past "issues" with public gun display.
All in all, not a clear thinking person.
@1-@28 (especially @1) y'all need to learn to share.
As a NRA Certified Basic Pistol Instructor, I have made it my specific mission to aid and encourage women—regardless of their life preferences—to arm themselves and to learn how to use a gun safely, and with confidence that they will be able to prevail in extremis. Regardless of one's orientations, this is not a friendly and safe world, and no amount of government interference is going to make it so for the simple reason that all such efforts fail to take human nature ad the existence of evil into account. In that light, I am also a holder of a concealed handgun license and carry a pistol all day, every day.....as do my wife, son, and daughter in law, half of my daughter in law's family, and almost all of my friends. If guns are killing machines that promote violence, then our guns are all defective because they have never been fired at another human being, with one exception—a friend of mine who shot and killed a drug-crazed knife-wielding mugger. The police called it a justifiable use of deadly force in self defense and he was not detained or charged. The prosecutor did not even convene a grand jury.
One only needs to read the Federalist Papers to understand the Founders' intent when the 2nd Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights. But it isn't just about guns. The Bill of Rights is a whole thing, and there are a few foundational principles one has to understand in order to appreciate the significance of the individual amendments.
1) The amendments are not permissions granted by government. They are a statement of the rights of man, and they restrict the reach of government to hem in and restrict those rights. They clearly state those restrictions on the powers of government. Furthermore, the Founders held these rights to be self-evident.......that they accrue to all people everywhere. The difference between the U.S. and other governments is exactly the degree to which our government and others protect those rights. Article II, Section I of the Constitution requires the president to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution.........in its entirety, not just the parts he or she is comfortable with. Military inductees are required to "solemnly swear (or affirm) that [they] will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that [they] will bear true faith and allegiance to the same...." These are not empty words, and again, they do not selectively choose which part of the Constitution the swearer is pledging to uphold. The oaths of office and military service REQUIRE defense of the whole thing in its entirety.
2) The amendments are free standing individual statements of individual rights, but they are also mutually supporting and provide an interlocking defense for The People against a tyrannical government. For instance: a government which may not disarm its citizens also may not suppress the rights of the citizens to freedom of speech, press, religion; and conversely, as long as The People have freedom of speech, assembly, the press, etc., government cannot infringe the right of The People to keep and bear arms. The Founders had lived through and endured exactly this kind of tyranny in the first person, and it was their determination to prevent it from ever happening to us again. So they made sure that The People, individually, had the right to keep and bear arms as a defense against that kind of tyranny. However, for that to be possible, the keeping and bearing of arms had to be an individual right, as any government which controlled it would also have the means of preventing the overthrow of tyranny.
3) When Jefferson wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government" he was laying the groundwork upon which all of the freedoms enumerated in the Constitution were based: that the rights are self-evident; that they are unalienable; that they guarantee the right of a citizen to be secure in their person and property, and that they have a right to pursue (but not a right to achieve) happiness. The right to be secure in one’s person and property necessarily includes the right to defend one’s person and property from criminal trespass.
4) When Anonymous shot her attacker, she exercised the right declared on her behalf by Thomas Jefferson to be secure in her person and property, with a gun enumerated for her as a right to keep and bear without infringement by James Madison in the Bill of Rights, in order to oppose the tyranny of a bigoted and violent man. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison—regardless of whether or not they would have struggled, like me, with accepting her sexual orientation—would have approved of her response to the actions of a criminally deranged man.
As a NRA Certified Basic Pistol Instructor, I have made it my specific mission to aid and encourage women—regardless of their life preferences—to arm themselves and to learn how to use a gun safely, and with confidence that they will be able to prevail in extremis. Regardless of one's orientations, this is not a friendly and safe world, and no amount of government interference is going to make it so for the simple reason that all such efforts fail to take human nature ad the existence of evil into account. In that light, I am also a holder of a concealed handgun license and carry a pistol all day, every day.....as do my wife, son, and daughter in law, half of my daughter in law's family, and almost all of my friends. If guns are killing machines that promote violence, then our guns are all defective because they have never been fired at another human being, with one exception—a friend of mine who shot and killed a drug-crazed knife-wielding mugger. The police called it a justifiable use of deadly force in self defense and he was not detained or charged. The prosecutor did not even convene a grand jury.
One only needs to read the Federalist Papers to understand the Founders' intent when the 2nd Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights. But it isn't just about guns. The Bill of Rights is a whole thing, and there are a few foundational principles one has to understand in order to appreciate the significance of the individual amendments.
1) The amendments are not permissions granted by government. They are a statement of the rights of man, and they restrict the reach of government to hem in and restrict those rights. They clearly state those restrictions on the powers of government. Furthermore, the Founders held these rights to be self-evident.......that they accrue to all people everywhere. The difference between the U.S. and other governments is exactly the degree to which our government and others protect those rights. Article II, Section I of the Constitution requires the president to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution.........in its entirety, not just the parts he or she is comfortable with. Military inductees are required to "solemnly swear (or affirm) that [they] will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that [they] will bear true faith and allegiance to the same...." These are not empty words, and again, they do not selectively choose which part of the Constitution the swearer is pledging to uphold. The oaths of office and military service REQUIRE defense of the whole thing in its entirety.
2) The amendments are free standing individual statements of individual rights, but they are also mutually supporting and provide an interlocking defense for The People against a tyrannical government. For instance: a government which may not disarm its citizens also may not suppress the rights of the citizens to freedom of speech, press, religion; and conversely, as long as The People have freedom of speech, assembly, the press, etc., government cannot infringe the right of The People to keep and bear arms. The Founders had lived through and endured exactly this kind of tyranny in the first person, and it was their determination to prevent it from ever happening to us again. So they made sure that The People, individually, had the right to keep and bear arms as a defense against that kind of tyranny. However, for that to be possible, the keeping and bearing of arms had to be an individual right, as any government which controlled it would also have the means of preventing the overthrow of tyranny.
3) When Jefferson wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government" he was laying the groundwork upon which all of the freedoms enumerated in the Constitution were based: that the rights are self-evident; that they are unalienable; that they guarantee the right of a citizen to be secure in their person and property, and that they have a right to pursue (but not a right to achieve) happiness. The right to be secure in one’s person and property necessarily includes the right to defend one’s person and property from criminal trespass.
4) When Anonymous shot her attacker, she exercised the right declared on her behalf by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence to be secure in her person and property, with a gun enumerated as a right for her to keep and bear without infringement by James Madison in the Bill of Rights, in order to oppose the tyranny of a bigoted and violent man. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison—regardless of whether or not they would have struggled, like me, with accepting her sexual orientation—would have approved of her response to the actions of a criminally deranged man. It was absolutely the correct response.
Anybody who would criticize her decision to A) carry a gun in the first place, and B) actually use it when it became necessary, is without standing in the matter, and that person's opinions aren't worth a popcorn fart in a stiff wind because they weren't there, and they weren't the ones facing a life or death decision in a split second. They are of the philosophy that a woman lying dead in an alley somewhere, strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow more noble than her rapist found dead in that same alley with two gunshot wounds to the chest and one in the head. Such people are moral cowards, and they are not to be taken seriously.
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
"as a bed wetting, passive-aggressive liberal, I have no idea on what position I should take on gun-toting lesbians."
personally, I think there may be a market for realistic looking "water pistols" that shoot mace / pepper spray.
Further, she stayed to wait for police after the incident and fully cooperated. State law in Washington says that a licensed handgun owner mayu shoot in self defense if he/she believes they or their familiy is in danger. She gave him warning to stay back and get away and he continued to charge her anyway.
The fact that she was not prosecuted and was acting in her opwn self-defense was enough for me. No, I don't like people carrying guns, yes I do not care if they do so legally, know how to handle them and act responsibly with their use.
Google the death of a friend of mine named Julio Rivera, who was killed by gay bashers in Jackson Heights (NYC) in 1990. I often wonder if his young life would not have been cut short, had he had something to protect himself. His attackers ripped his skull open with the claw end of a hammer and watched his brains spill onto the sidewalk.
But, folks, rather than use COMMON FUCKING SENSE and *not* get into verbal confrontations on public buses with the kind of CRAZIES, people with what some folks call "COMMON SENSE" avoid even talking to the kind of CRAZIES that ride public buses.
Seriously, it's just common sense, you don't chat it up with the schizophrenics that live on public transportation.
It shows a complete lack of common sense to become involved in and / or participate in a discussion of any type with some bus crazy. It shows a complete lack of common sense to not AVOID and IGNORE such crazy people.
This person (who happened to be a Lesbian, but that's irrelevant) should have simply not interacted with the CRAZY BUS PERSON in the first place.
But as it happens, at least if the newspaper stories are correct, this lady (whom it seems is a Lesbian, though that's irrelevant) has prior history whipping out the firearms and waving them around...
...And that's what happened.
First she makes the mistake of getting into a snit with a fucking BUS CRAZY, she allows it to get out of hand (most likely she is actually responsible for blowing it up by talking to this nutter in the first place), and than she does what she's done before, whips out a piece and this time the person she points it at doesn't back down.
He's a BUS CRAZY, remember?
And so she fires away...
This is one crazy Lesbian (not that being gay has much to do with this) who likes to wave around guns. I'd say she's a loose cannon.
SHE'S OFF THE CASE.
I know that you want really, really badly to be able to blame the victim here. But you have to remember: picturing events a certain way in your head doesn't cause them to have actually occurred that way.
It looks like you don't get to blame the lesbian this time (not that being a lesbian is the reason you're so desperate to blame her, I'm sure).
- You have the right to carry a concealed weapon
- You have the right to start some shit with a stranger on the bus
- If the stranger approaches you, you have the right to threaten him with a deadly weapon
- If the stranger does not cower in fear and run away at sight of your mighty & powerful weapon, you have the right to murder the motherfucker right there on the street
I, for one, am not entirely comfortable with all this.
Stupid system.
People: shoot to kill, not maim!
Did this guy touch her? No.
Did he have a weapon? No.
He yelled. He spit. He "charged".
She shot him.
Was her life in imminent danger? Maybe.
You all cheer her decision.
SPD Officer Birk attempts to stop a "chronic inebriate" with a open knife on a sidewalk in potential violation of RCW 9.41.270 (Unlawful carrying of weapons)
Birk, in full uniform, givers mulitple commands at gun point for the man to drop the knife. He doesn't.
Birk shoots him.
Was his life in imminent danger? Maybe.
You call him a murderer.
Here is my understanding of the incident (according the Times & Slog archives):
- Anon was carrying a concealed weapon
- Anon started a verbal altercation with the victim while on the bus, and taunted him with an obscene gesture after leaving the bus
- Anon was approached by the victim and, "displayed a licensed hand gun she was carrying" while warning the victim to stay away
- The victim continued to approach Anon, so she shot him in the chest (note: normal people believe that shooting a man in the chest would constitute an attempt to take his life)
According to the Slog, Anon was not charged with a crime because, "She can reasonably take into account her inability to use her gun to defend herself if [victim] got close enough to physically assault her and be concerned that she could lose the gun in a struggle. As a result, her firing of the gun once to stop [victim] was not an unreasonable amount of force under state law."
In other words: if a person gets within two feet of someone holding a handgun, the psycho who feels inadequate enough to carry a deadly weapon on his/her person has the right to murder the motherfucker (even if no actual physical contact is ever initiated) because there is a possibility that the sociopath might lose control of said deadly weapon in a hypothetical ensuing struggle... and this is all the fault of the person who did not feel the need to go everywhere with a murder weapon hidden in his/her handbag.
Birk was a trained fit young man with a plethora of less than deadly options he could choose to deal with a much older, much smaller, out of shape, inebriated, handicapped man with a three inch folder.
From: Calling back up. Baton. Taser, Pepper spray. (Shit. Russian arm tie. I'm pretty sure they still teach that to cops.)
Anyway. Williams was an old handicapped man who was over 15 feet away when the confrontation started with BIRK in pursuit. Birk controlled the situation.
John Williams was shot four times in HIS SIDE. He was turning away when the shots were fired. NOT charging.
Speaking as somebody who trained with LEO's for nearly two decades, I can tell you this simple fact: Birk could have resolved the situation without shooting.
Even if it was the worst case and it was a older handicapped deranged man staggering towards Birk? If it was me? If I was a cop, and I couldn't disarm him without shooting him? Then I am one fucking totally incompetent cop. I should be fired anyway.
I have no idea what the LR situation was. But Birk WAS either a fucking murderer. Or totally incompetent.
https://www.facebook.com/emmanuel.salter…
Personally, the shooting had an immense impact on me and my family as well, who had been there leading up-to, and during the incident. We are not the only ones who had experienced the weight of this; there is the man that was shot, his family, and his friends who received the terrible news that he had been shot, and is in emergency surgery.
There is a small part of me that when thinking about the incident is filled with anger that such a beautiful day that I was spending with my wife and children came too such an abrupt stop, with me in jail, and a man rushed to the ER on the brink of death.
Talk about a moment of contrast. One minute you are holding your spouse’s hand, and watching your kids bounce around, eager to get to the library, then the next minute (it seems) you are sitting in an interview room wondering if a man you never met, and had just shot, is alive, and if your wife, and children are safe.
Then there is the larger part of me that for some time would wake up in the middle of the night thinking about the terrible injury that I inflicted on another human being—a son, husband?, father?, etc.—and that larger portion of me is pained by, and has to live with the terribleness of that day—just as he does. Maybe I am wrong about this, is it possible that he does not care, that I care too much about what had happened?—one could never care to much about human life.
Do not get me wrong, I am not clinging to the incident in a "poor pity me" moment. Just writing from the heart, which is what people ought to do, particularly following situations like the one that had occurred.
At the time, in the moment, I believed my actions were necessary that day. Today, I believe action was necessary; but to say that I would do it again the same—considering the fact that I cannot seem to reconcile what I did (not why I did)—I would do again what I felt in the moment I needed to do. How's that for an answer!
The first year I would wake in the middle of the night from dreams of me being the one shot. There was a lot of contemplation that has gone into the incident of that day, and I have seen my-self there, looking down the barrel of my own handgun, and the trigger being pulled. It is a terrifying thing to imagine being so close to the end, and that is merely an abstract peek into the moment, but I believe I have a abstract idea of what he was going through on his end, feeling the impact of the shot, laying on the ground as I stood over him, reaching out to the world for help, struggling to breath. I looked in his eyes, and I seen utter fear.
I seen a man laying in the middle of the street passing, and there was no person there, not even me, who was willing to walk up, and render aid—I screamed to my wife to call an ambulance, but just stood there struck by the unfolding of such a violent moment. I seen myself, a man running up to me aggressively, swearing at me, not heeding my calls to Stop, and there was no person there who was willing to intervene to stop him from doing whatever it was he was going to do, so I intervened.
I hope that he does not cause females to fear him anymore, as he caused us to fear him that day. I hope he loves, and cherishes every female in his life—every person in his life.
I hope that he is well, and that he cherishes every moment of his valuable life, because he has received a second chance at not just life, but living life to the best of his ability.
I am sorry for shooting you.
My other point would be, wtf are civilians carrying guns around for in the first place in society? This story could have very easily resulted in the death of a human. He was shot in the chest at close range and could have died. No going back and bringing a person back to life when that happens. And for what? Because he was running towards her in a threatening manner? Who knows, but not likely he would actually have physically attacked her, but say he did, is that worth killing him over? America has the craziest, most barbaric gun laws in the modern world. There is no escape from karma, either on an individual or nation basis. Cause in the end, you always get what you deserve....
I accept your surrender. Prepare your anus. You are now my sex slave.
"Birk could have resolved the situation without shooting."
Exactly my point. If that is so, then so could have the IA writer. Her bus dude had no weapon at all.
"Baton, taser, pepper spray, Russian arm tie"
Against a knife? You can't be serious. Knives are deadly weapons. While you're trying to put someone in a Russian Arm Tie, he'll be spilling your guts with his "three inch folder". Even someone like JTW can muster up enough strength for one quick thrust. Would you be willing to bet your life that he can't?
Not saying Birk handled it perfectly or even that well. I'd like to think I wouldn't have fired, at least that quickly and it sounds like you think the same. Just amusing that most (but not all) commenters on this forum are so quick to defend the IA writer and just as quick to condemn Birk.
A rich person shot a poor person
And didn't even go to trial.
It's always nice to see the hypocrites at the Stranger pick and choose when it's okay and when it's not - Dominic Holden in particular tripping over himself to proclaim Brereton innocent while 3 years later participating rallies for Trayvon Martin.
A rich person shot a poor person
And didn't even go to trial."
You're a fucking idiot. Brereton lived, at the time, in public housing, it was outlined in one of the papers. She was rich?
Have you looked at Salters Facebook? He is living on Lake Washington in a waterfront condo.
"It's always nice to see the hypocrites at the Stranger pick and choose when it's okay and when it's not - Dominic Holden in particular tripping over himself to proclaim Brereton innocent while 3 years later participating rallies for Trayvon Martin."
Yea, the prosecutor was tripping over herself to proclaim it was self-defense, that's why it took something like nine months to find that the shooting was self-defense.
Read the fucking paper before you spout off crap as if you know what the hell you are talking about.
BTW, you should read up on Zimmerman. Apparently there were witnesses to the incident that places Martin on top of Zimmerman. Oh, and Zimmerman had two black eyes, a fractured nose, and two gashes on the backside of his head.
You are obviously anti-gun.
Moreover, there's a certain history in the South of black people being murdered by white people. And there's a history in Sanford of white people assaulting black people. So Martin had plenty of reason to think that HIS life was in danger.
Because that's what the Zimmerman/Martin case is about - Zimmerman claimed self defense and was never arrested (until public opinion intervened).
So, I think your point is, the Trayvon Martin case IS HOW IT SHOULD BE DONE?
Hypocrisy makes strange bedfellows.
Zimmerman ought not have been arrested given the evidence. The evidence, which has been released by the prosecution, shows Zimmerman with head trauma, a fractured nose, and two black eyes; and a witness that describes Martin on top of Zimmerman.
As i stated previously: there is no evidence that Zimmerman initiated aggressive contact, period! If you have something to refute that, feel free to link us up here. I should mention that Zimmerman getting out of his truck and simply following a person is not an act of aggression.
BTW, I disagree with your assertion that self-defense shootings, and arrests ought to be driven by public opinion. I prefer to stick with the Law, it's a safer bet.
Cases of self-defense that are not refutable ought not be sent through court. Brereton for example, there were a dozen or so witnesses that backed up her statements (mind you, people she didn't know from Adam).
@LW - great piece. I'm sorry you had to go through that and I hope you came through it relatively intact.