George Zimmerman vs. Trayvon Martin

[Taylor]

The issue really is twofold: Zimmerman's actions and the law's wording. First, as will eventually be proven, Zimmerman's decision to pursue Martin (contrary to the instructions of both police dispatch and neighborhood watch guidelines) is what led to the crime. He was wrong and I think that the court case will demonstrate this. As the author of the "stand your ground law" stated, the law is not intended to give a person the right to pursue someone. Secondly, the law as written protects Zimmerman's actions, because its imprecise wording causes it to be too broadly applied. The law is sound, in principle, but it needs to be reworded. These two issues are the reason (a) the crime took place and (b) Zimmerman has not been arrested.

The issue is not the police department. The police department cannot arrest a subject without probable cause, which pursuant the aforementioned law cannot be established if a subject claims self defense. If the police department were to arrest Zimmerman, the arresting officer could be prosecuted for unlawful detention. Claims that the entire Sanford PD is complicit are ludicrous. Sandford PD is not staffed exclusively by racists--I'm sorry, but that's absurd, especially in Florida (note that I used to work for Miami-Dade PD, Florida's largest police department). Even being very uncharitable toward Sanford PD, for every officer that we hypothetically presume is complicit, there are many, many more who are just as outraged at the situation as everyone else. Injustice has been done. They realize this. Unfortunately, Zimmerman's espoused MO, coupled with the law, ties the hands of the PD.

 

[Hunters' Moon]

I am torn about the law and this specific incident. On one hand,I think it is bad when a law is abused in the name of vigilantism.On the other,how can it be truly determined if I 'retreated' enough to satisfy the law? If someone pulls a gun on me and I run(retreat),I'd just get shot in the back.

I just watched some of what CNN was saying about the case,and of course they took more than one shot at gun ownership. It always leads to that doesn't it? Typical pansy liberals...

 

[RhyssaFireheart]

Liberal doesn't mean someone is against gun ownership. It does typically mean you're for responsible gun ownership, which clearly wasn't shown here.

The problem with the "Castle Doctrine" laws is the NRA helping to push the definition to include outside spaces where it has no place being utilized. And as Syrus already pointed out, Zimmerman ignored 911 and followed the kid to confront him. Plus there are apparently numerous 911 recordings out there showing how Zimmerman called over 40 times to report suspicious people in the gated community. Supposedly it's annoyed other neighbors as well living there.

I honestly don't understand how the police thought they didn't need to conduct a real investigation into this and/or take Zimmerman into custody even for a bit.

 

[Hunters' Moon]

Liberal doesn't mean someone is against gun ownership. It does typically mean you're for responsible gun ownership, which clearly wasn't shown here.

Not against gun ownership directly,but they want incredibly strict laws that flies in the face of the Constitution.

The problem with the "Castle Doctrine" laws is the NRA helping to push the definition to include outside spaces where it has no place being utilized.

You have a problem with the Castle Doctrine as a whole or how it is being implemented currently? There has been times where a criminal that broke into someone's house then sued the owner because while walking in the house in the dark,fell over a coffee table and broke an arm. The criminal won the suit and the defendant had to pay the hospital bills.

And as Syrus already pointed out, Zimmerman ignored 911 and followed the kid to confront him. Plus there are apparently numerous 911 recordings out there showing how Zimmerman called over 40 times to report suspicious people in the gated community. Supposedly it's annoyed other neighbors as well living there.

This is vigilantism plain and simple. This guy had a chip on his shoulder and was looking for a confrontation.

I honestly don't understand how the police thought they didn't need to conduct a real investigation into this and/or take Zimmerman into custody even for a bit.

Before the assault,there wouldn't have been much they could have charged him with,honestly. You can't arrest someone (yet) for what you *think* they might do.

 

[Taylor]

I honestly don't understand how the police thought they didn't need to conduct a real investigation into this and/or take Zimmerman into custody even for a bit.

Well, the Justice Department has launched an investigation, so it'll be truly investigated now. I think Zimmerman will be convicted. The sad/scary thing is, I sort of wonder whether he would have been absent the national outcry.

I may be socially conservative when it comes to gun rights, but I hate injustice. The more details emerge, the most convinced I am that this was a murder.

 

[RhyssaFireheart]

Not against gun ownership directly,but they want incredibly strict laws that flies in the face of the Constitution.

The Second Amendment says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." which to me implies the right to own a gun is inherent for a well regulated militia. That was written back when the militia was made up of citizen volunteers though. Now we have a professional volunteer military which has plenty of arms to bear. Nonetheless, allowing citizens to own guns is deeply embedded in the American culture, so that's fine. However, there needs to be limits and restrictions on what kind and the amount of guns that are owned in order to provide some safety for the rest of society.

You have a problem with the Castle Doctrine as a whole or how it is being implemented currently? There has been times where a criminal that broke into someone's house then sued the owner because while walking in the house in the dark,fell over a coffee table and broke an arm. The criminal won the suit and the defendant had to pay the hospital bills.

How it's being implemented currently in Florida with allowing someone to use the 'I felt threatened in my space" as an excuse for shooting someone on a public street. Someone breaks into your house? Guns away! Someone you don't like is walking down the street and you get 'scared" after confronting them? yeah, not a good reason.

This is vigilantism plain and simple. This guy had a chip on his shoulder and was looking for a confrontation.

Before the assult,there wouldn't have been much they could have charged him with,honestly. You can't arrest someone (yet) for what you *think* they might do.

Absolutely he was looking for a confrontation. Someone else posted that Martin was on his phone talking to his girlfriend when Zimmerman accosted him, so that certainly doesn't sound like he was up to anything nefarious. As for charging him with anything, they didn't even take him into custody. I'm sorry, but someone shoots a random kid on a public street and then claims "self-defense" should have at least been taken down to the station and questioned a bit more closely, not allowed to give what sounds like a BS statement and let walk.

 

[Triberius]

The Second Amendment says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." which to me implies the right to own a gun is inherent for a well regulated militia. That was written back when the militia was made up of citizen volunteers though. Now we have a professional volunteer military which has plenty of arms to bear. Nonetheless, allowing citizens to own guns is deeply embedded in the American culture, so that's fine. However, there needs to be limits and restrictions on what kind and the amount of guns that are owned in order to provide some safety for the rest of society.

Problem is where do you draw the limit. One thing that can be said and is 100% true is if they restrict firearms away from the responsible people, only the criminals will have them. On the other hand you have cases like Kennesaw, Georgia where all those legally able or not a conscientious objector are required by law to maintain a firearm in the house hold, resulting according to some studies in up to a 55% drop in Burglaries.

The fact of the matter is, a firearm is nothing but a tool, in the proper hands it is a good and useful tool. On the flip side it has a terrible potential for chaos and destruction in the wrong hands.

How it's being implemented currently in Florida with allowing someone to use the 'I felt threatened in my space" as an excuse for shooting someone on a public street. Someone breaks into your house? Guns away! Someone you don't like is walking down the street and you get 'scared" after confronting them? yeah, not a good reason.

Yea that's a big issue, the laws concerning when use of deadly force are allowable need to be clearly defined. Too broad leaves you open too narrow and they are useless.

Absolutely he was looking for a confrontation. Someone else posted that Martin was on his phone talking to his girlfriend when Zimmerman accosted him, so that certainly doesn't sound like he was up to anything nefarious. As for charging him with anything, they didn't even take him into custody. I'm sorry, but someone shoots a random kid on a public street and then claims "self-defense" should have at least been taken down to the station and questioned a bit more closely, not allowed to give what sounds like a BS statement and let walk.

I'll agree with this, in this case dude was out to cause trouble, and he should pay for it.

 

[Hunters' Moon]

The Second Amendment says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." which to me implies the right to own a gun is inherent for a well regulated militia. That was written back when the militia was made up of citizen volunteers though. Now we have a professional volunteer military which has plenty of arms to bear. Nonetheless, allowing citizens to own guns is deeply embedded in the American culture, so that's fine. However, there needs to be limits and restrictions on what kind and the amount of guns that are owned in order to provide some safety for the rest of society.

What if our own government is a threat to our "Free State"? If the government is the one that has the "well regulated militia" thus the only ones with guns,where does that leave the rest of us? Bumpersticker motto: "A citizen without a gun is a subject of the State."

Edit: An older article showing how the UN and liberal politicians have issues with our 2nd amendment.

U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms - Forbes

 

[Triberius]

What if our own government is a threat to our "Free State"?

Well I know what these folks would have said

Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton, John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry, Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery, Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott, William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris, Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark, Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross, Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean, Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton, George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton, William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn, Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton, Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

 

[Hunters' Moon]

Well I know what these folks would have said

Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton, John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry, Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery, Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott, William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris, Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark, Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross, Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean, Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton, George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton, William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn, Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton, Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

A vid of police training more than 10 years ago...

[youtube]1533Xg192sA&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL6023C2420D677588[/youtube]​

 

[Triberius]

A vid of police training more than 10 years ago...

[youtube]1533Xg192sA&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL6023C2420D677588[/youtube]​

Just more reason we need to stand up to our elected officials and say cut the crap...

First thing I personally believe is Political Parties are Terrorist groups, at least according to the USA Patriot Act, and Politicians should be treated as such.

• 
  (a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

• • 
    (1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking `by assassination or kidnapping' and inserting `by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping';

• • 
    (2) in paragraph (3), by striking `and';

• • 
    (3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and

• • 
    (4) by adding at the end the following:

• • 
    `(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--

• • • 
      `(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

• • • 
      `(B) appear to be intended--

• • • • 
        `(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

• • • • 
        `(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

• • • • 
        `(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

• • • 
      `(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.

• 
  (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 3077(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`(1) `act of terrorism' means an act of domestic or international terrorism as defined in sect

These organizations are the extremists in our society, they spend too much time trying to enact or block legislation based on party ideals that have little place in the modern US and not enough acting in the best interest of their constitutes. This is the important part of the above quote "(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion;". Wasn't it just last year we heard some of the Republicans state they were using the proposed budget as a hostage to gain what they wanted in light of a possible Government shut down? Granted the Democrats aren't any better, and probably would have done the same so I'm not picking sides here.. I say ship em all the Gitmo...

Secondly, I feel that if Corporations are to be granted equal rights as individuals, they need to face equal risk. If I get caught using my Vehicle to commit a crime, it can be seized and sold to cover costs for the enforcement office. I feel if corporation are found guilty of gross violations of work place and trade laws, then their assets should be seized by the US Government, managed by the Treasury and IRS (So employees can still work and get paid), and once damages are established assets liquidated to cover those costs, the remainder goes back to the Corporation and are released. Think of how careful financial institutions would be if they knew the risk of getting caught screwing up would mean possible seizure?

Third, the Government needs to come to grips with the Digital age, it effects our economy, and our daily lives. We need to evolve our economy to mesh better with the instant access to information that is available to us now. When ever I go to make a major purchase, I do price comparison online, not by visiting store to store. This move towards online is killing mom and pop businesses, when combined with the buying power of large corporations. I really do feel resources need to be put in place to help them transition. Standards put into place at the Federal level to help improve our internet system here in the US, caps on Costs ISPs can charge without it being considered gouging, and protections put into place so new providers can enter the market. How many of us are stuck with Verizon, AT&T, TWC, COX or Comcast simply because there are no other options?

Small Businesses need help against the mega corporations, as well to help them succeed and establish themselves. Economic growth is partly dependent on competition in the market right now that competition isn't there.

Lastly, we have to improve education, and make College affordable for everyone. I know I didn't go when I graduated from High School 17 years ago simply because I couldn't afford it. Granted I've been accepted this fall to a State College, but I've already lost a great deal of time I could have put the benefits of a Degree to use. I'd establish a Federal College system, do 4 years active in the Military and it's free for life, join the Reserves it's free as long as you re-enlist.

 

[Taylor]

The police chief is temporarily stepping down after the Sanford council gave him a vote of no confidence.

 

[kelmo]

I really do not believe this is a racist killing. It seems an idiot was allowed to patrol the streets with a gun looking for a reason to use it.

Do not get me wrong. I am all for being allowed to defend one's self. Skittles?

This case will tried on many levels. Court of law. Media. In our hearts.

This is just one tragedy. One of so many that happen daily. Innocent and some not so innocent are killed every day in so many ways.

 

[Kylie Kinslayer]

This will not be a popular opinion, but such is life I guess. The whole story on this situation has not hit yet. According to FOX 13 in Tampa at least one witness states the guy in the hoodie (Maritn) attacked a guy in a red shirt (Zimmerman) and had him on the ground beating on him. According to the witness Zimmerman was yelling help, not Martin. The witness said he was calling 911, when he came back the guy in the hoodie was lying on the grass and he assumed at that point he was dead. Also according to the report: "Sanford police say Zimmerman was bloody in his face and head, and the back of his shirt was wet and had grass stains, indicating a struggle took place before the shooting."

Now, why is this not headline news and being shown at every chance like the rest of the story? Because it does not fit into the "media's" agenda of dividing our contry every opportunity they get. They love pitting rich against poor, black against white, (or black agasinst hispanic in this case). Their goal is to divide our country as often as they can, and keep that gap as wide as possible. Those who can not see that, or those that refuse to accept that are the ones I feel sorry for.

A sad case no doubt. A child has been killed no matter who was at fault, and my heart goes out to the families for all that are involved. But sadder still are those that rush to judgement when all they have are only a few of the facts surrounding the case and run off half cocked drawing conclusions based on very limited information and allow their emotions to run rampant based on nothing but assumptions. That is never justice, and this situation deserves justice no matter who was in the wrong.

 

[Triberius]

This will not be a popular opinion, but such is life I guess. The whole story on this situation has not hit yet. According to FOX 13 in Tampa at least one witness states the guy in the hoodie (Maritn) attacked a guy in a red shirt (Zimmerman) and had him on the ground beating on him. According to the witness Zimmerman was yelling help, not Martin. The witness said he was calling 911, when he came back the guy in the hoodie was lying on the grass and he assumed at that point he was dead. Also according to the report: "Sanford police say Zimmerman was bloody in his face and head, and the back of his shirt was wet and had grass stains, indicating a struggle took place before the shooting."

Now, why is this not headline news and being shown at every chance like the rest of the story? Because it does not fit into the "media's" agenda of dividing our contry every opportunity they get. They love pitting rich against poor, black against white, (or black agasinst hispanic in this case). Their goal is to divide our country as often as they can, and keep that gap as wide as possible. Those who can not see that, or those that refuse to accept that are the ones I feel sorry for.

A sad case no doubt. A child has been killed no matter who was at fault, and my heart goes out to the families for all that are involved. But sadder still are those that rush to judgement when all they have are only a few of the facts surrounding the case and run off half cocked drawing conclusions based on very limited information and allow their emotions to run rampant based on nothing but assumptions. That is never justice, and this situation deserves justice no matter who was in the wrong.

If that's true it's still not the whole story, what provoked the assault on either side. Did Zimmerman accost Martin who attempted to defend himself, got the better of Zimmerman who then pulled a gun? Or did Zimmerman just shoot the kid? Or are there other factors we are still not privy too.

As to the Media dividing the country I agree, but also a lot of people refuse to accept reality as well, how many stories have you seen on the news where a 16-17 year old pulls a gun on a cop, gets shot and his momma is on the news screaming "They had no right!". The biggest issue with the media is though, they aren't there to report the news, they are there to make money. They need to be taken with a grain of salt. Here's a few other things I wish people would accept.

• Just because they are young doesn't mean they are "Good Kids"
• The Parents need to accept responsibility for their Children's actions in some cases.
• Just because you have a gun, doesn't mean you have free reign to use it. With great power comes great responsibility. A firearm gives one great power.

 

[RhyssaFireheart]

This will not be a popular opinion, but such is life I guess. The whole story on this situation has not hit yet. According to FOX 13 in Tampa at least one witness states the guy in the hoodie (Maritn) attacked a guy in a red shirt (Zimmerman) and had him on the ground beating on him. According to the witness Zimmerman was yelling help, not Martin. The witness said he was calling 911, when he came back the guy in the hoodie was lying on the grass and he assumed at that point he was dead. Also according to the report: "Sanford police say Zimmerman was bloody in his face and head, and the back of his shirt was wet and had grass stains, indicating a struggle took place before the shooting."

Now, why is this not headline news and being shown at every chance like the rest of the story? Because it does not fit into the "media's" agenda of dividing our contry every opportunity they get. They love pitting rich against poor, black against white, (or black agasinst hispanic in this case). Their goal is to divide our country as often as they can, and keep that gap as wide as possible. Those who can not see that, or those that refuse to accept that are the ones I feel sorry for.

A sad case no doubt. A child has been killed no matter who was at fault, and my heart goes out to the families for all that are involved. But sadder still are those that rush to judgement when all they have are only a few of the facts surrounding the case and run off half cocked drawing conclusions based on very limited information and allow their emotions to run rampant based on nothing but assumptions. That is never justice, and this situation deserves justice no matter who was in the wrong.

And yet none of this can be proven due to the lack of police work upfront. If Zimmerman was attacked by Martin, then how come photos and statements weren't taken at the time of the incident? Why were the police coaching and correcting witnesses to say that Zimmerman was the one attacked? And taking it to a bit of an extreme - even if Martin did attack Zimmerman (not likely, IMO) he would also be covered by the "Stand Your Ground" law because Martin felt threatened by Zimmerman.

But it's entirely not suspicious that this "news" that Zimmerman was attacked is just now coming out now that it's national news.