The Trayvon Martin Case

[boutons_deux]

Legalized by self defense in all 50 states.

You sure are a dumb, stubborn mothe er.

yes, so TM was fully legal in defending himself against a racist, armed (safety removed from the gun) stalker.

your glee and gloating over a innocent dead is wonderful to behold.

[CosmicCowboy]

yes, so TM was fully legal in defending himself against a racist, armed (safety removed from the gun) stalker.

your glee and gloating over a innocent dead is wonderful to behold.

It's not gloating or glee head. I am arguing the law and you are just spouting bull .

The Supreme court defined justifiable self defense in 1877. It is part of all 50 states charging instructions and why Zimmerman was legally found not guilty.

Runyan v. State (1877) 57 Ind. 80, 20 Am.Rep. 52, is one of the earliest cases to strongly support and establish in U.S. law an individual's right to initiate self-defense actions up to and including the justifiable use of lethal force against an aggressor.
In Runyan, the court stated "When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justiciable."

BTW, if Trayvon is charged with assault he could attempt to invoke stand your ground at his trial.

Martins right (or not) to SYG had nothing to do with Zimmermans self defense case.

[KingsFanWithoutName]

yes, so TM was fully legal in defending himself against a racist, armed (safety removed from the gun) stalker.

your glee and gloating over a innocent dead is wonderful to behold.


I don't have (much of) a but I HAVE hard SURROGATE!

How do you remove a safety from a gun?

[CosmicCowboy]

I just noticed that "safety removed from gun" bull .

Got DAMN you make a lot of up.

[boutons_deux]

George Zimmerman Is Not Unique



The rain of bullets took the life of Jordan Davis, 18. It should seem like straightforward murder, but as the Zimmerman trial shows (especially the comments of juror B37), in Florida, all you have to do to get a jury to let you walk away from murder is to say you were scared by the scary black teenager who, unlike you, didn’t have a gun. Dunn’s defense attorney will no doubt run a “black people are scary, amirite?!” defense, and I worry now, after the Zimmerman case, that it’s totally going to work.

As Paul Solotaroff notes, Florida and the prominent Zimmerman case has created for aggrieved, racist white people “a playbook and enormous stopping power to use at their discretion.” And this should scare us, because:

But most have no discretion, as they’ve proven at the polls, where they vote en masse for men who ship jobs offshore and give the banks carte blanche to take their homes. What they have, instead, is a well-thumbed sense of grievance, which has cost two blameless teens their lives. There will be other horrors, bet the house on it. The gun laws in this country all but beg them.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/07/1...e+Raw+Story%29

[boutons_deux]

The Kel-Tec PF-9, (1+ / 0-)like many other semi-automatic pistols, does not have a manual safety; only an internal safety that prevents the gun from being fired unless the trigger is pulled.

So, the question of whether the safety was on is nonsensical. The internal safety (the only safety) is always on.

The gun is double-action only, so it does not need to be ed once a round has been chambered; squeezing the trigger actuates the hammer to fire the round.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...he-Saftey-Off#

[CosmicCowboy]

The Kel-Tec PF-9, (1+ / 0-)like many other semi-automatic pistols, does not have a manual safety; only an internal safety that prevents the gun from being fired unless the trigger is pulled.

So, the question of whether the safety was on is nonsensical. The internal safety (the only safety) is always on.

The gun is double-action only, so it does not need to be ed once a round has been chambered; squeezing the trigger actuates the hammer to fire the round.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...he-Saftey-Off#

That is technically incorrect. The gun is not ed in the holster. The significantly stronger trigger pull required on the first shot of a double action s the trigger and then releases it when the trigger breaks.

[Trill Clinton]

George Zimmerman Is Not Unique



The rain of bullets took the life of Jordan Davis, 18. It should seem like straightforward murder, but as the Zimmerman trial shows (especially the comments of juror B37), in Florida, all you have to do to get a jury to let you walk away from murder is to say you were scared by the scary black teenager who, unlike you, didn’t have a gun. Dunn’s defense attorney will no doubt run a “black people are scary, amirite?!” defense, and I worry now, after the Zimmerman case, that it’s totally going to work.

As Paul Solotaroff notes, Florida and the prominent Zimmerman case has created for aggrieved, racist white people “a playbook and enormous stopping power to use at their discretion.” And this should scare us, because:

But most have no discretion, as they’ve proven at the polls, where they vote en masse for men who ship jobs offshore and give the banks carte blanche to take their homes. What they have, instead, is a well-thumbed sense of grievance, which has cost two blameless teens their lives. There will be other horrors, bet the house on it. The gun laws in this country all but beg them.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/07/1...e+Raw+Story%29

yea i'm already preparing to read statements about how thuggish, ghetto, dumb and what a loser jordan was. black men are america's bogeyman. everyone is afraid of us unless we shuck n jive and smile.

[Trill Clinton]

does anyone disagree with this hypothetical law?

TRAYVON MARTIN LAW 1. Unless you are a member of Law enforcement you are not allowed to chase an unknown person while you’re in possession of a concealed weapon unless that person has harmed you or they are attempting to cause bodily harm to you or someone else. Following, chasing or confronting an unknown person who is in an authorized area or pubic area while you’re in possession of a concealed weapon just because you think they’re su ious will waive your right to claim self-defense should said person end up dead. If you think said person is su ious contact law enforcement instead of taking the law into your own hands.
2. Unless you're a member of Law Enforcement; following, chasing or confronting someone who has not caused you bodily harm or attempted to cause you or someone else bodily harm, while you are carrying a concealed or deadly weapon will be considered an aggressive act in itself; because that act alone automatically puts said person in fear of their life.
3. Following an unknown person while you're carrying a deadly weapon, should be seen as an aggressive or threatening act because you are putting that person in fear of their life. Also, you shouldn't be allowed to claim self-defense should that person end up dead as a result of the escalation of that act. Should that act lead to their death you should be charged with the highest degree of murder applicable to you or manslaughter.
4. An adult carrying a deadly weapon waives their right to claim self-defense if they follow, chase or confront an unknown minor, and that minor ends up dead or injured. Unless that minor has caused bodily harm to them or someone else or is attempting to cause bodily harm to them or someone else.

[Creepn]

yea i'm already preparing to read statements about how thuggish, ghetto, dumb and what a loser jordan was. black men are america's bogeyman. everyone is afraid of us unless we shuck n jive and smile.

Don't forget the glasses. White people feel better when a black man wears glasses. If Trayvon wore glasses...

[elbamba]

does anyone disagree with this hypothetical law?

TRAYVON MARTIN LAW 1. Unless you are a member of Law enforcement you are not allowed to chase an unknown person while you’re in possession of a concealed weapon unless that person has harmed you or they are attempting to cause bodily harm to you or someone else. Following, chasing or confronting an unknown person who is in an authorized area or pubic area while you’re in possession of a concealed weapon just because you think they’re su ious will waive your right to claim self-defense should said person end up dead. If you think said person is su ious contact law enforcement instead of taking the law into your own hands.
2. Unless you're a member of Law Enforcement; following, chasing or confronting someone who has not caused you bodily harm or attempted to cause you or someone else bodily harm, while you are carrying a concealed or deadly weapon will be considered an aggressive act in itself; because that act alone automatically puts said person in fear of their life.
3. Following an unknown person while you're carrying a deadly weapon, should be seen as an aggressive or threatening act because you are putting that person in fear of their life. Also, you shouldn't be allowed to claim self-defense should that person end up dead as a result of the escalation of that act. Should that act lead to their death you should be charged with the highest degree of murder applicable to you or manslaughter.
4. An adult carrying a deadly weapon waives their right to claim self-defense if they follow, chase or confront an unknown minor, and that minor ends up dead or injured. Unless that minor has caused bodily harm to them or someone else or is attempting to cause bodily harm to them or someone else.

I would delete 4. I don't believe the law should ever make you waive an affirmaitve defense. That is sort of the purpose behind having an affirmative defense.
I would delete 3 because it violates the 2nd amendment and carrying a weopon is not an aggressive or threatening act unless you show the weopon to whomever you are following. Plus if you follow someone who then slips on ice and breaks their neck, does the ice now become a deadly weopon. Fists can be a deadly weopon.
I would also include that if you witness a crime, you should be allowed to follow someone until police arrive.

Your intent is in the right place but the law could never be as broad as you suggest. I would like to see some serious scrutiny of SYG laws and lawmakers make reasonable changes.

[elbamba]

yea i'm already preparing to read statements about how thuggish, ghetto, dumb and what a loser jordan was. black men are america's bogeyman. everyone is afraid of us unless we shuck n jive and smile.

If anything, blame the media. No one carred about how thuggish Martin was until they started showing pictures of 12 year old Martin and 25 year old Zimmerman in prison orange. That was the propaganda campaing that Ben Crump pushed to get the country's attention. I actually think he wanted this outcome. He is a civil rights attorney and is trying to make this a civil rights case when it has nothing to do with civil rights. It would have something to do with civil rights if Zimmerman had been law enforcement.

If anyone has profited off of the media's running with this story it is Ben Crump who is using the Martin's to get his face out there. In ten years, Crump will no longer practice law but will be another Sharpton who races to every black related incident and cries racism. I remeber when this whole case started, Crump always said that they just want a trial, they will be happy with the outcome but they want him to face the justice system. Now that it didn't work the way he wanted, the system doesn't work. Its a load of crap and you guys are buying it.

[CosmicCowboy]

I think the SYG law is fine as it is. If the prosecutor questions if SYG should apply in a specific case or thinks it is being abused they can always take it to trial and let the jury decide.

[Trill Clinton]

I would delete 4. I don't believe the law should ever make you waive an affirmaitve defense. That is sort of the purpose behind having an affirmative defense.
I would delete 3 because it violates the 2nd amendment and carrying a weopon is not an aggressive or threatening act unless you show the weopon to whomever you are following. Plus if you follow someone who then slips on ice and breaks their neck, does the ice now become a deadly weopon. Fists can be a deadly weopon.
I would also include that if you witness a crime, you should be allowed to follow someone until police arrive.

Your intent is in the right place but the law could never be as broad as you suggest. I would like to see some serious scrutiny of SYG laws and lawmakers make reasonable changes.

i think protecting unarmed minors is indeed important and wouldn't completely delete number 4. a kid should never be put in a situation beyond their level of maturity and then killed and the killer be let off with self defense. there needs to be something there to protect the childs right to stand their ground as well.

[Trill Clinton]

If anything, blame the media. No one carred about how thuggish Martin was until they started showing pictures of 12 year old Martin and 25 year old Zimmerman in prison orange. That was the propaganda campaing that Ben Crump pushed to get the country's attention. I actually think he wanted this outcome. He is a civil rights attorney and is trying to make this a civil rights case when it has nothing to do with civil rights. It would have something to do with civil rights if Zimmerman had been law enforcement.

If anyone has profited off of the media's running with this story it is Ben Crump who is using the Martin's to get his face out there. In ten years, Crump will no longer practice law but will be another Sharpton who races to every black related incident and cries racism. I remeber when this whole case started, Crump always said that they just want a trial, they will be happy with the outcome but they want him to face the justice system. Now that it didn't work the way he wanted, the system doesn't work. Its a load of crap and you guys are buying it.

if my son died, i would give the media pictures that presented him the way i saw him too. attacking a kid and making up lies like he was in possession of jewelry from a heist is dead wrong. this case had a lot to do with civil rights in my opinion. being labeled su ious for nothing is a violation of a persons civil rights.

Don't forget the glasses. White people feel better when a black man wears glasses. If Trayvon wore glasses...

glasses+ suspenders and you're good. nobody feard urkle.

[Creepn]

glasses+ suspenders and you're good. nobody feard urkle.

lol man, white people gave that negro the Image Award 4 years in a row. I guess that was a blatant hint we all missed.

[Trill Clinton]

lol man, white people gave that negro the Image Award 4 years in a row. I guess that was a blatant hint we all missed.

mmhhmm

[CosmicCowboy]

if my son died, i would give the media pictures that presented him the way i saw him too. attacking a kid and making up lies like he was in possession of jewelry from a heist is dead wrong. this case had a lot to do with civil rights in my opinion. being labeled su ious for nothing is a violation of a persons civil rights.

You are going to be really disappointed when they don't file a civil rights case because of lack of evidence.

[Trill Clinton]

You are going to be really disappointed when they don't file a civil rights case because of lack of evidence.

and you will be very happy when they don't, so.....

[CosmicCowboy]

and you will be very happy when they don't, so.....

It's not a happy/sad thing...

There is no evidence of a civil rights violation. if there is no evidence (just like the murder case) they shouldn't charge him.

[Trill Clinton]

It's not a happy/sad thing...

There is no evidence of a civil rights violation. if there is no evidence (just like the murder case) they shouldn't charge him.

you're right, its not a happy/sad thing...its a sad/sad thing. its a tragedy that you've turned this into a moment of happiness. you've posted the lmao.emoticon several times, you have been very happy in this thread.

like i said, when they don't file a civil suit, you will be very happy.

[boobie4three]

OBAMA: 'TRAYVON COULD HAVE BEEN ME'

Speaking at the White House on Friday, President Obama addressed the verdict in the George Zimmerman trial for the killing of Trayvon Martin for the first time since 2012, when he declared that if he had a son, he’d look like Martin. This time, Obama said, “Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago.”


Finally, Obama went into the racial complexities of the Martin situation: "A lot of African-American boys are painted with a broad brush...If a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different." He did say, "As difficult and as challenging as this whole episode has been, I don't want us to lose sight that things are getting better...We're becoming a more perfect union, not a perfect union, but a more perfect union."
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...on-could-be-me

Didn't the President get the memo? The FBI last year interviewed 40 people and determined race was not an issue in this case. The prosecution even said: "This case is not about race".
Stoking the fire of racial unrest. Nice Mr. President.

[CosmicCowboy]

Another ty President averted.

[Trill Clinton]

not an obama fan at all but he spoke the truth and there will be a outcry from the butthurt cowardman contingent because of it.

[elbamba]

if my son died, i would give the media pictures that presented him the way i saw him too. attacking a kid and making up lies like he was in possession of jewelry from a heist is dead wrong. this case had a lot to do with civil rights in my opinion. being labeled su ious for nothing is a violation of a persons civil rights.

glasses+ suspenders and you're good. nobody feard urkle.

Only if acting under color of law. Zimmerman was not and therefore did not violate his civil rights in my opinion.