Welcome to Common Gunsense

I hope this blog will provoke some thoughtful reflection about the issue of guns and gun violence. I am passionate about the issue and would love to change some misperceptions and the culture of gun violence in America by sharing with readers words, photos, videos and clips from articles to promote common sense about gun issues. Many of you will agree with me- some will not. I am only one person but one among many who think it's time to do something about this national problem. The views expressed by me in this blog do not represent any group with which I am associated but are rather my own personal opinions and thoughts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Trayvon Martin and Stand Your Ground

My head is spinning with the news coverage of the shooting of 17 year old Trayvon Martin in Sanford Florida on Feb. 26th. This case has moved out from under the shadows of the Florida gun law that allows people to shoot another when feeling threatened. There is now a well needed examination of laws such as this one, pushed by an ever more extreme NRA, desperate to pass laws that are on their national agenda and assisted by bought and paid for legislators in states all over the country. I can't begin to link to all of the articles on this case. One thing is quite clear though- there has been a lot of silence coming from the NRA. And who else has a stake in having laws passed to allow more people to carry more guns into more public places? The gun industry has a stake in providing new buyers of their products- weapons designed to kill people. ALEC, American Legislative Exchange Council, an organization of conservative legislators, funded by folks such as the Koch Brothers, Coca Cola, Walmart and other large corporations, has funded NRA sponsored legislation and the legislators who push for the laws. This spinning web of laws and funding has been flying under the radar of the average citizen; it's beginning to unravel in plain view of the public. This is what we get when laws are passed by a well funded and extreme lobby group. It shouldn't.

Let's start with a few important videos. This one, posted on MSNBC, shows an interview with one of the other Neighborhood Watch people from Sanford, Florida:



Hear and watch the man say that Zimmerman was paranoid but trying to make sense of it all by saying there had been some burglaries by young black men in the community. Then he is heard to say that Zimmerman may have gone too far. There is an important question here. Do people who are committing burglaries ( as Trayvon was not) need to be shot to death? Does the Florida Stand Your Ground Law give you license to kill another person just because he may seem suspicious to you and you have the gun? And what if you are someone who has had a run-in with the law and shouldn't even have that gun permit? Josh Horowitz of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence has written this comprehensive piece about all of these questions:
Another disturbing aspect of this case is the fact that Zimmerman was issued a permit to carry a concealed handgun by the state of Florida in the first place. Zimmerman, of course, was arrested in 2005 for resisting arrest with violence and battery on a police officer. The case was dismissed, and Zimmerman's record expunged after he agreed to attend a pre-trial diversion program. In addition, police have fielded complaints from members of Zimmerman's gated community about his aggressive conduct in the neighborhood. 
(...)A few years ago, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel conducted an investigation that revealed that Florida concealed handgun permit holders included more than 1,400 people who pleaded guilty or no contest to felonies, 216 people with outstanding warrants, 128 people with active domestic violence injunctions against them, and six registered sex offenders. In response, the Florida legislature and Governor Bush enacted a law banning the public and press from accessing this information in the future.
Florida also allows out-of-state residents to obtain their concealed handgun permits through the mail. There have been numerous complaints about dangerous individuals--unable to get permits in their home states--obtaining them from Florida. If their home state has a reciprocity agreement with Florida recognizing each other's permits, they can then carry in their own communities. This has led to mayhem and murder in some cases.
Political cartoonist, Jim Morin from the Miami Herald sees the incident in this political cartoon in the light of a neighborhood watch captain with his gun cruising the neighborhood in a truck with "Florida Stand Your Ground" on the door panel. It is not a good depiction of the those whose agenda is one of using fear, paranoia, suspicion and racism as a need for carrying guns around in the neighborhood to meet out "justice".

And what should be made of the fact that Trayvon Martin made a cell phone call to a friend as he was walking in the neighborhood right before Zimmerman approached him. This ABC news video provides us with the comments from his girlfriend who was the last to speak to Trayvon:
"He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man," Martin's friend said. "I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run but he said he was not going to run."
Eventually he would run, said the girl, thinking that he'd managed to escape. But suddenly the strange man was back, cornering Martin.
"Trayvon said, 'What, are you following me for,' and the man said, 'What are you doing here.' Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell. I called him again and he didn't answer the phone."
The line went dead. Besides screams heard on 911 calls that night as Martin and Zimmerman scuffled, those were the last words he said.
Here is the New York Times editorial writer, Charles Blow, on the Ed Show last night, about Trayvon's cell phone:



Good points all.

Dan Gross, President of the Brady Campaign spoke about the Florida Stand Your Ground law on MSNBC's The Ed Show last night:



Clearly, these laws, passed now in at least 15 states, are the result of an extreme NRA agenda passed by legislators who either believe in their own dangerous view of the world or are afraid to disagree for fear of the attacks from the NRA, which happen with frequency. It is a "state of mind", as Brady Campaign President Dan Gross said, and the "vision of the NRA" to make sure that everyone can get a gun and then carry it into all public places. The Trayvon Martin shooting is the epitome of the agenda of a minority of people in our country. And yes, the NRA has outshouted the rest of us and this is what we have now. We have an America where young black boys can be shot by a neighborhood watch captain who was paranoid and boldly carrying a gun to "protect" his neighbors. Is this the America we want? I think not.

The case is not only going to be reviewed by the U.S. Justice Department civil crimes division but by the FBI. And further, there will now be a Florida Grand Jury investigation.
"I share in the desire of the family and the community to accurately collect and evaluate all the facts surrounding the tragic death of Trayvon Martin," Wolfinger said in a news release. "The public is entitled to no less than a thorough, deliberate, and just review of the facts. We intend to honor that commitment."
Finally, perhaps the legal and justice systems will work the way they are supposed to. We just can't leave stuff like this up to legislators with agendas paid for by corporate America. Too many lives have already been lost in Florida because of this dangerous Stand Your Ground law. We don't need more. The law should be re-examined.

And I will end with this video from MSNBC Lawrence O'Donnell's The Last Word show from last night concerning the Trayvon Martin case:



O'Donnell is right. Where is common sense in the case of Trayvon Martin? Where is common sense when it comes to dangerous and stupid gun laws in our country?


36 comments:

  1. Just one more thing. Charles Blow is another person who agrees with me. In the first video at 10:50 he starts to explain how he can’t see how Florida’s Stand Your Ground law insulates Zimmerman. He goes on to explain how the law has three parts and how the first one (inside a car) does not apply- and then Ed cuts him off. It seems Charles is more interested in getting justice for the Martin family through a conviction of Zimmerman than getting a law overturned.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Seriously TS- enough already.

      Delete
    2. The fact that the local police cite the Shoot First law - which is a more apt description than Stand Your Ground - would be a clear indication that THEY consider it to apply. Apparently so do a lot of other jurisdictions, given that the number of these kinds of shootings has tripled in Florida with very few instances of people properly being held accountable for whether or not their fears were REASONABLE. Both things need to happen - justice for Trayvon Martin that holds Zimmerman accountable, AND having this law overturned. It's bad law, and everything bad that law enforcement warned would happen as a result has in fact happened. Otherwise you would not see people who were victims of deadly force for petty crimes and you would not see such a volume of unarmed victims of over-eager shooters. It is clear that the lax gun permitting laws are also at fault, and need to be repealed right along with this one.

      Delete
    3. You can’t have both, Dog gone. If Zimmerman is convicted it is because Stand Your Ground is not what you say it is, like what we’ve been telling you all along.

      Second, you are misinterpreting the local police. I don’t think they ever closed the case, they just said there wasn’t any reason to hold him (which happens all the time while they assemble evidence for an arrest). Initial evidence pointed to self-defense based on Zimmerman’s wounds. More detailed evidence may show that Zimmerman was the aggressor and it was Martin who was justified in beating up Zimmerman, specifically because SYG laws say he doesn’t have to run. That is not to say the locals didn’t do a horrible job, but it is moved up to the feds and they have NOT cited SYG laws and dropped the case. So can you find me a citation where the local police said they are dropping the investigation citing code specific to SYG?

      Delete
    4. If he's convicted it will be because of pressure from outside of Florida to not let the Trayvon Martin shooting go the way of all the other shootings.

      You can't explain away how the number of so-called self-defence shootings tripled, how so many of them involve unarmed victims who are too dead to give a different account -as Zimmerman had hoped would get him off.

      The local police are handing it over to the feds and the state; that's dropping it on their end. Doesn't matter if it was an open case before; they weren't investigating anything; they did no forensics testing at the time, and they weren't interviewing witnesses, nto even when the witnesses repeatedly contacted them. The case might have been technically open, but no way was it being pursued, EVER. And the justification given for that was the Shoot First law.

      If it were just this police force it would be a different matter. It's not just this police force, and it is not just this state, it's ALL of them where this kind of bad law has passed.

      Delete
    5. Dog gone: “If he's convicted it will be because of pressure from outside of Florida to not let the Trayvon Martin shooting go the way of all the other shootings.”

      No, it doesn’t work that way. Media pressure doesn’t get to override law, and the feds don’t get to ignore state law either. You say Florida state law protects Zimmerman. If he gets convicted, or even charged, you are wrong. There are no two ways around that.

      Dog gone: “You can't explain away how the number of so-called self-defence shootings tripled”

      First, I’d like to see you source data. Second, is because the number of CCW holders has been rapidly increasing giving more opportunity for people to defend themselves with guns. Third, it could just mean that 2/3rd of the people defending themselves used to be charged with crimes, making this law desperately needed. Personally I doubt that. The duty to retreat is a difficult standard for prosecutors- it is quite a minor change. But if you are pointing out that more people are getting away with self-defense, I think that’s a good thing.

      Dog gone: “And the justification given for that was the Shoot First law.”

      I’m still waiting for your quote from Sanford police that supports that.

      Also, your use of “shoot first” is inappropriate. There was a fight first. If Martin were dead with no damage to Zimmerman, this case would be a lot easier for the Sanford Police. As an aside, I agree with you that they did a horrible job at the scene and the days that followed. Your pointing out those mishaps leads one to believe that maybe it wasn’t SYG laws preventing an arrest, but rather a botched investigation.

      Delete
    6. If you don't think, TS, that the media and public pressure are not affecting this case, your head is way deep into the sand. The Chief of Police of Sanford just lost a no confidence vote in the City Council. The "botched" investigation came, in part, because of the belief in the SYG law that says you can't make an arrest if someone claims self defense. The law is bad and wrong and flawed and should be repealed. This is exactly what those of us who spoke out against it said would happen but we were belittled and told we were wrong. The law is wrong.

      Delete
    7. Don’t get me wrong, I think media pressure has played a huge role in this case. That is the reason why the feds are taking over. But media pressure can’t override the law if the law says he is innocent (though it can affect jury’s opinions). If the law says he is allowed to shoot whomever he pleases so long as he claims he felt threatened, then he walks- and there is nothing that the media can do about it. Of course, we’ve been telling you for years that that is not what Stand Your Ground means.

      Japete: “The "botched" investigation came, in part, because of the belief in the SYG law that says you can't make an arrest if someone claims self defense.”

      And who has been saying that? You guys. SYG allows prosecution for anyone who starts a fight. If they don’t know that, maybe it is because they have been reading too many gun control websites. The feds know that- otherwise they would have dropped the case by now.

      Delete
    8. What does Stand Your Ground mean then TS, given this incident and what you wrote above? You have just highlighted the major problem with the SYG laws which we have been saying for years. What you guys have been saying for years about these laws is just plain wrong and wrong headed and this incident has shed much needed light on what you guys claim are laws we all need for self defense. The NRA has pushed these laws in state after state- they have drummed up fear and paranoia and this is the result. This NRA agenda is a dangerous one. Gun deaths in Florida have increased 250% since the law passed. Are we safer now?

      Delete
    9. SYG means you don’t have to run away if someone is attacking you and that you can use force to defend yourself. That’s it. You’re not allowed to hunt people down, you’re not allowed to start a fight and then end it with a gun, etc…

      Japete: “Gun deaths in Florida have increased 250% since the law passed.”

      I don’t think you meant to say “gun deaths” here. Did you mean to say self-defense shootings have increased 250%? So yes, it seems those people were safer.

      Delete
    10. Yes, self defense shootings. What are you saying about people being safer? I don't get your point. Who was safer? The shooters? Certainly not the victims according to quite a few of the cases where the shooter was clearly in the wrong but dismissed anyway. The case of the father of the 8 yr. old girl who was shot to death right in front of her over an altercation that the shooter determined was self defense when it clearly was not. There are many others like this. So no- the only people who might feel safer are the shooters who claimed self defense. And if the laws mean you can't hunt someone down, why have several of the cases of shooters who were let walk free people who did hunt people down. If that is the interpretation of the law, why do L.E, and prosecutors say that people have to be immune and they go free? It's clear that people have been afraid to arrest people and charge them because of the law and it is felt that even when someone is pursuing someone, they are presumed to be doing so in self defense. You can say what you want but it is not how the law has worked so far.

      Delete
    11. If self-defense shootings are way up, that means there are a lot more people who were able to defend themselves. You like to highlight the grayest examples, and apply that to everyone. Do you think they all should go to prison? Do you concede that it is possible there are legitimate defense shootings in those increases? Your definition of “victim” is whoever has the bullet hole, and that's not right.

      Of course there are gray cases, but we have a system that favors the innocent by saying it is better to let a guilty person go free than lock up someone who is innocent. Common murder defenses are: “it was self-defense”, or “I didn’t do it”, or “the devil made me do it” (insanity plea). People who say “I didn’t do it” get away with murder all the time because there wasn’t evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to convict them. Is that a concern of yours, or only the people who say “it was self-defense”?

      Japete: “And if the laws mean you can't hunt someone down, why have several of the cases of shooters who were let walk free people who did hunt people down.”

      Let’s turn that question around. If that is because of SYG, how come most of the cases when people hunt someone down DO end up with a murder charge? With your definition, it would be almost impossible to convict someone of murder, yet murder convictions haven’t fallen through the floor after 2005. Sure there are some weird cases, like the Garcia case that you just linked to where he chased someone down and stabbed him to death (see how it is not a gun law?). I don’t know any details, but it seems far more egregious than the Zimmerman case. I predict that goes to appeal and another judge overrules it. But there are numerous credentialed people who say SYG is not an impediment to this case, including the Fordham law professor from the NPR article you just sent us. What do you say to him? That he is wrong?

      Did you watch Lawrence O’Donnell last night? He had a criminal law professor Eugene O’Donnell on his show talking about the police handling of the case. He is no friend of self-defense laws. He called SYG “stupid”, saying that it needs to be repealed for creating too many gray areas. But he also said there is no reason they can’t make an arrest and prosecute under the existing law. He is also a former NYPD cop, who is coming from the position of wanting it to be easy to lock people up. He also said common cop practice is to try and lock a suspect into a statement at the scene before he thinks to invoke his constitutional rights, and questions why the Sanford Police did not do that with Zimmerman. Whoa, did he just say that on national TV?

      (sorry, I just checked youtube for it, but I think it is too early. So no link)

      Delete
    12. I watched it TS. You have still missed my point. The self defense shootings have gone up as a result of SYG. What do you think Stand Your Ground means? Too many people are using the law to get away with murder. You seem to think that only a few were wrongly decided. Many were wrongly decided. If even one person gets away with murder, that is one too many.

      Delete
    13. Japete: “The self defense shootings have gone up as a result of SYG.”

      Is it? Or is it because the carry movement took off and more and more victims of violent crime have the opportunity to defend themselves with a gun?

      But let’s stick with your assumption and say it is because of SYG passing. You said “Many were wrongly decided.” Let’s say there are 20 more of these cases involving a SYG death over a given period of time. Let’s many “many” means half, and 10 of those weren’t so innocent. You would send them all to prison including the 10 who legitimately protected their lives. Remember we are assuming that all 20 are a result in the change in the law.

      Japete: “If even one person gets away with murder, that is one too many.”

      Ok, so now you are saying you would send 19 innocent people to prison, just to make sure one didn’t get away? Whether it is 10 or 19 neither is right. The first priority is to not lock up someone who is innocent.

      Delete
    14. Japete: “If even one person gets away with murder, that is one too many.”

      I want to go a little deeper into this statement. This goes against the core fundamentals of our justice system. Think about it outside the context of SYG, or guns entirely. Think about what that would mean to uphold this belief. You would have a lot of innocent people paying for crimes they didn’t do to make sure that no one gets away. Given that we are talking about murder, the sentences mean ruining their lives, and in some cases executing them.

      Delete
    15. Goog grief TS. Talk about putting words in my mouth. This is going nowhere fast. Have a nice day.

      Delete
  2. Check this one out- it seems like some Florida legislators are trying to back out of the original intent of the Stand Your Ground Law. It's a little late for that. They were wrong the first time and they are looking very bad right now. The whole world is watching and the world does not like what it sees. http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/20/2703579/state-senator-calls-for-hearings.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wanted to get a feel for what the feedback was that the Florida legislature was getting, so I called them directly yesterday.

      Seems like this is a very hot topic, and it appears these legislators are getting earfuls from their consitutents about how wrong the assurances were they were given.

      Delete
  3. I love my children, and I've taught them that if they're every followed or harassed -- to immediately shout, scream, yell, call for neighbors, call for help, pound on doors, etc...but do not, under any circumstances, CONFRONT your pursuer.

    That being said, plain and simple, Zimmerman cannot claim protection under "Stand Your Ground" if he was the aggressor, and he should and will be convicted when the evidence proves that out!

    What I don't understand from your side are the calls for a lack of "due process" -- "Throw him in jail" "He's a $#$#%@%# vigilante and should be in jail", etc etc etc.

    There wasn't enough evidence at the scene to detain Zimmerman longer than for questioning. He's still subject to a conviction, its still going before a judge, theres still an investigation. All of that is ongoing, and now involves the Justice Dept as well. Why the calls for no "due process of law"?

    You won't publish this post, but I'll have it on my site for my readers as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You didn't see me saying this " He's a $#$#%@%# vigilante and should be in jail", etc etc etc."
      The problem with Stand Your Ground laws is that the person is considered to have acted "reasonably" in self defense and cannot be arrested at the scene. That is wrong. It will be hard to prosecute Zimmerman because of this law. That is the main point, as you know. It shouldn't be this hard to charge and prosecute a man who so clearly pursued a young black man when he could have stayed in his car. He was not in any way in danger of his life. Laws should not re written to protect people like Zimmerman over the victim and the victim's family. Go ahead and write about it Pat. This one is not good for your side. The whole world now knows about Stand Your Ground laws and they are not liking what they see.

      Delete
    2. Once they get through the rhetoric from CSGV. Right?

      Delete
    3. Please explain what you mean by that Pat.

      Delete
    4. Pat Mat - this kid, Trayvon, did what he was supposed to do. He did not confront his attacker. His attacker, as the only person left alive, simply LIED about what happened. He didn't count on things like the phone conversations or so many other witnesses at the scene coming forward to trip him up. Trayvon Martin didn't do anything wrong, and George Zimmeran is only one of the latest of thsee kinds of killers. You can't conveniently leave out of this that the number of these aggressor shooters who pick conflicts and then shoot people has tripled, or skip over how very many of these cases involve shooting unarmed victims, or in the case of shooting bad guys, using disproportionate force on petty criminals who pose no threat --- that's why there are so many shot in the back, like the shooting by Joe Horn in Texas. We don't allow the cops to do it, but the Shoot First laws let dumb jerks like Zimmerman get away with murder - literally.

      Has nothing whatsoever to do with rhetoric from CSGV, and everything to do with the details of these shootings and the clear evidence of the stats in the states with this kind of law. It's bad law, and bad people are using and abusing it to kill people. The law needs to go, and a lot of these people need to be disarmed on our streets and sidewalks, for everyone's safety. It's not like we're in the middle of an overwhelming crime wave the police can't handle. Crime is way down and continues to decline, without any help from these gun luantic power grabbing vigilante open and concealed gun carriers. We've now tried this, it doesn't work, we need to fix it - dump the law, and disarm the idiots we foolishly and stupidly - by we I mean the republicans doing the bidding of ALEC - that we allowed to arm in the first place.
      Tome and past time to become a modern civilized society, not the hooror that this is instead.

      Delete
  4. Wow. What a very long condemnation of a law that probably does not even apply to the incident. All castle doctrine does is remove a duty to retreat if you were legally allowed to be there. The rest of the conditions must still be met to successfully claim justifiable homicide.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh but it does apply. If it didn't Zimmerman would now be in jail.

      Delete
  5. CSGV is (has been) blantly race baiting through social media - blindly spamming hashtags related to Trayvon and the shooting, and encouraging (not discouraging) racial stereotypes and fanning the flames of intolerance. Again, much as in the past, you're blaming 99.999999% of firearm owners for the actions of one disturbed individual.

    Even without Stand Your Ground - its possible this situation would have resolved itself the same way due to lack of enough evidence at the scene of the crime. Zimmerman will be subject to trial, if not by the State of Florida, then by the Justice Dept.

    Without all the evidence even having been released, the story changes daily.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Give me specific examples of your charges against CSGV. If you think it's "race baiting" for the public outcry to rightly wonder why a black teen was murdered for just being black and just walking in his neighborhood then you are living in a really strange world. Virtually everyone who talks about this case is asking the same question. So quit blaming CSGV for "race baiting". It is simply not true. Then you would blame NBC, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, Time magazine and the virtually hundreds of people who are writing and blogging about the very same thing. You are wrong, Pat. If I were you, I wouldn't say much. This one is impossible for the gun rights folks to explain and/or defend. But it sounds like you are going to try.

      Delete
    2. That seems to blythely look away from the racist comments on the NRA gun guy's blog quoted herehttp://csgv4.blogspot.com/2012/03/pro-gun-activists-weigh-in-on-murder-of.html


      The racism from these guys can't be blamed on CSGV; it is squarely the fault of the racists, many of whom carry guns and have delusions of empowerment from the Shoot first laws, as evidenced by their own statements.

      Or are you unfamiliar with the comments where gun nuts state that if someone attempts a petty theft or robbery, they cease to have rights and they cease to be human beings, and they deserve to be shot? That is disproportionate force, not appropriate use of lethal force. Are you unaware of the habit of some of the more egregious gun lunatics referring to people they identify like Trayvon Martin as 'goblins'? I believe that is a term that is rightly or wrongly attributed to Jeff Cooper; it is a gun nut favorite phrase, a term used to try to pretend people are not human beings, the better, wrongly, to justify using deadly force.

      Delete
  6. And while we are on the topic of race, brought up by my friend Pat, above, who wants to make some false accusations about "race baiting", let's take a look at some actual racism coming from the gun rights extremists. Thanks to Coalition to Stop Gun Violence for collecting and exposing such comments. Check them out, Pat. http://csgv4.blogspot.com/2012/03/pro-gun-activists-weigh-in-on-murder-of.html

    Just a few-" Commenting on a post at "Shall Not Be Questioned" (a blog authored by NRA Election Coordinator Keith Milligan of Langhorne, Pennsylvania), several pro-gun activists expressed thoughts which speak for themselves. First up was "mobo," who wrote, "OMFG, not that this has anything to do with anything really, but 'TREYVON' was this kid’s name? What on Earth is the matter with people? How is a kid supposed to get a respectable job when he grows up when the first thing the employers see is 'Treyvon' on the top of the resume?" He couldn't even be troubled to spell the deceased young man's name correctly. But "Heather from AK" didn't care. She replied, "That’s actually one of the more normal names, these days." Mobo added that no name "scream[s] 'ghetto' like Trayvon ... I guarantee you at least one juror will be inclined to aquit the shooter in part because of the victim’s name.""

    And-""IIRC from the story, that poor, innocent, (17yo)chillin was visiting his stepmother/father(?). Probably from up north where it’s perfectly acceptable to smart mouth/attack older white people asking you what you are doing in their neighborhood. Unfortunately, Treyvon forgot he wasn’t in the disarmed-victim zone he is used to working in.""

    And-" "I think the young negro was stopped by Zimmerman, and the kid strong-armed Zimmerman. The kid probably took off on Zimmerman’s race and if he was alive, the kid should be charged with a ‘Hate Crime’ Horrid case of anti semetism. Jews should congratulate the Sanford police chief for not arresting Zimmerman." "

    Please let me know what you think about these comments, Pat.

    ReplyDelete
  7. So, uh, what was wrong with my saying that name is one of the more normal ones these days?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Is it racist to say, "Actually, Joan/Chris/Heather is a common name these days?"

    Would you consider 75% of parents -- parents who consider Trayvon to be a normal, acceptable name -- to be racists?
    http://babynamesworld.parentsconnect.com/suitability_of_Trayvon.html

    Heather made no linkage between the name and race. In fact, our family knows people of multiple races with the name or variants thereof. Heather was pointing out that race has nothing to do with the matter. I guess that doesn't fit your narrative, though.

    Cheers,
    Chris from AK

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you guys don't know the answer to the question about names, I can't help you and I doubt that any reasonable could.

      Delete
  9. Since I'm the person who made the comment, I understand my meaning better than you. I meant what I said - it' a name that is growing in popularity, and that has nothing to do with race. That you think it does is mind-boggling.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll try again, since you didn't post my first reply. I'd think the answer would be obvious, it's not as though I posted the comment out of the blue. It was clearly in response to another comment which indicated that the name was odd or unusual. So I said that it was more common in my experience.

      Delete
  10. Sorry had to work.

    You're on Twitter Joan, and I know you follow @CSGV...you've seen their spam and baiting replies to anyone using the hashtags. I don't have to cut and paste their tweets as examples. Those are there for everyone to see. They're using their position as a public mouthpiece (however diminishing) to lie and spam their way to relevancy:

    ...and Dog Gone (or Laci), I'm not a member of the NRA so how would I have seen those....but hey, congrats on finding racists on the Internet, its hard to find examples of extremism like that. I hate racists with a passion.

    ReplyDelete