Archives for posts with tag: 4th amendment

Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the last six months, you know the name George Zimmerman.  Depending on which side of this sordid tale you fall, that name either invokes great pride at an ordinary man who overcame the odds and fought evil, or you see the opposite:  the epitome of evil who murdered a fine young man for being “black in a no black zone.”  How you feel about him was most likely influenced by the media because of the way they’ve latched onto this story with both hands and led us around by the noses.

When the story first broke, I will admit, I thought: “what an asshole.  This guy will set the concealed carry laws and people’s feelings about it back by 100 years.”  I listened to the news, I even heard the 911 call that I thought damned Zimmerman to the electric chair.  “How could they let this guy walk?” I thought.  This is crazy.  He quite obviously went out looking for trouble and trouble is what he found.  What kind of a neighborhood watch rolls around armed, anyways.  Then I found out the guy was a wannabe cop, and that fueled my dislike for him higher.  I wore my “hoodie” in the San Antonio heat in honor of the young man that was gunned down.  Then we heard a different story.

I think I was at an airport when the news of the “doctored” 911 tape broke.  For those of you keeping track at home, NBC news edited the 911 call to make it sound like George Zimmerman was signaling out Trayvon Martin because of his race.  This was one of my reasons that I was so against Zimmerman.  The edited call went like this:

ZIMMERMAN:  “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.”

However, after the real 911 tape was released, we actually heard the dispatcher ask a very important question during the dialogue between the two.  The actual, unedited conversation went like this:

ZIMMERMAN:  “This guy looks like he’s up to no good, or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.”

911 OPERATOR: “Okay. And this guy, is he white, black, or Hispanic?”

ZIMMERMAN: “He looks black.”

Hmmm…you mean to tell me that a reputable news agency like NBC News would do something like this to slant a story?  I mean come on…these guys catch sexual predators on tv.  They’re the good guys…right?  Wrong.  I started paying a little more attention to how the story of this vigilante was being told in the media.  When pictures of Trayvon Martin were shown, it was a young Trayvon Martin, smiling, in a football uniform, in a suit and tie going to church.  All the pictures were slanted to show him in the best light possible.  All the pictures of George Zimmerman were of him disheveled, unshaven and shown in the worst light.  Hmmm…I still can’t believe the guys that take sex offenders out would do something like this.  But they did.  Still, I thought old George was wrong to be there.

As time went on, we all know what happened.  I won’t rehash the story here, but I’ll get to the point that forced me to write this blog.  Last night, I watched the “exclusive interview” George Zimmerman gave to Sean Hannity from Fox News.  Now, before you go off about Fake News or Faux News or whatever you MSNBC types call it, let me finish.  I’m pretty George picked Fox because they are a little more aligned to the line of thinking that he is.  I’m pretty sure Chris Hansen isn’t packing when he goes in to talk the creepers.  My point is, I think George thought the interview was going to be in his favor.  I was impressed to see Sean put George to the thumbtacks.  He asked hard questions.  He asked direct questions.  And, as George answered those questions, I felt myself sympathizing with him.  He’s a guy who’s married and is tired of the “bad guys” getting away with crime.  Me too.  I’m married and I hate that bad guys get away with crime.  He legally carries a concealed firearm.  I don’t go to Wal-Mart to buy a gallon of milk unless I’m armed. (See my first blog for more details.)  I’m a firm believer in my 4th Amendment rights, as he is.  Was I really relating to this guy…this murderer?  I couldn’t believe what I was feeling.

Hannity asked him what happened.  He explained, for the first time ever on television, that he was going to Target to do his weekly grocery shopping.  His neighbor had been robbed weeks before and it had scared his wife.  On his way to Target, he spotted a young man walking in the rain, close to the houses.  This made him suspicious so he “slow rolled” past.  Let me stop you all right there.  I think this is where he made Mistake #1.  He’s not a cop.  He’s not trained as a cop.  If he had called the cops right there, reported a “suspicious person” and moved on, none of this would have happened, but he didn’t.  He called the cops, but he stopped the car and got out so he could “give the police a better address.”  At that point, he had lost sight of Trayvon and the situation was over.  The 911 Dispatcher even asked George “are you following him?”  George indicated he was and the dispatcher instructed him to stop.  Now, George is under no legal obligation to listen to a dispatcher, but he should have taken the advice.  This was Mistake #2, and this is why: once Trayvon was gone, it should have been over.  But, the wannabe cop decided he wanted to play detective.  He wanted to be a hero.  He never should have been there, but he was and when Trayvon reappeared, George was in trouble.

According to the interview, Trayvon attacked George without warning and punched him so hard he broke his nose.  He then began pounding his head off the concrete.  George began screaming, hoping someone would come to his aid.  In fact, in the 911 call that was played from another caller, you can hear those screams in the background.  Those screams, mind you, the media made you believe were Trayvon’s earlier in this whole dilemma.  At this point in the interview, I’m back with George.  I’ve had my ass kicked, and it’s not a whole lot of fun.  I can tell you that if I had someone on top of me, playing “bouncy ball” with my head on the concrete and I had my firearm, I would have done exactly what George did next.  He pulled the weapon and fired, ultimately killing Trayvon.  He had every right to defend himself.  If that’s what happened.  I will defend his right to do that until my own dying breath.  If we don’t have the right of self defense, what do we have?  The question is, did Trayvon attack because he thought he was about to be attacked himself?  I guess it’s a question we’ll never have answered.

As I watched the interview, I found myself going back and forth with my feelings on this issue.  I was so anti-George when this all first broke, that I was having serious issues thinking that I could identify with this guy…but I was.  Then Hannity asked the mother of all questions:

Do you regret this incident?  Do you regret getting out of the car?  This was George’s chance.  He could really say he was sorry.  That’s not what happened.  He said about the worst possible thing he could have said.

“I feel it was all God’s plan and for me to second guess it or judge it…”

What?  Are you kidding me?  Come on, dude.  I consider myself a Christian, but really?  It was God’s plan?  You just lost everyone that was on the fence like me.

When you carry a gun, and you’re not a law enforcement officer, you don’t put yourself in situations that can lead to something like this.  You don’t intentionally go looking for trouble.  When you do, you’re no better than the thugs that carry illegally.  As I said, I carry, but I don’t ever want to have to kill someone.  Ever.  But, don’t mistake not wanting to with won’t.

So, my take on this?  I think the spin that the liberal media (CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC) put on this from the beginning was irresponsible reporting to say the least and criminal (NBC) to go to the extreme.  I think that George put himself in a bad situation that he made continually worse by bad decisions.  However, once Trayvon attacked, I think George did the only thing that he thought he could to survive.  He killed before he was killed.  I don’t know.  I’m glad he was arrested, because now there will be a trial.  Let’s hope the law and the system can spread some light where the liberal media has failed miserably.

 

 

Advertisements

So, as I woke up this morning and listened to the local radio guys yap about a whole lot of nothing, I decided I was going to write my blog about what a douchey, ungrateful prick Justin Bieber is.  Have you listened to this kid?  He’s an absolute Douche bag with a capital “D”.  I heard a piece of an interview this morning and he completely degraded the DJ interviewing him.  He’s self important, entitled and really, just gives Canada a bad name altogether.

Anyways, as I said, I was going to write my blog about this little shit, and then something else happened.  I engaged in a friendly debate with a friend of mine on Facebook regarding the government requiring an individual who is collecting welfare to drug test.  It was a good debate and she actually brought up a couple of points that made me take pause and think.  I thought I would share my views with you.

First, let me tell you that I absolutely believe that everyone who is receiving welfare should have to take a urinalysis once a year.  It should be administered by the state and the examiner should have to “watch the urine leave the body and enter the specimen collection container.”  Why did I say it like that and put it in quotes?  Because that’s what the U.S. military is required to do.  If you didn’t know, taking a drug test in the Air Force is quite the ordeal.  The proctor of the “whiz quiz” must actually watch the stream leave my body and enter the cup.  I’ve had some dudes so close to me, I felt like I was auditioning for a role in a “golden shower” flick.  Sorry…I digress.

Why do I think people who are taking welfare should pee to get their check?  Well, sorry to state the obvious but I want to make sure that people who are receiving a handout aren’t doing drugs.  “A ‘handout’ you say?  You insensitive prick!  How dare you label the downtrodden of this country as a bunch of losers who are a drain on our society.”

That’s actually not what I said.  However, taking money that you didn’t earn is a handout.  Granted, it’s a handout meant to get you on your feet and get you back to work, but it’s a government handout all the same.  That being said, government is the key word.  Where does the money come from?  Our taxes.  My taxes.  Your taxes.  It comes from us.  So, my logic is, I want to ensure that the person I’m giving my money to isn’t on drugs.  Stated simply, there it is.

Now…the biggest argument against this is that it violates your Fourth Amendment right against illegal search and seizure.  My friend (who is a teacher) posted a link to a website.  This is the text from that link showing the 4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So, there you go.  That’s what the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects you from, in case you didn’t know.  However, that website goes on to say this:

The police can not search someone’s person (body), house, papers, or effects (other things) without having a good reason. They can not take any thing from someone without a good reason.

Oh…the police?  We’re not talking about the police taking the list of everyone collecting welfare and going door to door with bottles of water and specimen collection cup. I’m saying that as a prerequisite to receiving a check from the U.S. government, you pee in a cup and prove that you aren’t a substance user/abuser.  Since I’m posting links from webpages, here’s another one.

Company Policy. Landrum Professional is a Drug-Free Workplace. As a condition of employment, all employees assigned to work for Landrum Professional must agree to take a drug test at any time such a test is requested by the Landrum Professional Human Resources Manager, or other representative of Landrum Professional management. It is the position of Landrum Professional that use of illegal drugs, misuse of prescription drugs or misuse of alcohol is destructive and dangerous, and can have a negative effect on job performance.

I just Googled “urinalysis condition of employment” and that was the first result that came up.  A business that requires a drug test as a condition of employment.  Hmmm…weird.  So you’re telling me that based on what I’ve read, over half the corporations in the United States require drug testing as a condition of employment, but our government, truly the biggest corporation of all, can’t drug test to ensure the free money it gives out isn’t going to drug users?  The hell you say.  I say, if you’re not doing drugs, what the hell do you have to be afraid of?  To test this theory, I went to the one person I knew has collected welfare in her life.  My mom.

When my parents first divorced when I was five, my mom needed some assistance from the government.  She needed a handout to get a leg up.  She was on welfare.  I called her tonight to ask her how she would have felt if the government told her she was required to take a drug test prior to receiving any aid.  Her response:

“I would have had no problem with that.”  (I hope I quoted you accurately, mom.)

So there you have it.  A quote from a person who has collected welfare and lived in government subsidized housing for a short period of time.  Of course, my mother isn’t the typical welfare recipient.  She was only on it for just over a year and as soon as she could pull herself up by the bootstraps, she did.  She got off it, we moved out of the ghetto (as it was in Great Falls, Montana) and she bought a house.  That doesn’t usually happen.  Generally, it’s once on welfare always on welfare.  I’m sorry to make the generalization, but prove me wrong.  You can’t, because I’m right.  But that’s not the point.  The point is, you leftish thinking folks think that it’s a huge infringement on the rights of the downtrodden to make them submit to a 15 second test to quickly prove they’re not on drugs.

The next point made to me earlier was: “what about social security? Should they have to take a test as well?”

This point actually gives my pause.  I say that only because it is money coming from the state.  However, my response earlier is still my response now.  No.  Social Security is kind of like a savings account.  At least that’s how I see it.  My parents and grandparents paid into their whole lives.  Granted, what they’re getting out of it doesn’t come close to what they paid in, but that’s the way the cookie crumbles.  I’m paying into and will probably never see because they’re going to take it all, but that’s okay.

So to wrap it all up.  I don’t know if I’ve proved anything beyond the shadow of a doubt but that’s not the point of this.  I hope maybe you took pause and thought about my point of view (if you’re on the other side of the fence) or were at least entertained by the way I wrote what I had to say.  Either way, comment if you’d like, share if you think it’s worthy but above all, smile.  We’re too serious anyways!