Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Is This What Concealed Carry Leads To?

Trayvon Martin
This story is in regards to what can only be described as the murder of an unarmed 17 year old citizen Trayvon Martin.  This is about an effort by a neighborhood vigilante, determined to send a message that crime doesn't exist in his neighborhood. The only problem is that in sending this message, Neighborhood Watch leader, George Zimmerman became the police, judge, jury and executioner all at the same time, committing  crimes and  violating every constitutional right that a fellow citizen, Trayvon Martin, shared. What has been little known is that the natural part of the law that makes "concealed carry" effective in most venues, is some form of what is called the "Stand Your Ground Law". The "Stand Your Ground Law" allows a person to act in lieu of the police if they "feel" threatened using their weapon to kill if they deem it necessary to do so. In almost every case where there is concealed carry, there is a version of "stand your ground", which is the little secret not mentioned much by those in Peoria who advocate for concealed carry. The murderer, in this case, George Zimmerman, claims that he had a right to "stand his ground", "protecting" his neighborhood, and ultimately killing an unarmed boy simply because the boy refused to answer his questions.

This is what I have stated on my Facebook regarding this horrible event:
One of the worst things I have heard in a long time. A word to Peoria, Ill who has a Mayor that is advocating concealed carry....this is the result of concealed carry and neighborhood vigilante-ism. If you give law abiding citizens a gun and they "feel" threatened, you can expect the death rate to increase because everyone will make them feel threatened. Is this the blood you want on your hands?

Quick note on the 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution...

NO ONE has to answer anyone as to why they are in a certain place in a public area. Every citizen has the RIGHT to remain silent and as long as they are peaceful and not breaking the law go about their own business. not even the police have a right to harass you if you're abiding by the law and neither can they demand that you leave. This is still America and EVERY CITIZEN still has rights of freedom that the state CANNOT and DID NOT grant and can't take away.

Contrary to the observation of some, I like our Mayor, but we need to ask him and others that support concealed carry this question: 

Mayor Ardis, is this the blood you want on your hands?


  1. People are the problem. Its always been that way. Look at the country Australia, the crime has gone up when the country decided to ban or regulate pertaining to guns. Training is essential for this responsibility and if found guilty, he didnt follow the rules. People make mistakes and will pay for their mistakes if it be jail time for murder or found innocent. Deaths rates dont increase in any conceal carry location. Look at the real truth in the numbers before you assume death and bloodshed will reign across the state if this passes. You will find the opposite. So, I will ask anyone this, why hasn't any state repealed the concealed carry law that they already have? Its because for ONE person that sets a bad example, the whole concept of guns is painted in a bad view due to attempt to make up for what was lost, (in this case a human life). So, people die in car accidents but we dont ban cars from going on the road. If the anti's had their way, I could see the future now; when we go out into our garage and sit in a car and pretend to drive because some politician succeeded in banning cars on roads deeming them to dangerous.

  2. Ryguy,

    You said: "Deaths rates dont increase in any conceal carry location. Look at the real truth in the numbers before you assume death and bloodshed will reign across the state if this passes. You will find the opposite."

    I don't think that's true.According to CNN when they reported this story this evening on Anderson Cooper, places and locations that have concealed carry and a version of a "stand your ground" law, have experienced a higher rate of incidence leading to death. The demographic changes from criminals to citizens, but yet the violence continues.

    The problem is subjective opinion...what is threatening to one is not threatening to another. Some people are "threatened" by a person that talks loudly...whereas others aren;t. When a community puts community policing in the hands of its citizens, it's not only lazy and irresponsible, but it's bound to create, cause and facilitate all kinds of problems. Further, in these states where there is concealed carry, crime rates still soar like the rest of America. I haven't seen one statistic yet where crime has been altered because everyone has a gun.


  3. Another thing is that I find it inconsistent to promote a "Don't Shoot" philosophy, while at the same time arming everyone with guns. What is this saying..."Don't shoot each other, leave that to me!"???

    So I see a certain logical inconsistency with that. Now don't get it confused for a minute...I believe in the right to bear arms including hand guns as is a right of citizens (so I believe according to the US Constitution) however, this particular philosophy, I can't get with especially when the application of the law will be and is so ambiguous and based on subjectivism.

  4. Ooh, OK, according to The Blaze, a site founded by Glen Beck, since Trayvon may have had some trouble in school, he had to answer Zimmerman and Zimmerman was right to kill him....

    What kinda complete IDIOT is Beck for allowing this??? This is what I mean by subjectivism.

    Now let's look back at Beck's past, find him in the wrong place and shoot him because he's a threat because of his past...what kind of COMPLETE NONSENSE is that?

    Since Beck is a Constitutionalist (supposedly) how can he be so DUMB as to not know this man's rights under teh Constitution? He's a sensationalist and not a credible one at that.

  5. The stand you ground law has been on the books for 5 or 6 years I believe, and because of this one incident, you think it's bad? People abuse systems all the time, welfare, unemployment, the judicial system. I have never seen those systems being threatened to be shut down. I agree this is a terrible thing that looks as if it was murder, but it's not any concealed carry law or stand your ground law that made it happen. It was a person, who for whatever reason, thought he was able to do this. People try to get away with murder all the time, they use temporary insanity and all kinds of other excuses to try and justify what they did. This to me seems like someone who is trying to use the law to justify shooting someone they didn't approve of being where they were. I think we have to look at the whole picture when it comes to concealed carry and stand your ground laws. Look at the good with the bad. This is an instance where someone may being trying to use that law to get away with murder, how many times has it saved someone's life?

    1. You talk about "one incident" well, how many time does it take? Granted, and I think we both agree, that this man Zimmerman misapplied the law for his own purposes, but fact is that you make the assumption that rational people in situations such as this with a gun will make a rational or a better decision given the same or similar circumstances. That's not a good premise and certainly not one I'd hang my hat on in Peoria.

    2. Mr Burnett (I apologize, I'm not sure if it should be Supt Burnett and I mean only respect by calling you Mr.) Why do you think so little of the people of Peoria? Why is Peoria any different from Orlando, Miami, Denver, Dallas, Sioux Falls, St. Louis, or almost any other big city that currently allows people to carry firearms for self defense? I would invite you to take some time to get to know people who choose to carry firearms. The majority of them are super respectful of the laws. When they travel, they research every state they are traveling through to make sure they don't break their laws. Most people who carry do not want to jeopardize loosing that right by foolishly breaking the law. You could apply this situation to any privilege or right we have today. People drive drunk and kill other people, but we aren't stopping the sale of alcohol or vehicles. People do unspeakable things and feel justified in the name of religion because they have distorted some piece of writing, but we don't condemn all religions because of this.

      You ask how many times does it take, I would say a lot more than one. How many times does it take for a family to be brutalized or murdered without a chance to defend themselves before we are given our right to protect ourselves? The Supreme Court has ruled the police have no duty to protect us and there have been instances when they have been in fear for their lives and did not intervene to save someones life. If they have no duty to protect us, why can't we protect ourselves?

    3. First, my friend, I know human nature and the people of Peoria, although they like to think they are different and unique, are no different than any other people. Given the same circumstances, they will do the same and even worse in my opinion from what I have seen up close.

      We still don't have an adequate victim's advocacy plan in the city, and yet we have leaders that want to arm citizens with more guns, on top of the illegal one's that we know exist. To seriously address Peoria's crime, all one has to do is track ammunition sales and flow and also do some backtracking on where the ammunition is coming from. When has the city done a ballistics study on the weapons they acquire or on the bullets retrieved from crime scenes? The real is that they don't feel accountable to the citizens for such information at all.

      What you will create is a war culture and the criminals don't care what you have in your purse or back pocket. If it comes out you'd better make sure you use it because there won't be a second chance.

      So protecting ourselves??? Sounds like to me that we need to retain tax dollars if the police have no duty but yet hold a mission statement of serving and protecting. Then this foundation is built on a lie and a gun won't solve that issue.

  6. The Pastor's letter seriously misstates Florida's self defense law. Under Florida law, and the self defense laws of Illinois and most other states, a person is not justified in the use of deadly force just because he "feels threatened." That is too flimsy. To use deadly force or force that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm, a person must "reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;.... " 776.012 (1) Fla Stat. It appears the Pastors do not know about which they speak and their anti-right to carry rhetoric should be ignored. The real question is whether or not the shooter acted in self defense in accordance with the law. I believe he was not justified in the use of deadly force, should be arrested and charged with murder. It was not a righteous shooting under Florida law, contrary to what the pastors would have use believe.

    1. Since you say and make a rash assumption that I don't know what I'm saying as I have heard reports on every major stations saying the SAME thing...let's examine your recitation of teh law and see if it varies from my statements substantively:

      You quote the law: To use deadly force or force that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm, a person must "reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself

      What does that mean? It means to FEEL threatened. Do you have a "reasonable belief" without also feeling threatened? If you reasonable don't believe to be in danger, then why and how could a defense and or a shooting be possibly justified in any manner?

      the balance says:or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;.

      Not only does the law permit violence if one FEELS threatened, it also makes then defacto deputies and gives them the authority to protect others and others property. This is garbage and lazy law and citizen vigilantism.

      I'm sorry, but my premise still stands and you provide no compelling argument or claim that my assessment as well as the assessment of the news medial is wrong.


  7. Shall we disarm the police because they murder too? "a full-time deputy in the Forest County Sheriff's Department and a part-time officer at the Crandon Wisconsin Police Department, shot and killed six people and critically injured a seventh before committing suicide." - Oct 8th 2007

    Evil can rear up anywhere, it is our duty as human beings to be ready to extinguish it.

    1. You ask:"Shall we disarm the police because they murder too?"

      Certainly as we've seen and you point out the police don't by virtue of being a police guarantee that crimes won't occur. however, police are trained professionals. They have training and experience (supposedly) on how to handle these sort of issues. My money is on a professional any day over some citizen who simply feels threatened and who may or may not be rational in the moment.

      'tis true, as long as the evil heart and nature exists, we'll see this concealed carry or not.

  8. Pastor Burnett, the standard of "feeling threatened" that you claim gives a person the right to use force in self defense does not approach the legal standard for the use of force in self defense and is clearly wrong. The following court decision is instructive: In People v. White, 293 Ill. App. 3d 335, 338, 687 N.E.2d 1179, 1181 (1997), [the court] wrote that a defendant may assert self-defense when (1) unlawful force is threatened against the defendant; (2) the defendant is not the aggressor; (3) the danger of harm is imminent; and (4) the use of force is necessary. That, Mr Burnett, is a long way from your "belief" standard.

    1. It's not my "belief" standard. It's the standard of Flordia law which is in question NOT Illinois law that you quote. In a Reuter's Article:

      "Under Florida's law, a person who is attacked in a place "where he or she has a right to be" (indoors or outdoors) has no duty to retreat. A person can "stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force" if it's "necessary" to prevent death, serious bodily harm, or "the commission of a forcible felony."

      Here's another that makes it even more clear and in line with what I assert:" “You can meet force with force. In other words you can use whatever force is reasonable to defend you or others if you feel that you are exposed to death or other imminent great bodily harm,” said Florida State Attorney of the 1st Judicial Circuit.

      This is subjective and there is no duty or obligation to retreat or wait for any assistance or any law official. That same article says that it has been abused:

      "“The defense of stand your ground has been used in cases where it did not apply. In other words it has been abused and its because a lot of defendants raise stand your ground and say the other person has been attacking them when they really weren't,” WKGR News

      The Tampa Bay Times online reports one of the lawmaker' opinions of the law itself. Note what he says:

      "When we passed the law, we said it portends horrific events when people's lives were put into these situations, and my worst fears came to fruition," Sen. Arthenia Joyner, D-Tampa, said this week. "A young life was snuffed out."

      Joyner was in the state House when "stand your ground" passed in 2005 and fears the law — which allows people to use deadly force in cases of self-defense when they believe their life is at risk — could save 28-year-old shooter George Zimmerman from prosecution."

      As I stated and I have not been proven to be wrong, stand your ground is is rooted in subjectivity. Place a gun in the hand of an ordinary citizen or a zealous one such as Zimmerman and this is what you will get. Do this in Peoria and it will be just as bad or even worse.

      The whole issue is driven by American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)and the NRA.

  9. The Castle law that Illinois has adopted only has the home invasion provision active. In other words a person doesn't have to retreat from their home. It says this:

    (720 ILCS 5/) Criminal Code of 1961
    Section 7. Justifiable use of force. Use of deadly force justified if the person reasonably believes they are in danger of death or great physical harm. Use of deadly force justified if the unlawful entry is violent, or the person believes the attacker will commit a felony upon gaining entry. Section 7-2(b). Prevents the aggressor from filing any claim against the defender unless the use of force involved "willful or wanton misconduct". Illinois has no requirement of retreat. (People v. Bush, 111 N.E.2d 326 Ill. 1953).

    In addition, Illinois defines "Reasonable belief" as follows:

    (720 ILCS 5/2-19) (from Ch. 38, par. 2-19)
    Sec. 2-19. "Reasonable belief".
    "Reasonable belief" or "reasonably believes" means that the person concerned, acting as a reasonable man, believes that the described facts exist. (Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)

    If someone is in your house, I can understand that but the fact is that "reasonable belief" is still subjective.

    What if a person is mentally handicapped and "appears" to be threatening to have levied a threat??? I don;t say, let him/her kill first. What I am saying is that if you think that feelings and personal perception, which are not items subject to empirical, factual verification, is all that is necessary for action to take place. We have a problem. However THAT is exactly the standard under the law.

    I said FEELING, not emotion. There is a difference and I know the difference. Because I also know the bible doesn't make me a less sophisticated thinker, don't get me wrong.

  10. CNN reports the following regarding Florida's law which is especially problematic:

    The law of self-defense is at its core about reasonableness. If a person reasonably perceives a serious threat of harm, and uses reasonable force to meet that threat, the law justifies even deadly force, and it does so even if it turns out that the perceived threat was illusory. People have differing views of what's reasonable and, as a consequence, self-defense laws (which vary by jurisdiction) have always attempted to further define the concept. Until very recently, Florida's definition of reasonableness, as in many states, incorporated a longstanding principle, the "duty to retreat."

    Even if the "perception" is wrong, a citizen can take the law into their own hands and do what they do and answer questions later, EXACTLY like we see in the Zimmerman case.

    It would take some white people to get killed under this law for it to change. There is NO WAY anyone can make a convincing argument that is this was a white boy, killed in a black neighborhood that there would not be automatic arrests and a bill already introduced in the legislature to amend the law retroactively.

  11. This tragic incident has nothing to do with concealed carry. This has to do with the actions of one person. If this person is found guilty of a crime, he should get the punishment that he deserves. Concealed carry did not cause this incident to happen. They have no concealed carry in this state, yet look at the murders that happened in Chicago this last weekend. You are mixing apples and oranges with your arguements. If you are content with yourself and your family being a victim of crime, that is fine. That is your decision and your right, but don't ask my family to be victims without a choice of whether or not they want to carry the tools to defend themselves.

    1. There is no mixing of anything. Concealed carry is the law in Florida and the Castle doctrine that goes with it expands defense to the streets and beyond the home. So far as getting shot or protecting one's self, is there an alert out for Peoria? Is there some mass war getting ready to happen someplace? I know we've had more than our fair share of murders over the last few years, but I don't know of some broad range conspiracy to kill, neither am I aware of an extensive crime campaign or shootings such as we see in Chicago etc...

      It seems to me that we're being fed 2 messages, both are false..."it's better here" and/or "we better get a gun because of crime" now one of those can be right but not both of them. Which one is it? Is it better in Peoria, or is Peoria so bad that all citizens don't feel safe and need to be protected from some eventual or potential onslaught of terror?

      I'd simply like to know which one it is. I deal with Peoria's crime and violence fairly regularly, but I am at a loss.

      BTW: the man that got shot the other morning...if he legally had a gun what could he have done? Let's say he saw them coming. It certainly was a tragedy already, but is Peoria ready for citizen shoot outs? I just wonder.

  12. I am taking by your last comment,that you don't think someone should be allowed to defend themselves on the street? Well, what should they do? I guess just be a victim and be happy about it? This isn't just about Peoria. It's about a person's right to self defense. A right that apparently you wish to keep from the people. I sure don't get that.

    As far as the citizen shootout senario. It is a MYTH! This has been said by the opposition to concealed carry every time a state is about to pass this type of law. "It will turn into the wild west". It just doesn't happen that way. I will leave you with a fact.

    Fact: Every day, 550 rapes,
    1,100 murders, and 5,200
    other violent crimes are
    prevented just by showing a gun. In less than 0.9% of these instances is the gun ever
    actually fired. This is from the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2000, Bureau of Justice Statistics, BATF estimates on handgun

    1. My friend, by my statements you should know that I don't believe in street violence and escalation of violence in the streets where innocents could get hurt. I also don't believe that the victims should place themselves or their families in greater danger, risk or peril by shooting it out because they "feel" threatened.

      Plain and simply when it comes to black and white issues in Peoria, white people will always invariably feel threatened and seek to justify their actions. I have seen it here and it starts with labeling children in grade school and even high school. I KNOW these things as I say because I have had to advocate for children stereotyped. Listen to what we are hearing in Florida from a man who we both know is abusing the law, but gained sympathy and even may just get away because he "felt" threatened and in danger of his life based on race...I said race...

      This is a loosing proposition and the culture is a different one from the wild west and the old south. People, black folk in particular are less passive and a lot more angry under the wrong circumstances and not willing to settle for "justice" to work. Look at youth violence statistics and that should give you an idea of the moral social values or lack thereof that exist. You have a desperate community and you must look beyond the city average number of poverty and unemployment to get to the truth.

      So far as gun violence statistics, most of them are compiled fantasy constructed by gun advocacy groups. As I have studied them, they offer very little or no credibility. Showing a gun will only get you shot, because other folk have guns too whether legally or illegally. This is not a way to build harmony in a on your side with a gun and me on my side with one is utter lunacy.

      Let's try a new relationships that are sustainable and lasting even beyond grant funding of community programs. Build apprenticeships and partnerships that are based on human value and not monetary value. Pull people into your environment if you want change and a sharing of values and attitudes. Go into the environment of others and make your skill set available and learning what the struggle and concern really is. This doesn't just work one way it works both. Black folk are responsible for the same. You can't fight fire with gasoline and a gun/gun mentality will not work.

      What are we looking for, simple repression of violence with a threat that I'll harm you if you think to harm me??? God help us is that's how we think we will build a community.

  13. Dist. Sup. Burnett

    Then god help the victims then too with no way to defend ourselves. In the mean time as I wait for the police to get there in about, oh say, 4 minutes estimated. Street violence can be deterred by our efforts as positive intervention of a youth and education. I totally believe in that route. So, if and when positive intervention fails (because no system is perfect), I will be defenseless according to your ideology. No thank you, but I want an extra day with my children before I go meet my maker.

    Positive intervention works more than attempting to take away someones gun, or limiting our choice to defend. Your side of statistics should prove that as well. Instead of going after the gun laws go after the gangs, white, black, latino, we are all homo-sapiens and we all do bad things at times. As I remember, god looks at us in no color my friend. We are the sheep, but god strike me down if lay down like a lamb. The darkness of evil is all around us. I always walk in the light. I walk through my life adopting the same mentality.

    People are going to kill people. Maybe we disagree as a viable solution Dist. Sup. Burnett, but one thing we that all agree on is that the only 2 entities that can judge are god and the Judicial system. One is a little better than the other on accuracy dept. might I add.


    @Pastors Assn.


    You said: "Deaths rates dont increase in any conceal carry location. Look at the real truth in the numbers before you assume death and bloodshed will reign across the state if this passes. You will find the opposite."

    I don't think that's true.According to CNN when they reported this story this evening on Anderson Cooper, places and locations that have concealed carry and a version of a "stand your ground" law, have experienced a higher rate of incidence leading to death. The demographic changes from criminals to citizens, but yet the violence continues."

    I Know this to be true. Maybe you have misinterpreted my statement. Crime doesn't go up because of concealed carry or stand your ground law. Crime in general will always fluctuate, but specific areas of robbery, home invasion, murder (by unlawful individuals) for reasons being that its a deterrent. Not everyone will be carrying, but the question criminals will be asking "are they carrying?" I an perfect world I would not need concealed carry, but this world is too dangerous for me to bet on a chance.

    I truly have the deepest sympathy for the parents friends and family of Trayvon. I would hate to see my kids end up like him. I dont think we will ever truly know what exactly what happened. No witness actually saw the scuffle, only accounts of recorded messages before the incident, and only witnesses after the shooting. The bigger problem is that the local law enforcement is called out for not taking more action on this issue and arresting him. Zimmerman is what gives law abiding citizens a bad rap and now all of the anti-gunners will be out in full force thinking its all about the guns. The problem is the people. Its always has been. Profiling is the underlying crime here, superseded by manslaughter. Thats my bet how this will play out. I hate seeing someone die. I hate seeing someone abusing the law too.

    1. Rguy,

      You and the associates at Illinois Carry have a predisposition in favor of concealed carry anyway, and that's OK, I support your right to responsible freedom. However, I also have a right to reject the notion and point out the flaws as I have and there are many that all people should be concerned about. I believe open carry was once the law in the US. We have left that a long time ago, but it seems that people fanning fears make this issue come up over and over and as I see it, that's what it is is fanning fears.

      Now it seems that you try to confuse the argument. Noone is talking about not being able to defend one's home. They come in unlawfully and they aren't leaving the same way.

      What we are talking about is in the streets around other citizens...First, in Peoria, very few crimes away from a person's home result in death. I know ONE is too many, but the stats are not showing that people that are getting held up are usually killed as well. I just wonder what that will look like when someone tries to life your wallet and your daughter or son is present and rather than give them the $50.00, you show a gun...Do you reasonably think that a person who already knows what will happen when they get caught, because more than likely they are a career criminal, is going to think twice about a shoot out when you show a gun??? Man they don't care because it's a mental problem and issue and believe me, they sure aren't thinking, "What if they have a gun, what will I do?"

      I think we both agree that Zimmerman misapplied the law. I hear he claims self-defense now but the fact is that he went after an unarmed boy with a weapon that he was licensed to carry in a concealed fashion. The psychology of this is something the law doesn't account for. The "superman" mentality". He had a gun and that made him feel powerful enough to not listen to the dispatcher and murder an unarmed person.

      What I am looking at is the climate on the streets. Neither of us deserve to be afraid in our own community, but innocents don't deserve to be caught in a shootout and sometimes we can perceive a danger that doesn't exist. Why? Because we are human and we are flawed.

      Anyway, thanks for drawing this out and doing it intelligently and very respectfully. I sincerely appreciate that.

  14. A man nearly killed me in 1994. I was shot from very close range, 4 times, though you could say that only shot would have been fatal. After that I was paranoid, watching my back at every turn, a terrible way to live. I felt the need to protect myself, I believe most would understand so I got a gun from a friend. To make a long story short I accidently shot a friend with said gun.

    Now, the truth is, I was a novice but surely that has happened with people who believe thay are gun don's? How many accidents have taken place where loved one's have lost their lives due to legal guns? A man just shot and killed his own brother here in houston! Children take guns to school. So it is not all good because Guns are legal.

    Now I know that people can kill with other weapons but there is something about a gun that makes people feel invinicible, they feel they are king and cannot die, I KNOW THIS! I remember a friend (a blasted crook at the time) and he got a high powered hand gun and he said to me that "we were god".

    Now, I know there are responsible people out there but when do you know when to pull the gun? Is it possible that we may have worked out a sitatution had it not been for a gun?

    At the end of the day what drives the need to have a gun (to me) is not so much bravery or a want to protect but fear. Think about it.

    The funny thing is, many guns that criminals have were stolen from law abiding citizens.

    Let God protect you!

    1. There is without a doubt a certain psychology that goes with carrying a gun. For some it's a matter of protection, for others it's a matter of being bold. "Now I can be bold, because I can handle myself if necessary". one can;t distinguish the psychology from the ability to carry.

      It's not like people are being used for target practice at least most times. There are some exceptions in Chicago, but we can look at those cases and ask what would a gun have done to prevent it? Someone else could have shot someone in defense of another, then we have a shoot out.

      None of these alternatives are appealing and noone wants to loose a life, but shooting it out is a last alternative not a primary option.

  15. Pastor, what do you make of the black people who say that blacks kills blacks everyday and we don't rally like this?

    1. Paul,

      Some folks have no excuse...I know myself and many others have been rallying, praying, meeting and all to speak against and combat crime and violence within the community. Some of these folk are uninvolved anyway and you have never seen the complainers at any vigils or rallies in favor of the people.

      Unfortunately, this event will be a one horse trick for too many. After Trayvon Martin, they will settle back into their ordinary way of doing things as if everything is well. Things aren't well. we have a 10 alarm moral fire raging in our community and many of our local advocates can only rally against employment decisions by the local school board...COME'ON, PLEASE!!!!