Trayvon Martin

[Balta1701]

I've argued this law doesn't apply in this situation. I'm not falling for the medias faux outrage because a "white" person killed an innocent, law-abiding, Christ-loving black kid. "RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE! GET RID OF THE LAW, THERE'S A FACTUAL SCENARIO THAT DOESN'T FIT IT PERFECTLY! RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!"

Why do you think this incident resonates so much with the African american community? It's because this is a community that is already sick of being looked upon as guilty for whatever happened.

 

And yes, it's a factual "scenario" which actually occurred and left a kid in the ground. Nice way to minimize the fact that a kid is dead.

[Y2HH]

None of you would have a problem with this vigilante justice if it was Batman. Hypocrites.

[Balta1701]

They have this already ("aggressor"). I cited to the applicable law a long time ago.

 

And i'm speaking more generally about the fact that people think this law is dumb because of an incredibly unique factual situation. Go back to the beginning of this thread - i'm in agreement with you. The police and county attorneys royally f***ed up here. Doesn't mean we should go crazy in response.

How can they possibly respond when they have an injured shooter, a shooter who says that the kid he was chasing initiated the conflict by throwing the first punch and jumping on him, supposed witness confirmation of a struggle, and a law that says that they can only make an arrest in the event it is crystal clear that the shooting was unjustified? The additional statements that were "leaked" last night only make it more clear that the police have zero options here.

[Balta1701]

None of you would have a problem with this vigilante justice if it was Batman. Hypocrites.

The batman will have to answer for his crimes, but to us, not to this madman.

[Jenksismyhero]

Why do you think this incident resonates so much with the African american community? It's because this is a community that is already sick of being looked upon as guilty for whatever happened.

 

And yes, it's a factual "scenario" which actually occurred and left a kid in the ground. Nice way to minimize the fact that a kid is dead.

 

More faux outrage, "you're not taking this seriously enough!" I live in a city where a kid is shot dead every day practically. Spare me the "won't someone think of the children" campaign.

[Y2HH]

The batman will have to answer for his crimes, but to us, not to this madman.

 

[Soxbadger]

Y2hh,

 

Batman doesnt use a gun and doesnt kill, had Zimmerman used a batman utility belt, you sure as hell better believe Id be defending him!

[StrangeSox]

Wow, this is interesting.

 

So now a neighborhood watch should hide and call the police? That's exactly what the voters in Florida were sick of when they passed this law. They gave potential crime VICTIMS the opportunity to go do something about it!

 

Yeah, it hasn't really worked out.

 

Are we really going to accept as fact the testimony of Martin's girlfriend? Would we Zimmerman's?

 

I don't see how Zimmerman gets a fair trial.

I don't know why exactly, but this post really annoys me.

 

Zimmerman wasnt a victim. No crime was being committed.

[Jenksismyhero]

How can they possibly respond when they have an injured shooter, a shooter who says that the kid he was chasing initiated the conflict by throwing the first punch and jumping on him, supposed witness confirmation of a struggle, and a law that says that they can only make an arrest in the event it is crystal clear that the shooting was unjustified? The additional statements that were "leaked" last night only make it more clear that the police have zero options here.

 

Come on, they failed to do much of any investigation until after the fact. The county prosecutor had to recuse himself because he f***ed up so bad and the state prosecutors had to pick up the file to save face. As Soxbadger said, arrest the guy at a minimum. Charge him if there's something there and if he gets off after a trial, then so be it.

[Y2HH]

Y2hh,

 

Batman doesnt use a gun and doesnt kill, had Zimmerman used a batman utility belt, you sure as hell better believe Id be defending him!

 

Batman doesn't kill?

 

Have you watched a Batman movie lately?

[StrangeSox]

I still think you guys are blowing this whole thing out of proportion. I'd like a Florida attorney or law student to actually look through the history of all the cases using this statute and find out how the courts have interpreted it. I don't see a broad, open ended right granted by this thing to start shooting people that look at you funny. I see it as I high hurdle of "reasonably necessary" such that people are given the authority to protect themselves in dire situations. In 40 pages not a single person has answered my question about why it's better to give criminals an extra layer of protection over innocent people. The incredibly rare instance where some vigilante gets away with murder based on the statute (if that could ever happen) is not more important than the right of people to protect themselves. How people think it's appropriate to second guess what someone feels is appropriate in a life or death situation is beyond me.

 

Moreover, the statute doesn't create some new right, it just codified existing law. Is the wording perfect? No, but I don't think any law is.

Ok this post is worse than tex's

[Jenksismyhero]

Why? I'm saying you guys are being unreasonable. One case makes it difficult to apply the law (according to you guys, I don't agree with that at all) and the entire premise behind giving people the authority to protect themselves in life or death situations should be thrown out the window. Step back from the ledge and realize this was one, unfortunate situation. Not every s***ty situation deserves a world-changing mob.

[Y2HH]

Ok this post is worse than tex's

 

Son of a b**** to your face for making me defend Tex, but all he was doing was posing questions about an uncertain circumstance...his post wasn't bad just because he asking questions you don't want asked.

 

Tex's questions are completely valid due to the complete lack of factual evidence in this case...not to mention the over reaching law that's standing before Zimmerman's arrest, whether you, I, or anyone else agrees with the poorly worded law or not...it's a law, and the police CANNOT just supersede it because "they feel like it".

 

[StrangeSox]

By the way it is absolutely appropriate to second-guess, that is the point of the "reasonable" legal standard.

[Soxbadger]

Y2hh,

 

Batman goes through a huge ethical dilemma over whether he should kill the Joker, these are important facts, sir.

[StrangeSox]

Son of a b**** to your face for making me defend Tex, but all he was doing was posing questions about an uncertain circumstance...his post wasn't bad just because he asking questions you don't want asked.

 

Tex's questions are completely valid due to the complete lack of factual evidence in this case...not to mention the over reaching law that's standing before Zimmerman's arrest, whether you, I, or anyone else agrees with the poorly worded law or not...it's a law, and the police CANNOT just supersede it because "they feel like it".

 

He was saying dumb things, my guess is intentionally. Neighbirhood watch five-star generals shouldn't be pursuing people with guns, period. There was no crime and no victims until Zimmerman chased Martin.

[Jenksismyhero]

By the way it is absolutely appropriate to second-guess, that is the point of the "reasonable" legal standard.

 

I guess I missed the part where people are offering tweaks they'd make to the law instead of just getting rid of it altogether.

[Balta1701]

I guess I missed the part where people are offering tweaks they'd make to the law instead of just getting rid of it altogether.

Right back to where it was beforehand, requirement to withdraw.

 

I'd also love to see much stronger restrictions on concealed weapon permits, and the removal of that clause requiring the police to be able to firmly establish a guy's guilt before arrest.

[Jenksismyhero]

Right back to where it was beforehand, requirement to withdraw.

 

So we can fight over more ambiguous language like "when it's safe to do so?"

 

Let's apply that here. Zimmerman was just tailing the guy because he thought he looked suspicious. Nothing wrong with that. Next thing he knows, Martin's on top of him beating him up. He shot. Was it reasonably safe for him to leave (and when exactly would that duty start here?) Would the duty to retreat even apply?

 

BLOW IT UP! GET RID OF IT! TERRIBLE LAW!

[Balta1701]

So we can fight over more ambiguous language like "when it's safe to do so?"

 

Let's apply that here. Zimmerman was just tailing the guy because he thought he looked suspicious. Nothing wrong with that. Next thing he knows, Martin's on top of him beating him up. He shot. Was it reasonably safe for him to leave (and when exactly would that duty start here?) Would the duty to retreat even apply?

 

BLOW IT UP! GET RID OF IT! TERRIBLE LAW!

In that case, he at least has to make the effort to retreat and be able to establish that he did so. If he can't do that and he still takes the shot, then all of the other things which led up to him taking the shot suddenly are admissible in terms of defining whether Martin was also attempting to defend himself, when under the current law, they are not, because they aren't relevant to whether or not he could have reasonably felt threatened at the moment he took the shot.

[MexSoxFan#1]

The way I look at it, if some wanna be cop jackass can stalk an unarmed kid, get in a fight and shoot him dead and turn around and cover himself with a law, then that is one flawed ass law.

 

I don't know how he can claim self defense if he initiated the confrontation when the kid wasn't threatening no one or anyone's property...makes zero sense.

[Y2HH]

The way I look at it, if some wanna be cop jackass can stalk an unarmed kid, get in a fight and shoot him dead and turn around and cover himself with a law, then that is one flawed ass law.

 

I don't know how he can claim self defense if he initiated the confrontation when the kid wasn't threatening no one or anyone's property...makes zero sense.

 

Nobody knows who initiated the confrontation, that's the problem. People are assuming Zimmerman did. They don't actually know that, though.

[Balta1701]

Nobody knows who initiated the confrontation, that's the problem. People are assuming Zimmerman did. They don't actually know that, though.

It shouldn't matter.

[StrangeSox]

Nobody knows who initiated the confrontation, that's the problem. People are assuming Zimmerman did. They don't actually know that, though.

Sure we do. Zimmerman followed him around the neighborhood and chased him on foot. He doesn't do that, no one is dead.

[Y2HH]

It shouldn't matter.

 

Based on the law that exists and is in effect...it matters very much.

 

Look, we all hate the law, but it's still the law. And that's that. You can't just choose to ignore it because you disagree with it. I vehemently disagree with laws that say I cannot walk into a Lamborghini dealership and drive out with a Countach model for free...but they exist...so I don't ignore them.