Trayvon Martin: 'Shoot first' law under scrutiny

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
Good evening, Jerry,

Ah, first impunge my questions, instead of answering them. That’s not an honest tactic.

Then, while using the same tactic, you impunge my source. No, Jerry, I’m not confused.
I don’t watch or read the NRA conventions. I do suscribe to American Hunter, the NRA’s official monthly publication, but I seldom read the editorials.
But, just as you judged Wayne LaPierre by the words from his mouth, likewise I paid close attention to Senator Obama’s words when he ran for president. And, his words where extremely radical and cast him as a flaming socialist. I think Socialism has no place in America because it perverts the law, weakens the economy and has no regard of individual property rights.

I’m not here to “prove” anything. I’m here to present information standing up to the faults of the mainstream media and educational system of America. If you think there’s nothing wrong with either of those, then maybe you’re the one confused.

Please, don’t turn my vocational education against me. There’s nothing wrong the with NRA.

Frankly, I think that citizens like you, professors who teach vulnerable college students and politicians who do attack our Second Amendment are very dangerous people, getting innocent people killed by hindering them from carrying weapons in crime ridden America.
I do not live in fear of the gang. I do try to keep a healthy fear of the Lord: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; and before honor comes humility.” That’s from Proverbs.

And, if you think your neighborhood is safe from gangs, then you are very naive.

BTW, you never straightly answered my plain questions, so you have failed to impress me and to change my position.

God loves you,
Don
 
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.
in case you missed it, look at the title of this thread. it’s what we have been discussing. an attack on stand your ground laws, is an attack on gun laws. i don’t have time to create a venn diagram to help you out as i have to run now.
 
Good evening, SwizzleStick,

Thank you.

Keep praying for your boy, prayer does change things.

God loves you,
Don
Thank you, Don, and may God bless you. Prayer most definitely does change things. My son is fine, but I can’t help but worry about him. Here is the link to my post in one of the other threads on the Martin shooting that has been closed, so since it is now closed, I can’t quote my post using the quote button. (I think this one thread has continued over three very long threads so far.) forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9121087&postcount=823
 
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.
Um, I’m not saying that there should be no thing as self-defense. I’m saying that as an affirmative defense, you are admitting to have committed an act that would normally be unlawful (killing another person) but are arguing that circumstances made your action acceptable. This sort of defense should probably go before a jury as a matter of policy.
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.
I would agree with this policy.
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?
Huh? This has nothing to do with the right to bear arms, or the right of self-defense. I think as a matter of policy self-defense cases outside the home should go to trial unless the circumstances are exceptionally clear.
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?
What? To get away from what kind of laws? The persecution of having to go to a trial when you are making an affirmative defense?
I want to know: why?
God loves you,
Don
“Why?” is pretty much the question I’m asking to a lot of what you’ve wrote. But I appreciate the salutation and return it.
 
“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.
No, Americans do not have the inherent Constitutional right to have weapons on their persons at all times. Even Antonin Scalia, who is probably the most pro-gun rights justice on the Court, has consistently held that there are cases when government can restrict whether or not people can have arms (the Secret Service, for example, can prohibit guns near presidents or presidential candidates).

And there is certainly no Constitutional right to a “Stand Your Ground” law, which is a relatively new thing in American jurisprudence. The duty to retreat has almost always (and should almost always) be in play outside of a home invasion case. If it wasn’t, then explain the existence of castle laws-the creation of a special zone where there is no duty to retreat clearly implies that in ordinary cases the duty exists.
 
No, Americans do not have the inherent Constitutional right to have weapons on their persons at all times. Even Antonin Scalia, who is probably the most pro-gun rights justice on the Court, has consistently held that there are cases when government can restrict whether or not people can have arms (the Secret Service, for example, can prohibit guns near presidents or presidential candidates).

And there is certainly no Constitutional right to a “Stand Your Ground” law, which is a relatively new thing in American jurisprudence. The duty to retreat has almost always (and should almost always) be in play outside of a home invasion case. If it wasn’t, then explain the existence of castle laws-the creation of a special zone where there is no duty to retreat clearly implies that in ordinary cases the duty exists.
Why do I have a duty to retreat? Why does a violent criminal have more right to occupy a space than I do?
 
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.
Good evening, Ordinary Melkite,

Thank you, for your blessing, it’s appreciated.

Citizen, from what I understand, both men were aggressive and both men were wrong. The witch hunt on George Zimmerman will not bring Trayvon Martin back to life. Only our Lord and Savior can do that, on Judgement Day.

I have not whitewashed either man. Nor have I belittled the Sanford, Fla PD nor DA. I think the miscarriage of justice is the media inflaming the situation.

I’m sorry. I think it’s tragic that Trayvon got himself killed. Like I’ve written before, the cultural context of Gangsta Rap makes adolescents aggressive and violent. And, all these attacks on self-defense laws merely leave innocent citizens unarmed in the face of vicious criminals. It wasn’t George Zimmerman who witnesses said was sitting on Trayvon and beating him. The eye-witnesses said it was the other way around. And, that act of sitting on George and beating his face and banging his head on concrete was an aggressive and vicious act. All the rhetoric and everything else won’t change that fact. And Trayvon sitting on George while he beat his face and banged his head on concrete, was a crime.

Until parents, teachers and media teach school children that they can get killed while committing crimes, then parents, teachers and media are complicit in Trayvon Martin’s death. Because, he died while committing a crime. When I was a boy, parents, teachers and the media taught that crime could get you killed. In those days, there were a lot more guns, a whole lot less drugs, and less killings.
Now, thanks to the 1960’s counter-revolution against our 1776 Revolution, there’s a whole lot more drugs, less guns, and more blacks killing blacks than ever when we were taught to fear God.
Hmmm, is that why this killing is blown out of proportion? To distract from the tragedy of blacks killing blacks, that nobody does anything about?

People who think gun laws will reduce crime are naive: because criminals break laws, will break gun laws and arm themselves.

What makes me angry is the arrogance and witch hunt of the people who want George Zimmerman deprived of his, and my, and their, Constitutional rights.

The arrogance and witch hunt of people who think George Zimmerman should be on trial infuriates me. Those people disrespect and damage our criminal justice system, by acting or speaking like they know better than the Sanford PD or DA. You don’t know better, and I repeat, your kind is dangerous to the lives, rights and liberties of every American citizen. May God spare America the kind of justice that those people want against George Zimmerman.

Well, since you wrote that you were leaving this thread, I don’t know if you will even read this.

I respect your compassion for Trayvon Martin’s family. I pray for the repose of his soul. I need to pray for the soul of the black community, if Gangsta Rap represents it. When I was young, the Supremes, Righteous Brothers, Sidney Portier and other such people represented the soul of the black community. Music is a people’s soul.

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.
Hi, again,

That’s why I like Texas with our Castle Doctrine. The DA doesn’t come into it unless a Grand Jury indicts the shooter.

Too bad George Zimmerman isn’t afforded the same hearing by Sanford city law or Florida state law of a Grand Jury. Too bad the witch hunt is pressuring the Sanford DA.

God loves you,
Don
 
Um, I’m not saying that there should be no thing as self-defense. I’m saying that as an affirmative defense, you are admitting to have committed an act that would normally be unlawful (killing another person) but are arguing that circumstances made your action acceptable. This sort of defense should probably go before a jury as a matter of policy.

I would agree with this policy.

Huh? This has nothing to do with the right to bear arms, or the right of self-defense. I think as a matter of policy self-defense cases outside the home should go to trial unless the circumstances are exceptionally clear.

What? To get away from what kind of laws? The persecution of having to go to a trial when you are making an affirmative defense?

“Why?” is pretty much the question I’m asking to a lot of what you’ve wrote. But I appreciate the salutation and return it.
Hi, Lujack,

Your taking to trial a clear case of self-defense I deem as misusing American law to harass an honest citizen pressed to a hard choice.
How can you be part of a witch hunt?

I asked you “Why?” first. Why do you want to misuse the law to harass a citizen by inflicting an unwarranted trial? Are you an American?

God loves you,
Don
 
No, Americans do not have the inherent Constitutional right to have weapons on their persons at all times. Even Antonin Scalia, who is probably the most pro-gun rights justice on the Court, has consistently held that there are cases when government can restrict whether or not people can have arms (the Secret Service, for example, can prohibit guns near presidents or presidential candidates).

And there is certainly no Constitutional right to a “Stand Your Ground” law, which is a relatively new thing in American jurisprudence. The duty to retreat has almost always (and should almost always) be in play outside of a home invasion case. If it wasn’t, then explain the existence of castle laws-the creation of a special zone where there is no duty to retreat clearly implies that in ordinary cases the duty exists.
Hi, Lujack,

The “duty to retreat” is a recent radical revision of American jurisprudence to an old UK principle. Modern English law has no more place in America than King George III did in the eighteenth century. Again, the “duty to retreat” is an unAmerican principle.

God loves you,
Dobn
 
in case you missed it, look at the title of this thread. it’s what we have been discussing. an attack on stand your ground laws, is an attack on gun laws. i don’t have time to create a venn diagram to help you out as i have to run now.
I stood my ground with plain facts and basic rationality, so yeah, run away.
 
Good evening, Jerry,

Ah, first impunge my questions, instead of answering them. That’s not an honest tactic.

Then, while using the same tactic, you impunge my source. No, Jerry, I’m not confused.
I don’t watch or read the NRA conventions. I do suscribe to American Hunter, the NRA’s official monthly publication, but I seldom read the editorials.
But, just as you judged Wayne LaPierre by the words from his mouth, likewise I paid close attention to Senator Obama’s words when he ran for president. And, his words where extremely radical and cast him as a flaming socialist. I think Socialism has no place in America because it perverts the law, weakens the economy and has no regard of individual property rights.

I’m not here to “prove” anything. I’m here to present information standing up to the faults of the mainstream media and educational system of America. If you think there’s nothing wrong with either of those, then maybe you’re the one confused.

Please, don’t turn my vocational education against me. There’s nothing wrong the with NRA.

Frankly, I think that citizens like you, professors who teach vulnerable college students and politicians who do attack our Second Amendment are very dangerous people, getting innocent people killed by hindering them from carrying weapons in crime ridden America.
I do not live in fear of the gang. I do try to keep a healthy fear of the Lord: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; and before honor comes humility.” That’s from Proverbs.

And, if you think your neighborhood is safe from gangs, then you are very naive.

BTW, you never straightly answered my plain questions, so you have failed to impress me and to change my position.

God loves you,
Don
With respect, your post shows you to have certain false premises and wild ideas that would make any agreement between you and a basically rational person impossible for very long. If you actually concluded on your own that Obama was “extremely radical” and “a flaming socialist” (though you probably had a lot of help with this impression from talk show shills and fake news sites) then I am afraid you operate from the fringe of society. Your grumblings about professors further supports this.

Your questions were not plain, they were convoluted and confused, but you probably don’t realize this. On the off chance you can join us in clear-headed debate, how about answering this basic question: What is your motivation for not wanting a trial to determine all the facts in this case and determine what justice is?
 
Why do I have a duty to retreat? Why does a violent criminal have more right to occupy a space than I do?
  1. The violent criminal doesn’t have more right to occupy the space than you do-the violent criminal will be arrested and punished for his actions.
  2. If there is no duty to retreat, if the reasonable person who feels threatened is always allowed to open fire…it makes it easier to get to a situation like this one might have been, where Zimmerman and Martin feel threatened by each other and are therefore legally permitted to try to kill each other.
Think about it-I’m walking down a dark street at night. You perceive me as a threat. Since you have a duty to retreat, you can’t just shoot me because you feel threatened. I feel threatened by you-I can’t just shoot you because I feel threatened, since I also have a duty to retreat. We walk away.

Under “Stand Your Ground” laws, if we both feel in imminent danger of violence…we’re both allowed to shoot each other, and neither of us has even committed a crime. This seems to be a real problem to me.

Also, you haven’t even backed up your claim that the right to bear arms somehow becomes “the right to shoot anyone who I feel threatened by”.
 
Hi, Lujack,

Your taking to trial a clear case of self-defense I deem as misusing American law to harass an honest citizen pressed to a hard choice.
How can you be part of a witch hunt?

I asked you “Why?” first. Why do you want to misuse the law to harass a citizen by inflicting an unwarranted trial? Are you an American?

God loves you,
Don
I don’t really like this McCarthyite line of questioning-I feel like the next thing you’ll be asking me is if I’m a communist. I am an American, not that this matters here.

Whether or not this is a clear case of self-defense is up for dispute. I do not agree with you that Zimmerman was an honest citizen pressed to a hard choice, I believe that Zimmerman made some exceptionally foolish decisions that led to a young man’s death. I believe that a trial is warranted.
 
Hi, Lujack,

The “duty to retreat” is a recent radical revision of American jurisprudence to an old UK principle. Modern English law has no more place in America than King George III did in the eighteenth century. Again, the “duty to retreat” is an unAmerican principle.

God loves you,
Dobn
That’s just not true. The “duty to retreat” was a part of English common law since before the creation of the American Republic, and with the rest of English common law became the basis of American law (with the exception of Louisiana). In fact, the idea of self-defense as an acceptable affirmative defense is younger than the idea of “duty to retreat”-William Blackstone refused to acknowledge it in his own legal commentaries, saying that “All homicides are a public evil.” We’ve fortunately moved away from that extreme, but we certainly don’t need to go to the other of “It is acceptable to kill anyone who threatens you.”

Now before you call Blackstone unAmerican, bear in mind that the first Supreme Court Justices of the United States relied very heavily on Blackstone in their decisionmaking, his influence is clearly visible in the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, Supreme Court Justice John Marshall considered him the highest authority, and his commentaries were the standard legal textbook for would-be American lawyers even into the 1860’s.
 
  1. The violent criminal doesn’t have more right to occupy the space than you do-the violent criminal will be arrested and punished for his actions.
  2. If there is no duty to retreat, if the reasonable person who feels threatened is always allowed to open fire…it makes it easier to get to a situation like this one might have been, where Zimmerman and Martin feel threatened by each other and are therefore legally permitted to try to kill each other.
Think about it-I’m walking down a dark street at night. You perceive me as a threat. Since you have a duty to retreat, you can’t just shoot me because you feel threatened. I feel threatened by you-I can’t just shoot you because I feel threatened, since I also have a duty to retreat. We walk away.

Under “Stand Your Ground” laws, if we both feel in imminent danger of violence…we’re both allowed to shoot each other, and neither of us has even committed a crime. This seems to be a real problem to me.

Also, you haven’t even backed up your claim that the right to bear arms somehow becomes “the right to shoot anyone who I feel threatened by”.
Zimmerman probably wasn’t feeling very threatened until he was on the ground wounded.
 
csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0403/George-Zimmerman-ready-to-surrender-if-charged

George Zimmerman ready to surrender, if charged

Can anyone clarify whether or not Zimmerman actually continued to pursue Martin after asked not to? The 911 recording doesn’t seem to specify, but the news reports make it out as if he chased him down.
🤷 Zimmerman says he was on his way back to his truck after he hung up with dispatch. According to one of the FBI investigators from the case. I will post the link if I figure out which of the millions of articles it was that I saw this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top