Trayvon Martin

[StrangeSox]

lol watching the daily show's coverage from last night. Great job on the media inserting itself into the story, especially with John Oliver and Wyatt Cynac.

[Balta1701]

Any reasonable person would understand that's not a gangsta hoodie.

Only because (when healthy) he's moving so fast into the lane that you can't see what he's wearing. Usually he's just a red blur.

[Y2HH]

Only because (when healthy) he's moving so fast into the lane that you can't see what he's wearing. Usually he's just a red blur.

 

When is this?!

[Balta1701]

When is this?!

Every year before 2012.

[Y2HH]

Every year before 2012.

 

So all the years that didn't end up mattering.

[MexSoxFan#1]

The cops aren't magic and aren't always within a close proximity.

So let's all go back to the Wild West days where everyone is packing heat and we can take care of our own problems.

 

I'm not an anti-gun nut, I own one but I keep it in my home for protection, I just don't like the fact there are jerkoffs like Zim running around determining who is suspicious or not and taking a police officer's job into his hands, when there isn't an obvious crime happening (unless it's against the law to be young, black and wear a hoodie).

Edited March 27, 2012 by MexSoxFan#1

[Y2HH]

So let's all go back to the Wild West days where everyone is packing heat and we can take care of our own problems.

 

I'm not an anti-gun nut, I own one but I keep it in my home for protection, I just don't like the fact there are jerkoffs like Zim running around determining who is suspicious or not and taking a police officer's job into his hands, when there isn't an obvious crime happening (unless it's against the law to be young, black and wear a hoodie).

 

Like all the jerkoffs running around with guns in cities where it's illegal to do so? Because that's awesome, too.

[Balta1701]

Like all the jerkoffs running around with guns in cities where it's illegal to do so? Because that's awesome, too.

What's your proposed solution to dealing with that? Searches for guns? Much more restrictive purchase requirements? I'm game. Might have to wait until a Republican justice retires for some of it to become constitutional though.

[Y2HH]

What's your proposed solution to dealing with that? Searches for guns? Much more restrictive purchase requirements? I'm game. Might have to wait until a Republican justice retires for some of it to become constitutional though.

 

The people doing this aren't acquiring them legally...so restrictive purchasing requirements don't do anything. All that does is make it harder for law abiding citizens, who arent the problem to begin with.

 

And this is a discussion that would require a thread of its own...because it would be a long discussion.

 

Edit, for reference, people I know (police) have confiscated many guns in their day...not one was legally acquired, registered, or otherwise. Not one. And yes I realize this is anecdotal, but it's reality...

Edited March 27, 2012 by Y2HH

[Y2HH]

Speaking of this case, douchenozzle resident hollywood piece of s*** Spike Lee took it upon himself to tweet Zimmerman's home address...probably to stupidly and carelessly incite retaliation violence. Big problem, though, this f***ing moron tweeted the wrong address, and some poor lady has been getting harassed...and should probably fear for her life.

 

What a f***ing dick.

 

I hope this f***ing asshole gets sued for everything he has and brought up on charges for potentially putting an innocent persons life at risk.

[caulfield12]

A little bit different than Mike Napoli's phone number being put out there on Twitter by CJ Wilson just to mess with him.

 

Waiting for the dust to settle on this one. Too bad there seems to be a lack of eye-witnesses and the he said/she said only has one side so far (in terms of the actual event in question, not its post interpretation).

[Balta1701]

Speaking of this case, douchenozzle resident hollywood piece of s*** Spike Lee took it upon himself to tweet Zimmerman's home address...probably to stupidly and carelessly incite retaliation violence. Big problem, though, this f***ing moron tweeted the wrong address, and some poor lady has been getting harassed...and should probably fear for her life.

 

What a f***ing dick.

 

I hope this f***ing asshole gets sued for everything he has and brought up on charges for potentially putting an innocent persons life at risk.

Is there something he could actually be sued for? It'd be very nice if there was some penalty for this sometime.

[Y2HH]

Is there something he could actually be sued for? It'd be very nice if there was some penalty for this sometime.

 

Doubtful, there is probably no legal precident for this yet, it's relatively new territory. But I'd have to say a celebrity doing something like this is absolutely careless, and endangerment in the least. Given that people like the Black Panthers have basically issued threats about bringing Zimmerman to justice and posting bounties for his whereabouts, if I was this person, I'd be somewhere else.

[mr_genius]

Speaking of this case, douchenozzle resident hollywood piece of s*** Spike Lee took it upon himself to tweet Zimmerman's home address...probably to stupidly and carelessly incite retaliation violence. Big problem, though, this f***ing moron tweeted the wrong address, and some poor lady has been getting harassed...and should probably fear for her life.

 

What a f***ing dick.

 

I hope this f***ing asshole gets sued for everything he has and brought up on charges for potentially putting an innocent persons life at risk.

 

oh wow, what a dumbass. i hope he gets sued big time.

[Y2HH]

oh wow, what a dumbass. i hope he gets sued big time.

 

I'd expect something like this to get more attention...but I'm not surprised it hasn't so far.

 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/tray...troversy-304775

[iamshack]

Jenks,

 

I believe you are incorrect.

 

From Florida:

 

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

 

Kidnapping is a forcible felony.

 

There if I believe force is necessary to prevent the kidnapping of another person, I can use deadly force.

 

That is right from the statute, which is why I created the fact pattern, explicitly based on what the law allows.

 

The law allows me to shoot someone if I think they are kidnapping someone.

The key word is imminent. Imminent is pretty tough to prove, as I recall. Imminent, at least in a legal standard, means basically "it is happening now." Not "I thought he might do it, or it looked like he might do it," but "he actually was about to start doing it, and this was the only choice I had."

 

Notice the law does not state that the person believes the commission of a forcible felony was imminent. It states that the commission of the forcible felony WAS imminent. The only thing about what the person believes that matters is that he believes the force was necessary.

 

The obvious conundrum here is how does one prove the forcible felony was actually imminent if I broke it up by using deadly force and prevented it from actually occurring? Well, the law wants to see some action taken by the offender which made it clear the forcible felony was actually imminent. Examples of such would be "he pointed his weapon at me and was in the act of placing his finger on the trigger," or "he ripped off my clothes and was about to enter me," or "she grabbed my son and was about to place him into her running vehicle."

 

There must be some very clear evidence that the felony was actually about to occur, not that the intervenor simply believed it was possible it might occur or even that it was probable to occur. Up until that point, the law expects you to take other measures. Only when it is obvious that the felony was actually about to occur (thus the use of the word "imminent"), is the use of deadly force allowed.

 

I have yet to see evidence which shows that a forcible felony was imminent. Was Zimmerman acting really shady? Yes. Were his actions illegal? Quite possibly. From what we know now, did either Martin or Zimmerman do anything which would allow the other to use deadly force? No.

 

I truly don't think there is anything wrong with the law. I think we have a fact pattern where the police failed and the prosecutors are failing.

Edited March 28, 2012 by iamshack

[Balta1701]

Isn't assault a felony?

[caulfield12]

Didn't the NRA/A.L.E.C. (American Legislative Exchange Council) write that law, basically?

 

SCOTUS > POTUS

 

I'll believe the SC is impartial when they actually do something unpredictable. Otherwise, our country is essentially held hostage by a court that is majority conservative simply because of the time period from 1968-2008 when there was only 12 years of Democratic presidents (Carter/Clinton). Those 28 years of Nixon/Ford/Reagan/Bush/Bush have overwhelmed the U.S. Constitution's checks and balances system...and the fact that the judiciary has never been more politicized or litmus-tested.

 

There used to be a point where an O'Connor, Byron Whizzer White or Potter Stewart would cross sides on an important decision. Now, there's just no way for that to happen, just like compromise between the Tea Party/right wing and the moderate wings of both the Democratic and Republican parties.

 

 

[iamshack]

Isn't assault a felony?

Misdemeanor.

[NorthSideSox72]

Misdemeanor.

Or felony. Depends on the assault.

 

[caulfield12]

American common law has defined assault as an attempt to commit a battery.

 

Assault is typically treated as a misdemeanor and not as a felony (unless it involves a law enforcement officer). The more serious crime of aggravated assault is treated as a felony.

 

Four elements were required at common law:

 

The apparent, present ability to carry out;

An unlawful attempt;

To commit a violent injury;

Upon another.

Simple assault can be distinguished without the intent of injury upon another person. The violation of one's personal space or touching in a way the victim deemed inappropriate can be simple assault. In common law states an assault is not committed by merely, for example, swearing at another; without threat of battery, there can be no assault.

 

As the criminal law evolved, element one was weakened in most jurisdictions so that a reasonable fear of bodily injury would suffice. These four elements were eventually codified in most states.

 

Modern American statutes define assault as:

 

an attempt to cause or purposely, knowingly, or recklessly causing bodily injury to another; or,

negligently causing bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon.

Some states also define assault as an attempt to menace (or actual menacing) by placing another person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury.

 

wikipedia

[iamshack]

Or felony. Depends on the assault.

For the purposes of this discussion, it would have to be aggravated.

[Y2HH]

For the purposes of this discussion, it would have to be aggravated.

 

I don't believe a non aggravated version actually exists in modern law. Even the wiki article says toward the end that assault is basically assault no matter what.

 

Modern American statutes define assault as:

 

an attempt to cause or purposely, knowingly, or recklessly causing bodily injury to another; or,

negligently causing bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon.

Some states also define assault as an attempt to menace (or actual menacing) by placing another person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury.

Edited March 28, 2012 by Y2HH

[Texsox]

Notice it's called Neighborhood Watch, and not Neighborhood Vigilante Justice, or Neighborhood Cops. As I have always understood them, Neighborhood Watch programs have always encouraged awareness and to take an interest in the members of your community. One unintended consequence of the programs is you often get the guy who failed the police academy test or some overzealous person calling the police every time someone sneezes loudly or thinks it's their duty to get up in everyone's business.

 

The preliminary facts seem to suggest Zimmerman was one of these people.

 

As for the Florida law, I think the victim they had in mind was probably someone being attacked or raped or mugged, not someone that was playing police officer and stalking "suspicious" teenagers.

 

I believe there are two issues here. Neighborhood Watch and Florida Law. The NW really doesn't have anything to do with what happened. I haven't seen where he was given any extra protection, rights, or whatever because they (he) called (him)themselves a neighborhood watch. I can call my self superman, but that doesn't make me fly.

 

I think it is also unfair to begin painting people who are willing to get involved as being some kind of fringe loonies. This victim mentality where we have to allow professionals to help makes us all victims. I understand people who are tired of being victims and are willing to fight back. That doesn't make them all crazies.

[StrangeSox]

We need more people to fight back against dangerous hoodlums carrying skittles and tea! Arm everyone!