Trayvon Martin case hurts all guns owners.

[spanky1953]

It hurts all gun owners just like the Duke LaCross non incident hurt all college athletes. The left dictates the discussion, issues the facts as they want them heard/understood, and the MSM dutifully reports their spewage. STOP! Let all of the evidence be heard and weighed. Then let justice be done which ever way it falls. Sheesh, enough of the kneejerk armchair judge and jury stuff folks!

[WRW]

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/ ... l-experts/

interesting read

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[tursiops]

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/ ... l-experts/

interesting read

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Yes, interesting.

This article also applies strongly to the thread on "More injustice from cops "

[TimberWolf]

If Zimmerman should not have pursued and should have just called the police. I don't think it is right to chase down someone who only seems "suspicious". Keep an eye on it if you need to. Frankly, after seeing pictures of Trayvon I can't imagine him being that intimidating, especially to a 28 year old man.

Advice - The best thing for anyone if they see someone new or "suspicious" in their neighborhood is to simply say hi and be neighborly. Two reasons for this: 1) If someone is up to no good then they will know that you actively saw and identified them. 2) It is easier to perceive a threat if you can enage someone in conversation and get a feel for what their about. Obviously, this isn't fool proof but it is a tool you can use and an easy one at that. You will notice LE and even retail store loss prevention does the same thing.

[WRW]

@ turnips,
Yes, and this case shows the problem with hastily constructed laws.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[tursiops]

@ turnips,
Yes, and this case shows the problem with hastily constructed laws.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Sorry, I'm missing your point. Are you saying the Florida laws are poor due to hasty construction?

[vaeevictiss]

Turns out there may be more to this story (as expected)...

Taken from a vcdl email today...


Apparently Zimmerman saw Martin doing something suspicious and called 9-1-1 to report it to police. While on the phone with the dispatcher Zimmerman was told that he didn't have to follow the suspicious teen, which apparently he was doing. Shortly thereafter there was a confrontation that left Zimmerman bleeding from the nose and back of his head and the teenager dead. Zimmerman claims he was attacked and defended himself.

Granted i still don't think he's off the hook because he seems to have possibly provoked the altercation, but more may surface.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

[WRW]

Those that wrote that law say it shouldn't apply in this case, but it obviously does...Perhaps they should have put more thought into it.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[sigster]

Sounds to me like zimmerman hounded the kid until he got fed up and struck back, which is what zimmerman wanted because it gave him the opening he needed to shoot in what he calls self defense.

That's just speculation on my part going by what I've read but it looks like that to me.

[WRW]

My apologies, tursiops. Calling you turnips is I-Pads idea and not mine. I shoulda proofed my post.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Mindflayer]

"Stand your ground" does not mean follow someone because of your malformed idea that you're an LEO in some fashion.

[Rich]

"Stand your ground" does not mean follow someone because of your malformed idea that you're an LEO in some fashion.

That sums it up perfectly...as far as my perception of what happened

[tursiops]

"Stand your ground" does not mean follow someone because of your malformed idea that you're an LEO in some fashion.

That sums it up perfectly...as far as my perception of what happened

+1

[justsomeguy]

i'm not a gun owner, but i'm for gun rights. well, i'm not in favor of people owning bazooka's, sub-machine guns, or rocket launchers. in fact, my grandfather was a coal-miner, and he hunted, and owned guns. so i support the right. i just decided to post on this thread because i agree with the topic, and it would seem reasonable to me that gun owners would be trying their best to see that zimmerman is brought to trial (at least!).

would any of you advise your own children (17 and under who i don't think can legally carry guns) to comply with ANY stranger or person who approaches them (and who may or may not be armed)? of course not. do you think Jaycee Lee Dugard's parents would have advised her to stop and talk to the mentally insane Phillip Garrido when he approached her on her way to school? of course not. (of course, that isn't what happened, but i was just making a point).

in fact, under stand your ground, if trayvon martin had been legally able to carry a firearm he would have been justified had he killed george zimmerman as he could have claimed a perceived threat when confronted by the man.

i like to use this analogy: an armed, mentally unhinged individual could go to a florida zoo, climb into an animal enclosure, harass a dangerous animal, become frightened when the animal retaliates, shoot the animal and be held criminally responsible; however, under stand your ground, an armed person can harass a perfect stranger, become frightened when the person attempts to defend themselves against a perceived threat, shoot the other person and go free.

this is insane. you couldn't kill someone's animal if you were to provoke it, no matter how vicious or scary it is, but you can kill a person, provoked or unprovoked.

[SilentServiceVet]

"Stand your ground" does not mean follow someone because of your malformed idea that you're an LEO in some fashion.

I agree with your statement. +1

My problem with this whole case is that it has gone from a police investigation to the court of public opinion. A person can be smart; people, as a whole, are dumb particularly when they assume and do not know all of the facts. Is Zimmerman guilty? Did he act recklessly? Probably, based on the comments made to him by the 911 operator to not go after Trayvon, assuming that of course is a true statement. But now we're going to let the mob dictate what happens to Zimmerman and I would not be surprised if he is now arrested. So now the public has turned vigilante and coerced the police into doing their bidding.

Worst of all, it ticks me off to no end when politicians use incidents like these for their own agenda (yes, I'm ticked off quite a bit). Yesterday, White House spokesman Jay Carney said, "we're not going to wade into a local law-enforcement matter." Today, Barack Hussein Obama holds a press conference in the Rose Garden and says, "You know, if I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obam ... 36867.html

Really? REALLY?! How low will this man stoop? Using the death of a child in this manner is despicable.

Next the WH and libs will be using what happened to attack gun owners.

[Jakeiscrazy]

i'm not a gun owner, but i'm for gun rights. well, i'm not in favor of people owning bazooka's, sub-machine guns, or rocket launchers. in fact, my grandfather was a coal-miner, and he hunted, and owned guns. so i support the right. i just decided to post on this thread because i agree with the topic, and it would seem reasonable to me that gun owners would be trying their best to see that zimmerman is brought to trial (at least!).

would any of you advise your own children (17 and under who i don't think can legally carry guns) to comply with ANY stranger or person who approaches them (and who may or may not be armed)? of course not. do you think Jaycee Lee Dugard's parents would have advised her to stop and talk to the mentally insane Phillip Garrido when he approached her on her way to school? of course not. (of course, that isn't what happened, but i was just making a point).

in fact, under stand your ground, if trayvon martin had been legally able to carry a firearm he would have been justified had he killed george zimmerman as he could have claimed a perceived threat when confronted by the man.

i like to use this analogy: an armed, mentally unhinged individual could go to a florida zoo, climb into an animal enclosure, harass a dangerous animal, become frightened when the animal retaliates, shoot the animal and be held criminally responsible; however, under stand your ground, an armed person can harass a perfect stranger, become frightened when the person attempts to defend themselves against a perceived threat, shoot the other person and go free.

this is insane. you couldn't kill someone's animal if you were to provoke it, no matter how vicious or scary it is, but you can kill a person, provoked or unprovoked.

Now wait one second, nothing wrong with some nice sub guns! But other than that I agree. Stand your ground doesn't apply but in the interest of playing devil's advocate here is what Zimmermans lawyer would tell you:

Stand your ground does apply here because Zimmerman was not entering in a conflict when he followed Martin therefore when the violence started Zimmerman was free to "stand his ground" as he had done no wrong. Were your analogy fails is that Martin is an intelligent human that should have better judgement.

Again I disagree with that notion just representing the opposing view.

[joeshmo]

This shooting is getting way too much publicity....

[VBshooter]

Yes it is.

[Kreutz]

My problem with this whole case is that it has gone from a police investigation to the court of public opinion. A person can be smart; people, as a whole, are dumb particularly when they assume and do not know all of the facts

Once Reverend "No personal checks, cash only please" Al shows up, the truth has long since been evicted from the premises.

[mamabearCali]

This is turning into a fiasco. It is looking worse ans worse for Zimmerman. If the meida has it right--which i doubt--then he was stupid on all accounts and is in deep deep poop. However one death is not an excuse inciting violence. Those who are screaming for retribution need to shut it. The courts have just begun,this process takes a long long time.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]