Oh boy what a question
So you basically want blacks to follow the black codes again. "Sorry massa Zimmerman, me jus walkin home wit sum sweets suh."
Please, he didn't have to tell anybody his business. Zimmerman should have minded his own business that's what. What is wrong with you crookshanks?
Oh boy what a question
I wonder why it's Trayvon that keeps being called the "thug" even though he wasn't the one following people around with a gun.
Oh please... that's not what I said, and you know it! Trayvon was out late at night, in a neighborhood where he didn't live - a neighborhood that had seen several breakins recently. Zimmerman was the neighborhood watch person - it is his business to keep an eye on the neighborhood. All Trayvon had to do was tell Zimmerman why he was there, and everything would've been fine.
It's the at ude like yours that got Trayvon killed
Maybe because that's the image portrayed by Trayvon on his facebook and twitter accounts. Maybe because he'd been kicked out of school 4 times, had been found with a burglary tool and several pieces of jewelry that didn't belong to him, and a baggie with pot residue. Add in his twitter handle, the foul gangsta language, the tattoos and the gold grille - and it certainly doesn't portray an upstanding honor student.
I'm not going to entertain this bull spewing from your prejudice mind Crookshanks. I'm leaving you off with this: It's at udes like YOURS is why Trayvon got killed. Don't get it twisted.
Cliff's Notes.
You're moist.Trayvon acted like the thug he wanted to be - and got himself dead!
Has Florida passed a vigilante law yet?
What does any of this have to do with the night in question? You said he was acting like a thug and that's why he got shot. What specific evidence do you have that he was acting like a thug?
he was wearing a hoodie!
You just make me sad now. How dare that young man get...uppity.
Unbelievable.
I'm sorry but just because someone doesn't want to answer your questions, that doesn't give you the right to shoot him/her.
And honestly, mentalities like yours where the killing of a black person is excused for ridiculous reasons, are nothing less than insulting.
This paradigm and the manipulation of the system to excuse this sort of thing needs to end.
He gets it.
No, its the hoodie, clearly he's a very intimidating 17 year old wearing a hoodie and all...and cmon, give him a break, it was dark outside, a bag of skittles could easily (from a distance) be mistaken as a gun/knife
Crookshanks is a huge Rick Santorum fan, her posts in this thread don't come as much of a surprise. Or at least they shouldn't.
I always stop to tell my stalker what I'm doing in the neighborhood... you guys make it sound like it's a rare occurrence...
I've seen many arguments along these lines, but the problem is there is a of a lot more evidence to support Zimmerman being a dumb than there is Trayvon:
- The first issue is that a 17 year old should be held to a different standard than a 28 year old. You expect the 28 year old to be much more mature; most people make more mistakes at 17 than they do 28.
- Zimmerman violating the basic principles of neighborhood watch patrol is inarguably the primary catalyst in a 17 year old losing his life. There's a reason why police officers and Homeowners Associations explicitly tell watchmen NOT to be armed.
They aren't trained to handle potentially violent confrontations. Had Zimmerman approached a 25 year old who was actually committing a crime who weighed 200 pounds instead of 140, he very easily could have lost his own life.
- What fact can you point to that indicates Trayvon was a dumb ? He was walking home to watch an all-star game talking to his girlfriend. No witness has come forth to say what the two said to each other before the altercation so no one knows who the instigator was. However, what we do know for an absolute fact is that Zimmerman was irresponsible at best and illegal at worst in ignoring guidance from the police NOT to pursue Martin and that he was irresponsible in being armed in the midst of a duty where it's universally understood that you shouldn't be armed and that your role is simply to report illegal activity.
- The other issue is that I believe most would agree that you have a legitimate right to be upset when a random, unidentifiable individual is clearly following you. It doesn't make you a dumb for being upset about this. It would make you a dumb if it was a police officer and you didn't listen to him, cursed him out, hit him, etc but Z wasn't a cop.
Well I agree most people may handle it that way, but I will disagree in the aspect that he is not required to be nice to anyone. He has the right to be secure in his person. There is no reason to require him to answer Zimmerman's questions. He had fourth amendment rights. Yes, it probably would have changed the outcome, but it was not his responsibility to answer to someone he didn't know.
That said, I tend to believe that Martin did attack Zimmerman, and that's where all this will rest. With Zimmerman firing his gun in self defense.
Now no matter how su ious Martin may have been to Zimmerman, if Zimmerman started the violence, then he has no excuse for the shooting and should go to jail.
I believe 50 states recognize the very basic and fundamental concept of self-defense, but only a handful have the Stand Your Ground law.
I think most rational Americans, even the anti-second amendment group will accept that if an intruder breaks into your house, you have a reason to shoot them, claim self defense and not do a day of jail time because you have an innate right to self-preservation and every logical reason to belief the intruder is armed and could kill you.
However, I think most rational Americans reject the idea that if you are in a fight at a bar and getting your ass kicked that you have a legal right to pull out a gun and shoot to kill without doing any jail time. In this scenario, your life likely is not in danger. Fights occur everyday in America, but rarely do they result in death. Also, in this scenario, you have clearly taken the violence to another level.
As a responsible gun owner, why would you feel your rights are diminished if Stand Your Ground was banned given that the doctrine of self-defense isn't being questioned?
I think you are building the case for why the Stand Your Ground Law is flawed.
It's often going to be impossible to know who "started" the violence. In the absence of eye witnesses (which many crimes that lead to convictions do not have), who the initiator was will invariably end up being a he said she said scenario. Should a law exist if its enforcement mechanism relies on having an eye witness? I can't imagine forensics, DNA, etc could ever prove who the initiator was.
If George Z went up to Travyon and in the midst of an argument called him a "thug-ass Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_" and Trayvon punched him is it clear who the instigator is?
Interpreting this law strictly could arguably mean that a person could actually shoot and kill without the instigator ever becoming violent.
Imagine a hypothetical scenario where George Z tried to detain Trayvon and Travyon got upset and verbally threatened to pay George Z a visit with some of his homies and "phuc him up" but never so much as laid a finger on him. By the letter of the law, could defense lawyers conceivably use the Stand Your Ground statute to argue George Z "had a reasonable reason to fear for his life or suffering of severe bodily harm" and thus was lawfully en led to shoot Martin?
The law needs to be amended so the wording of the law matches the spirit of the law. The law wasn't intended for scenarios like the George Z- Trayvon Martin encounter.
"only a handful have the Stand Your Ground law."
handful is 20+ states, and growing. (all y'all whiteys only) Stand Your Ground Laws are inevitable, with the $200M/year NRA, its financing guns+ammo industry, and ALEC pushing relentlessly for "I whitey feel threatened so I kill you blacks" laws.
Being a dumb shouldn't preclude you from being charged if you end somebody's else life. Actually, outside of insanity pleas, I've never heard of the "dumb " defense.
I've grasped this theory clearly and I do feel that all this controversy could have been avoided if the police would have simply done a better investigation at the scene. They should have examined Martin's body for evidence and also done tests on his clothing that may have shed some light on how close Zimmerman was when he shot him. Also Zimmerman's clothing should have been tested for the same reasons. The fact that they pretty much just took Zimmerman's word as facts is the real issue, IMHO.
I think Zimmerman took on more than he could handle and Martin was simply defending himself against an unknown man who was pursuing him.
Manslaughter.
Well, first of all, the way I understand it, that law isn't what is being used to protect Zimmerman. The evidence available so far shows self defense.
I don't think anyone has disagreed with this concept. Point is, the law is the law at the moment until it is changed.
Name calling isn't a cause to be violent. Words are not illegal. Hitting is I think at least 3rd degree assault.
Again, Zimmerman's defense will not rest on the stand your ground law.
Read the law.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions