**Official** Trayvon Martin thread

[Anti Federalist]

So your interpretation of how someone acted, based on speculation and scant slow to be revealed evidence is enough ... OK !!!

I have stated in every single post on the legality of this that I have based my opinion on the facts as presented so far.

I'm sorry that you've gotten so emotionally involved in this.

 

[azxd]

I have quoted current FLORIDA law.

Unless you have something new, the shooter remains unjustified from a legal standpoint.

As for all the snark, I can't be CCW instructor because NH does not require a class for CCW.

Then start teaching classes anyway ... Call it an education in local laws if you want.

I'm waiting for that answer ... Which State(s) allow someone to be shot in the back and have it considered a defensive shoot ?

I'm not in Florida, so educate me ... I might want to move, and you are all I have ... Educate me !!!

And your shooter assumption is just that ... An assumption based on YOUR interpretation of Florida Law.

How about those other States ... What's the legal position ?

 

[azxd]

I have stated in every single post on the legality of this that I have based my opinion on the facts as presented so far.

I'm sorry that you've gotten so emotionally involved in this.

I'm not emotionally involved ... Talk to the name callers if you want to approach the emotionally involved.

 

[green73]

I guess I'm the only one who really doesn't give a shit about this case.

Could not fucking care less.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Then start teaching classes anyway ... Call it an education in local laws if you want.

I'm waiting for that answer ... Which State(s) allow someone to be shot in the back and have it considered a defensive shoot ?

I'm not in Florida, so educate me ... I might want to move, and you are all I have ... Educate me !!!

And your shooter assumption is just that ... An assumption based on YOUR interpretation of Florida Law.

How about those other States ... What's the legal position ?

What makes you think I'm going to answer your snark by doing hours of legal research?

I already did that, last night, for free, to answer the specific questions on Florida law, so that hopefully, it dissuades somebody from acting on what, in my opinion, is reckless legal theory based on a misunderstanding of CCW law.

I am not interpreting anything, I have used direct quotes from the state's CCW website.

That information is consistent with what was taught to me as a Florida CCW holder.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I'm not emotionally involved ... Talk to the name callers if you want to approach the emotionally involved.

Then stop responding to me with a bunch of snark.

 

[cajuncocoa]

I will repeat once again, once the 911 dispatcher told him to "stand down" he lost his legal justification under CCW, Deadly Force and Stand Your Ground laws.

I am not being contentious with you, I am asking this because I really want clarification: suppose someone felt threatened after the 911 dispatcher told him to stand down (and before the police arrive). Does he still lose legal justification under CCW, etc.?

I'm not saying that this is what happened, or that it's what I believe about this situation in Florida...I am asking strictly as a hypothetical because I don't understand how it works.

 

[phill4paul]

Assuming he isn't lying, what would you have done? I think I would have shot him in the leg or something.

If I raise a firearm you will either desist or be dead. Leg shots and disarming shots are Hollywood. If I raise a firearm I will be deadly earnest that you desist in what it is you are doing. Otherwise, I will not raise a firearm. I'm not framing this statement with regards to this particular instance. I'm just giving advise to the use of firearms in general.

 

[RonPaulMall]

I should have stayed out of the whole damn thing from the get go, like I wanted to.

I will repeat once again, once the 911 dispatcher told him to "stand down" he lost his legal justification under CCW, Deadly Force and Stand Your Ground laws.

I am not commenting on whether the law or his actions are correct, just or valid.

I am stating what the law is, and, as I have said a million times before, like I consistently say about talking to cops, I am trying to keep people out of jail.

You haven't correctly stated what the law is, and you've done no better at getting the most basic facts of the case straight. You even fail at punctuation. Quotation marks are used to denote a direct quote, to to signify your own misleading spin on someone else's words. Martin said the guy had taken off and he was following him. The dispatcher said, "we don't need you to do that".

 

[Anti Federalist]

I am not being contentious with you, I am asking this because I really want clarification: suppose someone felt threatened after the 911 dispatcher told him to stand down (and before the police arrive). Does he still lose legal justification under CCW, etc.?

I'm not saying that this is what happened, or that it's what I believe about this situation in Florida...I am asking strictly as a hypothetical because I don't understand how it works.

If you followed after someone, no.

If you were just minding your business after the call, yes.

 

[Anti Federalist]

You haven't correctly stated what the law is, and you've done no better at getting the most basic facts of the case straight. You even fail at punctuation. Quotation marks are used to denote a direct quote, to to signify your own misleading spin on someone else's words. Martin said the guy had taken off and he was following him. The dispatcher said, "we don't need you to do that".

You are correct.

Fixed.

That said, he still lacks legal justification.

 

[RonPaulMall]

I did.

Based on what's been presented, that is exactly what he was acting like.

And CCW, DF and SYG law in Florida specifically warns that you are NOT a "free lance" cop by virtue of having a CCW and you will not have the legal justification to use deadly force if you provoke or chase after somebody.


I do not know how much more clear I can make this.

You could be more clear by stop using quotation marks to denote your own personal interpretation of words different than the actual text, and you could be most clear of all by citing the specific statute which makes approaching someone and asking them a question while carrying a gun a crime in the state of Florida. We've cited the actual laws, quoting the statutes in full and asking where you think Zimmerman violated the law. You have responded by ignoring us and simply reiterating your mistaken interpretation of what the law says.

 

[RonPaulMall]

You are correct.

Fixed.

That said, he still lacks legal justification.

Justifiable homicide only requires that Zimmerman be engaged in a lawful activity and located in a place he had the legal right to be and then of course for him to be attacked such that he feared great bodily harm. If Zimmerman's account is true, all those criteria have been met and this was a justifiable use of force.

 

[Stupified]

this is classic flat out ad hominem, what does a person's background have to do with what happened the moment before Zimmerman decided to shoot Trayvon?

Yep. It's something I would expect to be passed around by Fox News and the old widows that watch that shit and are fearful of young black men. If my grandmother saw the shirtless picture of Trayvon on the news she would probably decide then and there that he was guilty and Zimmerman was completely justified.

 

[cajuncocoa]

I am not being contentious with you, I am asking this because I really want clarification: suppose someone felt threatened after the 911 dispatcher told him to stand down (and before the police arrive). Does he still lose legal justification under CCW, etc.?

I'm not saying that this is what happened, or that it's what I believe about this situation in Florida...I am asking strictly as a hypothetical because I don't understand how it works.

If you followed after someone, no.

If you were just minding your business after the call, yes.

Again, not trying to be contentious...did you mean to say he does not lose legal justification if he minds his own business? And that he would lose justification if he follows (and, therefore, becomes the aggressor?)

 

[dannno]

He "may have been a gang member"? I still have not heard anyone explain this one. I heard one person try to tell me he was flashing gang signs in the pic where he's shirtless. I had to break it to them that the particular sign he is flashing is not really exclusive to any particular gang.

Every kid is a member of a "gang", the question is whether they are and to what extent they are organized criminally and violent.

This kid had a grill.. How was he able to afford all that gold? Why was he missing so many teeth?

Whether he is technically "in a gang" or not isn't as important as whether he instigated a fight and instigated violence against Zimmerman. The grill doesn't help his case, imo, altho there certainly could be a valid explanation.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Ain't it though! It's all happening in the strangest way too.

You got that right. Every once in a while we get an incident that turns things around in unexpected ways.

While many are very concerned with parsing the details of this specific incident (which is often an interesting exercise in itself), it seems the big picture ramifications and fallout from this media-induced frenzy are being overlooked.

For example:

- Gun control or outright bans is the most obvious ramification.
- As we granting the Police some kind of ultimate and sole authority, as if we suddenly agree with those who want a disarmed and cowering society which depends upon the "authorities"?
- The above would leave us in a situation where we must call the Police (which we usually want to avoid), and thus we will need to increase their numbers and budgets. Beware asking the government to take care of you.
- Will Private Property rights go away? Can a person even ask a question of a trespasser on their property, or does that justify the passer-by to give you a good beat-down?
- What about a small gated community where people have had robberies? As a resident of a Homeowners Association community, does asking a stranger a question within your community warrant a beat-down? Who patrols this no-mans land where the Police really don't want to take responsibility? Does every neighborhood have to hire it's own armed security, on top of the Police services that are already paid for? What power does private security have vs. official government security?
- Do we want to further limit how we can defend ourselves?

These are all of the big picture issues (and proposed solutions) that may come out of this. The details of this particular incident will be disappear into obscurity. The laws and sentiments will remain for a long time.

 

[Dr.3D]

Suppose Zimmerman did back down only to be pursued and attacked by the one he had formerly been pursuing? If I were being attacked by someone and in fear for my life, I would most certainly defend myself by any means possible.

Again, we don't have all of the facts in this case and can't decide who is guilty. As for those who wish to place blame, I would suggest they also wait till all of the facts in this case are presented. We don't want to claim someone is guilty, till they have been tried and found so by a court of law.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Suppose Zimmerman did back down only to be pursued and attacked by the one he had formerly been pursuing? If I were being attacked by someone and in fear for my life, I would most certainly defend myself by any means possible.

Again, we don't have all of the facts in this case and can't decide who is guilty. As for those who wish to place blame, I would suggest they also wait till all of the facts in this case are presented. We don't want to claim someone is guilty, till they have been tried and found so by a court of law.

Too late. He's already been tried in the court of public opinion. Nothing short of a death penalty for Zimmerman will be sufficient, whether he was justified or not.

 

[kylejack]

Plenty of kids have grills, that doesn't make him a gangster. Lots of kids have them around here have them (Johnny Dang (a.k.a. TV Johnny) here in Houston is a Vietnamese businessman who is kind of the king of grills: http://www.tvjohnny.net/). Just because it's golden-colored doesn't mean it's made of gold.