The Saturday Evening Posts

Use your Middle Finger to Click UNFRIEND on Facebook

What an Ugly word. What an ugly concept. Prior to Facebook who would have imagined a word that sounds so casually mean-spirited? But Unfriending is a more than a word, it is a phenomenon that anyone using social media is aware of. Opinions vary as to when it is okay to Unfriend someone on Facebook. The general online concensus as refereced in a few of my links is that there really is no concensus governing when it is okay to unfriend someon on social media. Opinions range from, It's your page, you can do whatever you want to, better think twice before you do it, to there are very few good reasons to Unfriend anyone.

Obviously, the context from which the source is offering their opinion makes a big difference. But do you really need to be told what is right when it comes to Unfriending? Okay, I have a simple rule to help you mkae these decisons. Simple use your middle finger--that's right--your BAD FINGER, when clicking the Unfriend command on Facebook. Because this is really what you are saying.

Those who appear to qualify as experts on social media and social networking seem to take the stance that nothing is gained from unfriending someone unless they are intentionally trying tocause you a harm. There are less-terminal to ways keep annoying posts out of your face, without risking any negative fallout from Unfriending someone. Some seem to feel that it should not matter how a person is treated on Facebook. Others say that Facebook is a reflection of real life and that you should never behave any differently than you would in real life. Niether of these positions guides us much because people behave differently in real life too. Some people tend to be courteous and sensitive to the feelings of others while some people are not. People from certain geographies tend to use a more defined sense of manners and some people think such conventions are nonsense.

I am from the Southern United States, but I have lived in and traveled to a lot of different places. I do understand that manners governing Southern Gentilism are somehow considered sexist or racist by some supposed antrhopologists who think they understand them but who obviously don't--or they may just be felt too cumbersome by others. I can tell you this, that my generally reserved and perhaps overly considerate Southern Ettiquette has never failed to get me through some of the most tenuos social situations in every place in the world I have used them. Such manners were after-all carefully developed as alternatives to duels to the death with fancy black-powder pistols.

I have taught self-defense classes from time to time. In these classes I have always taught that the best self-defense is avoiding situations that require any further self-defense. This may not always be possible, but common sense tells us that if you are not intentionally rude or confrontational and if you treat all people with respect and dignity--a great many situations requiring self-defense can be avoided. Simply put, if you are nice to people, they are not as inclined to kill you. Wa-la! Isn't it odd how this works.

I had a doctor friend, one of my doctors with whom I became friends, who told me that he had once been prone to impatience while driving--you know--we sometimes call it road-rage. He told about how he routinely drove agressively and often mouthed oaths and flipped people off while driving. He didn't behave this way in other situations, but he told me that his sports car seemed to change his normal personality and unleashed some inner beast while driving. He told me that he was miraculously cured of this condition one day when he pulled to the shoulder to check for a low tire-- just a few moments after cutting in front of someone, causing a scene, and finally flipping them off.

He said he had not paid much attention to the car that had also pulled to the should a good bit behind him. My doctor said that he was kneeling to check the pressure with a tire guage when he heard footsteps and saw a shadow. Just as he turned he saw a guy who he recognized as the other driver from minutes before--bearing down on him with a malicious grin and a tire iron. My doctor had apparently met his match when it came to roadrage. You hear of homicides that start with roadrage incidents. People are emotional. people have pride and all of its associated emotional trimmings. When people feel that they have been dissed in some way--bad things can happen.

So why would anyone think tha the Internet or social media is any different? Of course there are always going to be people and groups of people who want to place themselves above others--who want to belong to an exclusive class of the elite--to make themselves feel that they are better somehow. There are those people born and bred to one class or another who think nothing of this tendency toward elitism. They think nothing of it, because they genuinely fancy themselves as better than others. This is real life elitism and of course it is going to pervade any medium where it is allowed.

There have been a few times when I have asked to be friends with someone on Facebook, whom I felt completely unreserved about asking--whom I legitimately thought there was no problem with doing so. Maybe I had not seen them for a many years, but I felt that as I built my social network  they would certainly gain as much or more from sharing a Facebook Friendship as I would. But I would at some point realized that my friendship was never confirmed. I might have first thought, oh, well, they must not be on Facebook much, or that they had merely overlooked the Friend Request, or that some Facebook glitch prevented them from either getting the request or responding. Fat chance!

A few times, early on, I have even been so bold as to send a second friend request. In these instances when you get no response, I start thinking, is this person mad at me? Did I unknowingly do something that offended this person? Has this person become so arrogant as to feel they so far out-class me that they are actually snubbing me. Whaaaaa? A person can be very secure in their own self-confidence and self-image and still feel emotionally hurt when another person appears to  snub them. Snubbing someone is an intentional put-down that has long been used to tell someone that they are of no worth to the other--that they are not important or desirable or good enough to deserve the other person's attention.

Historically, the human group has used exclusion to confer punishment upon those whom they did not approve of. Organizations have black-balled such people. Intitutions have withheld or revoked  membership of people who didn't measure up. Religions have shunned or excommunicated wayward members who have behaved badly in order to whip them into line or let them know that they were no longer part of the approved body main. And even families have disowned members who failed to obey the family rules or live up to their expectations. Snobbery in one form or another is a basic to the human nature as is the desire for acceptance.

Nothing hurts worse than approval withheld by those from whom it is desired. Disapproval has been at the root of all human conflict surely since way before the beginnin gof human history. Snubbing has always been intended to devide from the group or to devide a group or to hurt those toward whom it is directed. Exclusion is among the cruelist and most universally understood human action. Even monkeys routinely use it. It is the difference between an outstretched hand and a smile--as opposed to a clinched fist and a frown. Exclusion and disapproval--or even tacit failure to approve--is the root cause of war and human hatred at the most guteral level.

The interseting thing about being a exclusionary on Facebook is that before you can exclude anyone, you must first either request to be someone elses Facebook Friend or you must confirm someone elses's Friend Request. If you don't, you find yourself excluded from Facebook, which is okay, maybe even advisable--but it is becoming less likely for every day that passes. Ours is a digitally connected world. It is possible to be exclusionary by yourself, but you are then probalby the only one who knows or cares or suffers from a loss is you. People who use their typical methods of social ostracism to keep people in their places socially, academically, or economically are finding that they don't work so well on Facebook. It would seem that the whole purpose for being on Facebook is to be as socially inclusive as possible. Anything less is a losing strategy and mostly a waste of time.

Friending someone on Facebook is not much like actually becoming their friend. You are not making any commitments to them; you are not risking anything more by becoming friends with one person than you are with another. If you are careful about your privacy settings and at least make a cursory effort to identify who is asking to be your friend your exposure to identity theft and privacy invasion, friending someone on Facebook is no more nor less than anywhere on the Internet. It is not a very high risk and there are basic things you can and should do to minimize your your exposure to such security and privacy concerns.

Children should be guided by their parents, although they usually aren't, but among adults, the rules of engagement are no more mysterious than what is acceptable in real life in real person in the real world. You will also find that the occasional sleezeball who stumbles in from Non-Christian-Bungle Dating sites--quickly get's the message. These idiots will find themselves Unfriended in a heartbeat, so don't even bother. Let someone else do it. But even if you do Unfriend them, they had to expect it.

Employeed in the fields of sales and marketing for  a lot of my life, I have often heard how problematic getting on the outs with customers can be by various unscientific citations--whether saying for one of every ten or one-hundred or one-thousand happy customers it takes only one unhappy customer to undo the goodwill of all of the happy ones. It seems that almost no amount of good will can ever completely overcome the ill will of just one percieveed injustice. People are prone to remember the bad and forget the good.

These maxims come to me anytime that it crosses my mind to Unfriend someone on Facebook. There are mentally-ill, or emotionally disraught, or temporarily unhinged, or uncommonly distressed people every day who take offense where not so much offense is intended. You never know when your little straw of heaped upon unpleasantry becomes the final straw that breaks a proverbial unfriended uncamel back--maybe theirs or maybe yours. You never know when your little spark of unrest or agitation may become the spark that ignites a fuse leading to long-smouldering dynamite.

Of course we should not fear retaliation from those whom we have unintentionally offended, because we likely can do nothing to prevent such misunderstandings. But we are at least a little accountable when we ever are intentionally reckless with another feelings--however justified we may feel. I have had a few people Unfriend me on Facebook. I think. What gets me most is why did they either confirm my Facebook Friend Request or Request my Friending--if they are then going to Unfriend me?

But when it has happens, thankfully rarely, I would like to play it off as something else--that maybe they felt to end one account and begin another and just have not got around to Friending me. Or that it was merely a glitch or a mistake. I may even have Unfriended one or more people o Facebook. I can't think of any offhand, but Facebook has been at least as new to me as it is to others--and protocols and purposes has been being similarly worked out for us all.

I do know that once I have even a hint that someone has either failed to acknowledge or confirm a friendship or once they disappear from my Friends list I am more reluctant to friend anyone else for fear of a repeat. I will absolutely NOT expose myself to a repeat of this minor sting of my feelings. And I will wonder forever or until resolved why such things happened. And although I like to think of myself as a very fair and unprejudiced person, I fear that I may one day let myself and my principles down when I find myself in a position of being or even just knowing some mutual someone whereby I might exert just a whisper of a hint of influence that might rob a person who has Unfriended me of gaining favor.

I sometimes reflect on leaving a place where I worked one time with another employee owing me money. It was a gentleman's agreement to split a commission. I let the sale accrue to the other guys advantage, out of the fancied goodness of my heart in order that he might achieve some quota or contest or such thing, with the understanding that he would pay me out of his own commission. Having no official record of the agreement or even of the transaction, it was merely the gentlemenness of the agreement that was put to the test.

This person, for whatever reason, chose to not honor our agreement. It was a significant amount of money. I let it go with the heartfelt belief that what goes around comes around. I suppose it could have been some fifteen or so years later when I was set to team interview a candidate for a job for which he was applying. I did not have a name or even a good description of the applicants work history and qualifications. All I know was that a familiar face older and a little more pained with angst and age appeared in the glass office that flanked mine, where the first interview was to occur.

I tried to hold back emotions, and had determined that I would not allow our previous history to keep me from approving this guy's employment if indeed he turned out to be the best candidate. But when I arose upon his entry for my interview, I observed the guys face turn a little ashen when he recognized me. I was about to extend my hand when my old unfriend's face fell and he seemed to almost shrink in my presence, and he sort of half giggled and half-choked as he said my name, and then cursed under his breath and turned on his heels without further fanfare and departed without ever saying anything else. His own conscience and his own consciousness of his guilt had convicted him in my presence before I had even interviewed him. I had been already forgiven him and justified his actions to myself--but he did not allow himself to proceed with the interview.

All I am saying is don't hide behind some Dear Abby article you have read or some justification that says it is okay for you to knowingly push a button in an act that is actually called UNFRIENDING someone, and ever think that this person will not be offended at some level, let alone irreparably hurt. That they may even come to hate you. And if they have any other friend--with increasing likelihood if they have lots of friends--that your failure to be kind or your willingness to be unkind or to even be hurtful--will not have a chance of coming back to bite you. Even if they forgive you--you are likely to always remember your disloyal, mean or simply thoughtless action. Your own conscience will condemn you. 

There are worthy reasons for Unfriending people on Facebook. Although in most cases, you should have probably just have blocked them. There may be stalkers or bullies who are threatening to harm you. Ex's and old romantic interests who have become abusive or taunting or otherwise challenging may truly warrant the final Finger. But I have heard a lot of other reasons that really should not qualify in a civil society. Here are a few of the apparent most popular.

1) Too many posts or shares or pictures or status updates. Unless these posts are intentionally inflammatory and geared to insulting you, how much of an intrusion can these be. How long does it take to scroll down past such gang posts. Apparently this Friend feels something is important enough to say or to share with you and others. If it is not posted to your page, either ignore it or officially block it. You can also block others from seeing your posts if desired. It is my opinion that any kind of friend is valuable enough to keep as long as they are not hurting anyone.

2) You do not agree with their politics or religion. Do you withhold association with those with whom you do not agree with politically or those who hold different religious views? Do you refuse to associate with those of different races or different socioeconomic standing? Don't limit yourself too much in your social networking.

3) Too many negative posts about how lousy they feel. Maybe you have no time for them. But maybe these folks need your attention and help if you care any tiny bit about them as mere humans. Most people will go through some kind of emotionally difficult time in their lives. If you haven't you likely will. Is it really that big a burden on you to share another person's burdens for a second. Maybe you should try a friendly uplifting comment. If you just can't stand any whiners scroll past their posts and don't respond. If these people are in the depths of despair or in Major Depression, Unfriending them might just kill them.

4) Too many pictures of their ugly kids. maybe you don't have any kids.To many parents, their children are their lives. They are wrapped up in their children but the have not yet adjusted to how to socialize while having kids or they have not yet figured out that everyone's kids are just as precious as their own. It could be worse--they could be adding to the social mess and abusing their kids. Just scroll on past them. These folks are likely isolated by their circumstances and really need outside social contact.

5) Stupid or mundane status updates. Think about it. If you had such an exciting and grand life, you would probably be on Facebook less. Those who are on Facebook a lot, have a lot of tie on their hands. If you want high drama, rent a movie--or at least turn on the news. Facebook is a pretty also-ran mundane activity. Not everyone has circumstances conducive to high adventure. I personally would have no social life at all during times of greatly compromised health. That I am on Facebook at all, is a pretty pathetic statement of my own circumstances.

6) Game requests or requested participation with certain applications--with seldom any other live contact. I admit that this has sometimes gotten my goat in the past. Once I realized that these are automated and are generally the fault of the games or applications themselves and that sometimes people's Friends lists are compromised or used without their express knowledge--it became less obnoxious. I just scroll past them. Most Facebook gamers and those who seem to fall into this category are becoming more savvy to this kind of intrusion. I am seeing less of this. If we each remember that Facebook and all social media is relatively new to all of us and that the rules of acceptability are still being defined, the less prone we'll be to giving the finger to a newbie or someone who has not yet caught on.

7) Advertising and promotion used too blatantly and abundantly.  I am hoping that the within the spaces of Social Media, that some social mistakes will not be repeated. I use social media as one way to post links to my blogs. At this juncture, all of my blogs are noncommercial and advertising free. I work hard on them. I am offering something that I consider worthwhile when I provide these links. Facebook provides the least referrals to my blogs of all other means. I would not suffer if I took these links off, but some people have expressed that they enjoy them. I feel like those who may not can just ignore and roll past them. Odd are that every Friend has imposed some link upon me that I did not necessarily want.

But I also take the tack that if I am surrounded only by like-minded people that I am missing opportunities to learn and to grow. so you may not think this way. so my stuff is just garbage to you. Then by all means--scroll past me without a second thought. Or Unfriend me, but if you Unfriend me remember not to bother me the next time you need advice bout such and such--which I may happen to be an expert in. Everyone is an expert in something. The ability to access so many experts whom are by the way your Friends has never be greater. Enjoy.

And if you Unfriend me, the next time we meet on the street, don't be surprised if I give you the finger and walk away. Turn about is fair play. But no, this will never happen. My Mom and Dad carefully taught me basic good manners. I will likely just smile and play it off and everything will be cool. And I will never hold a grudge, for my own peace of mind--dear unfriend.

http://thestir.cafemom.com/technology/137787/10_good_bad_ugly_reasons

http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/11/16/10-reasons-to-unfriend-someone-on-facebook/

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-unfriend-someone-on-facebook.html

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2011/11/20/its-okay-to-unfriend-on-facebook-emily-post-says/

http://www.11points.com/Web-Tech/11_Biggest_Reasons_People_Unfriend_You_On_Facebook

http://blog.oup.com/2009/11/unfriend-facebook/

http://thebabyboomerentrepreneur.com/1023/why-would-you-unfriend-someone-on-facebook/

http://www.heatherphysioc.com/12-reasons-to-unfriend-people-on-facebook

http://www.alexiaisaak.com/2011/07/facebook-rules-when-should-you-unfriend-someone-on-facebook.html

http://blog.timesunion.com/kristi/10-reasons-to-unfriend-someone-on-facebook/30132/

http://mylifescoop.com/2012/08/30/facebook-etiquette-how-do-i-unfriend-someone/

 

Related articles

Who's a Reneck Now?

What Marketers Can Learn From Facebook "Unfriending" Study

How to Unfriend Someone in Real Life

Friend. Unfriend. Find... Facebook launches own search engine

Unfriending and Deactivating

How to Find Out When Someone Unfollows You on Facebook, Twitter, and Other Social Networks

John Y's Musings from the Middle: I'm Easy

Unfriended? Me? But how could you know that?

The Secret to Facebook Happiness Is Killing Friendships

NSSF’s Commitment to Firearm Safety | NSSF Blog

One of the questions I’m often asked in the course of the gun debate is, “Is there common ground and room for cooperation?” The answer I always give is “Absolutely,” because one thing all of us, especially gun owners, can agree on is the importance of firearm safety.

As the leading organization to promote firearm safety, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) launched Project ChildSafe in 2003 specifically to educate gun owners on their responsibility to keep their guns out of the wrong hands, and provide the tools to help them do so. Through partnerships with law enforcement we have distributed more than 36 million free firearm safety kits and safety information to gun owners throughout the U.S. as part of this program, and between 2000 and 2010, fatal firearm accidents dropped 22 percent. Firearms accidents are now less than 1 percent of all fatal accidents in the United States.

Our efforts have made considerable strides in gun safety, prevented accidents and saved lives, and working together with you, we can do even more. As responsible firearm owners, we must all take steps to prevent firearm accidents, theft and misuse. Firearm accidents and misuse and the tragic consequences they have on families and whole communities should compel all of us to work even harder to practice and promote firearm safety.

This year NSSF has committed $1 million to provide free gun safety kits, including a lock, in partnership with law enforcement agencies across the country, to gun owners, and educate gun owners about responsible firearm handling and storage. With this effort we will continue to be a leading voice in the nation on firearm safety, but true success with this campaign relies on the participation of responsible firearm owners at the local level. Our website has several easy tips and information to help you prevent firearm accidents, secure your firearms against theft and misuse, and educate your families on proper firearm handling, storage and safety.

We encourage you to use these resources in your home, and to share them with your friends and neighbors who own firearms. It only takes a few seconds for an accident to happen, and it takes just as few seconds to prevent one. Please join us in this important work.

via www.nssfblog.com

It does not seem like rocket science to figure out that more guns in the right hands--those of good rank and file citizens--results in less violent crime against them perpetrated by criminals with guns. But this argument has been frequently made by antigun activists such a Mayor Bloomberg. Part of his argument is that straw buyers are purchasing weapons for the black market and/or that criminals are stealing guns and selling them on the black market, thus leading to an influx of guns into jurisdictions such as NYC where guns are highly criminalized by law.
There is very little evidence that much if any of the first this occurs. This is why the infamous gunrunning operation conducte by President Obama's and Eric Holder's Feds that resulted in deaths of innocent people nd federal agents had to be manufactured. It was not happening, so in order to get the goods to support the claims that guns were being run into Mexico routinely, the feds forced legal gun dealers to cooperate with criminal straw purchasers who were supposed to be tracked. They lost track. It was a stupid and illegal idea in the first place. Guns come the other way; they come from Cold War stockpiles in South America and Central America that have now fallen into criminal black market hands as valuable contraband. These military weapons are part and parcel to drug trafficking and the Cartels and the Street Gangs. These make their way into America and are sold to criminals. The absence of any evidence that American weapons find their way into Mexico as a regular matter of course supports the reality--as does the proliferation of fully automatic military weapons that are found in the hands of criminals in America. These are the real assault weapons that have tarnished the reputations of the make-believe assault weapons that our president has famously sought to ban.
There is also a surprisingly small number of legally purchased guns that have fallen prey to thieves in recent years. Gun owner's are not stupid people. Guns are valuables that are usually protected among other precious belongings when in the hands of legal owners. More and more, firearms are being secured in special household gun safes. Gun safes are one of the biggest boons of the peripheral firearms industry, as more and more good citizens wan to secure their weapons. At the very least, most gun-owners use some creativity in hiding their guns. So, the idea that stolen guns of this kind contribute very much to the gangland and criminal element is increasingly untrue. It is an old argument that was greatly overblown to begin with.
Mayor Bloomberg and other anti-gunners have something else fueling their agendas. I am guessing that it is the hope to increase their control upon private citizens.
This study cited is one of many that shows the actual and most intuitive trend--that more guns in the hands of more good citizens absolutely reduces violent crimes perpetrated upon them. Duh!

Arkansas Teachers Head Back to School This Fall Armed with Concealed Handguns

In the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre, the NRA  proposed putting armed guards in schools to increase safety. Now, one town in Arkansas is doing just that—but with school staff rather than professional security guards.

With 53 hours of training under their belts, more than 20 administrators, teachers and school employees in Clarksville, Ark., will head back to school this August packing a 9mm handgun, AP reports.

“The plan we’ve been given in the past is ‘Well, lock your doors, turn off your lights and hope for the best,’” Superintendent David Hopkins told AP. But as deadly incidents continued to happen in schools, he explained, the district decided, “That’s not a plan.”

Although most proposals to put armed guards in schools after Newtown went nowhere thanks to “resistance from educators or warnings from insurance companies that schools would face higher premiums,” Arkansas already had a law on the books that allows “licensed, armed security guards on campus,” according to AP. The extensive training school staffers in Clarksville received allows them to be considered guards.

Students will not know which faculty and staff will be carrying weapons, although signs will be posted at each school about the armed guards—already a

via bearingarms.com

Police Investigating Accidental Shooting At Gun Show

HOT SPRINGS, AR -- It was a "shocker" at the gun show today.

A man accidentally shot himself and another person at the event hosted by the Lions Club in Hot Springs.

Organizers of the gun show say they're very safe when putting this event together, so they're really not sure how this could've happened.

Just about every kind of weapon can be found at the Lions Club Gun Show, but those weapons typically aren't loaded, that's why organizer Larry Louden says everyone is shocked by today's accidental shooting.

He said, "We've been doing these gun shows since 1985 and never had a safety incident whatsoever."

Anyone who comes into the gun show with a weapon, checks in at the front desk.

Then, they're asked to clear their gun and receive a plastic zip tie which goes around the gun to make sure it doesn't fire.

Even with those safety measures in place, for both visitors and vendors, police say 42-year-old Charles Pike picked up a pistol from a table and it went off, hitting him in the hand.

Then, the bullet ricocheted off the floor, grazing another man.

Louden said, "And for some reason, we don't know, this particular weapon had a round in it and had an accidental discharge."

Philip Kastner -- with Trader Bill's Outdoor Sports in Hot Springs -- says he's been to hundreds of gun shows but never heard of a weapon discharging at one.

He says it's something that just doesn't happen.

Kastner said, "I think it's a freak accident, I'm sure."

The reporter asked Kastner, "Do you think this incident will have people questioning safety at gun shows?"

After a pause, he replied, "You know there was a three car wreck here yesterday. Are we going to question vehicle safety every single day?"

No charges have been filed in this case, but police are still investigating.

Both men hurt went to the hospital with non-life threatening injuries.

The gun show will be open again at the Hot Springs Convention Center Sunday from 9:00 a.m.- 4:00 p.m.

If you would like to follow Melissa Schroeder's reports on Facebook, you can click here and like her page.

via arkansasmatters.com

All I can say is, dumbasses! Observing the basic rules of firearms precludes and prevents these kinds of things from happening. There is no excuse for this. 1) Treat any and All guns, as if they are loaded. This is sometimes cited as, All guns are always loaded, for emphasis. Immediately check a firearm to see if it is loaded. Visually check it, check it by feel, recheck it. 2) Never point any firearm at anything, ANYTHING, ANY THING, that you are NOT PREPARED TO DESTROY. 3)Do not place your finger on the trigger until you are prepared to fire. 4) Never fire a gun until you have identified the target's and everything within the potential line of fire, foreground, or background--wherever it is pointed. 5)Never lose control of or allow any firearm for which you are responsible (if you own it, you are responsible for it)to be out of your control and/or supervision. Never allow anyone who is not competent to handle a firearm, to handle your firearms.
There are many variants, but these are the basics that anyone and everyone who handles a firearms should know and lie by. Any ONE of these could have prevented this from happening. All of them should have made this an impossibility.

Poor Lighting, Incompetence Led to Police Officer Shooting 72-Year-Old Jerry Waller

By Dabney Bailey, Sat, July 27, 2013

Police officers from Fort Worth, Texas, are blaming bad lighting rather than their own incompetence for wrongly killing 72-year-old Jerry Waller.

According to a search warrant affidavit acquired by the Star-Telegram, police were dispatched to 409 Havenwood Lane on May 28 because of a reported burglary. The problem was that they went to 404 Havenwood Lane instead of their intended destination.

The affidavit complains, “there is no lighting around the home and the officers had only the use of their flashlights.”

To make matters more complicated, the police might very well have lied in their report. The police claim that they saw a man “armed with a handgun standing near the corner of the home.” They ordered him to drop the gun, and when he pointed the gun at them, the police opened fire.

And yet, Waller died inside of his garage, leaving residents of the community to wonder why there is such a blatant discrepancy between the facts and the report.

via www.opposingviews.com

I do NOT go looking or this stuff to repost. I just run across it. But the reason I run across it is that it seems to be epidemic. Law Enforcement serves such a vital role and they have such a high bar to maintain. I know the textbook answer is that it is a dangerous job and that they can't take any chances.That is NOT a good enough answer. Innocent people dying because of stupid mistakes such as going to the wrong place just is not good enough to excuse killing a man who is justified in protecting himself and his own property. Seeing someone pointing a gun at you when you are at the right place, may justify killing them if self-defense. It does not always. Who should get the benefit of the doubt and caution when police are on someone else's private property, intruding, uninvited, and weird hours--the Lawmen or a private citizen.
while I agree that private citizens also need to exercise care when wielding or brandishing firearms--even on their own property--police training should involve restraint and competence, before a man's life is taken.
If the Trayvon Martin incident has brought anything to light, it is that mistakes do not excuse deadly force. Having a badge does not remove a person from personal responsibility. If this had been private citizens--a murder or manslaughter charge would result.
being a police officer carries great risks that should be trained for and guarded against--but too bad, so sad, just doesn't cut it. We expect more of police officers.

Feds Investigating 'Redneck Day' at Arizona School (Video)

However, the U.S. Department of Education said the investigation would not include the student wearing the Confederate flag, but would “be limited to whether a racially hostile environment was created due to language and actions that were not protected by the First Amendment.”

Maupin was disappointed the feds would not be investigating the flag incident.

“While I’m glad they are investigating, the letter itself is a permission slip for racist parents to send their children to school wearing any symbol they want?” he told the Phoenix New-Times. “To me, there is no difference between a confederate flag and a swastika flag. Is the Department of Education saying it’s OK for a young neo-nazi to wear a swastika flag? It’s clear to me that the mere presence of the confederate flag and the swastika flag creates an atmosphere of racial hostility.”

via www.opposingviews.com

I am not sure what a Redneck Day implies, but I do not think it is necessarily a racist theme, especially not out West. I have written about the term redneck several times over the years as regarding its origin, usage, and context given different groups of people.
It is not surprising that African-Americans would feel especially disturbed by a Redneck Day, as African Americans use the term disparagingly to refer to racially bigoted and socially backward Caucasians.
But other groups, unless they have also absorbed and assigned this meanin g to the term, do not use the term in this way.
Redneck was apparently first applied by other Caucasians to Dutch immigrants in Northern states such as Pennesylvania and Ohio who had very fair skin and whose farm labors in the fields caused sunburn and literally turned their necks red.
These farmers were poor, hadworking people, Christians with Christian values, who had good work ethics. Because they were poor and different from the other more established and mostly immigrant stock of other ethnicities, they were looked down on by these peoples. As is often the case, the minority newcomers were labled, mocked, and made fun of.
It was a fairly new phenomenon, within the last fiftyl-years or so that this term has been used by Hollywood to describe a particular Southern racist stereotype. It appears that from this application that the Confederate Flag was coupled with the term Redneck. The first time I, living in the South during the sixties and seventies, that I first hear the term. It was then used by young men who wore their hair long and embraced much of the quasi-Hippy culture of the times, to refer to backward Southhern men as were those depicted in the classic movie flop, Easy Rider.
Easy Rider was a fairly plotless low budget movie produced by a young Perter Fonda. It was fitting for his neophyte acting abilities, as he said very little and spent most of the movie riding a cool motorcycle with extended-forks and an American Flag gas tank. While the movie portrayed Southern men as overly-patriotic shotgun toting killers of longhairs, it idealized Fonda's pot-smoking drug trafficking, amoral, though apparently enlightened character as heroes. But even with these shortfalls, this depiction of Southern Rednecks had no racial elements.
The popular comic strip 'Lil Abner, also had a lot to do with establishing and reinforcing stereotypes of Southern Hillbillies as moon-shining, stock-car driving (NASCAR'S roots are in the Moonshine Culture when stock cars were modified to outrun the Law on the way to deliver their products between Middle and Eastern Tennessee stills to the urban Atlanta market). Of course these folks were not many generations removed from the War of Northern Aggression, which was only in history ever as much about race as it was about States Rights at that time regarded as as guarantying the right of individual states for self-determination up to and including succession. But history has, of course, been rewritten to be another thing entirely.
My point, however, is that most of these rank and file Southerner's ancestors, property, and lives had been unalterably affected by the horrible and far-reaching destruction of the civil War, which was fought almost entirely in the South--over tenants both real and entirely manufactured for political propaganda prior to, during, and post war.
While these poor rural people of European origin were fiercely independent and unappreciative of these outsiders invading their homelands, destroying their homes, properties, and live-stock for no apparent good purposes--they were too poor to own slaves nor did their lifestyle require them.
Slave-owners were majorly a minority of rich gentry who owned large plantations, and enjoyed the lifestyle of the rich and famous--often both envied and resented by poor whites. These folks never had necks made red from their toils--unless it was from too long rides fox-hunting or traveling too legislate.
Poor whites who did not eek out a miniscule living, as is always the case, were used and abused by the rich--often in much the same ways or worse than were black slaves. Sharecropping whites were just another practical name for slavery.
However, as a result of the Civil War, many of these poor people gained a hatred for the North and for all of the symbols over which they had been required to sacrifice so much--including the institutions of slavery. Further, many of them had found positions or leadership and personal gain from their military service, and liked it. They put their skills to use rebel-rousing and inciting and punishing Northern Sympathizers, Carpetbaggers, and former black slaves. Perhaps it was from this that the Rebel Flag gained its most-entrenched associations with racism. Still, people with red necks, were not much a part of these symbols.
It was during the Civil Rights movements in the South when I first heard the term rednecks applied with a racist-intent. This came from black people,and Northerner would-be Civil Rights workers, accept for their failure to do anything but talk--who seemingly wanted to apply a broad racist brush to Southerners apparently lacking a suitable counter racial slur to describe white people. It was used alongside Honky, which did not stick so well as did Redneck. The association with the rebel flag was still only abstract, however.
Again, aided by Hollywood, such show as The Dukes or Hazard, used many of these general stereotypical symbols to describe the South, albeit in a more-comical way. Similarly, country singers, as they often do, began to embrace negative epithets as positives, redefining them to symbolize Conservative social and moral values. They did not include racism among these attributes--except for a few White Supremacists and KKK'ers, who were as always--representative of only a minority of Southerners. Very few mainstream Southerners have ever identified themselves by condoning racism. And even though the term Redneck has been embraced my some white people as a symbol of Conservative Christian values--those values do not include racism. Whether or not a person is truly racist, unless they are actively wanting to be identified as a race activist, they do not want to have a term applied to them that implies that they are narrow-minded, uneducated, or racially bigoted. However, this disparity in the meaning of the term redneck, is often mistaken to mean this. This is one problem regarding slang. Meanings are not agreed upon.
So it does not surprise me the personalities such a Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton who came to notoriety as racial activists, while their respective racial groups were using this term, Redneck, as a racist term to describe their white opposition embodied by their own stereotypical racist white people--many good and decent white people were merely using the term to describe themselves as good, hardworking, socially-Conservative, morally-based, unassuming, working class, white people. This is, after-all,all bit in a derogatory way, to whom the original reference was made. Herein we have a classic cultural misunderstanding of a slang term. But who are the racists in this application or misapplication of the term?

Florida Mom Marissa Alexander To Serve 20 Years for Firing Warning Shot While George Zimmerman Goes Free

Florida Mom Marissa Alexander To Serve 20 Years for Firing Warning Shot While George Zimmerman Goes Free

Share this with a friend

Tweet

Follow us and never miss a story!

via www.opposingviews.com

We are seeing a lot of comparisons in the media--by far and away with this particular slant--not because this is all they can find, but this is what they feel can further devide along racial lines. There are numberous cases where the race toles are reversed, but why get into a pissing contest?
The simple fact is that two different cases, different juries, different judges, different personalities, different players altogether arrive at different conclusions.
My guess here is that this judge leans toward being antigun, so she wanted to throw the book at this lady. Judges should NOT be predisposed in their views. Most try not to be. But some still are. Regardless, if this lady did not have elect to have a jury decide her fate, she could have and probabl shold have.
If the facts are as cut and dry as this "reporter" makes it out to be--and I am guessing that it is NOT, it is indeed unfortunate for her. She probably should have begun with a stand your ground defense. Her case can and should be appealed. George Zimmerman also had to deal with the cumbersome wheels of the justice system.
But I mean, really, what is the point of this article? Is it to somehow indicate that these cases are in any way related? Is it suppose to say that George Zimmerman should have been found guilty and locked up? Is it suppose to sya that this lady should have gotten off? Is it to say that a domestic dispute is the same as what happened with Zimmerman and Trayvon martin? What?
All I can get out of this is an attempt to sew dischord and racial divison. I feel so sad for Trayvon Martin and his family. I feel sad for Zimmerman and his family. I feel bad for this lady. Okay, so we all feel bad. Now, do we feel better?

Trayvon Martin's Death: A Tragedy of Errors

Trayvon Martin's Death, A Tragedy of Errors

Observations After the Verdict

1. George Zimmerman was part of an organized and recognized Neighborhood Watch. He had had some training  this capacity. The Neighborhood Watch had been legally formed in response to real crime problems. George Zimmerman was legally authorized to carry a gun for his own self-protection. He was the Captain of the neighborhood watch. He observed someone whom he did not recognize, whom he felt was out of place, and whom he felt was behaving suspiciously. This person was wearing a hoodie, which reminded Zimmerman of those criminals who had been causing problems in the community. So Zimmerman followed him. Zimmerman called the police dispatcher, who rightly told Zimmerman to disengage from following, because a police car had been dispatched.

2. If Zimmerman did NOT stop following this young man, then he made a major error. Was it criminal? Maybe. Was it malicious? I don't think so. Was it racially motivated? I cannot see that it was. Was race a factor. Probably, in that this young man fit the description of those who had purportedly been wreaking havoc upon this neighborhood. Was it a poor judgment? Obviously. Was it stupid? Absolutely--in hindsight.

3. Trayvon Martin was in an unfamiliar neighborhood. But he had every right to be doing what he was doing while crossing through the neighborhood. He was doing nothing wrong. He had been to the store to buy a soft drink and candy. He saw a white guy following him. Likely because he was afraid and suspicious of the motives of this older fat white or Hispanic guy following him, he was hiding along the side of the building and had his hoodie up. It is not illegal to wear a hoodie, it was afteral said to be raining. Placing myself in this young man's shoes, I can understand how he may have felt that having his hoodie up could have been advantageous while assessing the perceived threat of being followed by this unknown man. He man have felt that his youth was a disadvantage and concealing himself would make him a more formidable victim to a potential assault. Or he may have simply been aggravated that Zimmerman was following him--for whatever reason. He was doing nothing illegal. Even if he had suspected that the guy was part of a neighborhood watch and have been aggravated by being wrongly suspected of wrongdoing--it would be understandable--bur really, how could he have known this? Indications are that he did not.

4. At this point, with George Zimmerman being the only surviving witness, only HE knows what happened during the confrontation. He claimed, with some authority as the Captain of the Neighborhood Watch, that Martin ambushed him while he was on his way back to his car, as I understand it. The only part of this that I find to be suspect, is whether  or not he had truly disengaged from following this kid. To me, it is pretty apparent that the kid did indeed attack him and was apparently kicking his ass.

 

5. Much has been said about self-defense in this case. In my personal estimation, having taught self-defense classes, I can see how this mere teenager, who had apparently been in confrontations before and had some sense of how to preserve oneself, chose to confront his perceived nemesis on his own terms, which is often strategically advantageous. If Zimmerman was still following him, I can fully understand how Martin would have felt compelled and justified in jumping him. I mean, what right did the this fat guy have to be bothering this kid at all? Had he identified himself as the Captain of the Neighborhood Watch? No, not according to what I have heard. So when we invoke self-defense, we would almost be splitting hairs to say that Martin did not have a right to confront Zimmerman--a fat-ass over-zealous white guy--if indeed he was still pursuing him. It was dark and no one else was around. For crying out loud, if Zimmerman had the right to use deadly force and kill this kid because he felt his life or limb was in danger--did not Trayvon Martin have a similar right to physically confront, smack, or constrain this unknown fat potential assailant--for the same reasons. If a reasonable person had been in the place of this kid, armed only with a beverage and candy, in an unfamiliar neighborhood, would he not have reasonably felt that his own life and limb was in danger? In my estimation, although it was obviously, again in hindsight, the wrong thing to do--was it not a reasonable reaction to resort to physically protection--albeit, proactively? What would you have done? The wrong thing, or something else?

In most self-defense instruction, we are taught to never allow yourself to become a victim, to not hesitate, to act decisively and harshly when it comes to protecting yourself. Martin may have learned this precept on the streets. He may have learned it in a self-defense class. He may have learned it on TV. He may have acted instinctively. But if he reasonably thought that his life or limb was in danger--his own self-defensive actions would be condoned by many self-defense instructors. However, in this case, it led to his death.

6. Local Law-Enforcement examined the evidence. They quickly came to the conclusion that according to the evidence available and according to the law, that they had no choice but to release George Zimmerman. It is likely that Zimmerman's reputation as a good and solid citizen with evident good intent figured into this equation. But the available facts are what they based their decision to release Zimmerman on. Undoubtedly, they recognized the terrible tragedy that had occurred, but by simply following and interpreting the laws, they did not have sufficient evidence--none that is--to indicate that Zimmerman had not acted in self-defense. They let him go. My guess is that Zimmerman's life had already been ruined by this terrible event--but there is no indication other that Zimmerman MAY have made a bad decision. He had not acted hatefully. He had not acted unreasonably. He had screwed up big time. He had killed an innocent kid. But the law recognizes that such things can happen. It was a big tragic mistake. Local Law Enforcement acted correctly. This is now more clear than ever.

7. Trayvon Martin's family was understandably upset. They had every right to be;  as parents, they had every right to question and delve into the circumstances of the case. They should have. To not have done so would have been negligent.

8. The media jumped all over this. They intentionally distorted the facts and misrepresented the circumstances. Why? I can only speculate. Maybe the Liberal Media mindset caused them to see sinister motives where none existed. Maybe they simply wanted a story. Maybe they felt that it was their duty as the press to merely call this to the public's attention so that a possible injustice could be more closely examined. But they were dishonest about it. they misreported it. So often I see that thosw with such a biased crusader mindset somehow finds it okay to ignore time-tested laws of honesty because they feel that honorable ends justify dishonorable means. Once again, this post-modern Liberal rethinking of the basic laws of decency upon which civilization is founded, have proven to be incorrect. The arrogance of this mind-set is once again shown to be absurd.

9. The politicians piled on, fanned by the medias dishonest representation of the facts. Al  Sharpton, for one, who calls himself a Christian Reverend, fanned the fires of racial hatred--because this is wha t Al Sharpton does. Al Sharpton assumed to know things that he had no way of knowing about the case. He assumed the worst possible case scenario and further distorted the facts because this is what he does. He divides. He plays the race card even where none exists. Sharpton and others have made careers of fanning the fires of racial hatred. If they taught the true tenants of Christianity, he would not have a job. Al Sharpton thrives on divisive hatred based on race. I cannot even hod this against him. Sharpton, charlatan reverend though he is, serves a purpose. He is a racially-motivated political activist. His hatred of white people is evident. This is the role he plays in life. This is what he does. If there is a hint of an opportunity to sew racial hatred, Al Sharpton is there. This is more-or-less the same role that many others play who piled on in this case. But what about those who are supposed to be racially neutral? Such as the President of the United States. Or the Attorney General of the United States--who by the way--had no business weighing i n on this local matter at all. If it is not evident that these men are racially biased--are themselves racists as reflected by their actions regarding this case--then those failing to see this are simply blind.

10. President Obama has an obligation to represent all Americans. he should not have assuaged himself into this case as an African American. He should not have assuaged his influence as the Chief Executive of this nation in  this local case at all. It does not matter if he feels that Trayvon Martin looked like a son if he had had one. He does not have a son. President Obama, revealed himself as the racist hat he is, by weighing in on this case. He did not know the facts. he spoke--just as so many others have spoken in this case--out his ass--without the benefit of the facts. Never mind that he may have a deserved racial chip on his shoulder that caused him to feel a personal emotional involvement in this case. A President of the United States of America does not have this power or right. He overstepped his bounds and unjustly sought to influence the outcome of a local matter where he should not have. He used his power, not to try to find the truth, but to further divide the races of or already racially divided country. How dare him even that he could compare himself to President Abraham Lincoln. How dare him.

11. So what has been served by the Attorney General of the USA or The Attorney General of Florida, or local prosecutors, or all the others who piled onto this case for political advantage and assuaged their influence where it was unneeded, unsought, unwanted, unwarranted, unjust, and  unusual. What? Millions of dollars, more hatred, more racial division, more dishonesty, more disengenuosity , more misuse, and more injustice?

13. Do the parents of Trayon Martin have the basis for a civil case against Zimmerman for his reckless, albeit "legal" behavior that led to the unjustified death of their son? I am not an attorney, but I am a reasonable and rationale person. I think they do have a good case against him. That appears to me all that they ever had. Does he have any money to serve as reparations?  Has Zimmerman not already paid considerably for his mistake?  Should they pursue a civil case against him? It is a costly thing to do. He has no money. Would a jury rule differently? Who knows. Would a reasonable persons in similar circumstances pursue a Civil Case Against Zimmerman. I think not. Would I if I were in their shoes. Probably--maybe--or maybe I would just let it go at this point as another one of those tragic mindless life events that inevitably happens to each of us. Life is too short.  

14. When my daughter youngest daughter attended high school in the community where we then lived, a  nice young man whom she knew and went to classes with, was driving down a main street near where we lived a random limb feel from a giant old oak tree and smashed his car and killed him. I don't recall whether the family sought any kind of reparations from the city or the property owner or anyone else.  I suppose fault could have been found that someone under some definition of something was to blame for this tragic thing that happened. It was surely awful. It undoubtedly disrupted his parents and siblings and classmates lives and changed them forever. This young man was unable to fulfill any measure of his hopes and dreams. It was awful. No doubt about it.

The boy chose to go wherever it was that he was going at the particular moment that placed him under the falling tree limb. Was he at fault? It was his choice. but he did not know that this course of action would place him in a situation that would end his life.  The city or the property owner might well have been inclined--especially in retrospect to have done something to have prevented this from happening. The parents might well have felt that they should not have allowed him to drive their car when they did, moved to this wonderful little town when they did, or have made any number of other choices. Someone could have been blamed for the young man's tragic demise. It is tragic.

No, it is not exactly the same, with George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin's situation and choices. But the fact remains that neither of these people set out to hate or harm or even encounter the other that fateful night. If there could be an instant life replay where one or the other or any number of other people could change the events leading up to this tragedy, they would do so. Don't think for a minute that George Zimmerman has not been held to account for his actions--however malignant or benign they may have been. He has, and he will, continue to pay for his actions forever--as did Trayvon Martin. But why does it have to be anything more than it was--an unfortunate set of choices and circumstances that ended as it did--much as did those that placed my daughter's classmate under a falling limb.

15. Was Trayvon Martin's civil rights violated? Did George Zimmerman commit a hate crime? Everyone's civil rights are violated in some way daily. It is unfortunate, but these kinds of crimes against humanity will never be eliminated by laws. They can only be affected by changing men's hearts. Well, after the press weighed in, and the politicians weighed in, and the President of the United States weighed in, and a publicity-seeking prosecutor weighed in, and the entire judicial system was skewed in favor of finding George Zimmerman guilty of a crime--and after years of legal wrangling and expense and discussion, a jury of peers was approved by all parties and seated. They were women, mothers, black and white. After a public trial was held on TV, and after a Judge made many concessions to the prosecution down to the last day--providing an opportunity for the jury to consist on a lesser charge that was not even asked for by the prosecution initially--but which they had apparently scrambled to have approved at the last hour--the jury found George Zimmerman Not Guilty of the crimes for which he had been charged. It took them a short time and was apparently unanimous very quickly.

Still, throngs of people are protesting. Racial prejudice and inequality is being accused, foul is being cried.  Racial division is being promulgated. Racism is being fueled. I am sorry. The law may be screwed up--may be, maybe. But it is the law--until it is changed. No law is perfect. Most laws have undesirable side effects in some cases. The overall net net positive affect has to be considered. George Zimmerman was found Not Guilty of violating the Law of the Land. This was a very public, very media monitored, very media biased case. The outcome is what it is. It is also the same outcome as the local system arrived at initially. Yet this case has and is being leveraged as a race crime. I don't get it. What else can be done? Are we supposed to try this man over and over and over again until the outcome is what the media and race-based politicians want it to be? That ain't the way America is supposed to work. All I can consistently say is that this entire event and the circus that has surrounded it was, is, and will continue to be a terrible tragedy--just as was the tragedy of the tree killing my daughters young friend. 

Related articles

Geraldo: If jury were in Zimmerman's shoes, they'd kill Trayvon Martin

Rallies against Zimmerman verdict being held in US

Zimmerman cleared in shooting of Trayvon Martin

The George Zimmerman Verdict: Justice Served?

About My Writing and Story-telling.

Several people have complimented me lately aobut some FB posts. I wanted to thank them, but decided it would be too self-indulgent to do so on fb. I mean, they were jsut simple compliments. They don't really warrant a big response. Still, I had these thoughts. Part of the reason I write, whether on social media or on my blogs, is that my parents thoughts have come to mean a lot to me, and I want to capture some of my own for the benefit of my kids and grandkids in the event they are similarly affect after I am gone. Here is my response to the FB compliments:

Btw, I did leave a couple of more textured surfaces as ways for Froggy to escape. He was not there this morning so I guess it worked. Thanks for the compliments, but everyone has word skills if they'd just write them down. I learned typing on my own and incorrectly, but I can roll pretty good if I look at the keys. Stories are everywhere around us--just reg'r ole stuff. My Momma was a writer and she encouraged me to write early and I did. I write pretty much the way I talk. I just don't talk much. I usually use the first words that occur to me and try to use the most common words that most closely match what I want to say. I don't revise enough. Spell-checks help catch spelling mistakes. Punctuation represents pauses, near stops, full stops, inflection, and other changes in cadence. I don't know many rules, but I use my ear. I am a bit OCD so the rules I do know, I find hard to break. Fortunately, my parents spoke fairly correct English. And I have plenty of time on my hands when I am not able to do much else. I know all that was not called for, but that's what happens. ;-)                                                                                                     

Accepted of the Lord: The Doctrine of Making Your Calling and Election Sure - Ensign July 1976 - ensign

When faith is sufficient to sacrifice all earthly things, even life itself if necessary, it is possible for a person to know that he is accepted of the Lord for what he has done, and with this strong faith he may eventually receive eternal life.

Thus the Prophet Joseph said:

“After a person has faith in Christ, repents of his sins, and is baptized for the remission of his sins and receives the Holy Ghost, (by the laying on of hands), which is the first Comforter, then let him continue to humble himself before God, hungering and thirsting after righteousness, and living by every word of God, and the Lord will soon say unto him, Son, thou shalt be exalted. When the Lord has thoroughly proved him, and finds that the man is determined to serve Him at all hazards, then the man will find his calling and his election made sure.” (Teachings, p. 150.)

Such a person eventually receives godhood and becomes a member of the “church of the Firstborn.” (D&C 76:54.)

Who were some of the saints who were accepted of the Lord through their sacrifices? The Prophet Joseph Smith indicated that when a person has been proved of the Lord by “hungering and thirsting after righteousness, and living by every word of God,” he may then have the privilege of receiving the Second Comforter. This Comforter is the presence of the Lord Jesus Christ, “and the visions of the heavens will be opened unto him, and the Lord will teach him face to face.” Joseph Smith went on to say that this was the condition of a number of the ancient saints, naming Isaiah, Ezekiel, John the Revelator, Paul, and “all the saints who held communion with the general assembly and Church of the Firstborn.” (See Teachings, pp. 150–51.)

The assurance of being accepted of the Lord was also known to many of the Nephites: Enos (see Enos 1:27), Alma the Elder (see Mosiah 26:20), the Three Nephites (see 3 Ne. 28:4–11), and others (see 3 Ne. 28: 1–3).

The promise of becoming a member of the church of the Firstborn is also made to Latter-day Saints. (See D&C 76:50–60.) In our dispensation many Saints have made their calling and election sure. (See, e.g., D&C 124:19.) Noteworthy among these was William Clayton, to whom the Prophet said:

via www.lds.org

Cowboy-style cap gun gets 5-year-old ousted from school in Calvert County - The Washington Post

By Donna St. George,

Donna St. George

May 31, 2013 02:34 AM EDT

The Washington Post

Published: May 30 E-mail the writer

A kindergartner who brought a cowboy-style cap gun onto his Calvert County school bus was suspended for 10 days after showing a friend the orange-tipped toy, which he had tucked inside his backpack on his way to school, according to his family and a lawyer.

The child was questioned for more than two hours before his mother was called, she said, adding that he uncharacteristically wet his pants during the episode. The boy is 5 — “all bugs and frogs and cowboys,” his mother said.

via www.washingtonpost.com

Ten/tin coppers and 'Bama coming. These idiots should be questioned until the pee in THEIR pants.