Trayvon Martin: 'Shoot first' law under scrutiny

[jen_fla]

I waited for nearly week to voice an opinion on this too. The first I had heard was basically “Redneck cop wanna be let go after he guns down black youth for straying into an exclusive gated community”.

I thought “Looks like some moron is going to get what he has coming”. When it was revealed that the guy was a “White Hispanic” I thought “This doesn’t sound right anymore”. After some critical reading I was astounded by the yellow journalism at work.

when i first heard about it, i thought it was an upper class predominantly white gated community because of how it was presented on the news.

i’ve been looking for the video of who it was on tv that was shouting this was because of a YBM in a WGC or something like that. he basically was saying that trayvon was killed because he was a young black male and he was walking in a white gated community.

did anyone else see that? turns out whites were a minority in that gated community.

 

[Jerry_Miah]

show me where anyone said that. i do believe you are referring to donsnow’s post and if so, then you are twisting his words (if not outright making things up). go back and read it again.

Are you joking? He was explicit:

powers that be are using the teenager’s death to attack gun laws that protect ordinary citizens from vicious criminals.

 

[donsnow]

Ah, the conspiracy theory. It’s the “powers that be” who want to take away everyone’s guns because they don’t want you protected from “vicious criminals”. Really? I thought it was people interested in the rule of law and justice who were simply calling for a trial. But now you’ve cleared it up, it’s a conspiracy?

Good afternoon, Jerry,

Okay, I’ve fed my dogs and I’m back.

Please don’t put words in my mouth. There is no secret conspiracy to take their guns away (I have sold off all my firearms.) The Democratic Party has openly been attacking gun rights for decades. The National Rifle Association (of which I’m a life member) and other such organizations have defended our (includes your) rights to keep and bear arms.
Defending our rights from politicians who know if they don’t take our guns away, we can stop them from turning America into another socialist tyranny nation.
All I have to say, is if professors’ and politicians’ had a clean conscience, they wouldn’t be afraid of an armed citizenry.
After all, regardless of law and justice, criminals will have guns. So, why can’t an honest citizen have means of self-defense until the police arrive?

Tell me something, Jerry: Had Trayvon Martin succeeded in disarming and killing George Zimmerman, would you be equally distraught over George’s death? I would really like to know.

The living George Zimmerman has as just a valid a right to life as the dead Trayvon Martin. If Trayvon had kept walking away from George, he’d still be alive today. That fact has yet to be enumerated in any of the lists I’ve seen on the parts of this thread that I’ve read.

I live in a neighborhood where we’re all the Neighborhood Watch. We don’t go questioning guys in gangsta garb, because we know we can get shot, stabbed or beat to a pulp. We stay in our houses and call the police if there’s trouble. Both the Bloods and the Crips have different turf in this neighborhood. There’s about three drug related shooting deaths that I know of, in the last 18 months in this neighborhood.

Why didn’t any of those killings get the international and national media coverage that the Sanford, Fla shooting got?

Can you tell my why? I really am waiting to see how you handle my questions.
And can you tell me why an honest citizen shouldn’t have a weapon to defend himself, until the police arrive? Really: why?

God loves you,
Don

 

[donsnow]

I think that is correct. I feel duped and manipulated by the media and others. I was thinking about this case and thinking about my own son being misjudged so often because of his appearance and reacting in an emotional way, though I still wanted facts. I was aware that the media was race baiting and not representing facts honestly almost immediately when they indicated Zimmerman was White. Then later, he was identified as White Hispanic. Even though I realized we weren’t getting the entire story and certainly not the truth (baby pic of Martin, mug shot of Zimmerman, edited 911 tape, bad video with Zimmerman’s head covered by a logo and the outright lie indicating he had sustained no injuries at all, etc.). I let my emotions cloud reality because I too have a teen son. No more.

Good evening, SwizzleStick,

Thank you.

Keep praying for your boy, prayer does change things.

God loves you,
Don

 

[SamH]

Which does not equate with some take-away-our-guns conspiracy

When no less than the Vice President of the United States is trying to make this case into a referendum on gun rights it doesn’t sound so far fetched to me, or are you of the opinion that Biden doesn’t count?

The idea that there’s this overwhelming additional security in the ownership and carrying concealed and deadly weapons…I think it’s the premise, not the constitutional right, but the premise that it makes people safer is one that I’m not so sure of,” Biden said.

thehill.com/video/administration/219347-biden-gun-laws-likely-to-be-debated-in-wake-of-trayvon-martin-shooting

 

[Lujack]

Trial? In this country there needs to be proof that a crime was even committed. But I guess some people are fine with even that basic legal technicality being waved aside.

Self-defense is an affirmative defense and bears a burden of proof. The standard of proof required is lower than “beyond a shadow of a doubt”, so it still protects the “innocent until proven guilty” provision, but I would hold the position that any self-defense case outside one’s own home being invaded should typically (barring exceptional circumstances) go to trial.

 

[Lujack]

The living George Zimmerman has as just a valid a right to life as the dead Trayvon Martin. If Trayvon had kept walking away from George, he’d still be alive today. That fact has yet to be enumerated in any of the lists I’ve seen on the parts of this thread that I’ve read.

Yes, if Trayvon Martin had kept his back turned to the man who was following him for several blocks, all would have turned out all right. If he had just kept his back turned to the man who was following for several blocks with a gun all would have turned out all right.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

so back to the question. do you think the officer gave false information when he wrote in the police report that he noted bleeding from zimmerman’s head and nose?

Was it written by the same officer who “corrected” a witness?

 

[Jerry_Miah]

Good afternoon, Jerry,

Okay, I’ve fed my dogs and I’m back.

Please don’t put words in my mouth. There is no secret conspiracy to take their guns away (I have sold off all my firearms.) The Democratic Party has openly been attacking gun rights for decades. The National Rifle Association (of which I’m a life member) and other such organizations have defended our (includes your) rights to keep and bear arms.
Defending our rights from politicians who know if they don’t take our guns away, we can stop them from turning America into another socialist tyranny nation.
All I have to say, is if professors’ and politicians’ had a clean conscience, they wouldn’t be afraid of an armed citizenry.
After all, regardless of law and justice, criminals will have guns. So, why can’t an honest citizen have means of self-defense until the police arrive?

Tell me something, Jerry: Had Trayvon Martin succeeded in disarming and killing George Zimmerman, would you be equally distraught over George’s death? I would really like to know.

The living George Zimmerman has as just a valid a right to life as the dead Trayvon Martin. If Trayvon had kept walking away from George, he’d still be alive today. That fact has yet to be enumerated in any of the lists I’ve seen on the parts of this thread that I’ve read.

I live in a neighborhood where we’re all the Neighborhood Watch. We don’t go questioning guys in gangsta garb, because we know we can get shot, stabbed or beat to a pulp. We stay in our houses and call the police if there’s trouble. Both the Bloods and the Crips have different turf in this neighborhood. There’s about three drug related shooting deaths that I know of, in the last 18 months in this neighborhood.

Why didn’t any of those killings get the international and national media coverage that the Sanford, Fla shooting got?

Can you tell my why? I really am waiting to see how you handle my questions.
And can you tell me why an honest citizen shouldn’t have a weapon to defend himself, until the police arrive? Really: why?

God loves you,
Don

You probably don’t realize it but your questions are of the “have you stopped beating your wife” variety.

If you use the NRA as a source of info, then I can see why you are confused. The NRA spokesman Wayne LaPierre at CPAC 2012 truly showed the bats in the NRA belfry, when he literally said there is a “massive Obama conspiracy”. His proof? Well, the fact that Obama has done nothing against gun rights in his first term proves that he is just waiting for a second term to destroy the second amendment! I kid you not, this was his logic.

As the nonpartisan Politifact kindly put it, “none of Obama’s previous years in office hint at the kind of extreme policy push the NRA claims he’s yearning to unleash.”

You say:

Why didn’t any of those killings get the international and national media coverage that the Sanford, Fla shooting got?

Can you tell my why? I really am waiting to see how you handle my questions.

I say, what are you talking about? How does that go to prove your point that this case is being used as part of some (not-secret) conspiracy to take away American’s guns? The reasons this killing is getting attention is obvious – it appears to be a horrible miscarriage of justice, of police incompetence or corruption, and people want to know how it’s possible such a killer was not charged at all. Is one of the cases you mention an example of someone killing a teenager under very suspicious circumstances and then the police letting him go without charging him with anything at all? If not, what are you trying to prove?

I doubt, with your NRA-programming and living in fear in your neighborhood, that you can really think clearly about this. But you ask loaded questions, so let me ask you one: Do you honestly think Trayvon would be free right now if he had pulled a gun and killed an unarmed man in the dark under suspicious circumstances? I think we both know he would be in jail awaiting trial, as Zimmerman should be.

Has living in fear made you identify with vigilantism and assume anyone who gets shot on the street probably deserved it? What is your motivation for not wanting a trial to expose all the facts in this case and determine what justice is?

 

[Bocephus]

Yes, if Trayvon Martin had kept his back turned to the man who was following him for several blocks, all would have turned out all right. If he had just kept his back turned to the man who was following for several blocks with a gun all would have turned out all right.

From what I gather, when the 911 operator told George they did not need him to follow Martin, it sounds like he lost sight of him and stopped. At that point Martin either came back or George looked around, maybe Martin hid somewhere? Maybe Martin came back to George, and said “Are you following me?” as his girlfriend claims and then jumped George? Maybe George didnt stop looking till he found him and walked up and pushed Martin? There are a lot of questions that will hopefully be answered. George did nothing wrong in keeping an eye on a suspicious individual, as far as I can tell, and calling 911 to report it. It’s from the point that he hung up with the 911 operator to the point of physical contact between the two that will determine whose responsible.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Good afternoon, Jerry,

Okay, I’ve fed my dogs and I’m back.

Please don’t put words in my mouth. There is no secret conspiracy to take their guns away (I have sold off all my firearms.) The Democratic Party has openly been attacking gun rights for decades. The National Rifle Association (of which I’m a life member) and other such organizations have defended our (includes your) rights to keep and bear arms.
Defending our rights from politicians who know if they don’t take our guns away, we can stop them from turning America into another socialist tyranny nation.
All I have to say, is if professors’ and politicians’ had a clean conscience, they wouldn’t be afraid of an armed citizenry.
After all, regardless of law and justice, criminals will have guns. So, why can’t an honest citizen have means of self-defense until the police arrive?

Tell me something, Jerry: Had Trayvon Martin succeeded in disarming and killing George Zimmerman, would you be equally distraught over George’s death? I would really like to know.

The living George Zimmerman has as just a valid a right to life as the dead Trayvon Martin. If Trayvon had kept walking away from George, he’d still be alive today. That fact has yet to be enumerated in any of the lists I’ve seen on the parts of this thread that I’ve read.

I live in a neighborhood where we’re all the Neighborhood Watch. We don’t go questioning guys in gangsta garb, because we know we can get shot, stabbed or beat to a pulp. We stay in our houses and call the police if there’s trouble. Both the Bloods and the Crips have different turf in this neighborhood. There’s about three drug related shooting deaths that I know of, in the last 18 months in this neighborhood.

Why didn’t any of those killings get the international and national media coverage that the Sanford, Fla shooting got?

Can you tell my why? I really am waiting to see how you handle my questions.
And can you tell me why an honest citizen shouldn’t have a weapon to defend himself, until the police arrive? Really: why?

God loves you,
Don

Blessings, Don!

I’m gonna answer here and then get off the thread for good--------I’m getting very depressed and very angry about this (may God in His Infinite Mercy forgive me) and this confirms my suspicion that our society is going to h**ll in the near future.

“If he had kept walking he would be still be alive.” Some would say, had George Zimmerman not seemingly followed him for no reason except Martin looked “suspicious” (I’ve yet to hear what that entailed in his case), maybe TM (IF, again, IF) he did something “drastic” would not have felt “threatened” (as Curtis Sliwa of Guardian Angels stated on TV) and indeed done something “drastic.” I’m sorry, I tend to GZ could have overreacted and become the aggressor here.

So if somebody is following you for no reason and refuses to identify himself, I am not entiled to confront that person? At least ask WHY? And Martin was entitled to be there-----it’s not like was a stranger. Buying food for his brother.

You disagree with me, fine.

As to those killings that go unreported-------

This was a case of a kid with NO police record being killed by a NON-COP who, while not acfting illegally in carrying a gun, was not required to as Neighborhood Watch guy. Those others were cases of CRIMINAL kids.

Even Trayvon’s parents say this is not a racial thing but about vigilantism. It’s OTHER people------extremists-----who have “provoked.” And TM’S parents have decried that.

That was not required of him, Don. And I don’t care if the 911 operator “suggested” or “ordered” him to leave off the chase. She was an authority figure---------and most folks consider them to be working a close arm of the police. I would take it as saying “DO NOT DO THIS.” I would not worry about semantics and subtlety at that time. You can say “it was not within her purview to say that.” I disagree.

THAT’S the difference.

Oh yeah----the giuy who sponsored “stand your ground” into law is now saying GZ doesn’t fit within the definition of “stand your ground.” what about that?

I can’t believe this. Our country is going back to the Wild West--------act the “wrong” way and I will kill you. No respect for life from ANYBODY-----Good or Bad. I’m getting ill and depressed about this. I will have to rely on God and Christ more.

Through the Prayers of the Mother Of God, have mercy on us and save us. Amen.

 

[donsnow]

Self-defense is an affirmative defense and bears a burden of proof. The standard of proof required is lower than “beyond a shadow of a doubt”, so it still protects the “innocent until proven guilty” provision, but I would hold the position that any self-defense case outside one’s own home being invaded should typically (barring exceptional circumstances) go to trial.

Good evening, Lujack,

Look, I know we Christians are supposed to stand and die when attacked, for Jesus Christ or for His holy name’s sake. I’m serious. And, I brace myself for that eventuality.

However, we cannot expect non-Christians to stand and die for a criminal’s sake. This is why self-defense is as paramount outside the house as in it.

Once the PD rules justifiable self-defense, it’s then the DA’s call, not your call, thank God.

Now, if I remember correctly from my armed guard class, Texas law requires the people who kill another citizen to appear before a Grand Jury.

Are you saying you know better than a Grand Jury? Are you saying you know better than the local DA? Are you saying you know better than the local PD? No? No? No? Then why would you deny 300 million Americans their right to keep and bear arms and deny them the right of self-defense? Why a trial to short cut American jurisprudence?

Again, my forebears came here to get away from those kind of laws. Why do you want to make over 200 years of enlightened laws for nothing?

I want to know: why?

God loves you,
Don

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

You probably don’t realize it but your questions are of the “have you stopped beating your wife” variety.

If you use the NRA as a source of info, then I can see why you are confused. The NRA spokesman Wayne LaPierre at CPAC 2012 truly showed the bats in the NRA belfry, when he literally said there is a “massive Obama conspiracy”. His proof? Well, the fact that Obama has done nothing against gun rights in his first term proves that he is just waiting for a second term to destroy the second amendment! I kid you not, this was his logic.

As the nonpartisan Politifact kindly put it, “none of Obama’s previous years in office hint at the kind of extreme policy push the NRA claims he’s yearning to unleash.”

You say:

I say, what are you talking about? How does that go to prove your point that this case is being used as part of some (not-secret) conspiracy to take away American’s guns? The reasons this killing is getting attention is obvious – it appears to be a horrible miscarriage of justice, of police incompetence or corruption, and people want to know how it’s possible such a killer was not charged at all. Is one of the cases you mention an example of someone killing a teenager under very suspicious circumstances and then the police letting him go without charging him with anything at all? If not, what are you trying to prove?

I doubt, with your NRA-programming and living in fear in your neighborhood, that you can really think clearly about this. But you ask loaded questions, so let me ask you one: Do you honestly think Trayvon would be free right now if he had pulled a gun and killed an unarmed man in the dark under suspicious circumstances? I think we both know he would be in jail awaiting trial, as Zimmerman should be.

Has living in fear made you identify with vigilantism and assume anyone who gets shot on the street probably deserved it? What is your motivation for not wanting a trial to expose all the facts in this case and determine what justice is?

Has living in fear made you identify with vigilantism and assume anyone who gets shot on the street probably deserved it? What is your motivation for not wanting a trial to expose all the facts in this case and determine what justice is?

I’m sorry to say, but it sure looks like Don Snow is implying that…

Let me now exit this thread. I feel SO bad right now. I might say something out of emotion that I will regret later.

May God have mercy on our sinful, fallen world.

 

[donsnow]

Yes, if Trayvon Martin had kept his back turned to the man who was following him for several blocks, all would have turned out all right. If he had just kept his back turned to the man who was following for several blocks with a gun all would have turned out all right.

Good evening, Lujack,

That’s exactly right, yes indeed, citizen. Trayvon had a cell phone to his mouth. if he was worried about being followed, he should have called the PD.

I’ve been followed at night. I kept going and got back to my apartment, preparing to defend myself in the meanwhile (Took off my belt and wrapped the end around my hand, presenting the buckle for a weapon.)

Both men were agressors. Both were wrong. However, the PD and DA have ruled on this killing. Do you know better than them? How so?

God loves you,
Don

 

[jen_fla]

Are you joking? He was explicit:

can you seriously not see why what you said is not the same thing as what don said?

don said (underline mine)

Good afternoon, Catharina,

Both Mauzer and Scipio saw the true gist of my post: powers that be are using the teenager’s death to attack gun laws that protect ordinary citizens from vicious criminals.

Why can’t you see that?

God loves you,
Don

you said:

Ah, the conspiracy theory. It’s the “powers that be” who want to take away everyone’s guns because they don’t want you protected from “vicious criminals”. Really? I thought it was people interested in the rule of law and justice who were simply calling for a trial. But now you’ve cleared it up, it’s a conspiracy?

clearly if you read it one more time you will see he didn’t say take away everyone’s guns. that’s you misrepresenting what he said. what he said is accurate in that some people in positions of power are attacking the law. i even gave you proof of this happening. are you going to deny that people in positions of power are using this shooting to attack the stand your ground laws?

geez.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Good evening, Lujack,

Look, I know we Christians are supposed to stand and die when attacked, for Jesus Christ or for His holy name’s sake. I’m serious. And, I brace myself for that eventuality.

However, we cannot expect non-Christians to stand and die for a criminal’s sake. This is why self-defense is as paramount outside the house as in it.

Once the PD rules justifiable self-defense, it’s then the DA’s call, not your call, thank God.

Now, if I remember correctly from my armed guard class, Texas law requires the people who kill another citizen to appear before a Grand Jury.

Are you saying you know better than a Grand Jury? Are you saying you know better than the local DA? Are you saying you know better than the local PD? No? No? No? Then why would you deny 300 million Americans their right to keep and bear arms and deny them the right of self-defense? Why a trial to short cut American jurisprudence?

Again, my forebears came here to get away from those kind of laws. Why do you want to make over 200 years of enlightened laws for nothing?

I want to know: why?

God loves you,
Don

And the DA WILL decide Don-----that;s what the protestors have been saying all along. Read also my two other posts.

 

[jen_fla]

Was it written by the same officer who “corrected” a witness?

i’m not sure. even so, do you think he was lying? he said the sfd treated him. if he was lying i guess the other officers, the neighbors standing around, and the sfd were all in on it too.

 

[Jerry_Miah]

can you seriously not see why what you said is not the same thing as what don said?

don said (underline mine)

you said:

clearly if you read it one more time you will see he didn’t say take away everyone’s guns. that’s you misrepresenting what he said. what he said is accurate in that some people in positions of power are attacking the law. i even gave you proof of this happening. are you going to deny that people in positions of power are using this shooting to attack the stand your ground laws?

geez.

geez yourself.

1. Do you not understand that Stand Your Ground Laws go not equal gun ownership rights? Therefore, the nationwide questioning of the tragic repercussions of these reactionary Stand Your Ground laws does not automatically mean an attack on “gun laws”.
2. When someone mentions an “attack” on “gun laws” it definitely means an attack on gun ownership rights, therefore the loss of the right to own guns, which means taking away people’s guns. What the heck else are you trying to say it means? Do you mean there is an “attack” on “gun laws” but at the same time they want everyone to keep their guns? It’s nonsense. Of course he was talking about the loss of the right to own guns, which means taking away people’s gun.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

geez yourself.

1. Do you not understand that Stand Your Ground Laws go not equal gun ownership rights? Therefore, the nationwide questioning of the tragic repercussions of these reactionary Stand Your Ground laws does not automatically mean an attack on “gun laws”.
2. When someone mentions an “attack” on “gun laws” it definitely means an attack on gun ownership rights, therefore the loss of the right to own guns, which means taking away people’s guns. What the heck else are you trying to say it means? Do you mean there is an “attack” on “gun laws” but at the same time they want everyone to keep their guns? It’s nonsense. Of course he was talking about the loss of the right to own guns, which means taking away people’s gun.

“the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Keep and bear arms. Sounds like Americans have the inherent Constitutional right to have weapons on their person at all times. That is what “keep and bear” arms means. It doesn’t say “own and keep locked up in the gun safe”. And why would one keep and bear arms at all times? To show your friends what a nice piece you have? To be able to take down a duck or a deer if one crosses your path? The purpose of being able to keep and bear arms is to be able to imminently defend yourself when threatened.

 

[Bocephus]

And the DA WILL decide Don-----that;s what the protestors have been saying all along. Read also my two other posts.

I believe the DA did decide and nobody liked it.