Trayvon Martin case hurts all guns owners.

[Rich]

Thanks a lot to the idiot who shot the teen in Florida. I am sure we dont know all the facts. But from what has been reported it appears to be murder and not self defense. You cant pursue an unarmed person and then shoot them. My antigun friends on Facebook are having a field day with this one.

[mamabearCali]

One idiot does not make a case against anything. I don't have enough info to make a good judgement on the situation, so I can't say for sure he was an idiot. But we are all interconnected that is for sure.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[dorminWS]

One idiot does not make a case against anything. I don't have enough info to make a good judgement on the situation, so I can't say for sure he was an idiot. But we are all interconnected that is for sure.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Yeah, but there are now TWO idiots working on making the case. In addition to the idiot that did the shooting, our esteemed (not) US Attorney General's Justice Department has now taken up the case according to the news I heard just as I left the house this morning. I guess we couldn't have expected Holder to pass up a chance to play the race card AND the guns-are-bad card at the same time..

[mamabearCali]

Yep that is a problem, but this is not a slam dunk on the race card though. The fellow who shot the teen is not a WASP, he is hispanic, might be a little hiccup in the race card play.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[KaosDad]

Having been involved with Neighborhood Watches in the past the shooter was way out of line. NW prohibits going armed and prohibits pursuit. Also, the 911 audio (from several sources) clearly exhibits that the kid was doing nothing wrong. IMHO the shooter was out looking for trouble, and he made it.

[WRW]

There's a lot going on with this case that is unknown but that hasn't stopped any of the irresponsible speculation. Of concern to me is the use of this case by opponents of Stand Your Ground as some sort of proof that the law is not in the best interest of the public at large.

Seems to me that the media is using uninformed and misinformed public opinion to chum up a frenzy of activity that will only benefit the media, as they will make money off all the interest garnered.

[mk4]

so much going on here...

1st, no matter what the msm wants to call this, it's not, in my i-am-not-a-lawyer opinion, a 'stand your ground' gone bad. the shooter, at the question of the 911 dispatcher, affirms that he is following the victim. the dispatcher even tells him not to follow. 'stand your ground' means just that. similarly, in va, the common law 'true-man doctrine' affirms no duty to retreat if you're not the aggressor and if you're in a place legally, but it doesn't allow pursuit.

2nd, regardless of any veracity to an argument of a civil rights violation, it's already being demonized as such, both in the msm and by the act of the fed doj getting involved. who knows... maybe it's being seen as a good diversion from 'fast and furious'.

3rd, interesting to compare issues between this and the culpeper incident.
-- here, we've already got pretty significant pieces of 911 record. we know the name of the shooter. there has been an accounting of the event as it unfolded. all in a really short time.
-- in culpeper, it's been 42 days and there has been almost no information. and.. what is known, has troubling conflicts.

just ruminating out loud...

[Jakeiscrazy]

Yep he definitively makes gun owners look bad.

To your anti gun friends. Give them this:
People use free speech as a means to spew bigotry and hate but they are the minority and most would agree that limiting free speech is not a good idea. They would tell you that the benefits of allowing the people to have free speech out way the risk. The same is true for gun ownership some will abuse it but the vast majority are responsible. Don't throwough out the bushel of apples simply because a few are rotten.

Inevitably your going to here that free speech doesn't kill anyone but of course we all know "The pen is mightier than the sword."

[Kreutz]

Yep that is a problem, but this is not a slam dunk on the race card though. The fellow who shot the teen is not a WASP, he is hispanic, might be a little hiccup in the race card play.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

IIRC for FBI and DOJ crime reporting purposes Hispanics are white.

The first article I read on this described Señor Zimmerman as white.

The DOJ didn't get involved when gangs of blacks...uh, "youths" were flash-mobbing white people across the country. Got into this one real quick, wonder why?

[WRW]

so much going on here...

1st, no matter what the msm wants to call this, it's not, in my i-am-not-a-lawyer opinion, a 'stand your ground' gone bad. the shooter, at the question of the 911 dispatcher, affirms that he is following the victim. the dispatcher even tells him not to follow. 'stand your ground' means just that. similarly, in va, the common law 'true-man doctrine' affirms no duty to retreat if you're not the aggressor and if you're in a place legally, but it doesn't allow pursuit.

"776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102."

Florida passed Stand Your Ground in 2005 (I believe) and the provision in (2)(a) pretty much states that an agressor can shoot, as in this case where he was on his back and being pummeled, provided that he fears for his life...

IANAL, but thats how it reads to me.

[mk4]

@WRW...
i understand 'stand your ground' and 'true man doctrine'. you can not be the instigator. you must have 'clean hands'. so, what am i missing? was zimmerman retreating or on his back and being pummeled? what i saw was the news account of the 911 dispatch conversation where zimmerman affirmed he was following martin. and... he makes a comment about <some description> always getting away. if zimmerman was following martin, it might be construed that he was escalating the situation.

[Rich]

@WRW...
i understand 'stand your ground' and 'true man doctrine'. you can not be the instigator. you must have 'clean hands'. so, what am i missing? was zimmerman retreating or on his back and being pummeled? what i saw was the news account of the 911 dispatch conversation where zimmerman affirmed he was following martin. and... he makes a comment about <some description> always getting away. if zimmerman was following martin, it might be construed that he was escalating the situation.

And that is the issue. The kid was walking away and the shooter was told by law enforcement not to follow him. So he follows him anyway. This was so easy to avoid.

[oldnavy]

Channel 4 is doing a story on how Zimmerman grew up in Manassas.

[WRW]

If, when the shot was fired, he was on his back and being pummeled, it may be an excuse under Florida law. I have read of witnesses describing that as the being the case.

That is not to say I agree with the wording.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[mk4]

If, when the shot was fired, he was on his back and being pummeled, it may be an excuse under Florida law. I have read of witnesses describing that as the being the case.

That is not to say I agree with the wording.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

was zimmerman on his back and being pummeled? can you link a report, please?

[Jakeiscrazy]

If, when the shot was fired, he was on his back and being pummeled, it may be an excuse under Florida law. I have read of witnesses describing that as the being the case.

That is not to say I agree with the wording.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

was zimmerman on his back and being pummeled? can you link a report, please?

+1 of the link from what I have read there were no witnesses to the scene. Only people who heard it.

[WRW]

Can't link with this device and computer is out. Please note the qualifiers in my previous post...I read of the scuffle but I hadn't personally confirmed.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[WRW]

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/se ... z1pQ0Xgz9R

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[grumpyMSG]

so much going on here...

1st, no matter what the msm wants to call this, it's not, in my i-am-not-a-lawyer opinion, a 'stand your ground' gone bad. the shooter, at the question of the 911 dispatcher, affirms that he is following the victim. the dispatcher even tells him not to follow. 'stand your ground' means just that. similarly, in va, the common law 'true-man doctrine' affirms no duty to retreat if you're not the aggressor and if you're in a place legally, but it doesn't allow pursuit.

2nd, regardless of any veracity to an argument of a civil rights violation, it's already being demonized as such, both in the msm and by the act of the fed doj getting involved. who knows... maybe it's being seen as a good diversion from 'fast and furious'.

3rd, interesting to compare issues between this and the culpeper incident.
-- here, we've already got pretty significant pieces of 911 record. we know the name of the shooter. there has been an accounting of the event as it unfolded. all in a really short time.
-- in culpeper, it's been 42 days and there has been almost no information. and.. what is known, has troubling conflicts.

just ruminating out loud...

Wow look what is said and happening here: http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/se ... department

Trayvon Martin's family doesn't believe that. That's why they want the 911 tapes. "So they can hear what the person that killed their son said to the police on that 911 tape before he killed their son in cold blood three minutes after he made that call," said the family's attorney, Benjamin Crump.

The boy's family is outraged 25-year-old Zimmerman is not charged with anything. "Why are they trying to protect George Zimmerman? Why are they trying to cover up the murder of Trayvon Martin. He had a gun. Trayvon had skittles. Why are they trying to cover for him?" said Crump.

Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee says his detectives are actively investigating and still need to interview a few more witnesses. "This department is not trying to cover up anything. We're doing nothing but a fair and thorough investigation," said Chief Lee.


Read more: http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/se ... z1ppGEDXDZ

Wow! it sounds like the family of the victim, is saying the same kind of things that members of this forum are saying about the Culpeper incident and the police in Florida are acting very similar to the police in Virginia. Granted, this shooting was 2 weeks ago, not 6 and the shooter was not a police officer. What happened to the "If it was you or me, we'd be arrested immediately" crowd? One thing I haven't heard anybody ask is: why was he on the phone with his girlfriend and not the police, telling them he had a crazy guy chasing him? Oh wait a minute, police are not to be trusted, they are all out to get me...

[Newgunguy]

Well nothing about the call with the girlfriend has been released yet. The kid was walking through a neighborhood just looking around and this wannabe hero chases him down. So hopefully soon we shall here if he thought he was really being chased or not by this scumbag. When you are on the phone with the police and you say that you are following the suspect and they say to stop there is no way in HELL that the "stand your ground" statute is still valid. So what if he was walking through the area, the guy didn't catch him coming out of someones house after breaking into it, so he shouldn't have even been in that position anyway. This is just another typical judicial system f-up that happens nation wide, now this could be a little about race but for people to say that guns are bad and the "stand your ground" law is flawed, is completely horse crap. What I see this as is nothing more than one IDIOT getting overzealous and trying to be a damn hero, nothing more. We all know how this will end here, if he gets the same lawyer that got that $%nt casey anthony, he won't serve any time and will be out and protected on taxpayer dollars. Now growing up in Florida, I have lots of friends down there that I wouldn't want to see hurt, but I would love to see people of all colors go and start a big riot and maybe find this guy and put him in a crab trap. You can't rehabilitate people for murder sorry, his life should be snuffed out just the same. For all the religious holy rollers that say let him be judge by whoever, where was you precious demi god then? What about everyone else in the world, don't we all deserve to have the right to live and not be in fear of getting killed? Please don't respond back saying stuff like, "well it happens for a reason and it's all part of something bigger". That is the biggest bunch of crap That has ever come from a religious person, how about how many priests molest children, is that also part of your gods plan?

Just something to think about Charles.