Those Holsters Are Particularly Worrying

Effluvia

salon.com

A Florida judge last week ordered George Zimmerman to surrender his weapons while under investigation for domestic violence.

Local law enforcement searched Zimmerman’s home, and on Monday filed court documents on the search.

This is what they found:

* Three handguns
* A 12-gauge shotgun
* A rifle
* 106 rounds of ammunition, including two AR-15 magazines

Police also confiscated a knife and three handgun holsters.

Holy CRAP. We knew he was dangerous – and that was before it became clear that he'd amassed his own arsenal.

What exactly was he planning on doing with 106 rounds of ammo, anyway? Start World War III ?

Last 5 posts by Clark

98 Comments

97 Comments

  1. Ken White  •  Nov 26, 2013 @10:50 am

    Jesus! That's enough ammunition for the NYPD to shoot two people!

  2. Ryan  •  Nov 26, 2013 @10:52 am

    @Ken

    Respectfully, you overestimate the marksmanship of most municipal police officers.

  3. Conster  •  Nov 26, 2013 @10:53 am

    106 rounds? That's what, half a drive-by? One fifth a mass-shooting?

  4. Tamfang  •  Nov 26, 2013 @10:56 am

    Don't forget the knife, which he could have used to spread butter in the path of a law enforcement officer.

  5. John  •  Nov 26, 2013 @10:59 am

    That isn't that much ammo. You can blow thru 106 rounds at a shooting range in an afternoon easily. I'd be more worried about the shotguns really – the only non-scary use for those is hunting birds, and we haven't heard about this guy hunting quail and such.

  6. Sigmadog  •  Nov 26, 2013 @11:01 am

    including two AR-15 magazines

    Maybe he's a subscriber.

  7. legion  •  Nov 26, 2013 @11:05 am

    Umm… are you being facetious? Because 106 rounds of ammo is actually not very much at all, considering it's generally sold in 20-round or 50-round boxes. 106 rounds could be a single box of rifle ammo, a box for the shotgun, and a couple more boxes for the pistols; maybe more if they're not all the same caliber.

  8. JonasB  •  Nov 26, 2013 @11:09 am

    Need to agree with Legion on this. The number of rounds doesn't signal much, even if only a single gun was found. Also not sure the number of guns means much either.

  9. Andrew S.  •  Nov 26, 2013 @11:11 am

    Shotguns are scary? Somebody tell Vice President Biden that.

    @legion: I'm 99.999…% sure that Clark was being sarcastic when he made the comment about 106 rounds of ammo being a lot.

  10. Shawn Levasseur  •  Nov 26, 2013 @11:11 am

    In Texas this is called, "keeping up with the Jones'"

  11. MrSpkr  •  Nov 26, 2013 @11:13 am

    @John- Or some people like to shoot skeet, too. That's what my sons and I do with our shotguns. And some people just like to keep a shotgun around for home defense because, let's face it, there is no other sound on earth as unique and intimidating as the sound of a pump action shotgun ratcheting a round into the chamber. Plus you have a lot less worry about your round going through the bad guy, through an exterior window, then perforating the neighbor. Or his dog, child, car, mailbox, etc.

    @legion – yeah, I'm pretty sure Clark is being facetious.

    @Shawn – Damn straight it is! Though if that's all the arsenal you have, you are almost certainly falling behind the Joneses rather than keeping up with them.

  12. in-Texas-dept  •  Nov 26, 2013 @11:14 am

    @Shawn: In Texas, this is called "out of ammo".

  13. DRJlaw  •  Nov 26, 2013 @11:18 am

    I'd be more worried about the shotguns really – the only non-scary use for those is hunting birds…

    Scares the hell out of the birds.

  14. JonasB  •  Nov 26, 2013 @11:18 am

    So… now that we've established Clark is being facetious… what's the exact purpose of the post other than to make a half-joke about Zimmerman's domestic violence case?

  15. Tam  •  Nov 26, 2013 @11:28 am

    In fairness, the handguns may have been stored in the holsters, and thus the holsters went with the guns.

    I'm sure severL dogs were killed though, and those government-lovin' pinkos at Salon are covering it up.

  16. dee nile  •  Nov 26, 2013 @11:29 am

    So… now that we've established Clark is being facetious… what's the exact purpose of the post other than to make a half-joke about Zimmerman's domestic violence case?

    Actually, I think the half-joke's aimed at salon.com.

  17. Greg  •  Nov 26, 2013 @11:33 am

    @JonasB

    I think the half-jode was pretty much it… Not that it was a bad half-joke.

  18. CJK Fossman  •  Nov 26, 2013 @11:34 am

    two AR-15 magazines

    Am I the only one who wonders where the rifles are?

  19. Troutwaxer  •  Nov 26, 2013 @11:35 am

    The reporting at Salon is not particularly panicky – there's nothing more than a straightforward list without any commentary or use of words like "arsenal" so I'm not sure what Clarke is going on about. Perhaps he's satirizing gun nuts who freak out about any reporting on the subject of guns whatsoever?

  20. rob  •  Nov 26, 2013 @11:37 am

    You left out the gun case they found; with it, no one would know whether he had a rifle inside it or not.

    The thing I find more interesting is that George thought his girlfriend was pregnant, wonder how and from whom he got that idea?

    In a nutshell, I think that George is a jerk/a** who attracts other jerk/a** , and that taking guns away from him is a good thing.

  21. Wick  •  Nov 26, 2013 @11:40 am

    Obviously, Salon has no appreciation of the holster as fashion accessory. If your holster doesn't match your shoes, it is SO gauche.

  22. Anton Sirius  •  Nov 26, 2013 @11:46 am

    "What exactly was he planning on doing with 106 rounds of ammo, anyway?"

    Same thing he's been doing with them, presumably, which is menace the people unlucky enough to cross his path.

  23. ZeroHazard  •  Nov 26, 2013 @11:52 am

    Remember people, this is Florida.

  24. SPQR  •  Nov 26, 2013 @12:01 pm

    Arsenal? I had more guns than that before age 14.

  25. GoSign  •  Nov 26, 2013 @12:03 pm

    Wait, so is the joke "The article I'm quoting acts as if this is an incredibly large stockpile of weapons, even though it's not"? Because it seems like the original article doesn't have that sort of angle, it just blandly states what weapons he had. What exactly are you mocking? Just a straw man?

    Clark, you're often bad at giving context for your arguments. If there's one thing you could improve to make your posts more comprehensible and effective, that's it.

  26. Brian Kemp  •  Nov 26, 2013 @12:14 pm

    I've been bitching for a while now about being unable to find ammunition, but I learned today that I have more ammo than George Zimmerman.

  27. Rural Defender  •  Nov 26, 2013 @12:19 pm

    huh. salon is funny.. "removed several deadly weapons" if the cops had taken everything i've seen prosecutors charge as a deadly weapon, he'd be eating off his fine plastic spoons and walking to the courthouse from now on.

  28. Dr. Nobel Dynamite  •  Nov 26, 2013 @12:23 pm

    I'm confused. What are we supposed to be outraged/snarky/incredulous about in this story? Salon didn't use any hyperbolic language or suggest that this was a vast arsenal, so what there is there?

    Salon puts out more than its fair share of knee-jerk nonsense, but I really don't see how this story could have been written in any more factual tone.

    What am I missing?

  29. LJU3  •  Nov 26, 2013 @12:25 pm

    I just did a quick mental count, and have 250 rounds of .38 special, 50 rounds of .357 magnum, and 185 12-gauge shot shells in my closet at the moment.

    That anyone would think 106 rounds to be inordinate illustrates just how far apart the experiences and expectations of different people are (and would also, I would think, counsel against the ignorant attempting to make policy choices for the informed, both with respect to firearms and myriad other concerns).

  30. David C  •  Nov 26, 2013 @12:26 pm

    You think the holsters are the worst item?

    According to CNN:

    Three handgun holsters, a pack of gum, a religious pendant, a flashlight, a pocket knife, sanitizing wipe, a soft-sided gun case and a combination lock were also recovered during the search.

    The holsters are the most innocent item on the list. A FLASHLIGHT! Why, with that, he's free to prowl around in the dark, and maybe hit someone over the head with it! The pendant could be used to strangle someone! The sanitizing wipe is clearly to remove his fingerprints and other evidence! The gum could… um… be used to jam his combination lock to render it unopenable?

    OK, seriously. The guy is innocent until proven guilty. Confiscating weapons is one thing; confiscating a flashlight and a pack of gum doesn't seem justifiable.

  31. ern  •  Nov 26, 2013 @12:27 pm

    Three handguns, a shotgun, and a rifle is basically a beginner's set. And 106 rounds is nothing. My bulk pack of .22 has over 500 rounds in one box, and .45 comes in boxes of 50.

  32. GoSign  •  Nov 26, 2013 @12:31 pm

    Clearly, the matter isn't how many guns and bullets you have, but what you do with them. That's why gun control laws try to filter out felons and the mentally ill, not cap the number of ammo boxes you can buy. It's why you can buy as many handguns as you want, and shoot them as much as you want at targets in a range downtown, but you shouldn't similarly buy a rocket launcher because it's implausible that you'll be firing it at a paper silhouette. It only takes a single loaded handgun to kill an innocent person if you're the kind of paranoid high-strung asshole who would do so. (Not that I think high-strung assholes should have their right to bear arms revoked, until after shooting a person if they can't control themselves.)

  33. Ryan  •  Nov 26, 2013 @12:37 pm

    @those people wondering what Clark's point is:

    Take a look at the list of items that the police seized. One three of these things are not like the others.

    @DavidC

    Without further information, I would hazard a guess that all of said things in the list you quoted (except possibly the handgun holsters) were inside the gun case when it was seized. Gum, a pendant, a flashlight, a pocket knife, and a combination lock are all things that could be in a soft-side case, and make no sense to seize otherwise. The police list will be an inventory of everything taken, and it's pretty unlikely police emptied the case before seizing it.

    Of course, maybe the gum, pendant, and wipe were weapons… it seems Floridians have a penchant for unusual weapons: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/cerabino-lets-hit-rewind-and-review-unusual-weapon/nLrcR/

  34. Nicholas Weaver  •  Nov 26, 2013 @12:49 pm

    Some Law Enforcement agency lost an opportunity to do a little scaremongering. I'd bet the unstated rifle took the AR-15 magazines, which means it isn't a rifle but OMG AN ASSAULT RIFLE OMG!!!

  35. Mike  •  Nov 26, 2013 @12:55 pm

    Thug?

  36. Dr. Nobel Dynamite  •  Nov 26, 2013 @12:55 pm

    @Ryan

    @those people wondering what Clark's point is:

    Take a look at the list of items that the police seized. One three of these things are not like the others.

    I'm still confused. Why is it notable that firearms accessories were seized along with actual firearms and ammunition?

  37. HamOnRye  •  Nov 26, 2013 @1:00 pm

    The Salon article really drives home the point that their writers are truly out of touch.

    Anyone who owns and regularly shoots firearms will have far in excess of 106 rounds of ammunition.

  38. ppnl  •  Nov 26, 2013 @1:04 pm

    Sarcastic is Clark's default setting.

  39. Dr. Nobel Dynamite  •  Nov 26, 2013 @1:11 pm

    @HamOnRye

    Salon's writers, as a group, are often out of touch and silly. However, what in this article in particular drives this home?

  40. GoSign  •  Nov 26, 2013 @1:14 pm

    @HamOnRye

    That's the thing, though. The article didn't imply that the author thought that was a lot of ammunition or weaponry. I didn't see any hysteria present, it was as dry and to-the-point as possible. I don't know about how that website normally operates. Is the sarcasm directed at a different article than the one linked?

  41. EH  •  Nov 26, 2013 @1:18 pm

    yes, the joke is that it's not actually a huge stockpile of ammo

  42. Ryan  •  Nov 26, 2013 @1:20 pm

    @Dynamite

    Because there is no conceivable reason to seize things that are not evidence of a crime, nor mandated for removal by court order. Though it may be worth noting that the police may have seized the holsters if the three seized handguns were in said holsters at the time.

    Put another way – I have carried a shotgun strapped to my hiking backpack. If I were Zimmerman, should the police have seized my backpack if the gun wasn't actually in/on it at the time of the search?

  43. b  •  Nov 26, 2013 @1:36 pm

    I saw this earlier and couldn't believe it. I don't think I've fired a firearm but once in my life but even I know that any pearl-clutching over this is hilariously moronic. "Arsenal?" This doesn't even qualify as a collection.

  44. J@m3z Aitch  •  Nov 26, 2013 @1:40 pm

    what's the exact purpose of the post

    so I'm not sure what Clarke is going on about.

    Clark, you're often bad at giving context for your arguments. If there's one thing you could improve to make your posts more comprehensible and effective, that's it.

    Damn you, Clark! We demand certainty! Tell us exactly what you think so that we know exactly what our arguments with you are!

  45. Dr. Nobel Dynamite  •  Nov 26, 2013 @1:44 pm

    @EH

    the joke is that it's not actually a huge stockpile of ammo

    But, to my knowledge, absolutely no one (edit to add: in the linked article, at least) is maintaining that it is a huge stockpile of arms.

    @Ryan

    Because there is no conceivable reason to seize things that are not evidence of a crime, nor mandated for removal by court order.

    Well, I guess the question is then twofold: what does the judicial order to seize Zimmerman's firearms actually say, and what is the applicable law for those out on bail on domestic violence charges?

    I don't see the actual text of the order on either the Salon article or the linked CNN article, but would it surprise you to learn that the order encompasses firearm accessories like holsters or, say, reloading equipment? And, if so, do you really think that is a bad thing?

  46. Mr. A  •  Nov 26, 2013 @1:55 pm

    Folks, when the handguns disappear from evidence into – ahem – private hands, those private hands are going to want the holsters, too. I mean, c'mon – get with the program.

  47. htom  •  Nov 26, 2013 @2:32 pm

    Out of ammo, indeed. I used to carry a factory shrink-wrapped box (a double brick) of 1000 rounds of .22LR in my briefcase to meetings where I knew someone would be preaching about the terror of someone owning a thousand rounds of ammo. (A double brick of .22LR is about the size of a cigar box; a brick is a cardboard box of ten cardboard boxes of 50 rounds, I'd shoot a brick in about 90 minutes of training — 100 strings of five rounds.)

  48. Shane  •  Nov 26, 2013 @2:42 pm

    @rob

    The thing I find more interesting is that George thought his girlfriend was pregnant, wonder how and from whom he got that idea?

    He hadn't used the last 106 rounds, dunno they might have been blanks.

  49. Shane  •  Nov 26, 2013 @2:45 pm

    @David C

    OK, seriously. The guy is innocent until proven guilty. Confiscating weapons is one thing; confiscating a flashlight and a pack of gum doesn't seem justifiable.

    This probably all put together from what they got when they booked him.

  50. Waldo  •  Nov 26, 2013 @2:46 pm

    "What exactly was he planning on doing with 106 rounds of ammo, anyway? Start World War III ?"

    I know you were being sarcastic and all, but it's kind of ironic considering that WWI actually was started by a guy with a lot less than 106 rounds.

  51. Christoph  •  Nov 26, 2013 @3:00 pm

    They only confiscated one knife? Did they forget to check the kitchen?

  52. James Pollock  •  Nov 26, 2013 @3:11 pm

    So you have a guy ordered to surrender his weapons because he's charged with domestic violence. Based on experience, people involved in domestic violence are EXACTLY the people who should be temporarily disarmed.

    Sometimes during a breakup, tempers get a little high, and people sometimes don't thoroughly consider their actions. In that context, 106 rounds is the same as 1 round, which is too many. Now, he's certainly entitled to speedy due process to determine whether his "arsenal" should be returned to him. I put "people possibly involved in domestic violence" in the same category as "people who are not mentally able to understand the consequences of their actions" and "people who have a history of committing felonies with firearms"; these are the people to whom "reasonable" gun control should apply.

    (It would also be nice if there was some magic way that guns would stop working in the hands of inebriated persons; alas, that problem doesn't seem to have a technological solution.)

  53. jb  •  Nov 26, 2013 @3:19 pm

    It's why you can buy as many handguns as you want, and shoot them as much as you want at targets in a range downtown, but you shouldn't similarly buy a rocket launcher because it's implausible that you'll be firing it at a paper silhouette.

    Now that you mention it, I really really want to do this.

  54. HamOnRye  •  Nov 26, 2013 @3:20 pm

    @ Dr Nobel

    Yes I agree that the reporting is factual.

    My comment was that they seized such a minor amount of weapons and ammunition and pretending this is news.

    Next up in the news, a bear shits in the woods, dog bites man, and a duck fart creates a ripple in a pond. Positively riviting!

  55. HamOnRye  •  Nov 26, 2013 @3:32 pm

    @James Pollock

    It would be nice if we would wait for an actual conviction of domestic violence before seizing a persons property.

  56. mud man  •  Nov 26, 2013 @3:33 pm

    I'd be more worried about the shotguns really – the only non-scary use for those is hunting birds…

    Defending your home is scary? Shotgun is more suited than handguns, let alone rifles.

    Btw, did he SURRENDER his weapons in compliance with the order presented, or did the police CONFISCATE them following a search?

  57. Jose Fish Taco  •  Nov 26, 2013 @3:54 pm

    @James Pollock

    C'mon James! Don't you know domestic violence is funny?!?

    Where's your sense of humor?

  58. AlphaCentauri  •  Nov 26, 2013 @4:00 pm

    I'm with Ryan. They got called to a domestic disturbance, took him into custody, took his weapons as evidence without dumping the gun case out onto the floor, then carefully documented everything so they wouldn't be accused of stealing the pack of gum that was in his pocket. ;) The list is comprehensive because it's supposed to tell you what they didn't take as well as what they did take.

  59. barry  •  Nov 26, 2013 @4:07 pm

    They didn't find his ammo?

  60. jdgalt  •  Nov 26, 2013 @4:12 pm

    What exactly was he planning on doing with 106 rounds of ammo, anyway?

    Spend 45 minutes at the range?

  61. Fasolt  •  Nov 26, 2013 @4:26 pm

    Thank God they got that pendant and combination lock away from him. He could have improvised some sort of Nunchaku with those.

  62. Patrick Non-White  •  Nov 26, 2013 @7:03 pm

    Seizing 106 rounds from a firearms owner is like seizing 106 pennies from a banker.

  63. EAB  •  Nov 26, 2013 @7:33 pm

    "It would be nice if we would wait for an actual conviction of domestic violence before seizing a persons property."

    Assuming he's going to get the stuff back if acquitted, I'm perfectly fine with a temporary surrender. The actual domestic-violence trial is probably months away, which gives an actual abuser plenty of time to do something really harmful. I don't think you have to rise to beyond-reasonable-doubt to put temporary restrictions in place in the name of public safety. Yes, innocent people get falsely accused of domestic violence and lose their gun rights, but those same people also lose their ability to travel freely and to visit places where their targets might happen to be, which is just as much an infringement of constitutional rights. Remember, enough probable cause existed for him to be arrested and charged.

  64. htom  •  Nov 26, 2013 @7:57 pm

    My (very limited) understanding is that Florida has an "arrest one" policy; a domestic violence allegation means someone is going to be arrested. Usually the male or the person who called second. The probable cause is that someone called. Then there may be a county policy of "must prosecute" for the charging. This could all be merely processes.

    In the process of "defending" the "victim", notice that you've publicly disarmed someone who's been publicly given death threats.

  65. Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries  •  Nov 26, 2013 @7:58 pm

    Well, Clark, if ever there were a collection of comments to demonstrate just exactly how misunderstood you are, these would be it.

    (The post made me laugh. Thanks.)

  66. Clydesdale  •  Nov 26, 2013 @8:57 pm

    106 rounds? Man, if they ever searched my house, they'd be wondering what sort of invasion I was planning.

    Seriously, what is Zimmerman using for brains. Get a clue, guy. There are plenty of people (not me) that want to see you DEAD. As in, "This is a late parrot," dead. Many more want to see you in jail. Even more want to show that the jury that exonerated you was wrong.

    Why the hell are you cavorting with bimbos that are part of this crowd and are just itching for a chance to do you in? Have you learned nothing in human nature so far?

    Assange is holed up in an embassy in London for God knows how long simply because he couldn't resist the temptations of a couple of pieces of (mediocre) tail that were more than happy to do him in. Was it worth it? Guess only his dick knows for sure.

  67. Troutwaxer  •  Nov 26, 2013 @9:26 pm

    Hey Clark,

    I notice that I misspelled your name up above. My apologies.

  68. Marconi Darwin  •  Nov 26, 2013 @11:50 pm

    What exactly was he planning on doing with 106 rounds of ammo, anyway? Start World War III ?

    Let's see, Salon does not mention any sensationalized intent, nor does it even speculate on it. So this must be one of the sarcasm thingies wherein some real-life liberal anti-gun nut is being lampooned. Like the ones who salivated over it at the HuffPo.

    In which case, allow me to speculate properly: 100 rounds to stand your ground against the one calling herself his girlfriend (yeah, right!), and the remaining to stand your ground against that fetus.

  69. Have Blue  •  Nov 27, 2013 @12:20 am

    The door stop in my bedroom is a cardboard box with 1000 rounds of 9mm practice ammo in it. Has been there for about 5 years now.

  70. Have Blue  •  Nov 27, 2013 @12:39 am

    106 rounds for 45 minutes of range practice?

    The basic course of fire for pistol is 60 rounds fired from a variety of ranges from 3 to 25 yards. It takes less than two minutes to do if you are not wasting time or policing your brass.

    I once shot the basic course 25 times (that's 1500 rounds) in an afternoon. Worst part of that is loading 100 magazines.

  71. Anony Mouse  •  Nov 27, 2013 @2:18 am

    I thought the national media didn't cover "local crime stories". That was the excuse for Gosnell, right?

  72. Anony Mouse  •  Nov 27, 2013 @2:31 am

    @Waldo

    it's kind of ironic considering that WWI actually was started by a guy with a lot less than 106 rounds.

    That's a gross oversimplification of the events that led to WWI. The assassination of the Archduke may have been the flashpoint, but it had been brewing for a long time before then. Frankly, the assassination was more the excuse than the cause.

  73. AP²  •  Nov 27, 2013 @5:24 am

    @mud man:

    Defending your home is scary?

    Yes, definitively. Only in a screwed up place is feeling the need to have a firearm to defend your home considered normal.

  74. James Pollock  •  Nov 27, 2013 @7:37 am

    It would be nice if we would wait for an actual conviction of domestic violence before seizing a persons property.

    Why? We don't wait until an actual conviction before seizing a person. What makes their property more important than their person? You have odd priorities.

  75. Paul  •  Nov 27, 2013 @8:04 am

    Gosh. I have 50 rounds, but only one firearm.

    I need to go shopping.

    Also, speaking of municipal law enforcement – back when I took a firearm safety class, the instructor told me I was overqualified to join the local police force. Because I didn't shoot the floor.

    He wasn't kidding.

    But then, I'm from the same place that a police firearms instructor shot one of his students in the head, because nothing says firearm safety like a loaded handgun pointed at a student.

  76. Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries  •  Nov 27, 2013 @8:31 am

    Let's see, Salon does not mention any sensationalized intent, nor does it even speculate on it. So this must be one of the sarcasm thingies wherein some real-life liberal anti-gun nut is being lampooned. Like the ones who salivated over it at the HuffPo.

    At the very top: "Police recently searched Zimmerman's home and removed several deadly weapons." Reading that, I had dire thoughts. (At the end, I concluded that Zimmerman may be many things, but he's not a gun nut–it's a pathetic "collection.")

    Perhaps Clark should have waited for the Slate headline instead:

    "Slatest PM: George Zimmerman's Personal Arsenal"

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/11/26/slatest_pm_george_zimmerman_s_personal_arsenal.html?wpisrc=newsletter_jcr:content

  77. Pecos Phil  •  Nov 27, 2013 @9:22 am

    Based upon this headline, I KNOW I am on the DHS/ATF/IRS/FBI/ABC/XYZ watch list.

    http://www.tmz.com/2013/11/26/george-zimmerman-guns-found-samantha-scheibe-search-warrant-shotgun/?adid=hero8

  78. Clark  •  Nov 27, 2013 @12:30 pm

    @EAB

    "It would be nice if we would wait for an actual conviction of domestic violence before seizing a persons property."

    Assuming he's going to get the stuff back if acquitted, I'm perfectly fine with a temporary surrender.

    I'm always amused at how person X is "fine" with the State infringing the rights of person Y.

    The actual domestic-violence trial is probably months away, which gives an actual abuser plenty of time to do something really harmful.

    Which means that the suspect is currently – and I'm going to use a legal term here – innocent.

    Remember, enough probable cause existed for him to be arrested and charged.

    Would you say that there was more or less probable cause than there was to repeatedly digitally rape a man in New Mexico?

  79. Clark  •  Nov 27, 2013 @12:30 pm

    @Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries

    Well, Clark, if ever there were a collection of comments to demonstrate just exactly how misunderstood you are, these would be it.

    Indeed.

    (The post made me laugh. Thanks.)

    Thanks!

  80. Clark  •  Nov 27, 2013 @12:31 pm

    @Marconi Darwin

    What exactly was he planning on doing with 106 rounds of ammo, anyway? Start World War III ?

    Let's see, Salon does not mention any sensationalized intent, nor does it even speculate on it.

    Seventy three trillion things happened yesterday. Salon covered five or ten of them.

    The very act of selection – with or with out commentary – is a huge editorial statement.

    Have you ever read "Harper's Index"?

    The act of selection and juxtaposition is an art form. Perhaps not the highest art form, but an art form nonetheless.

    Why would Harper's choose to publish these facts

    Portion of wages paid in Manhattan that come from the financial-services industry : 1/3

    Percentage by which New York City’s homeless-shelter population has increased under Mayor Michael Bloomberg : 65

    Portion of the city’s shelter population who are children : 2/5

    and not some other set of facts about, say, corn harvests, pantone color gamuts, and extrasolar planets?

    Because Harper's is making a political point.

    Why does Salon publish one inventory of firearms and holsters seized from one individual and not publish, say, a list of "knockout game" police reports?

    Because Salon is choosing to make a left wing political point and not a right-wing political point.

    Why do I choose to make fun of Salon and not, say, blind children?

    Because I am making a point.

  81. James Pollock  •  Nov 27, 2013 @3:29 pm

    "Which means that the suspect is currently – and I'm going to use a legal term here – innocent."

    You're using that term incorrectly. He is currently presumed "not guilty", which is not at all the same thing as being innocent.

  82. Matthew House  •  Nov 28, 2013 @12:49 am

    This whole thing really cheeses me off. Zimmerman's been witchhunted from the word 'go'. As soon as the shooting hit the news, the media, -and- the DOJ have been up his ass, non-stop. When he was rightfully aquitted, The bullshit only intensified. Huge surprise, his marriage disintigrated.

    News flash, women calling the cops with bogus DV claims is more common than chickenshit at an eggfarm. It's easy, free, and without consequences for the woman. There's no incentive -not- to.

    But yet… there's not a mark on either woman.

    If you'd been through the same shit Zimmerman's been through, most of you would be a twitching, incontinent wreck. I'm surprised he's not.

    The DOJ is going to 'get' Zimmerman, no matter what. This is just the most recent attempt.

  83. Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries  •  Nov 28, 2013 @8:47 am

    News flash, women calling the cops with bogus DV claims is more common than chickenshit at an eggfarm.

    Do you have a cite for this claim? Please provide a legitimate study, not a link to a website with an agenda.

    Thank you.

  84. Matthew House  •  Nov 28, 2013 @9:12 pm

    Color me unsurprised that you'd leap on that particular point, Ms. Fries.

    We both know that there are no studies I can cite, nor statistics I can point to. No government agencies tracks that sort of thing, nor are they likely to start. It wouldn't fit the narrative.

    And nobody's going to be doing any studies on it, either. There's no one in the academic community that's willing to be crucified on this particular point.

    A question in return, however. no, make that -three- questions.

    1. What made you leap on that point, out of everything else I said? No, what -really- made you jump on it?

    2. Do either of the woman claiming abuse at the hands of Mr. Zimmerman have -any- physical proof? Any injuries, any witnesses? I'll help you with this one… they dont.

    Much was made of the claim that Zimmerman had no apparent injuries after his confrontation with Martin. If we're going to hold Zimmerman to that standard -then-, I see no reason not to hold him to that standard -now-.

    3. Do any of these woman have any incentive to file a false claim, above and beyond the usual mundane reason of "you have made me angry, and I will use the power of the law to hurt you. Not because I am right, but because I am angry."

    In many jurisdictions, they've had to change the law on DV calls stating that the police must arrest, and that the victim is not allowed to withdraw charges. Cant imagine why that happened…

    Now, domestic violence is a serious thing, and it -shouldn't- be allowed in any way, shape, or form. But every bogus call out negatively effects the seriousness of the charge. But that's not the thrust of my arguement here.

    The thrust of my argument is that Zimmerman's getting hammered, unjustly. That is all.

  85. Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries  •  Nov 28, 2013 @10:20 pm

    The thrust of my argument is that Zimmerman's getting hammered, unjustly. That is all.

    You could have attempted to make that argument without resort to a false claim.

    Aside from that, I decline to engage conversational terrorists (i.e. purveyors of fallacious arguments), so we're done here. HAND.

  86. SPQR  •  Nov 28, 2013 @11:14 pm

    Conversational terrorists? Are they as dangerous as sock-washing terrorists?

  87. James Pollock  •  Nov 29, 2013 @2:08 am

    "In many jurisdictions, they've had to change the law on DV calls stating that the police must arrest, and that the victim is not allowed to withdraw charges. Cant imagine why that happened…"

    I've not heard of this. Which jurisdictions are those?

  88. Matthew House  •  Nov 29, 2013 @3:08 am

    Dear Ms. Fries,

    'Conversational Terrorist'. I love it. Can I keep that? That's so neat. Wish I'd thought of it.

    It's entirely predictable that you would respond in the manner you did, refusing to actually engage me. Instead, you resort to shaming and butthurt, and refuse to address any of the actual points made.

    But then again, how dare I Defy The Narrative. Since my experiences do not match yours, -and- they directly threaten your worldview that Women Are Perfect, and Men Suck… I must be destroyed. I await the the pleasure of the arrival of your associates and the resulting character assassination exercise.

    I remain,

    Your Conversational Terrorist.

  89. Matthew House  •  Nov 29, 2013 @3:10 am

    Dear Mr. Pollock,

    Here is a link to a complete list of the DV arrest policies for all 50 states.

    http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/domviol/docs/Domestic_Violence_Arrest_Policies_by_State_11_07.authcheckdam.pdf

    Regards,

    The Conversational Terrorist.

  90. Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries  •  Nov 29, 2013 @7:38 am

    Conversational terrorists? Are they as dangerous as sock-washing terrorists?

    Sockwashing terrorists? I've never met a sockpuppet who does laundry–they're too busy honing their skill as masters of fallacy to do honest chores.

    Argument is a tool to understanding. Conversational terrorists (and sockpuppets) are scorched-earthers for whom winning is the ultimate and only goal. They would rather bury their opponents in garbage than consider an alternate point of view.

    Below is my standard reply to all of them, because pounding a keyboard at someone who is not prepared to listen is hard on my fingertips.

    http://www.vandruff.com/art_converse.html

  91. James Pollock  •  Nov 29, 2013 @11:22 am

    Here is a link to a complete list of the DV arrest policies for all 50 states.

    That's nice, but it's off-topic. You claim that multiple jurisdictions are retreating from mandatory arrest. I'd like to know which ones, because I've not heard of any such movement.

    (I mean, I understand the point of mandatory arrest… it serves to limit discretion by the officer, and it works even if the abuser is able to successfully intimidate the abusee into recantation. But I've not heard of any jurisdiction so wracked with false accusation that it had to retreat from mandatory arrest.)

  92. Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries  •  Nov 29, 2013 @12:38 pm

    @James Pollock

    It may not be so that jurisdictions are backing away from mandatory arrest, but perhaps they should be. Here's an interesting op-ed from the NYT:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/opinion/07iyengar.html?_r=0

    And here's a paper (which contains documentation for the claims) by the same author:

    http://www.nber.org/papers/w13186

    I'm opposed, in principle, to mandatory anything. My preference would be increased education, along with a more stringent selection procedure for LEOs.

    Although Mr. House went over the top with his comment about "chickenshit on an egg farm," the sad fact is that humans all too often lie and manipulate to serve their own ends. I have no doubt that some small percentage of domestic violence complaints are made with an ulterior motive. Forcing the arrest of the innocent just weakens action against the guilty. And if it is true that there is a rise in deadly violence on account of mandatory arrest laws, they are certainly counterproductive.

  93. Matthew House  •  Nov 29, 2013 @12:40 pm

    Dear Mr. Pollock,

    My apologies for the confusion, I meant to say that most jurisdictions have moved to 'must arrest', -from- a position of 'officer's discretion'.

    Not the reverse.

  94. Matthew House  •  Nov 29, 2013 @12:55 pm

    We seem to be getting a bit off track here.

    Domestic Violence is one of those things that a lot of people have a hard time talking about rationally. I know, I'm one of em.

    But this is really off topic, I think.

  95. Matthew House  •  Nov 29, 2013 @1:01 pm

    Dear Ms. Fries, I think I might be owing you an apology…

    I'll admit, my personal experience has colored my perceptions. My first wife used to beat the crap out of me. While it wasn't enough to cause a physical injury, it was still decidedly unpleasant. Watching my stepmother deciding she wants the house, so she swears out a child molestation complaint against my father, allowing her to keep the house, and half his pension. While the charges were eventually dropped, my father was still ruined, still lost his house, and still lost his pension. That….creature suffered -nothing-. She robbed my father blind, and effectively tried to get him killed, and didn't get so much as a slap on the wrist.

    And when I add in all the -other- 'anecdotal' evidence, yes, it colors my thinking.

    The question comes to mind, "At what quantity do anecdotes become data"?

    So yes, I'm certainly biased.

    Regards,

    Matthew House.

  96. Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries  •  Nov 30, 2013 @10:09 am

    @Matthew House

    I'm sorry too–I should have recognized the stigmata. Lord knows, I have enough of my own.

    At any rate, pleased to meet you. Perhaps we'll both do a little better next time around.

  97. Shawn  •  Jan 8, 2014 @3:50 pm

    Only a 106 rounds of ammo… I consider that to be out a gross negligence on Mr Zimmerman's part. Less than 3-4 hundred rounds on hand calls for an emergency run to the local gun store, website or other location to purchase ammo. Granted I shoot 5-10 magazines a day after work.

1 Trackback