This is really ...

.
... getting ridiculous.

Look, let’s just get this out there: as of now, no one can say with certainty what happened, save that early reports spread by a complicit media and some cynical, race-baiting politicians were completely misleading and erroneous, and in many cases, probably intentionally so. Progressives and the media accomplices and enablers wanted to present a particular narrative, and they weren’t about to let facts — or a lack of them — get in the way of how this particular narrative was presented and disseminated. Make no mistake: the reaction they got from this story was the reaction they wanted. This was a political gambit. And it is despicable.

And members of the "gun culture", who are constantly bemoaning the unfair treatment that they are given by the Media, are falling right in line with the conclusions the Media makes.

But it's even more insidious than that. Gunnies are looking at the issue and saying "I wouldn't do that, so the thing that was done is bad and wrong and probably should be illegal so the guy who did that thing is wrong."

I will freely say that Zimmerman made some poor choices that night in Sanford, but nothing that he did was illegal. Other gunnies should note that there are a lot of things that are legal but are, none the less, a bad idea.

For example (and this one is a pet peeve) - 'The dispatcher told Zimmerman not to follow him.' Not true. In a FAQ on the Sanford, FL website, the police chief plainly states that " The [telecommunications] call taker’s suggestion is not a lawful order that Mr. Zimmerman would be required to follow. " That call taker may not have even been a law enforcement officer.

Now I know a lot of folks believe that every word that falls out of the mouths of LEO's is the gospel truth and is a lawful order; those folks simply don't know what they're talking about. While it's true that you may beat the rap but you won't beat the ride, the police are only interested in the 1st Rule of Policing, and will say whatever achieves that end, even if it means lying to you.

I hear you say 'But Zimmerman initiated the confrontation'; again, there is no evidence to suggest this, and evidence to the contrary is supplied by Trayvon Martin's girlfriend. She recollects that it was Martin who first spoke (Why are you follwing me?) and Zimmerman answered with a question of his own (What are you doing around here?) Why, then, can the situation not happen just like Zimmerman claims (and the evidence supports), that he was attacked by Martin?

'Because I, the ultimate Gunnie, wouldn't have done it that way.'

What a crock of shit.

pm