Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Blondzzetter Jordan , left, and grandson Edwin Johnson, 11, hold signs during a “hoodie” gathering at Raw Remedies, a therapeutic beauty boutique at 203 East Colorado St. near Charleston and Casino Center boulevards Sunday, March 25, 2012. People, many wearing hooded sweatshirts, came seeking justice for 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, a high school student who was shot and killed February 26 in Sanford, Fla.
By Karoun Demirjian (contact) 
Sunday, April 1, 2012 | 2 a.m.
As the country tries to understand how Trayvon Martin — a hoodie-clad 17-year-old armed with nothing more than a cellphone, can of iced tea and bag of Skittles — was shot to death in Florida in February without anyone being charged, every possible culprit is being considered.
There’s the shooter, neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman, who has offered a questionable claim of self-defense, and the conduct of Sanford law enforcement officials who decided not to prosecute.
But some of the sharpest outcry has focused on Florida’s “stand your ground” law, which justifies use of deadly force in self-defense, with no obligation to first attempt to retreat.
In Las Vegas, officials and academics are taking a close look at the Martin case, and for good reason: Nevada recently passed a law nearly identical to Florida’s, leading many to believe a similar tragedy could play out in the Silver State.
“The circumstances are ripe for a Trayvon situation to happen here,” said Sylvia Lazos, a law professor at UNLV's Boyd School of Law. “We have a lot of crime. We have a lot of people with guns. We have a lot of people who are untrained. We have to watch it. ... These combinations can be quite toxic.”
Nevada is one of 25 states, according to the Legal Community Against Violence, with a law allowing individuals to use deadly force when they feel threatened with no obligation to stand down or try to avoid violence once reasonable fear is established.
Nevada’s “stand your ground” law was approved by the 2011 Legislature and took effect in October. It allows that as long as a person who feels threatened didn’t initiate the altercation and isn’t doing anything criminal, that person can stand and use deadly force and it would be considered “justifiable homicide.”
Such laws “are all designed to allow for some expanded notion of self-defense,” Lazos said. “The problem that you have when regular people engage in self-defense ... is that people make decisions fairly quickly about whether they are, in fact, in danger.”
In many ways, the law codified an older standard: Since 1990, case law in Nevada has upheld that use of deadly force as a first option is legitimate self-defense. That’s partially why groups as disparate as the American Civil Liberties Union and National Rifle Association were able to come together to support last year’s legislation with little fanfare, and why only three members of the Legislature — all Assembly Democrats from Las Vegas — voted against it.
“The cynical view would be (supporting these laws) gets people re-elected for being tough on crime,” said Christopher Blakesley, a professor of criminal law at UNLV. “That’s part of the psychological problem. ... You can end up passing laws that kind of reach a potentially dangerous level.”
The chief author of and agitator for the law, Assembly Speaker John Oceguera, bristled at the suggestion that Nevada’s law creates any room for a Trayvon Martin-type tragedy here.
“This bill says we believe if a Nevadan is attacked, they should be able to defend themselves. ... It is not the same as the Florida law,” Oceguera said in a statement. “If a vigilante chased a kid in a hoodie down the street and killed him, under Nevada law, I would think that vigilante would be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible.”
But Blakesley disagrees. Codifying rules of self-defense in such form creates the potential for vigilante justice — or even manipulation by criminals, he said.
“What about gangs?” Blakesley said. “Two gangs, and one sees someone with the other gang’s color walking toward them. Bam. They’d have a reasonable basis to say, ‘I was threatened. The person looked at me and was coming at me, and I killed him to save my life.’
“On the other hand, some may consciously say, ‘OK, I’m going out on a marauding expedition; I’m going to find someone who looks dangerous and get rid of them.’ People who kill under these circumstances usually are doing it in straight-out, good-faith self-defense, and it just happens. ... But are the limitations enough to protect against that? ... That’s what we’re going to have to wait and see.”
•••
The most damning data on Florida’s “stand your ground” law is that since its adoption in 2005, self-defense claims in violent crimes have risen.
With only a five-month track record for Nevada’s law, it’s impossible to draw a comparison — though overall, violent crime in Las Vegas has been trending down.
Supporters of the Nevada law argue that comparisons between Nevada’s and Florida’s laws are inappropriate, especially when the comparison hinges on the Martin case.
“I think it’s good to have it spelled out in the law. ... That assists people on all sides,” said John Cahill, a retired peace officer and firearms instructor who is Clark County's public administrator. “I don’t like it that our Nevada law is under attack because someone did something in Florida. ... I don’t want to lose my rights here in Nevada because some yahoo is misusing a statute in Florida.
“If you look at the cases in those states, there’s no evidence that the law is the problem. If the law were the problem, there wouldn’t be a law anywhere.”
What the Nevada law — and almost every other law of its kind — hinges on is the idea that the actor must have a reasonable belief that his or her life is in danger, such that anyone in a similar situation would make a similar judgment.
The reasonable standard was consciously chosen by the drafters of Nevada’s law. Bills to substitute a “bare fear” standard — a subjective standard in which simply saying, “I was afraid,” is enough to claim self-defense — have been floated in the last three legislative sessions but not progressed out of committee.
Still, who applies the reasonable standard? If there are no witnesses as in the Martin case, that burden usually falls to a jury. Except in Florida.
In Florida, if a person uses violence and claims self-defense, the “stand your ground” law there says the person “is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force.”
“What that basically says is that if anybody says that the killing was justifiable, the state can’t prosecute — and that includes arresting,” said Addie Rolnick, who teaches law at UNLV. “They can investigate whether the force was justifiable, but they can’t arrest until they have probable cause to believe the force was not justified.”
That was part of the problem in Florida, where Zimmerman was never charged with a crime.
“Nevada doesn’t have that,” Rolnick explained. “In the state, the burden is still on the defendant, and that’s a very significant difference.”
Getting a person who used deadly force against another into a courtroom is especially important when the act of self-defense is prompted not by an attack, but the fear of one.
“We know that stereotypes do influence that quick-thinking assessment and judgment about whether someone is in danger and whether self-defense action is needed,” Lazos said. “There has been research done — people do have racial stereotypes in their head, and if they are untrained, they will respond to ambiguous conduct by a black person much more impulsively by pulling the trigger.”
•••
While Nevada’s “stand your ground” law hasn’t been tested in a case like Martin’s, Las Vegas confronted a similar set of issues in the case of Demarcus Carter, an unarmed 19-year-old who was shot and killed in the backyard of a Summerlin house by a homeowner who believed Carter was going to rob him.
It is legal in Nevada, as in many other states, for homeowners to shoot to kill in defense of property. Coincidentally, Nevada’s “castle doctrine” was implemented in the same law that formalized the state’s “stand your ground” practice of self-defense in 2011.
Carter’s case is an example, legal scholars say, of the varied ways people experience fear that can cause them to use a deadly weapon — and later claim that fear as a basis for self-defense. As in the Martin case, many see race as a key factor.
“Many people — the majority black and non-white — are caught up in these self-defense laws because it’s a lot easier for the public to understand them as dangerous and deserving of being killed,” Rolnick said. Carter "was in a backyard, he had a criminal record, and he was a larger, much more imposing black man than Trayvon, who was basically a kid. Once that stuff comes out, people aren’t as concerned.
“Everyone, not just openly racist people, respond to racial cues. There’s a lot of really troubling suggestions that we can’t actually trust our brains to be reasonable about what fear is in light of the way race works.”
Cahill said gun owners need to take that information into account.
“If a person’s skin color, the way they dress, the way they comb their hair — if you know those things create certain fears in you, you’re going to have to set those aside if you’ve got a gun. It changes everything,” he said.
But others argue that individual responsibility can only go so far, and at some point a law that sanctions deadly force can also influence citizens’ actions.
“Part of the talk in Florida has been to say, ‘This case is exceptional,’” Blakesley said. “If that makes legislators and people not think about the validity of such a law ... then that’s bad. One of the torturous things about criminal law is that awful situations give rise to really great teaching moments. And it’s painful, but important, to deal with them.”
Its good to know Nevada has such a law. Self defense is a fundamental human right. Having a legal right along with it is reassuring.
How do you plan to spend the next two hours?
For all the public outcry and political rhetoric, one only has to look at incidents such as this, which are daily occurrences, to read the country's moral compass and determine the true priorities of the American people.
In the United States, a child dies from gun violence roughly every two hours. Gun violence kills an American child in the time it takes to watch a movie. In the time it takes to watch a major sporting event, gun violence kills two American children.
Sure, the public will huff and puff until the politicians blow enough of the right colored smoke up the ppl's butts. Some knee-jerk legislation, which results in laws of the worst kind, is likely to get passed as it normally does after these types of incidents, too.
But shortly, usually in less than two months, the country will return its focus to justifying putting profits before people so the same small number of citizens can perfect their hoarding of the money supply. (The infamous one percent seem to have become nothing more than hoarders.)
Lastly, I predict the same ppl will post the same tired talking points to twist this into an "Obama" issue. So, in an effort to preempt that, let me point out that I have followed the gun violence deaths of American children since 1991. It's not so much a "Presidential issue" as it is an indicator of American citizens callous disregard for others' lives.
In the past two decades, little, if anything, has changed about the way the American ppl view gun violence killing thousands of American children year after year. Compare the amount of time, energy, and resources dedicated to addressing the gun violence killing of American children to the amount of time, energy, and resources dedicated to increase profits over that time period.
EVERY TWO HOURS...
I m a gun owner, and i am gonna say it; at least 25% of my fellow gun owners should not be allowed to carry firearms via open carry or a concealed weapons permit.
I m retired military btw..
So what happens if/when Trayvon is found to be the villain that all the EYE WITNESSES have described? He is the aggressor, he was there to cause havoc, he was in an upper income neighborhood to steal, etc...so do all these people who are demanding mayhem, civil unrest, etc... (Al Sharpton, the babymaker Jess Jackson, etc...), man up and apologize publicly or do they simply whimper back under the slimy rock that they live under only to continue to represent the unthinking black folk?
I think we all know the answer...
Fear, such a subjective emotion.
Watch out young men of color. The bar has now been lowered and you can be gunned down like the guy in Summerlin. He didn't even have to enter the guys home, shot through the window.
I think this law (thanks to NRA) was crafted for the older population. We can't run from you, but we already fear you, the next step is to just shoot.
This is so sad. How long before another young man die because of a prejudicial, preexistant fear of people of color.
"He is the aggressor, he was there to cause havoc, he was in an upper income neighborhood to steal,"
-------------------------
Skittles and ice tea made him a crime monster that night, right?
The Zimmerman case revolves around the racial divide in America, and it could happen here in Nevada.
America is raising up disillusioned and mythical racial causes,on a speakers platform comprised of a slew of racially and hate motivated commentators, including Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan ,the new Black Panther Party who are joined by Obama and his administration. These extremely biased and disillusioned spokespersons for their own distorted brand of social activism, are lurking at the crux of a serious threat to liberty, justice and free speech in America. Nevada could be the next place this happens.
Is it any surprise that the Justice Department could bring a hate crime allegation against George Zimmerman in the killing of Trayvon Martin?. Let's face the facts. This killing was a tragic event. Nonetheless, the alignment of the forces of leftist and black "justice seekers" has been activated to declare that Zimmerman must be guilty because of racial motivations. These forces are at the center of a racial witch hunt that could escalate into violence
Without evidence, leftists and racial activists are asserting that Zimmerman is guilty until proven innocent. Is it any surprise that in America today that one's constitutional rights could be trampled by an administration and racial society devoted to kangaroo court style justice?
Zimmerman acted without all the facts. That much is clear. What is not at all clear is that he committed a crime. So until it is clear that he did, his Constitutional rights must be protected. Mob mentality must not rule the day. The rule of law must prevail over racial intolerance and bias.
It would be *very* helpful in the Carter case if the police would say one way or another if Martin was in fact attempting to break in. I think that many of us would feel some amount of fear if we saw a person at our window trying to enter it. I promise you that if I saw that outside one of my daughters bedroom windows I would not be inclined to call 911 first.
On the other hand, the Martin case has all the earmarks of vigilante action and should be treated as such.
It would help a great deal if basic laws like this were taught in school starting at the earliest age that can comprehend them and then repeated every year. That is part of preparing students to be responsible adults.
"The cynical view would be (supporting these laws) gets people re-elected for being tough on crime," said Christopher Blakesley, a professor of criminal law at UNLV. "That's part of the psychological problem. ... You can end up passing laws that kind of reach a potentially dangerous level."
Politicians, it's all about the next election.
Mr. Cahill, a retired peace officer is quoted as saying, "If a person's skin color, the way they dress, the way they comb their hair -- if you know those things create certain fears in you, you're going to have to set those aside if you've got a gun. It changes everything. Cahill further said, "Gun owners need to take that information into account."
Well, the majority do not, Mr. Cahill. There are way too many irresponsible gun wielding Americans out there who support these, "Stand Your Ground Laws" and similar legislation recently passed here in Nevada that permit these type gun owners to either manipulate or ignore the primary guidelines that govern the utilization of deadly use of force. The examples of this, are aplenty.
One day recently, a neighbor of mine informed me; "A big black man came to the front of your gate and was scoping your place out. I kept a real close eye on him for you."
I replied sarcastically, "Did this monster have sweats on, and a hood that covered his head?"
My neighbor replied, "Yes, he did."
Well, guess what? That was a friend of mine. He walks the neighborhood as part of his weight loss program and periodically stops by my place where we discuss what we both love doing. Singing.
You can't stop people from being this stupid. We can't even stop these type of people from owning guns. But, we sure as hell can alleviate inappropriate laws and legislation that opens the doors for these types of people who wrongfully commit acts of manslaughter to murder where use of deadly force has been wrongfully employed.
So far Nevada law has been good and i can't see that changing. At least it cleans out criminals one at a time.
"You can't stop people from being this stupid." - BChap
No, but we can at least hope it earns a Darwin Award.
Let me preface my comments by saying I have a handgun in my home and, through the benefit of prior job employments, I have been trained on how and when to use deadly force.
The thing I see is that, as mentioned in this article, violent crime statistics for Las Vegas are down, and I assume that is Statewide also.
So why does Nevada need a law like "stand your ground?" Especially when the existing laws are adequate ("home is my castle"), not to mention readily understandable to anyone who has the slightest amount of common sense.
What I have seen is lobby efforts by NRA to come up with a definitive solution to a problem that is only perceived to be happening, with absolutely no statistics to back it up. It's only a lobby effort to push the sales of guns. Which is fine, but we don't need this law to do that.
The most dangerous thing I see, and I'm pretty sure most peace officers will back me up, is that when a firearm is sold to a resident in the State of Nevada, there is usually absolutely zero training on how and when to use deadly force; there being nothing required to certify the sale. Any yahoo can buy a gun and "stand their ground."
So, I guess what I'm saying is that here is a new law that basically says EVERY SINGLE Nevadan is permitted the right to make life and death situations, perhaps even at a moment's notice.
This is dangerous and controversial. We've seen the worst case scenario in Sanford, FL.
Let me tell you, people, this is gonna cause problems. Because the experts (law enforcement as well as armed security) who have been trained in the use of deadly force, even they make mistakes from time to time. And they are paid not to. How can an average citizen make those snap decisions and be right...especially with vague laws like this?
Only thing I see from this useless and unnecessary law is the fact that courts are going to be tied up for a long time to come with trigger happy people who will use this defense from now on.
I know, I know, you NRA types are going to caution me that guns don't cause the violence, people do, blah blah blah blah.
But why give people more reason to use deadly force with no training; treating ALL people like properly trained law enforcement personnel?
Madness, you ask me. It's just asking for trouble.
Colin,
Most, if not all, of your concerns can be addressed by proper education beginning at a young age.
I know from reading comments by others that I am not the only one who was raised to treat guns as a tool to be used only for killing, whether it be a human or a different species. Moreover, that training included being taught that one should never draw a gun unless you are prepared to used it as intended.
I refer you to my earlier comment where I said that children should be taught basic laws like this from an early age. I would add that they should also be taught what some (many?) of us already know about what guns are.
@Bchap, this comment you made is why I love your comments. Because you are logical, sensible, and not without principal.
I don't own a gun. There are a few reasons for that, but the biggest one is I would be likely to use it, and maybe without good cause.
I support gun ownership rights, and I hope the people availing themselves of that right are like BChap and not like me.
Enjoyed the comments, BChap and botfx. Totally agree with them.
Changing laws isn't going to stop anyone from owning or using a gun.
The issues facing America that people fail to acknowledge or accept is American's society where we've enabled the liberal desecration of America's core values all in the name of being politically correct and nationality based entitlements.
For the most part, liberals have created a society of entitlements and communities that are based on nationality. In this economy the hoodlums of society are becoming ever demanding where they feel their entitled to have and will do whatever it takes to take from those who have.
The hoodlums are taught this from birth, look at the picture gallery the Sun used and there is a common theme in those pictures. Bars on windows and more likely than not, career criminals protesting knowing they're protesting to divert attention away from their acts and placing the spotlight somewhere else. When it's all said done the facts still remain, sleep by day, prowl by night.
Let's call it like it is, America for the past 25 years have enabled people based on their nationality to blame anyone or anything for their poor choices and their financial status in life.
To fix societies problems the excuses have to stop. No law is going to change people's mindset, it starts at birth. Remove the liberal hype and their entitlement agenda and let the people stand on their own two feet without excuses and create their own destiny. We have enough laws, we simply need enforement of existing laws.
I'm a huge supporter of the Nevada Law. We should be able to protect ourselves. I have several guns in my home and I openly carry. The family is trained in firing a gun and protecting ourselves. We also know when we should and shouldn't use a gun. However, if we decide to use it against a human being, it's shoot to kill. Blast first, Questions later.
I hope the law doesn't change.
Zimmerman is a trigger-happy cop wannabe scumbag, nothing more and nothing less.
"Zimmerman called police 46 times since Jan. 1, 2011 to report disturbances, break-ins, windows left open and other incidents. Nine of those times, he saw someone or something suspicious."
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/17/27...
***
The NRA and their republican puppets, with a big assist from cowardly Democrats, have turned our streets and neighborhoods into firing ranges. Trayvon was stalked and murdered by a crazed, racist vigilante but the killer wasn't charged because his father just happens to be a judge.
Paranoia is a trait common among many conservatives.
Comment removed by moderator. The overtones of this comment are inappropriate.
nez212 I'm with you. Come to my window and look in, come to my door and try to enter uninvited, attempt to pry open my sliding door...you're dead.
I think it should be obvious to reasonable people that there is a vast gulf between a person in their home defending themselves against an intruder and a person who is seeking to "deal out justice."
The former can be justified on any number of grounds, but the latter is the act of a vigilante and should be viewed as a crime not only against the victim but against society as a whole.
Oh my goodness, there is a lot of hate in your country, isn't there?
You can really just kill someone if it looks like they're going to threaten property? A life for some tools from the shed?
That's pretty sick.
And you feel threatened by someone, so ya kill 'em?
Life is so cheap. You've lost the plot.
Seriously.
Your society is in a really bad way. Making laws to make it legal to kill someone - to take a life, because you find them "scary".
Do you have any idea how bad that looks from another country?
Oh well, your country, you go on killing each other. Your country, do what you like.
I won't be visiting.
"The Trayvon Martin case has become pop culture phenomenon" - This is the headline in many Florida newspapers...and it's TRUE!
You have the professional protestors, (Sharpton Et Al) You have the under 30 crowd with their "hoodie protests", to many of them, this case is like going to a music festival or rave - it's cool to be seen there! We have the insatiable media (Andy Cooper)recycling unsupported facts and assumptions that this is a civil rights case reminiscent of the 1950's Selmana, Alabama.
None of these entities, the media, the militants and commercial protestors like the "Rainbow Coalition" and the guilty by default white-folk's need to compensate for the guilt trip - None of them - want to accept these facts;
1. This case is about a man (Zimmerman) who was mentally not mature enough or qualified to carry a gun in public.
2. This case is about a man who stereotyped and racially profiled a black teenager and initiated a confrontation that could and should have been avoided.
3. Because of a series of bad decisions, Zimmerman was assaulted and he shot and killed the black teen.
4. The Sanford cops recommended charges be filed but the State Attorney's office did not.(that is the only scandal).
This is manslaughter case but many white and black folks WANT it to be some Selma Alabama revival...regardless of what the facts are...Even the gun runners at the DOJ Justice falls into this catagory...Get over it! File the manslaughter charge and get this case into court and off the concert circuit!
We have many people with guns BECAUSE WE HAVE MANY CRIMINALS on the lose. I demand my rights to be free to walk around my neighborhood. So if you have an attack dog and it attacks me or my dog, it might be shot--recent Vegas case. So if my gated community has had endless break-ins and burglaries, unsolved, no suspects, and I see someone walking around, regardless of the walkers race or attire, I retain the right to observe and perhaps follow. I retain the right to ask what you're doing. Doesn't mean you have to answer. Doesn't mean you have a right to knock me to the ground. Doesn't mean I can't defend myself if you act stupidly. You do not have a right to react criminally and assault me.
What would have happen if the homeowner was black, and shot a white person in his back yard. Would that be okay ?
I have firearms and I also have other things: baseball bat, shovels outside but near, pets that sound alerts when someone approaches, security cameras (quick on when knock at door), security fence / door, cactus and shrubs near windows. I was in law enforcement and believe one should take the precautions that say this is not a good target for burglary. My pets seem to know the meter reader and letter carriers but they squawk almost quietly when anyone else comes around.
boftx: doesn't sound like they were right outside anyone's house. I have seen limited coverage of an eye witness who saw Martin attacking Zimmerman and was on top of Z hammering away. Don't you have the right to walk around your neighborhood and observe, even talk to, a stranger walking around--and there have been continual burglaries?
Roslenda,
You are correct, *but*, you in no way have the right to do something that you know might result in you having to defend yourself. You can NOT provoke a reaction that would on the face of it justify you using deadly force.
For example, you can not approach someone and use a racial slur to get their attention, knowing that they might react in a hostile manner. As you said, you can defend yourself against stupid, but that doesn't mean you should be stupid to start with.
Stupid gets what it deserves, hopefully a Darwin Award (as I've often said now.)
He called the police 46 times since January 1, 2011. In his own sick little mind George Zimmerman was his neighborhood's defacto SWAT team member but right wing gun nuts are buying his lame side of the story hook, line and sinker, because it fits perfectly with their own twisted views.
The Orlando Sentinel hired two different voice recognition experts to get their professional opinions. Using different technology both have said the cries for help heard on the 911 recordings ARE NOT those of big, fat 27-yer-old George Zimmerman. Since there's no recorded example of Tray Martin's voice to compare to it could not be conclusively confirmed that he was the one heard on the tape.
Roslenda,
There is NO video of what happened in the Martin case. But there IS video of Zimmerman at the PD and there simply isn't any visual evidence of any injuries such as those he claims to have suffered. At the very least there should be blood on his shirt or jacket if he had a broken nose.
I was undecided until those videos of him at the police station became public.
No one would ever accuse me of being a "bleeding heart" but at this point I have no reason to think Zimmerman is telling the truth. In my opinion, he is nothing more than a vigilante and a bigot, at best.
Two problems to address; First "Hoodies", the hooded sweatshirt is the unofficial uniform of gang bangers and imitators. Wear this outfit and I will profile you as a possible criminal and be wary around you. This goes for all the white kids who think this is cool. As for the Florida stand your ground law and the tragic shooting, let's see what the courts do. Why should I, a longtime Nevada resident have to run away from a place I have a legal right to be because of fear from criminals? In my home I'am the king, attempt to harm me or break in and you will be shot! I will not run away from a public place I have a right to be but, I'am not stupid, have good judgement and common scense. Seems to me we as a society have been running away from these thugs for to long.
Comment removed by moderator. Trolling.
Botfx: All the video shows that he was cleaned up by the paramedics then taken to his nearby home to change his clothes. His head may have had a spray bandage applied. There is still a thing called inocent until proven guilty, I think I will wait for the investigation to be completed.
"I think it's good to have it spelled out in the law. ... That assists people on all sides," said John Cahill, a retired peace officer and firearms instructor who is Clark County's public administrator."
Demirjian -- Cahill has already been proven to not know as much as he's claims to know. He's no expert at all. It's also very disturbing the word "Constitution" isn't mentioned in your article, including the quotes from your "experts."
"So, I guess what I'm saying is that here is a new law that basically says EVERY SINGLE Nevadan is permitted the right to make life and death situations, perhaps even at a moment's notice."
Colin -- no law "permits" any such right. Violence is an inevitable part of this universe. The real question is what one is to do when confronted with it, and that's an entirely personal choice. Self-defense is a near-absolute right, one that existed long before our republic was Constituted, and one our Constitutions bind our governments to preserve and protect. The recent Heller and McDonald decisions from the U.S. Supremes took several hundred pages explaining this with the other relevant issues. Look them up.
"I think it should be obvious to reasonable people that there is a vast gulf between a person in their home defending themselves against an intruder and a person who is seeking to "deal out justice."
boftx -- thanx for making the point before I did. One's a near-absolute right the other is clearly in the criminal jurisdiction.
"...the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S., at __ (slip op., at 64) (2008)
nez212,
I agree with innocent until proven guilty, but my BS detector is going off.
As for the paramedics cleaning him up and then taking him home to change before the PD put him in cuffs and took him to the station ... BULL!!!!
Think about it, the LAST thing the cops would want would be for Zimmerman to change clothes and remove evidence that he had been injured.
I can just hear it now:
EMT: We'll just wash off all this blood and hide all evidence that you were attacked and had to defend yourself.
Cop: Yeah, and we'll let you go home first and change clothes so you don't need to wear that bloody shirt that shows you were attacked.
Really?!?
I think the young man in the picture holding that sign speaks volumes of why society is like it is.
Reading all these posts, confirms to me that 99% of you have never lived on the street. Never have been confronted with situations so dier that you feared for your well being. What Zimmerman did was wrong, thats for sure, but whats going on in the media, the statement the President made, and peoples rush to judgement are very concerning. Spike Lee Tweets an older couples address that thats where Zimmerman lives and they have to leave thier home because of the harrassment they recieved . Oh yeah thats right he apologized. Is that what you [progressives are going to say? Sad state of affairs we have.
"I think this law (thanks to NRA) was crafted for the older population. We can't run from you, but we already fear you,"
-----------------------------
It has been great business for small firearm/pocket pistols, i m sure the firearms industry would love to have this kind of 'standing my ground' law in every $tate..
I know many readers have seen this example before, but this was not only the defining moment for me as a peace officer, and as well, a free and sane man;
I was watching one of my fellow officers respond, on foot, to a violent situation. I saw what I perceived to be a "gang member" chasing the officer down from behind. I sited my weapon in on this individual. I decided not to fire. Initially, my peers were outraged with me in my decision to withhold firing. That is, until my peers discovered that this perceived "gang member" was assisting the officer in quelling the disturbance.
In deploying deadly use of force, it is not about what you think. It is not about what you believe. It is not about your personal biasness. It is what you ACTUALY see that determines the fear from within an individual and whether or not the deadly use of force is justified.
In the above described scenario, if I had shot and killed the perceived gang-member, based on what I actually saw, I would have been guilty of manslaughter, if not second degree murder.
The Summerlin homeowner who shot and killed Demarcus Carter in his backyard should be under arrest pending criminal charges of, at a minimum, manslaughter. Why? First, Mr. Cahill, a retired peace officer, firearms instructor and Clark County public administrator stated, "A homicide resulted when a resident shot from inside his habitation to stop a person "APPARENTLY" (emphasis mine) attempting to break into and enter that residence."
"Apparently" is the term this peace officer utilized in referring to Demarcus Carter's perceived break-in activities. I never, as an officer, used that term. And certainly not during any academy classes that I taught.
And now the media. This journalist reports the Summerlin homeowner, "BELIEVED' (emphasis mine) Demarcus Carter was going to rob him."
Well, that's just great, being sarcastic at Nevada's new legislation that mirrors Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law. We have now truly become a gun slinger's state where apparent and believed perceptions may well end a person's life with no consequences to the individual who pulled the trigger.
No wonder, since I told my Afro-American friend the comment that my neighbor made about him, that he hasn't been out walking the neighborhood and visiting my residence. And, by the way, doesn't my friend have rights? I take that back. I forgot where we live. "Mississippi West" is it?
Chuck333,
What Spike Lee did was completely out of line and inexcusable. I hope that couple sues and says a) he has to buy their home, b) he has to pay for them to buy another home, and c) he has to pay for pain and suffering. His action was the definition of negligence and I hope he is brought up on charges should that couple suffer a physical attack.
That said, I grew up in Huntington Park, CA, sandwiched between Maywood, Bell and Watts. I spent my senior year in high school at Los Angeles High School when I lived at 11th and Normandie. I think I can claim to have "lived on the street" as you put it.
Yes, I have been influenced by my childhood and have biases, but I recognize them and do my best to overcome them.
In my mind, from everything I have read, seen and heard, Zimmerman should be brought to trial for murder and have a jury decide the facts.
Comment removed by moderator. Off Topic
Here are some guidelines I recommend for this discussion:
From Melissa Harris Perry.
There seems to be no group more uncomfortable talking about race then White people. So in light of this, MSNBC host Dr. Melissa Harris Perry decided to come up with a set of rules to help White people navigate the racial road when it comes to the Tragedy involving Trayvon Martin.
Here's Melissa's Top Six Rules:
1. It's OK to Say Black
2. Black is always an adjective never a noun. Black people is fine. 'The blacks,' not so much."
3. Don't mention that you have Black friends, or relatives
4. Take your time and think before you speak
5. Remember that you are White
6. Silence is golden. "Race talk can make all of us defensive, but rather than defending, just listen," she said. "And if it's hard, it's okay to soothe yourself with a cup of tea, with a shot of whiskey."
I think a potentially good kid is dead and a guy who tried too hard to find love in all the wrong places has ruined his life for good.
Politicians waste their time on these new laws for partisan personal gain. We shoot too many people in America. Guns don't kill people, Stupid people who have defective hearts kill people.
It is OK to be afraid to be white guy alone at 3 AM at 93rd and Cottage Grove on the south side of Chicago. It is not OK to whip out your machine gun and stand your ground if a group of black kids wearing hoodies walk towards you. Even if they are rude.
It is OK to be afraid if you are a black guy alone in a predominantly white gated community in NYC. It is not OK to have a security guard shoot this black guy if he has frightened the black guy by stalking him.
A LOT less shooting, a lot more talking will go a long way.
Sick of people using African-American, Mexican-American, Chinese-American, Japanese-American and all other hyphenated excuses when a black person gets shot by any other race but their own.
Americans are shot and killed every day, it only becomes a race issue when certain races want something or create hysteria when their leaders want another program enabling their freeloading follower's criminal tendencies.
People need to stop succumbing to their tactics, it's getting old and it's a problem for them. If we keep enabling them, it's only going to get worse as has for the past 25-years.
boftx and others: we cannot expect video of everything. An EYE WITNESS said Martin was attacking Z and was on top of him. One can receive a concussion to the back of the head without blood pouring out. I agree you shouldn't stupidly provoke but I've seen no evidence that Z did anything stupid. You assume too much. Defending yourself should not result in bankrupting yourself by taking it all to court. I don't know (yet) if Zimmerman is faultless. Some fault should not result in physical attack and fear. Reportedly, the Z has PTSD--from the attack or from having to protect himself? Reportedly, he has broken nose and other injuries. Again, must one wait until they've been beaten to a pulp before defending oneself? How do you preclude unconsciousness. Yes it's a tragedy, whatever happened. A young man is dead and another man is forever scarred. Again, we retain the right to walk within our neighborhood, to be curious about strangers, to be concerned about ongoing burglaries. We also have a right to carry concealed weapons. Will your position change, if and when, they release info that the Martins are in possession of stolen property--inferring that Martin was THE burglar. Did you now see the media coverage of Martin's disciplinary record?
who sais crime is down. i look in the antham local newspaper every week and there is so many crimes its scary. your nuts to say that crime is gone down. my neighborhood for awhile about every week somebody was breaking into cars and even some homes. i live in seven hills. i have seen people smoking crack in the park. no i do not have the balls to confront any nut but if they are in my back yard. they have to climb a fence to get in there. they do not belong there. so basically they are doing something illegal. i work to hard for somebody to steal my crap. i love george carlin take on leave my crap alone. thats why they have passed these laws because crime in america is up. when i grew up in westerville ohio. the newspaper probably had 2 crimes a year. not a 100 crimes in one week.
Yeah Tim, D*mn those "certain races" for getting all the goodies that led to the financial meltdown in 2008! "They" get all the advantages while we Caucasians don't get anything!
We don't need legislation to approve of the use of lethal force in defense of self or others. It is the constitutional right to life, liberty and to pursue happiness. And your rights end at my person. So each is within his/her rights until they overlap another person's rights. Overlap would or could occur whenever one person does something inappropriate and beyond his/her rights--like trespass, like assault, like incite a riot. Cheap talk or comments can be ignored but might subject the talker to reactions when someone perceives your noise as a threat. We should limit our defensive countermeasures to what is reasonable but who are you to second guess what would have been reasonable if I feared for my life because of the UNREASONABLE actions of someone else?
Since this article is SLANTED with out all of the facts being available - it is far fetched and way off the mark.
A Man has the right of self-defense. If he is attacked then he has the right of self defense and may use any means necessary to nullify that attack. Up to and including deadly force. I can come up with at least a dozen scenarios just as far fetched as those listed.
A is A.
Roslenda--
"We" are the police, your neighbors, your friends, people who like you, people who don't like you and we have a collective right to judge your actions.
Sorry about that but the police ARE gonna show up when you shoot someone, it WILL be run past a DA, it WILL make the news, and your friends and neighbors are going to know.
That being said, if you truly are in danger I want you shoot that SOB right between the eyes. Shot him or her dead.
And then all of the above will still happen.
But we will -- as a society judge the shooting.
"Yeah Tim, D*mn those "certain races" for getting all the goodies that led to the financial meltdown in 2008! "They" get all the advantages while we Caucasians don't get anything!"
Lmao, the meltdown was created only as a result of: "The Community Reinvestment Act" and all the other programs set aside for people who had no right to buy a house in the first place until they actually got a paying job that could pay for their freebie that they couldn't afford in the first place...
Take the liberal hysteria and try it somewhere else, it might work for most; it won't work for those of us who understand the repugnant system liberals created. The poor-me, poor-me syndrome, everybody else is to blame, get real; it's all races it only becomes a race issue when it suits the liberal agenda. Pathetic excuse of human life, wake up and blame and not be accountable for their poor choices they've made.
" - Zimmerman is guilty beyond belief and there is plenty of proof including the cops wanted to arrest him on the spot but stopped by the ignorant pros. attorney of the county. He will be jailed and convicted of manslaughter and go to jail where he belongs. Also he was told by the cops not of follow the kid and he was not supposed to be armed when patroling. Jail this dangerous crazy so other won't get killed completely innocently."
This is questionable.. Right now you have nothing other than Zimmermans words and an eyewitness who saw him on the ground with Trayon on top. I don't doubt Z should not have followed him or confronted him, but Z has stated he was walking away when it got physical. IMO, Z will not be charged. My money is on the fact that while Z was out of line, it did not get physical until Trayvon initiated physical contact (the first punch, hit, push, tackle, whatever). Once it becomes physical, all bets are off and deadly force can be used, which it was.
Hey Tim!
What liberal hysteria? I see concerned citizens, scared citizens and pure abject haters.
I was sort of wondering which group you were in?
This is exactly what the NRA ACLU and gun toting gun nuts wanted in this country and now we got it...you all deal with it I'll retire in a safe country where gun laws are still in affect and hmmm nothing like this happens....enjoy you got what you asked for, wild wild west days once again....
I finally went to the statute to see what the law says. 776.013 refers to a home invasion. Here it is:
=====
2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[18]
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she 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; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
=====
It is clear that Zimmerman was the pursuer, and that Martin was the pursued. I don't think the statute allows itself to switch from person to person in a fight. If it did you could use this statute if you were an armed robber who shoots a cop after he draws his weapon (imminent death is on the horizon here).
My point being is that under this statute, Trayvon had every right to kick Zimmermans butt, and to kill him once he saw Zimmerman's gun.
I hope that all young black men wake up and smell the bacon here. It is time they all get concealed carry permits.
I like this idea.
Power to the hoodie!
46 calls to the Sanford FL police since Jan. 2011.
What kind of sane person does that?
Everyone should read this article at the Miami Herald. It has interviews with people from the neighborhood where cop wannabe Zimmerman constantly 'patrolled' the streets of their gated community.
"Shooter of Trayvon Martin a habitual caller to cops"
miamiherald.com/2012/03/17/2700249/shooter-of-trayvon-martin-a-habitual.html#storylink=cpy
"...it only becomes a race issue when certain races want something or create hysteria when their leaders want another program enabling their freeloading follower's criminal tendencies."
Tim Wiggin,
You forgot to use the word liberal :). However I must congratulate you for managing to get it in 3 times in your previous post. Because of the number odd claims that you make about "certain races" and their "leaders," I am compelled to suggest that you be more clear and concise. Only because in general, most of your posts could easily be mistaken as quotes from "Mein Kampf" and I would hate to see you get involved in litigation over copy write infringement.
I think we may be on the same side as far as the way the press has hyped up this case so more people are focusing on race instead of seriously searching for a solution. Anyway, thanks again for the entertainment.
Lmao, watch your TV station news, they're everywhere. They've gone insofar with their "Hoodie Movement" throughout the USA. They want to cry foul and injustice before knowing all the facts; they've even got your president to claim if he had a son, he'd look just like him.
Liberal leaders and their mindless sheep are using this for their sick immoral political agenda to generate more freebies for their agenda and pass more laws protecting their career criminal's offspring. Bottom line, the one who was killed more than likely isn't the as innocent as they'd like all us to believe, just because they scream and create the poor kid hysteria, surely doesn't make it true.
When all said done, the courts and the people will be the judge, not their hysteria or The Hoodie Movement. Until then, they need to crawl back into their holes and leave it be.
I support gun ownership for two very important reasons.
1. I want my government to know that their people have the right to own and use weapons.
2. If you break into my home I want the right to blow your head off, because you are human trash.
"My point being is that under this statute, Trayvon had every right to kick Zimmermans butt, and to kill him once he saw Zimmerman's gun."
Who ever said Trayvon saw Zimmermans gun until after he was on top of him on the ground?
The eyewitness has stated that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman. The cries of help were coming from Zimmerman. I don't doubt that Z was out of line by confronting Trayvon, but I'll be willing to bet that the initiation of physical contact was made by Trayvon. Once that happened, the gun was pulled out and he was killed.
If Z was menacing him with his gun when he confronted him, then there's an argument that Trayvon could defend himself. By all accounts that did not happen. Zimmerman should never have a gun again and sounds ill suited to be a neighborhood watchman but Trayvon should never have gotten physical unless a gun was pulled on him in the initial confrontation. He just should have ignored Z and kept walking.
TomD
The 911 tapes make your point completely false. Cops told him to stand down, he made the choice to pursue. The wrong guy died.
"I want my government to know that their people have the right to own and use weapons."
---------------------------
Black helicopters!
"The Orlando Sentinel hired two different voice recognition experts to get their professional opinions. Using different technology both have said the cries for help heard on the 911 recordings ARE NOT those of big, fat 27-yer-old George Zimmerman. Since there's no recorded example of Tray Martin's voice to compare to it could not be conclusively confirmed that he was the one heard on the tape."
George Zimmerman is not big, nor is he fat. You looked at the picture taken years ago and made assumptions. The George Zimmerman of today is fairly lean and not big. More BS from some of you guys.
As the debate over the killing of the 17yr old teen in Florida continues to heat up, there has been a rallying cry that has gone up "We are Trayvon Martin". Meant to symbolize the solidarity of the struggle against injustice. It is a nice poetic sentiment. One that echoes the wish that we could treat each other as equals regardless of skin color or economic differences.
But that is a dream. The truth is, "WE ARE GEORGE ZIMMERMAM"""..
http://thetop10.squarespace.com/the-poli...
Anyone who calls the cops 46 times in 14 months should be under a doctor's care.
Instead of being locked up on the funny farm where he belonged this cold-blooded murderer was given a gun and a neighborhood to "patrol".
When the Black citizens of this Country tell Jesse (Shakedown) Jackson, Al (Tawana Brawley) Sharpton and the other Democratic poverty pimps to shut the F#%k up the healing can begin.
I wasn't at the scene of the crime but the armchair apologists and bomb throwers sure act like they were.
I guess innocent until proven guilty is only reserved for Spike Lee and The Black Panthers.
This is a 360 degree tragedy. All losers and no winners.
If you wear a police uniform, you can't be upset if I assume you're a police officer. If you dress like a hoodlum gangbanger, guess what ...
Read up on the black kid's issues. Did he deserve to be shot for that ? Probably not. But quiet making him out to be some innocent little angel. Gold toothed, hoodied, school suspended weed smoker. Like Obummer said, if he had a son, he'd be just like that ??
Zimmerman's judge daddy sprung him before charges were brought then the murderer went into hiding, as cowards often do.
Idiotic NRA-sponsored laws like Stand Your Ground bring more senseless gun violence to our cities and towns. It's time for all sane citizens to stand up and say enough is enough.
The law belonged to Martin and Zimmerman. Zimmerman was told he was not needed by the police. He pursued anyway. Now the law only belongs to Martin. Zimmerman has now walked face first into being a hunter.
Zimmerman needs to be found guilty by a jury of his peers and executed according to the laws of Florida.
Case closed.
At least he'll get to say goodbye to his loved ones, unless he gets Zimmermanned in prison.
JeffFromVegas: "At least he'll get to say goodbye to his loved ones, unless he gets Zimmermanned in prison."
Before his much deserved execution Zimmerman the wannabe cop should be locked in a cell block that has only black inmates. Now that would be real American justice.
zimmerman is an american hero. im going to put a poster of him on my wall
YOU are walking home from the shop unarmed and a guy bigger than you confronts you. You try to walk away but he continues to provoke, asking questions, being rude, whatever.
Decision time.
Do you run, do you defend yourself.
Run, might get shot in the back, case against shooter looks a bit weaker but you're dead.
Defend yourself, right, that's what the law allows YOU to do. YOU are being threatened, so you defend yourself to the full extent of the law. Kick, thrash, do what you can.
But you are unarmed.
And he isn't.
And he knows it, which is why he disobeyed police instruction and confronted - with the intention of provoking so he gets to use deadly force.
But, it isn't you, to you it's some black kid.
But with this law it could be you.
So you are now too afraid to go to the store without packing, so you take your gun.
And then you get comfortable carrying your gun.
Problem is, so is everyone else.
If you were asked by someone on the street for directions, or the time, would you feel threatened? What could the outcome be?
These laws can only lead you backwards in society.
Problem is, your society has got to the point where things are so bad, you feel you need these laws.
Is there another way?
What is your future, and the future of your country?
God bless America, you need Him more than us.
The pro-Zimmerman rants on here are making sane gun owners like me look bad.
*sighs*
he asked the kid what he was doing. the kid should of said im walking to my dads house and that would of been end of story. no he suckered punch zimmerman then started beating the tar out of him. he pulled a gun and shot him. end of story. thats why hes not in prison. they have a witness to this fact. now the conspiracy story. the witness is lying. i think not. the question will be do you have the right to ask people what are they are doing in the neighborhood. thats why i do not talk to neihbors and these inbred teens.
Since when is prison fashion acceptable in our country. If these black kids what to advertise their stupidity by showing their arses while hiding their faces they will suffer the consequences.
Does anyone but me wonder if you dress like a drug gangster you may be treated like one? Does anyone wonder why there is no outcry from the Black Panthers on the 17yr old black kid who shot a white policeman in St. Petersburg in cold blood? No outcry on the drive by shooting into the funeral of a drive by shooting victim in South Florida over the weekend?
If Trayvon was wearing normal clothes and respectful of the Community watchman maybe he would be alive, so it goes back to how the parents bring their kids up in these ethnic groups. They are not taught when they dress like RAP stars, thugs, etc it serves no good purpose for further achievement in life. I have been robbed by black men ( and a white guys) wearing hoodies a few times ( break ins) so I would be very suspicious of a young black man at night wearing one approaching me, unless it was REALLY cold out. They brought the trouble on themselves to a degree but blame lays on the whole black community.
Anyone who calls the police, on avg. once a week, = 60 weeks/46 calls, while performing as a neighborhood watchman should be under a doctor's attention. Now does that sound right or inflated, and if on the day in question Mr. Z called about three times, wow, that is all for that month, but spin it, spin it like a rap star, it isn't much to hang a premise on. During a police event there may be as much as 20 or so exchanges with officers and dispatch rapport.
I will not be the devil's advocate here and say that in the jungle it is the bunny that will get killed every time. But if the Panthers want to post rewards which may harm the Hispanic community they had better rethink that. There are just as many ugly silent Hispanic groups out there that will pick up that gauntlet and make it quite a different outcome, one not of the Panthers pleasing, but they already knew that.
The law of the jungle is quite clear, matter of fact, more clear than the eye for an eye if you will. This issue is between Mr. Z and Mr. M with the Grand Jury deciding if it warrants court proceedings.
The police video shows more than folks wish to notice, while blood is not as visible as folks think from watching TV, you can see the office wipe his hand after being exposed to something when he touches the cuffs to ensure security. And as for not being able to get out of the car with cuffs, well, I guess if you're drunk/drugged and cuffed it be hard to do, which Mr. Z is not.
My sorrowful thoughts for Mr. M' and Mr. Z' family, I hope Mr. Z can recover from the blood on his hands, it is a travesty for both first line family members, but it has nothing to do with and I mean nothing to do with any yahoos out there trying to make a name by grandstanding.
I wonder if the people holding the signs in the picture above have any opinions on the O.J. Simpson case.
As a result of the "back yard burglar" shooting and killing in Summerlin a few weeks ago, I read through Nevada's criminal law relating to self-defense and stand your ground. My comment about it was, and still is, that the "reasonable fear" standard is a gaping hole which a prosecutor cleverly playing to a jury could drive a truck through, if it was politically expedient for him to do so.
Yesterday, I finally found the code section reference to the allegedly similar Florida statute, and its wording is different from Nevada's. The Florida statute is written in a more straight-forward way which makes it easier to understand when one can and cannot use lethal force to defend oneself and makes defense of a self-defense shooter far less risky for the self-defense shooter and his/her criminal defense attorney. Obviously, there's zero chance that in 2013 the Nevada Legislature will clean up the circular almost contradictory wording of its self-defense and stand your ground code sections, which came about when the Legislature stuck the "stand your ground" amendment into the previously existing law in 2011.
Reading the Nevada law, it's still my belief that in order to avoid leaving the "reasonableness of one's fear" up to a jury of 12 people of questionable intelligence, it's not wise or safe to shoot a would-be home invasion robber/burglar until he has broken your window or is forcing his way through your door. Of course, by that time it's more-likely-than-not that the robber/burglar will have an advantage over anyone who is unarmed, timid or an inexperienced shooter.
The real key to keeping residents of Clark County safe, in the face of a home invasion robberies, is a recognition by the Sheriff and the County Commissioners who provide the Sheriff's budget that the taxpayers living in "safe" or "middle class" or "affluent" neighborhoods are entitled, at all times of the day and week, to an equal number of patrol officers per 1,000 population than one finds in areas patrolled by Metro with much higher crime, such as the east side. For those of you who don't agree with me, go to the internet and search the key words "Arizona Paradise Valley 2012 Shapiro". That horrific home invasion robbery/murder/arson/victim immolation involved my friend's 79 year old inlaws. The alleged perpetrators were a professional burglary/robbery ring made up of white, not crack head, members. I note that the burglary/robbery ring members in that case are white, to illustrate the fact that home invasion robbers who will kill you come in all races.
Based on what happened to my friend's inlaws, everyone who knows my friend realizes "It CAN happen here", and if the only Metro patrol car on duty for your neighborhood is taking a call in Jean, and you dial 911 instead of successfully trying to defend yourself, under present Metro staffing standards you will likely end up dead at the hands of the home invasion robber.
What happened in Florida has nothing at all do with Nevada's law. Surely you learned something in Journalism school. This article is just a waste of space. Nevada is very different than Florida. Time to write something that is important to Nevadans. Not this drivel.
Rationalize...
To justify one's actions, especially discreditable actions (or beliefs) with plausible reasons, especially after the event.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rationa...
I'm going to name my next kid, Blondzzeter, regardless of sex.
@JefffromVegas
The 911 tapes make your point completely false. Cops told him to stand down, he made the choice to pursue. The wrong guy died.
Wrong.
Unless Zimmerman assaulted or pulled a gun on Trayvon at the initial verbal confrontation (there is no evidence to support this), there was no need for physical contact. The evidence so far is that Zimmerman turned and started walking back and at some point an assualt occurred (witness said Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman) and Zimmerman has stated the physical assault was started by Trayvon. Doesn't matter that they told him to stand down. Trayvon is dead because he initiated physical contact. He should have just explained who he was to Zimmerman and walked away. There is nothing to suggest that Zimmerman pulled his gun out at the initial confrontation. The man who initiated "physical" assault is dead.
People who already opposed self defense laws and gun rights have taken this opportunity to bring up their arguments again. A cynical political football match has resulted.
All the "experts" who comment here, on either side, really have only the vaguest clue what actually happened between the two people in Florida. They are often arguing over partial, divisive, and unproven facts.
I TRULY believe an arrest of Zimmerman should have been made when the police arrived; followed by a decision of the DA to either prosecute or release. I have heard that Florida law precluded this arrest under the flawed stand your ground law. If true then the law seems to be ideal to create a poor excuse to hurt or kill someone on the streets.
The published witness accounts and reports do not seem consistent with Zimmerman's side of things.
Even FOX News ran this headline: "Trayvon Martin witness casts doubt on shooter's self-defense claims" ( http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/29/tra... )
Self Defense? Here is a "Stand Your Ground" Law from the near past, though it was named differently:
"Missouri Executive Order 44", i.e. the right to shoot Mormons on sight. (As copied directly from Wikipedia)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Missouri Executive Order 44, also known as the "Mormon Extermination Order" in Latter Day Saint history, was an executive order issued on October 27, 1838 by the governor of Missouri, Lilburn Boggs.
The directive was issued in the aftermath of the Battle of Crooked River, a clash between Mormons and a unit of the Missouri State Guard in northern Ray County, Missouri, during the so-called "Mormon War" of 1838.
Insisting that the Mormons had committed "open and avowed defiance of the laws", and had "made war upon the people of this State," Boggs precipitously directed that "the Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State if necessary for the public peace--their outrages are beyond all description."
While the order is often referred to as the "Mormon Extermination Order" due to the phrasing used by Boggs, relatively few people were killed as a direct result of its issuance.
However, the state militia and other authorities used Boggs' missive as a pretext to expel the Mormons from their lands in the state, and force them to migrate to Illinois. Mormons did not begin to return to Missouri until 25 years later, when they found a more welcoming environment and were able to establish homes there once more.
In 1976, citing the unconstitutional nature of Boggs' directive, Missouri Governor Kit Bond formally rescinded it.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
These early Missourians were very concerned about this new religion from the East. They were so concerned, they feared for their lives, and so did the Governor.
Fearing for one's life may be real to the individual, but it does not grant them the right to summarily execute and individual Carte Blanche. American Law defends this position completely.
TomD:
You're grasping at straws there old boy. You have a set opinion on your personal life and lifestyle that you are using to slap this dead kids memory around with.
I like the law. It was there to help Trayvon, as I said before it is time for the Black youth of America to arm themselves. I think if there is a 75% chance you mess with a young black man you could be signing your death warrant that people will finally leave young black men alone.
And scare the crap out of old white guys.
So Jeff. Sounds like you're a racist. I'm not defending Zimmermans actions. But as another person pointed out, Trayvon should have just said "I'm going to this house" and walked away. Unless he had a gun pointed at him as he was initially confronted by Z, Trayvon had no reason to assault. You don't get it. Trayvon is dead because he used physical force. If you don't know how to diffuse a situation verbally, then physical assault is your only other recourse?
Trayvon is dead because he made it physical. He should have just told Z "unless you plan to arrest me, I'm leaving". Trayvon was most likely pissed off that he was confronted. I Wundt want to be confronted either, but the moment I take a swing..my life is in big jeopardy.
It is very sad this case was taken over by the media and leftist and made all about race. Clearly, Zimmerman is not a racist and he acted in self-defense. Unless, you believe in a massive conspiracy between Zimmerman, the police department, and local neighbors the facts clearly point to self-defense...and there are probably a lot more facts that haven't been released yet. I think a lot of people will look very stupid once (and if) all the facts are released.
TomD1228, vegasfun01,
There are NO facts available about how the confrontation started. There are NO witnesses who saw that. At this point we must trust that the special prosecutor will be able to determine what most likely happened.
Yes, it has become a race issue in many respects. But that is a reflection upon our society's failure to recognize that though the fighting has stopped, the Civil War continues to be fought to this day.
@boftx
It's Zimmermans testimony. If he can be caught outright lying, then prosecute. My feeling is that Z confronted verbally, Trayvon made it physical, Z responded with fire. I'll bet dollars to donuts this is how it plays out. Z is no angel and he sounds like a cop wannabe, but I have severe doubts he threw the first punch. Since Trayvon is dead it's going to be impossible to know every facet boftx. You're going to have to rely on Z testimony, like it or not.
TomD
So here's the story--according to you.
A kid goes to 7-11 to buy an iced tea and a bag of skittles and on the way out he put his hood on to attract a guy he could beat up, but unfortunately for Trayvon, the guy he chose to beat up had a gun and killed him while he was trying to beat him up.
And his dad was a black guy so it would be no big deal that Trayvon would come home all scruffed up from a fight.
Zimmerman better hope you're on his jury, cause he will need your help.
As far as me being a racist, if it makes you happy saying so, have at it. I think most sane people understand the point I am making, which is--The moral of the Trayvon Martin story is that EVERY Black man in America should apply for a concealed carry permit and pack heat, y'all just won't quit assuming the worst about black people.
I am just wondering if a man comes home late one night and his wife is waiting in his bedroom with her boyfriend and the boyfriend kills the cop, would he be able to claim self-defense without question, or would the burden of proof be shifted to the adulterous couple?
Thoughts?????
@Jeff
You are the one who made of point of saying to scare the crap out of old white guys. It doesn't make me happy to call you out as racist. Your own words did that. Is Zimmerman old? He's also only half white. Not that it means anything, but you seem to have an axe to grind.
You still don't get it Jeff. Regardless of what Zimmerman said to him verbally, once Trayvon got physical (which is what will come out), his life was in danger. You lay a finger on another individual, your life is in danger.
As I stated, I'm not defending Zimmerman's actions. Trayvon could have walked away. You must be one of those people that gets all macho when you feel you've been verbally slighted. Does it lead you to physical violence? You'll end up as a statistic with that attitude.
Trayvon was fine until he decided to throw a punch. You can spin it all you want with the ice tea and skittles. Should he have been left alone? absolutely. Just because he was confronted verbally by Zimmerman is no excuse to to initiate physical assualt. That's what got him killed.
You don't seem to understand it. That's your problem. Trust me, you start arming every 18 year old black or white men...you're going to have a lot of dead 18 year olds.
To the parents out there, imagine this:
Your 17 year old child calls you at night and says a strange man is following him.
You: "Where are you?"
Child: "On the path behind the townhouses walking home"
You: "Is anyone else around?"
Child: "No"
Now stop and think, what would you tell your child to do?
A. Run
B. Confront the stranger to ask what he wants
If you're honest you told your child to run.
So your child runs and tells you "He's running after me" and the phone goes dead.
This is based on the known facts, Trayvon ran and Zimmerman pursued him.
None of us know if Zimmerman caught up to him and tackled him, a struggle started, Trayvon ends up on top, and with fight or flight triggered Trayvon defends himself. Now Zimmerman feels threatened and uses his gun.
The fact that Zimmerman chased a 17 year old at night, after police told him not to, makes him guilty in my mind. But there are many facts missing to make a final judgment.
@TomD1228 You make a very good point. "It's Zimmermans testimony. If he can be caught outright lying, then prosecute." Now Zimmerman told police that night he was jumped from behind when he got out of his vehicle to check what street he was on. The 911 tapes clearly have Z. getting out of the vehicle to pursue Martin. That's an outright lie.
Despite what any of would like, there has yet to be a single witness to the moment Zimmerman and Martin first came in contact.
What we know is that Zimmerman has a documented history of violence where he assaulted police and a girlfriend. Martin does not not.
What we know is that Zimmerman began pursuing Martin after saying in disgust, "these a-holes" always get away.
What we know it that Martin's girlfriend was on the phone with Martin and described him as in fear and running away.
What we do know is that the unarmed Martin and the armed Zimmerman met each other, a struggle ensued and Martin was shot. This time Zimmerman didn't bemoan that the a-whole got away.
What we do know is that the ambulance dispatched to provide Zimmerman medical attention was canceled.
What we do know is the Zimmerman was not covered in the massive amounts of blood a scalp wound and broken nose would produce in video taken shortly after the incident. We also see the officers handle Zimmerman without gloves, something unheard of if they had seem him bleeding at any point in the evening.
So, to make your assumption work, you are asking me to disregard everything I have seen and everything I have heard. You also expect us to believe the Zimmerman suddenly gave up his pursuit of Martin at the precise moment Martin, who feared for his safety decided to no longer try to get home to safety, but to turn and confront the man who had stopped following him. If you had some sort of motivation for the hunter and hunted to suddenly switch roles, maybe, but sans a reason, that theory flies in the face of human behavior.
You are asking me to ignore everything we know about Zimmerman's past, what he said that night, and what we saw in the videos, and at the same time, completely fabricate a set of traits in Martin that have never been documented by anyone who spent time with him in his short life. why should I do that. Why have you.
I'm going to recommend that some of the posters here (you know who you are) read "Mein Kampf" since so many comments could be seamlessly added to it.
I'll bet if the The Sun anonymously posted excerpts from "Mein Kampf" in the Comments Section, we'd mistakenly attribute them to the "usual suspects" posing as conservatives and using the word "liberal" ad nauseam.
Again, I'm not defending Zimmermans actions. I am merely going to say that the eyewitness has Martin on top of Z beating on him. Unless Z specifically threatened him, there was no reason to initiate physical assault. My assumption is Z will be vindicated once the full facts are known regardless of his history. Btw, Trayvon was no choir boy. He was suspended for drugs and had been in trouble before.
TomD1228,
Please post a link to a report that has a witness saying without reservation they could tell who was on top AND that Martin initiated physical contact.
As for Martin not being a choir boy as you put it, it seems Zimmerman has a few skeletons in his closets, too. (Literally, now.)
Witness 1
One man interviewed by a local Fox news station, who asked to be identified only as John, said he saw the man wearing a red jacket -- Zimmerman -- on the ground, being beaten by someone on top of him -- Trayvon.
"The guy on the bottom, who I believe had a red sweater on, was yelling to me 'Help, help,' and I told him to stop and I was calling 911. I got upstairs and looked down, the person that was on top beating up the other guy was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point," he said.
The only other statement is the one from Z who claims he was walking back to his car when he was jumped. Look, Trayvon was angry he was being followed. I don't blame him but the evidence is pointing that Z was retreating back to his car. We can only go by his statements unless other witnesses surface.
Post the link to the witness statement. The reports of witness statements I have seen are inconclusive at best. Even the one from FOX news that I posted earlier.
We simply don't have enough reliable information yet to make an informed decision. But I will say this: I am not inclined to believe Zimmerman at this point.
This is what we know
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/31/27...
Z is no angel, but Trayvon in a fit of anger about being confronted most likely took it physical. It got him killed
Even that report has conflicting accounts by two witnesses who did NOT see who started the physical assault.
We simply don't know, but the *raw* footage from cameras at the PD station doesn't seem to support Zimmerman. (For those of you who believe what you see on the Internet, please give me a call, I have some prime lakefront property in Arizona I want to sell.)
tomd You tell us "Again, I'm not defending Zimmermans actions. I am merely going to say that the eyewitness has Martin on top of Z beating on him."
Why can't you see that you are in fact doing just that. Nothing you have posted changes the fact that we don't know what happened at the exact moment the two met. We know what was going on right before. Trayvon was running away and Zimmerman was chasing him.
Now there is the witness you cite who says he say two people fighting. He could only identify the color of the shirts he remembered each was wearing. He did not see the shot. Now another witness says he say the same struggle and saw the shot and the guy on top shot the guy on bottom. This witness also claims the cops on the scene tried to manipulate him into misidentify the two combatants.
But I am willing to give the anonymous, mystery witness the benefit of the doubt, and all it tells us is that for a moment Martin had the upper hand.
You say your not defending Zimmerman, yet what do you call it when you assume that Zimmerman did nothing but speak to Martin. Did Zimmerman say anything in the 911 call that showed he had an interest in talking to the boy? No. Did Zimmerman express a desire to capture the boy? Yes. Did Zimmerman call out to the boy when he was on the phone to police? No. Did Zimmerman speak in a quiet voice, as one would do if their intention was to go unnoticed and the pursue Martin? Yes. Did Zimmerman lie about his actions that night? Yes. Did Trayvon have a history of assaulting people? No. Did Zimmerman haave a history of assaulting people? Yes. Did Zimmerman show signs he was assaulted by Martin? No. Did Martin show signs he was shot by Zimmerman? Yes. Man, how much more do you need?
What am I missing that actually allows you to assume the non-violent child who everyone says was trying to get away from Zimmerman suddenly attacked him? What makes you assume that Zimmerman, a man who had no qualms assaulting police officers, who should non interest in speaking with Martin, but only wanted to make sure he didn't get away, suddenly just wanted to talk?
Newton's first law of motion: "Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it."
We lose touch with the two with Z in pursuit of M. What external force cause both of them to change their course? Why do you need to believe so badly that something happened that night to radically transform these two people in a matter of moments?
I am defending Z in the sense that I believe the MAIN issue will be that Z was leaving or walking back to his car and was pounced on by Trayvon. What you don't seem to understand is that because I am justifying his action to shoot I am not justifying the events that happened earlier.
Look I'll guarantee this is what happened...in a nutshell.
Z pursued TM
Z confronted and questioned TM verbally
At some point Z was leaving, backtracking, walking away and was accosted physically by TM
TM was on top of Z
Z decided to shoot
The police noted blood on Z. If you want to make this some type of grand conspiracy where everyone is lying...so be it. As much as Z should not have a gun and should not be doing patrols, he killed when he deemed he was in danger. It all comes down to Z leaving at some point and getting hit.
This is how this happened. Sad, but I believe 100% that TM got physical first. That got him killed.
This, for me sums it up to a T and is the basic premise of why Trayvon is dead...
In an interview two weeks after the incident, Lee said witness statements and physical evidence backed up Zimmerman's version of events. He suggested that based on the timing of the call, he believed that Trayvon went out of his way to approach the person tailing him and mouth off.
I see this Zimmerman as a guy that wanted to be a cop but couldn't make the cut. He has a history of calling 911 about suspicious persons a lot
and from what is reported most were black. The
guidelinse for neighborhood watch members is to observe and report, notify police, and NO GUNS
being realted to a retired judge in a small community weill keep you out of jail too. One last note I wonder if he had the mind set that dead men cant testify against you, especially if there are no witness's
"being realted to a retired judge in a small community weill keep you out of jail too. One last note I wonder if he had the mind set that dead men cant testify against you, especially if there are no witness's"
Why not just suggest that if Z had more time he would have dumped the body in a canal? No body, no murder. This stuff is beyond ridiculous.
"What am I missing that actually allows you to assume the non-violent child"
Child? Why not say he was 8 years old? That child was suspended 3 times from school, was caught in possession of jewelry that he said was not his and refused to talk, was suspended for marijuana, was suspended for graffiti and vandalism.
GZ also has a suspect past. It means nothing to the facts at hand but if the intent is to demonize GZ, you can throw in TM's past as well. GZ will not be charged if witness testimony is credible.
The law allows the murderer a right to go free if they CREATE A GOOD STORY. Right to Life only refers to the unborn. Thou shall not kill only to the religious. The Right to Bear arms doesn't give you the right to takes anothers person's life. There will never be winners when deadly outcomes like this happen. Legislators signed death sentences to many like Martin allowing anyone that owns a gun to decide someones fate.
When someone is on top of you pounding on your head (eyewitness testimony)...you shoot. End of story Jacqueline. GZ testimony has never wavered or changed. A lie is a very difficult thing to remember...because it never happened. His story would have wavered or changed in detail during his separate interrogations. It never did.
None of us know 100% for sure what happened, but the way 'conservatives' are so eager to push any information, true or false, that makes the dead 17 year old out to being culpable in his murder is sickening..
Markey, You don't think the reactions of the The Black Panthers or Spike Lee are just as sickening??
At least you aren't looking at this one sided.
@Markey
Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson?
Spike Lee? Who apologized. How gracious. What a scumbag. He apologizes to the McClain family but doesn't once mention that his intentions were wrong to begin with. You don't advertise someones address with the intent of vigilante justice.
Eyewitness testimony has TM on top of GZ. What more do you want, a photo?
TomD, "they" want a photo and Mr. Z crucified without trial or hesitation.
I was regrettably watching the news this morning and the people who are calling for swift justice are the exact same people saying that a further investigation will reveal the truth.
Which is it?
Twitching and frothing will not serve anybody involved in this horrible mess.
Heretic
I can't defend GZ's actions up to the point of backing off. He should have never pursued, never confronted. Once you get past that all indications are that TM attacked GZ. I will state unequivocally that I think TM initiated physical confrontation. Once that happened, his life was in jeopardy. Minutes later he was dead. On both sides of the aisle just too many "macho" individuals with chips on their shoulders and an inability to just walk away.
TomD:
As soon as someone uses "Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson" in their argument you know it is like when someone in a political argument calls someone a "Nazi, or Nazi sympathizer" it shows that your argument is about to collapse...
crumble crumble.
TomD
You Said: "I can't defend GZ's actions up to the point of backing off. He should have never pursued, never confronted. Once you get past that..."
It is called criminal intent, Zimmerman KNEW he was bringing deadly force with him. Part of the rule of law is that if you bring a gun to the party, you are responsible for it.
This guy was chasing after Trayvon WHILE talking to the cops.
Then he winds up killing the kid.
Case closed, at best manslaughter, in reality it was first degree murder. He was aware of that gun with him, he provoked a confrontation, and the kid who NEVER bothered Zimmerman is dead.
Your logic is fairy tale logic.
@Jeff
I see. Like when you suggested to arm all young black youth "to scare the crap out of old white men".....
If that's not racist language, nothing is.
I only mention the 3 (Sharpton, Jackson and Spike Lee) because people are trying to make this a conservative/liberal/black/white issue. They have no business to be associated with this case, just as Rush, Glenn Beck and other hard core right wingers do. Jeff, you've exposed yourself with the "scare whitey" statement. Too bad, you made some valid points.
Nice of you to leave out a big fact Jeff...
"This guy was chasing after Trayvon WHILE talking to the cops"...
Then you segway "then he winds up killing the kid"
You forget to mention that the account is that GZ backed off and was leaving. The confrontation was essentially over, done. Trayvon then decided to pursue and physically assaults GZ. GZ then shoots. Case closed. Self defense. If you are on top of someone beating them and they have a gun, you're going to have harm come to you. Trayvon was 70 yards from his house. Keep walking. He decided not to. It cost him is life.
TomD:
Scare Whitey?
C'mon, can't you agree that it is mostly old white men who are trashing this kid and his posthumous reputation?
I think that people conceal and carry to level the playing field (in their minds) the argument dissipates if everyone has a weapon. So yeah, I think the same way every black kid in America now has to live in fear of these laws that old white guys should enjoy the fruits of their labors too, I mean the overwhelming majority of these laws were passed by old white guys, right?
And have we now seen the enhanced video that shows Z with an apparent gash on the back of his head? Gee, how did that happen. We're not saying Z is faultless but no person is expected to make perfect choices all the time--that doesn't mean you have a right to assault some guy just 'cause you're a young strong kid with an attitude problem--attitude about school, drugs, discipline. Martin's Dad was trying to deal with the kid's bad behavior....so sad he didn't have more time to work on it.
Jeff, How is using the factual names associated with this incident (Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Black Panthers and Spike Lee) like using somebody who has been dead for well over sixty years???
Jeff, it is really astonishing how fast you jump to conclusions and then advocate retaliation.
I think you need help.
What old white men? Jeff, I can't get into a racial argument because its really not the issue. If Zimmerman was 100% hispanic, then what? Still blame "whitey". The racial talk is uncomfortable, frankly and I don't understand what your point is.
This is simply a case of two people who could not control themselves nor had any idea how to react properly to the situation at hand. It was initiated by GZ but TM took it to a physical level and tht got him killed. There's an old saying "you throw the first punch and I will throw the last one"...turns out that last punch was a gun.
Your argument to arm black youth flies in the face of all available statistics. It will just lead to more people like Trayvon getting killed, not Mr. Old white man.
I advocate every young man, black, white, Asian, Hispanic, everyone to get a concealed carrying permit and to carry a gun at all legal times. The government has given license to kill you in the name of self defense. So, young people -- be prepared to self defend yourself. Not retaliate.
It is my opinion that the Zimmerman's of the world will then go back to their basements and leave young black kids alone.
Yeah, statistically Black kids (People "LIKE" Trayvon) can't handle guns properly. Who's the racist?
Only statically safe groups should get concealed and carry permits.
Who's the racist?
botfx: The closest think to an apology or gee I was wrong that I've seen from you is that we don't have enough info. And that's called a presumption of innocence. We now have enough info--the gash in Z's skull, the broken nose, the physical facts--Z an average guy without physical stamina and young Mr. Martin with size, strength and attitude. Yes Z had attitude too--the attitude of curiosity and need to protect his neighborhood. When adult men are not free to walk through their neighborhood without being attacked, where can kids and women walk? Enough crime, enough fear.
"It is my opinion that the Zimmerman's of the world will then go back to their basements and leave young black kids alone."
That's just wrong Jeff, the only thing that will happen is black on black crime will skyrocket. For every GZ now in his basement, there will be thousands of Trayvon Martins killing Trayvon Martins if you choose to arm all of them. Black on black crime stats are far, far worse than white on black.
I think Heretic is right, you need help. Sounds like a LOT of pent up anger. Don't become a statistic by allowing your anger to control your actions.
When I say Trayvon...I mean young black youth. I'm not saying they can't "handle" a gun. I'm saying if you do that the statistics point overwhelmingly that black on black gun violence will outweigh what you are trying to fix. The occasional white on black gun violence.
Jeff.. You need help.
You will also see white on white violence increase. The only thing arming all these people will lead to is more dead young people. For every GZ that is killed for being overzelous, there will be thousands of white, black and Hispanic youth killed
Interesting how you changed your statement from arming black youth to now arming EVERY youth. Doesn't hide your racism Jeff. Sorry.
TomD1228 "It means nothing to the facts at hand but if the intent is to demonize GZ, you can throw in TM's past as well."
Actually Tom, it is very relevant. The events of that night weren't about vandalism, marijuana or jewelry. It was about violence, and that is why Zimmerman's history of assaulting police and beating his girlfriend are relevant. It shows that only one of the two people that night had a predilection of violence, and that was Zimmerman.
Now let's look at how dishonest you are being in your account. "When someone is on top of you pounding on your head (eyewitness testimony)...you shoot. " There are many witnesses that night, and two are said to have witnessed the struggle. One, indicates that Martin was on top of zimmerman, but that witness did not see the shot fired. The other saw the shot fired and says the man on top killed the man on the bottom. One of those two witnesses has made themselves available to the public from the beginning. One has chosen to shield his identity and as of now the police have not officially issued his statement. You have chosen to believe the unconfirmed mystery witness, rather than the witness on record. I wonder why?
Do you feel that if Zimmerman attacked Martin and during that struggle Zimmerman found himself outmatched, he was justified in killing the minor? If you really think you can pick a fight and then when you begin lose that fight use deadly force, you don't understand the Stand Your Ground Law.
I have offered the evidence that shows Zimmerman was in pursuit of Martin when he last spoke to the 911 operator and the Martin was fleeing Zimmerman when he lost contact with his girlfriend. You haven't contested that fact. Your assertion is that they suddenly both switched roles and the hunter became the hunted, yet despite repeated requests, you have offered no reason, logical or illogical, for making that assumption.
No reason to assume the man with a violent past. The man whose current coworkers have described as "Jekyll and Hyde." The man who would toss women across the room if he felt their behavior was inappropriate. The man coworkers said ""loved the power," of being in charge. The man focused on catching the minor would suddenly just stop.
No reason the minor with no history of violence. The minor whose classmates described him as "introverted and thoughtful" would stop running for the safety of home yards away and attack the man who he was running away from.
Now I have never brought this up before, but when you make that bold of an assumption, and refuse to tell us why, can't you see then you have left the possibility that your refusal to provide an answer might mean you are ashamed to admit your reason. That the reason you "state unequivocally that I think TM initiated physical confrontation," is because you are more comfortable putting a black teenager in the role of the aggressor. That idea better fits your world view.
Hey, if I am wrong, let me know. Just tell me what you think happened to make Zimmerman give up the chase. With no other reason, that is all that's left. And what happened that suddenly made the unarmed Martin no long want to get home to watch the game, but instead turn and attack the armed man chasing. If it isn't race, then what is it.
You guys -- TomD and Heretic -- keep throwing a predetermined outcome -- That Zimmy was a necessary evil -- to keep the streets of America safe from hoodie wearing young men minding their own business should be able to be stopped and questioned by neighborhood watchmen who are self appointed, not connected to our legal system and if the young man in question becomes protective and proactive that the neighborhood watchman can become judge and jury?
Sorry pal's, but the only reason Zimmy had to defend himself is because he interfered with someone who was committing no crime, was not prowling, was unarmed, and enjoying time with his dad.
You know, I think it is part of the American dream to have your son go to the 7-11 and get a snack. And make it home alive. He was not in anyway interfering with Zimmy.
The man who ended this young mans dreams needs to atone for his actions.
Further, if it is you two recommending me getting help, based upon your writings I feel pretty secure in myself. Do you think Jesus is patting Zimmy on the back or is he having a good time with Trayvon?
In any defense of ones self there is never race written into it. When blacks commit violent crimes against whites the black community never shows up with their threatening signs like the thug in the picture 'no justice no peace',as a matter of fact they accept black on white violence as a part of life. The black race makes up 13% of the population yet they commit a majority of the violent crimes in America, but that is just the way it is to the black community and their leaders.
Now we have the New Black Panthers putting a bounty out on Zimmerman. If the KKK,white supremacists,skin heads or any other extreme group did that to a black person who supposedly committed a crime against a white person Sharpton and crew would be ranting for months. And now we have Sharpton, who lied for weeks when black women claimed to have been abused by white men and then they admitted they were lying, gets involved and he has absolutely no credibility.
There is a reason Zimmerman has not been arrested or charged by the district attorney,Florida attorney general or indicted, and that is there is proof the young thug in making Martin asaulted Zimmerman.
Jeff, I think reading comprehension is your first "need" in getting help.
I have never even insinuated that Mr. Z is a necessary evil. You are the evil monger on this post.
You continue to urge violence. I don't understand that.
btw, If it makes you sleep better at night.... I do not believe in God so you last paragraph is N/A. Look up the word Heretic while you are learning how to read.
@homer....."If the KKK,white supremacists,skin heads or any other extreme group did that to a black person who supposedly committed a crime against a white person Sharpton and crew would be ranting for months."
If a black kid shots a white man and isn't charged I would be just as outraged. Something tells me you would be calling for the the boys head as flames lapped at the cross behind you.
Go ahead and tell me your no racist, but your words say otherwise. The mere fact that you call Martin, a person with no criminal record and not a single instance of violent behavior, a "young thug in making." While you conveniently "WHITEWASH" Zimmerman's actual THUGGISH behavior, including assaulting women and the police.
That's the guy you have decided to support; a wife beater, cop hating, egomaniac. I guess that's the type of person you can relate to.
The shooter has a police record, the shootie does not.
And the shooter is not in jail on at least manslaughter charges because of this 'stand your ground' law.
You people rabidly defending Zimmerman are just making rational and sane gun owners look bad. Period.
More info on this "case"
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1939/020/...
Markey, change the law in Florida. I don't agree with all that has transpired but I am willing to wait. You should too.
btw, You don't know what happened so how do you know it makes gun owners look bad?
Speculation and assumptions have run wild.
why was this boy walking in the rain at night? what kind of parent sends their kids off on a 40 minute walk to 7-11 during middle of a rainy night? and what kind of parent ignores the fact that the boy hasn't returned home?
I don't have a gun because I know it would make me get into trouble! I guarantee you if Zimmerman did not have a gun there is no way he would've confronted Trevon!
Why on earth would someone like Zimmerman, who called the police 46x in 14 months and was arrested for assault and harrasment of an ex girlfriend allowed to have a concealed carry permit in the first place??? I believe in rights, but not the rights of luntatics to be walking around carrying guns!!!! I would think EVERYONE should be concerned about this!!!
My daughter's swim team all have hoodies, geez....
@Jeff
No clue where you got that from. Never said it. I don't know what the legal rules are for neighborhood watchmen. Can they stop someone forcibly?
So you do admit that GZ WAS defending himself. Trayvon should have just kept walking home. 70 feet from home and he decided to turn and get physical. I don't blame him for being angry but once you throw a punch your life is in danger. Should have just ignored GZ, gave him a wave, said "I live here, going home". He would be spending the last month with his dad.
Can't get physical
Can't get physical
Can't get physical. Your life may end.
TomD
Yeah, in a fight both parties defend themselves. Doesn't take the murdering Zimmerman off the hook.
Once you throw a punch your life is in danger? I guess the kids on the playground can get concealed carry permits for their squirt guns now to train for the real world according to TomD:
A punch thrown = the death sentence.
Maybe fake Trayvon funerals in middle school?
It's common sense....if you don't want to be mistaken for a THUG, don't dress or act like a THUG. Why people insist on looking/acting like a gangster is beyond me....then they complain when something bad happens. If I walked into an airport looking like Al Quaida, I bet $1000 I'd have TSA and cops watching my every move. Now, what happens if I carry a suitcase and leave it unattended? Is could be an innocent mistake, but I guarantee you they'd take it seriously.
"A punch thrown = the death sentence."
If the other guy has a gun...you betcha.
Notice the new video which DOES show the injury to the back of GZ's head? This case is over. Justified. GZ was on his back, Trayvon was on top beating him.
On the hoodie issue, I do think it's a menacing look because you are concealing your face. I wouldn't want to walk down the street alone and have 3 guys with hoodies on walking at me. Anyone with common sense is going to put their guard up somewhat. Personally, I find the look menacing. No one is going to tell me this look caught on by happenstance. This caught on because of the thugs that were doing it to commit crimes and it became the new thing. It's no different than the pants below the butt cheeks. You want to look like garbage with those pants, people will treat you that way.
The more I read the more I realize that little Trayvon wasn't some little innocent kid. Nice twitter name he had there. How does a 17 year old get a tattoo? Good parenting there. Based on the article he may also have been dealing drugs, took a swing at a bus driver and was suspended for a long period of time for what would normally be considered a slight infraction (more to story). He was also caught with pot and jewelry that he could not account for. In his short 17 years he was developing a nice rep. Waiting for toxicology..this should be a good one.
GZ should just be exonerated. Done. Over. Don't mess with a man with a gun in Florida
TomD:
Sounds like you want to run the USA like a Parochial school. Sounds sort of like communism to me. Are you a commie?
I don't care if Trayvon kicked Zimmy's but to an inch of his life. He was the hunter. He is a murderer. He lost the ability to avail himself of this law when he violated Trayvon's space.
A menacing look allows you to be accosted if you are drooling on someone, I will agree. If it is a hood attached to a sweatshirt? You afraid of your shadow too?
Prejudice in America is a long standing tradition. Many people do not like others from different ethnic groups very much. Most folks feel safer and more relaxed with those of their own backgrounds. I prefer to live with Jews and Asians. I don't "hate" anyone or any group. I simply have my likes and dislikes as does every one of you. As far as the black community is concerned, part of their problem is the simple fact that young, black males account for 4% to 7% fo the population, depending on the area involved, but account for 30% to 70% of the violent crimes in those same areas (Census Bureau, DOJ, FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, and local police department reports). Here in Cincinnati we have at least 3-4 violent crimes in the black neighborhoods every single day. While no issue is one-sided, the only way to fix problems is if those on all sides of the issue accept reality for their part in the situation and work with others to correct it.
TomD1228....Well there you go, providing confirmation that your hated of African American's is the reason you have decided that, the man with a violent past. The man whose current coworkers have described as "Jekyll and Hyde." The man who like to toss women across the room if he felt their behavior was inappropriate. The man coworkers said "loved the power," of being in charge. The man focused on catching the minor would suddenly just stop. You believe this confirmed liars story because he is not black.
Thanks for admitting that Martin's race that gives you reason the minor with no history of violence. The minor whose classmates described him as "introverted and thoughtful" would stop running for the safety of home yards away and attack the man who he was running away from.
I don't really know what's more pathetic, you hatred of African American, or your willingness to post outright lies to make it easier to support the wife beater who gets his kicks trying to beat up cops. That's the guy you are willing to compromise what little ethics you have left.
The saddest part is how the video released today from a neighbor's security camera shows what the rest of new had happened all along. The night vison footage shows Zimmerman grab the boy from behind, slam him down on the ground and kick him repeatedly. When Martin is screaming for help George callously pulls out his weapons and fires.
Unbelievable.
The press appointed Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson as representatives of the black community. Once they have been crowned, it's difficult to dethrone them. As we are all aware of, both men are Reverends and use religion as a form of credibility which somehow qualifies them to lead. Long ago this may have been valid, but not so in this day in age.
Black people need to stop listening to small minded people in their local communities. They must stop listening to the main stream media that tells them how to act and who their black leaders are. Religion should just be deleted because those who teach it in the small churches rely on myth and not science, math and many modern day concepts. They create inferior intelligence and cannot recognize it. 98% of people in prison are born again Christians. So don't be fooled. There is no such thing as magic and the true educated people know this.
Hip Hop is a credible art form. It's one thing to live the life and create the art, but be aware that it terrifies some people. And rightly so. Take a look at who mimics it the most according to the media. They are using the power of advertising to teach you how to behave. they tell you how black people are supposed to talk and sound and dress. Some celebrities perpetuate the stereotype so many young blacks feel out of place and un-natural when showing academic knowledge and good comportment.
It all starts at home. If Trayvon's parents were college graduates, there is a good chance he'd still be alive. (They actually might be for all I know) But on TV they just don't present well in white America. Looks are everything.
There are many whites who do not care for blacks as a group. (Same with blacks not favoring whites)However they may have black friends. The reason is that there really is an American culture here that binds certain people together no matter what race. Sometimes it's intelligence which is what this country needs to build.
For awhile, most people who live here wanted to assimilate and be American. But discrimination and prejudice forced many non-whites to stay to themselves and develop the group mentality. So just being in the group made you right irregardless of what your group's mission was. Now look at us. A bunch of good people of all colors with a bunch of bad ideas based on fear and ignorance.
It's a contest to see who the smartest people are. The dummies should lose but if they have a lot of guns, maybe not.
bghs1986,
Can you post a link to the video you refer to?
DukeOfDeath:
It was very kind of you to tell "The Blacks" how to live. I am sure if "The Blacks" heed your advice "They" will all live happily ever after.
I too am sure George Zimmerman made sure Trayvon's parents had no college degree, because we all know Zimmerman would not kill hoodie wearing children of college graduates.
I am really glad you are here to set us straight, I am betting you attended Liberty University?
boftx - "No one would ever accuse me of being a "bleeding heart" but at this point I have no reason to think Zimmerman is telling the truth."
The initial investigating officer thought Zimmerman was lying and wanted to arrest him.
While they wanted to arrest the wife-beating Zimmerman that night, his daddy showed up, made a few calls and suddenly the prosecutors were telling the police to cut him loose.
Imagine being one of those officers, having to let a guy, who was a proven threat to law enforcement, back out on the street. This guy who assaulted your fellow officers, who saw women as punching bags and who had just executed a teenager back out into the world.
Zimmerman is loose cannon who has no issues with targeting police. And now that he thinks he can kill at will, he will set his sights on his primary target, the police. Anyone who thinks he should be allowed to wander the streets looking for his next victim uniform needs to crawl back under their rock with all the other cop haters.
Zimmerman is going to kill a cop and you nut bags are cheering him on.
These new laws, according to some of these posters here will be a great way to get rid of spouses or ex spouses. Just get one of em to sucker punch you and shoot em. Try to have a few scrapes for the TV coverage and you're off scott free...
The original intent of the 2nd Amendment is that every citizen has a right to own and carry a defensive weapon in safety. That includes all people not just some.
The original thought and intent also presumed that most situations of citizen self defense would work themselves out with rabid gunmen being gunned down by the citizens. People were generally polite to avoid the consequences of fists, knives and pocket pistols. The scofflaws biggest fear was being gut shot with a small caliber weapon and slowly dying of peritonitis.
There were no "police" as such until later. County Sheriff's were politicians and did not possess the mandate nor numbers to police the community's safety at all times.
The first major gun control law in America was in NY City and the purpose was to disarm the immigrants and minorities of all colors. Previous to gun control every person carried something, in his pocket even if it was just a jack knife. Inexpensive rimfire "Pocket pistols" were advertised and sold openly for five or ten dollars (1-2 weeks good wages) with no licenses nor permits to own nor carry needed.
The nanny's of progressive social work brought forth the idea that they needed to tell poor people (black, latino, Irish, Italians) how to live and "teach" them how to speak English, bathe, not arm themselves, not kill each other (vendettas etc), and not listen to their "ignorant Catholic priests" instead of "enlightened progressive thought" etc. This led to the yellow press and politicians disarming the minorities so the middle class and rich (read established whites) could feel safe from the poor of any color or creed.
The middle class and rich people then safely ignored the law while the poor of all colors were prosecuted when caught. Eventually this led to the situation where only the rich, police, and criminals had weapons.
Best I could do in so few words so there are some gaps in the narrative.....
Malous:
Excellent story except the part about blaming "Progressives", It was the privileged then, just as now trying to keep all they can for themselves.
And it was as I said before, overwhelmingly old white guys.
@Jefffromvegas..."These new laws, according to some of these posters here will be a great way to get rid of spouses."
It's already happened. It wasn't that long ago two illicit lovers killed the woman's husband. The waited for him in the man's own bedroom and shot him four times and then claimed self-defense.
State law requires them to have to prove they acted in self-defense, but the police in Henderson just took the adulterous couple at their word. It was horrible, but true...http://wp.me/P2bnGV-1e
JeffFromVegas:
I don't mean to tell anyone how to live. I only wanted to make a comment and possible/plausible suggestions. Of course I don't expect anyone to take my advice.
In your attempt to be humorous, you may have dulled your point, so please forgive me for asking this question. Are you saying that my suggestion that blacks should move away from religion and become better thinkers and more educated is wrong or meant to be an insult? I also do not see how any clear thinking person could surmise that I was suggesting anything would be a panacea.
Just because a white person comments on a person of another race does not make that person a racist. And, even if that white person is a racist, his/her statement could still be correct. I'll let the public decide whether my views are right or left and what they're based on.
Let me reiterate some points about my theory based only on my observations (which means I am willing to listen to other ideas):
1 Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson were not elected to lead the black community. They were appointed by the press.
2. Black people should expand their horizons outside of their local communities.
3. Blacks (all people)should rely less on religion and more on empirical knowledge.
4. Blacks (all people) should not bow to peer pressure or have the "crowd"/"herd" mentality.
5. Media is in most cases influencing how black (all) children behave, dress,etc.
6. Parents set examples in the home.
Am I wrong about any of this? Does any of it make sense? I suppose I could be mistaken and if so I do apologize to all who are offended.
DukeOfDeath:
You asked: "Are you saying that my suggestion that blacks should move away from religion and become better thinkers and more educated is wrong or meant to be an insult?"
I say: The premise of your question is that religion dumbs black people down is, on its face wrong and insulting, and no, I do not believe you meant to insult anyone. Your question also implies that black people are not as smart as you are. I think that for you this is lofty thinking. I think you need to try harder. So do I.
Bless you.
This is my firearm.
There are many like it, but this one is mine.
My firearm is my best friend.
It is my life.
I must master it as I must master my life.
My firearm, without me, is useless.
Without my firearm, I am useless.
I must fire my firearm true.
I must shoot straighter than my enemy who is trying to kill me.
I must shoot him before he shoots me.
I will...
: {
Jeff, read the various biographies of Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge or the various New York politicians. They are all fascinating books even if some are a bit dull. This was the start of enlightenment of the checked pants Republicans and Democrats.
The social work movement was mostly formed by "progressive" female members of the upper classes. The President and, other progressive members of the upper classes, were (within reason) big boosters of the progressive, suffragette. and social work movements. Other notables were in direct opposition.
We would not find the Progressives of a century ago very radical. "Progressive radicals," of a century ago. were generally from the upper classes and did not generally believe in British socialism nor communism nor the AFL nor the AFL's enemy the IWW Wobblies. The Progressives often fought those movements.
The privileged classes (progressive or not) implemented gun laws for their own reasons mostly involving their fear of the lower classes of all races. Progressive upper class politicians under the sway of predatory steel, railroad, or mine owners sent the U.S. Marshals or the Army to suppress "radical" strikes.
Social workers were generally very well to do "idle upper class people" who, while they worked in the slums for ALL minorities (of all races) were very "patronizing" of their "clients." They saw themselves as following in the footsteps of the upper class Romans. They saw their clients as uneducated and foolish children. They brought home lurid tales of the supposed depravity and violence they saw in the slums.
A client was a person who was, eligible for clienthood, because they were in a lower position religiously, socially, educationally, morally, and often racially. The Irish, for example, often being defined by the entrenched upper class as not of the same race as proper Americans nor Englishmen.
In this light, the Progressives had no qualms about lecturing the lower classes on being "better citizens and good workers." I have seen comments about the lower classes being prone to "inherent criminal behavior." Disarming them was justified as for their own good you see.
For many Social Workers and Progressives they were inherently upper class with the patronizing assumptions of the rich toward the poor people in the slums.
Dennis I have seen a lot of people trying to blame liberals and progressives for a lot of stuff, but blaming them for the things you have proffered is beyond ludicrous.
Your closing point: "For many Social Workers and Progressives they were inherently upper class with the patronizing assumptions of the rich toward the poor people in the slums." shows the fallacy of your argument. The inherently upper class with patronizing assumptions toward Trayvon Martin is what we have seen on display by the countless republican/teabagger/extreme right winger/dictator wannabee/George Zimmerman wannabees who have posted homicidal whitewashing against a kid who had an email box filled with SAT test material and a plethora of applications for scholarships.
I'll give you a boatload of credit for a well crafted post, but I refuse to take my eye off the ball, and that is that the republican/teabagger/extreme right winger/dictator wannabee/George Zimmerman wannabees have lynched this kid and his family and friends while they are all in terrible pain.
And I don't see you showing up at Trayvon's funeral. That is your loss, and America's shame.
I've got an excellent security system, but, like many condo-dwellers, I've got but one door to my home, and two sliding glass doors going out to a patio - that has half-walls, so, I'm not able to flee my home easily and quickly (which is a safer place than going out into the open) - and I must be prepared to stand my ground!
If an intruder kicked in my door - it would be very challenging for me to get out quickly and safely - (especially as I'm getting older and not moving as fast as I use to be able to do!) Even IF I was able to get out safely, what about my right to defend the sanctity of my home and my property?
The only time I've ever been robbed in my life - is here in Vegas when I wasn't home - and guess who helped protect my home and property when I was gone? NO ONE! Neighbors saw it happening and did nothing - and were too scared to even take note of the details or assist Police in the investigation!
It's sad, but the reality is, I have to keep myself armed in my home - just in case, 24/7/365, in Vegas - because of stupid criminals! The guy in Summerlin had every right to defend himself and his home! Imagine how terrible he feels about having to shoot some stupid criminal for being stupid?
As for going out in public, good luck! Those of us that are law-abiding citizens have to plan our trips out during the day, as much as possible, as well as our routes - because Vegas changes as soon as the sunsets!
I live in a middle-class, average community - and we see suspicious types all day long cruising around looking for opportunities to do no good, and all we can do is observe (which can get you targeted by criminal thugs)!
What we really need in Nevada is EDUCATION! If we had a vibrant Neighborhood Watch Program in every neighborhood, taught by Police, and the volunteer neighbors were well educated to use the power of observation, recording and reporting - and the Police would be truly supportive and responsive (in a much more timely manner) - we'd be able to get these gangs under control and stopped in time! I am NOT advocating any violence or stereotyping like the situation in Florida! In that case, Zimmerman was totally wrong to pursue Martin and should have listened to the dispatcher and kept his distance - that alone would have avoided tragedy!
Citizens need to be more than just "occupants" of their neighborhoods - we need to know the laws, work with our Police - and respect everyone's rights to avoid tragedies! But, I'm not giving up my 2nd Amendment Right because some stupid kid thinks it's cool to lurk around the neighbor and be part of gang culture! That problem has to be resolved by parents and mentors that teach them life is hard, but it's harder if you're stupid, and stupid can get you killed quickly in Vegas!
One final note, imagine what our Police have to do all day and all night long here - constantly deal with dangerously STUPID types - it's sad, Sad, SAD!
Jeff, re-read and you will find that I was talking about the original progressives and not today's progressives.
There is plenty of smarmy opinion and jumping to conclusions, on the subject of Mr. Martin's killing, from the usual partisan media suspects on either side. I find little value in these opinions as they are usually clouded by partisan word games which obscure the few facts we know.
I also find it silly that you mischaracterize my comments that were clearly in response to another mischaracterization by you.
You will not find "liberal" used on this post by myself anywhere. The use of the word today has little to do with the actual historic meaning. One side of partisans uses it as a derogatory and the other side uses it as a compliment. hardly a word to be used for precision in comment.
Now as to how Mr. Martin is viewed? He was shot on the street by a man named Zimmerman. If Mr. Martin was defending himself and was not the attacker then he was standing his ground and was killed for his lawful efforts. I think his shooter needed to be arrested and the DA needed to decide if he should have been tried. To say much else is to jump to conclusions without any solid evidence.
The original Progressives of a hundred years a were upper class people of various party's. They stood for progress and they tended to be arrogant about the "poor" of all minorities. In 1911 the Sullivan Act was passed in NY NY and it was mostly about the condescending upper class "Progressives" of the time controlling guns "for" minorities.
Today's partisans on both sides use a superior view regarding their causes all the time whether it is justified or not. The superior view often comes at a price and that price is objectivity and valid opinion based on fact. They often state opinion as fact with only a nod toward the actual facts available.
Today's Progressives tend to be partisans who define progress in the light of their particular partisan goals. Partisans are generally passionate about their side of the debate and tend to use narratives to advance their chief goal which is winning the debate.