Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Remember Trayvon

Posted 1 year ago on Feb. 26, 2013, 5:04 p.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

155 Comments

155 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (21335) 1 year ago

R.I.P. Trayvon. We won't forget you and you did not die in vain.

[+] -4 points by highlander (-163) 1 year ago

sniff

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

When will we rise up and change these dangerous laws thatallow our children to be shot down without repercussions?

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/14819-on-anniversary-of-trayvon-martins-death-alec-backed-stand-your-ground-laws-remain-on-books

End stand your ground.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21335) 1 year ago

Are you a racist, highlander?

[+] -4 points by highlander (-163) 1 year ago

No. I am just overcome with grief.

[-] -1 points by highlander (-163) 1 year ago

with a little wealth redistribution here, some nationalization of private property there. I am sorry, but I see very little love in this revolution

[-] 0 points by beautifulworld (21335) 1 year ago

Right. But, you do see love in an America where half of it's citizens earn less than $26,000, where people must go into debt in order to survive, where 1 in 7 are on food stamps, 49 million have no health insurance, 22% of our children live in poverty, 42% of our African American children live in poverty, etc. etc.

You see love in an immoral economic system that fails the masses, that says "Let them borrow and eat cake."

You have a strange idea of love.

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by highlander (-163) 1 year ago

Love plays no role in economic mechanics.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (26682) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Obviously - not the love of life/health

[-] -1 points by highlander (-163) 1 year ago

sigh

[-] -3 points by oIdJanet (-94) 1 year ago

I often see love in poor contexts. I don't see the relation with economy.

[+] -5 points by Spring13 (-58) 1 year ago

He did beat the shit out of Zimmerman, he definitly didn't deserve to die but he wasn't some young innocent saint child either.

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

What was Trayvon guilty of?

[+] -4 points by Spring13 (-58) 1 year ago

Nothing, but he still attacked Zimmerman after he stopped following him.

[-] 4 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

I think Trayvon was defending himself. Standing his ground if you will.

Why would you think the armed grown man (Zim) stopped following the unarmed innocent teenager (Trayvon)?

[-] -2 points by Spring13 (-58) 1 year ago

Because he was attacked by Trayvpn after he stopped following him.

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

How do you know that? You weren't there. The innocent unarmed teenager was shot and killed in cold blood. So he didn't tell you.

How do you know? Is that what Zim said? cause even the judge knows he's is untrustworthy, after Zim lied to the court numerous times.

So do you know the armed, lying, grown man Zim stopped following the innocent unarmed teenager because the liar Zim said so?

[-] -1 points by Spring13 (-58) 1 year ago

When he was on the phone with the police he eventually started back to his vehicle. Zimmerman didn't just pull out his gun and gun this kid down in the street in cold blood. Why is it so hard to believe that Trayvon attacked him? Zimmerman isn't exactly a big guy.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

The armed liar Zim is not taller than the innocent unarmed teenager Trayvon but Zim is wider and had much more upper body strength.

He was also armed.

So again, how do you know "he eventually started back to his vehicle" No witness has said that.

You MUST be depending on the armed liar Zim claims! And he and his wife both got caught lying to the judge. So.......

The armed liar Zims claims should be dismissed outright as lies right?

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Settlement=admit guilt

Trayvons family victorious over irresponible homeowners association. Where Trayvon was murdered.

http://news.yahoo.com/trayvon-martins-parents-settle-fla-hoa-233448938.html

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Please explain how the homeowners association is responsible for some freak deciding to track down and shoot this kid?

They arent. But they are the ones with money.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

They used that racist Zimmerman in their neighborhood watch. They knew (or should have known) he was reckless, irresponsible, armed, and racist. and should have taken steps to get him under control.

The homeowners association knew these facts,their lawyers understood these legal realities, that iswhy they settled.

What is your major malfunction that you can't see enough truth to stand with the victims and not the perpetrators enablers.

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

I hope someone trips and falls in your driveway and takes your entire house. Money grubbing freaks like you deserve it.

Zimmerman was a maniac, so now punish the entire community.

Settling sometimes means its cheaper than going through with years of court bullshit, FYI.

Do you think everyone who accepts a plea in a court is guilty?

You know what, dont answer that, you are too much of a disrupter to even humor anymore. Im washing my hands of you.

"I left the workplace to raise my daughter".... must be fuckin nice to be so financially well off.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Don't be a hater. I live very frugally. As I have all my life since growing up on welfare, in the projects of brooklyn. but enough about me. (and your attempt to distract with personal attacks)

Accidental falling is a ridiculous comparison. Are you suggesting the armed adult Zimm accidentally stalked this innocent unarmed teenager?

Are you suggesting he accidentally shot Trayvon?

Zimm wasn't a maniac just a racist, reckless individual of poor quality, and the homeowners association has to take responsibility for empowering Zimm, and for enabling him to roam freely with their authority. They were guilty and that is why they settled, regardless of the bullshit distraction settlers always spew, "oh well we didn't want to waste time and money" LOL. Only morons believe that shit.

Everyone involved understands that, I guess you can't help standing against the victim. The reflex comes to you so easily.

[-] 2 points by ChemLady (576) 1 year ago

Might be that they not only had the deep pockets, but also sanctioned the neighborhood watch.

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

So if you try to provide the community with some security, and one of em decides to go nuts, then it means that you lose everything?

This would be paramount to someone who helped with security in occupy going nuts, and then the entire group being punished because of one person. We had plenty of assholes in occupy, accepted everyone. While their actions are a reflection of the group in the eyes of the public, to go in and take what everyone else has after the matter is insane.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Occupy did suffer because of assholes going nuts! We took actions to control the assholes and in the end realized we couldn't.

The movement has rightfully evolved to exclude that risk.

So yeah Homeowners associations ARE responsible for the people they empower to 'watch', They should ensure that the peoplethey use are not going to overreact and murder innocent teenagers.

And Zimm didn't 'go crazy'. he was clearly not appropriate for neighborhood watch in a general sense. The people close to him knew that.

That's why they admitted culpability by settling

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

So your stupid ass think Occupy should have done background checks on people who wanted to, um, occupy?

ARe you dumb? I know you are out of touch, but are you dumb?

What actions do you speak of? Oh, thats right, you dont have a clue.

Spamming a forum should get you booted, but you are tolerated.

Stop trolling my threads.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

This is bensdads post and my thread that you are commenting on, but regardless of that, none of us 'own' threads, so I reserve the right to reply to any & all comments.

No trolling just trying to keep the racist murder of Trayvon Martin in all of our minds.

And if occupy uses people for security andthey go nuts we are gonna be blamed, and we were. We tried to check these people out (as we should) but in fact could not assure proper behavior.

We ARE still responsible.

So no I didn't say I want occupy to background check occupiers, that's you blatantly lying because your position doesn't stand up to the truth.

Try again.

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 1 year ago

It always depends on how the lawyers get the jury to look at things. Let's say your example happened. It might be argued that occupy didn't exercise reasonable care in checking backgrounds. If the jury believes occupy has some share in the blame then you get a winner in the law-suit-lottery.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26682) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Did He? Sure could not tell from the physical examination that he got a beating.

[-] -1 points by Nader (74) 1 year ago

Did you exam him or did you just see the same pictures that the rest of America saw?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26682) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

There were the 1st released medical reports from the night of the incident and the fact that they let him go with no observation period - then there were the pictures.

[-] -2 points by Nader (74) 1 year ago

If Trayvon actually caused the damage seen in the photos Zimmerman was likely within his rights to shoot him. Any of us would have done the same thing.

None of us were there though so until the actual trial starts we are all just speculating.

[-] 1 points by mideast (506) 1 year ago

please cite the specific florida law [ not stand your ground ] that allows you to shhot someone who punched you?
I think this law is called wayne's law

[-] 0 points by Nader (74) 1 year ago

Florida Statute 776.012 - "a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if 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"

Stand your ground wouldn't matter if it went down like Zimmerman said (which we have no idea of) because he did not have the option of retreating if Trayvon was on top of him.

I am pretty sure that, in any state, if someone is on top of you punching you and slamming the back of your head into the ground you can, and should, put a bullet or two into their chest.

Connecticut - "deadly physical force cannot be used unless the actor reasonably believes that the attacker is using or about to use deadly physical force or inflicting or about to inflict great bodily harm"

New Hampshire - " A person is justified in using deadly force upon another person when he reasonably believes that such other person: (a) Is about to use unlawful, deadly force against the actor or a third person; "

You can literally go state by state and find similar laws. Again, we have no idea what really happened but if Trayvon was actually on top of him, punching him and slamming his head into the ground, he would get acquitted in all 50 states.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26682) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Yes - you and I were not there. But Zimmerman did not even have a band aid when his video at the police station was taken ( after his hospital visit ) also he had no business chasing Trayvon down in the 1st place - that was and is for the police to do.

[-] 1 points by mideast (506) 1 year ago

If you have no witnesses, stand your ground allows murder
I assume that you know that these laws were written by alec

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (26682) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Yep - Koch/ALEC

[-] 1 points by mideast (506) 1 year ago

I confess - I cannont bring myself to capitalize either name

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26682) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I would prefer shoveling shit on them - but what-cha gonna do?

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Stand your ground has nothing to do with hunting someone down and murder. Self defense is self defense.

Theres 14k murders a year in this country. Why everyone has decided to take this one incident- I have posted of someone whom I knew who was murdered by TPD- is freaking beyond me.

the arguement is about stand your ground, which is insane. People have a right to defend themselves. They dont have a right to stalk and murder.

If there are no witnesses. any kind of self defense comes into play. Hello?

[-] 1 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

I agree.

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Its a total crock of shit. The entire focus has been on some law that says you can allegedly defend yourself, and it doesnt even apply in this case.

Was this in self defense? I have no idea. Its not like this is the first murder where no has been around and the defendant claimed self defense.

Total manufacturing consent. Meanwhile, people are murdered in much clearer situaions WITH witnesses, and with CAMERAS, and the coverage is ZERO.

[-] 0 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

I wish I had something more profound to say. But all I can think at the moment is we live in an insane world. Justice served is a flip of a coin. Probably always has been.

[-] -1 points by Nader (74) 1 year ago

What about the pictures that show the front and back of his face bloodied?

You are right, he shouldn't have followed him in the first place but if Trayvon is the one who initiated the fighting and did in fact cause those injuries, then this is a merely a case of self defense. Stand your ground would not even apply.

Too many people have found Zimmerman guilty (or acquited him) based off of what is seen in the MSM. How this case can attract such strong feelings, on both sides, without really knowing all of the evidence is beyond me.

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Just another example of the media testing the waters of pitch and react.

100's of examples of murder much more clear and obvious, like this one, yet they get no play:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ih0zWbVZb8I

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26682) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

It is funny how those pictures - which I have heard of but not seen - showed up weeks after the incident/murder.

Police house tune-up to help out?

[-] -1 points by Nader (74) 1 year ago

Again, just pure and rampant speculation and you admit that you don't even care about the "evidence" being presented to the public. The pictures show a cut to the back of the head and what appears to be a broken nose. If they are real, and they appear to be, the shooting of Trayvon is justified with or without a stand your ground law.

But again, you, like me and the rest of America, have no idea what really happened. Even if the MSM could be trusted they would not have access to the level of evidence held by the prosecution and defense.

So many people are willing to try and convict a person based on emotion and a CNN article. If the actual evidence presented at trial is similar to what is being seen in the media, there is no way Zimmerman will be found guilty.

[-] 3 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

We know an unarmed teenager was shot in the chest & killed. Right? If Zim didn't have a gun he woulda just been a guy who stalked an innocent kid and got his ass kicked.

And we would've never heard about it.

[-] -2 points by Nader (74) 1 year ago

Exactly. Still not sure why we heard about it. 2 guys got in a fight. One was getting the better of the other so the guy getting his ass beat pulled out his gun. For some reason this becomes a national news story.

[-] 4 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Because shooting an unarmed person has always been wrong even in the old west.

Understand.?

[-] -2 points by Nader (74) 1 year ago

If he is on top of you punching you in the face and smacking your head on the ground you can shoot to kill and you would be justified. If that is what the evidence should show during the trial there is not a jury in the country that would convict him.

This has nothing to do with what is a 'fair fight' and everything to do with defending yourself. If Trayvon was indeed beating the shit out of him, Zimmerman had every right to put a bullet in his chest. I would have put a few in there if it was happening to me.

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Why can't a grown man be a responsible gun owner and use appropriate force. Obviously shooting an unarmed teenager is excessive force. Zim was a grown man. He wasn't skinny. He had upper body strength. Seems more than the teenager. He did not have to be dishonorable, cowardice, overreact.

If Zim could not free himself he deserved to get his ass kicked.

Besides I don't think Trayvon slammed Zims head on the ground, I believe Zim slipped on the wet grass when he was illegally stalking/chasing the unarmed teenager.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26682) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Don't put words in my mouth - "you don't even care about the "evidence" being presented to the public."

You seem to be all bent out of shape trying to defend the murderer.

[-] -1 points by Nader (74) 1 year ago

Because he isn't a murderer.

You need a trial before you can be called a murderer.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (26682) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

No you can be called anything before during and after a trial. If you want to get picky - lets call him the suspected murderer.

[-] -1 points by Nader (74) 1 year ago

That is better.

Innocent until proven guilty went right out the window with this case.

[-] 1 points by mideast (506) 1 year ago

and you know this fact exactly how?

[-] -2 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

This is not complicated. Crimes were being committed in the area. Zimmerman saw someone he thought suspicious. Called the police and followed the suspicious character while talking to police on the phone. The suspicious person didn’t like being followed and attacked Zimmerman. Zimmerman, fearing for his life, pulled his weapon and shot the guy in self defense. Case closed. I’m pretty sure that what’s the jury will decide.

[-] 3 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

You left out that the police told him not to follow the innocent teenager.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

why would zimmerman have to do what the police told him to do ? he had a gun

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Racist tweets?

Seems other family members are polluted by hateful racism.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/29/george-zimmermans-brother-robert-zimmerman_n_2979949.html

i think minorities better watch out for these guys.

[-] 1 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

Racist tweets? Yea, probably. That’s sad because the incident itself doesn’t appear racist. It’s the aftermath that taken on a racist edge. This is clearly a racially charged case. I read somewhere a few months back that blacks overwhelmingly see this case a race based, while most whites see it as a self defense issue. So, assuming that is true then race is a factor.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

You mean the self defense that the unarmed teenager (Trayvon) engaged in when the armed adult (Zimm) stalked & confronted him illegally?

Is that the self defense most white people see?

[-] 1 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

No, I mean the guy on the ground being beaten by someone larger and stronger than he was. He just defended himself. If he not done so may have been killed. That’s why they call it self defense.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

The armed adult was definitely stronger than the unarmed teenage boy.

And the teenage boy was only in the process of throwing the armed adult stalker a well deserved beaten.

No need to kill the kid. Shoulda took his beaten like a man. Never any risk of death. That's a fantasy.

[-] -1 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

The reports I read said Martin was 5”11” to 6”2” in height; and weighed 158- 160 pounds. Zimmerman is reported to be 5’7” and 170 pounds. Martin was 17 years old (legally an adult). Zimmerman was 28 years old. Sounds to me like Zimmerman was attacked by someone larger and younger than him.

Are you joking? You think you would allow someone to sit on top of you and beat you and you’d just “take it like a man”? I would fight like a man the best way I could. My life is important to me. I will not allow someone to try to kill me without trying to stop it. Somehow I think you’d do the same.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

well I wouldn't be stalking anyone of course, but as I am born and bred in brooklyn I never allow anyone to get on top of me. I saw the numbers as unarmed teenager: 5' 10", 150lb, armed adult 5' 8" 180lb.

But even your claims indicate the armed adult was heavier. I saw the kid he wasn't wide from pumping iron like the armed adult was reported to have done quite a bit.

Sooo. Maybe the armed adult should have been a responsible gun owner and not illegally stalk an innocent teenager, and then not not allow said innocent teenager to get the drop on him. Certainly he should not have murder the kid because he was getting beat up.

Zimm should be put away for life for recklessly creating that situation and murdering that child in cold blood.

[-] -1 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

This case has been hashed and rehashed some many times. People have made up their minds on what happened. I doubt anyone will be changing their minds; including you and I. So no point in discussing it further.

My original point was the case IS race based when it shouldn’t be. Most blacks think Trayvon was murdered, Most whites think it was self defense.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I have no interest in that suggestion.

I KNOW that one armed adult (heavier according to you, weight lifter reportedly) murdered an innocent unarmed teenager who was defending himself against a suspicious stalker.

You wanna tell me what color I am now? How does color matter?

[-] 0 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

My point is race shouldn’t be an issue in this case. But it has turned out to be very racially charged. It’s a phenomena I don’t understand; and I’m curious why race has become such an issue here. Why do most black and whites seem to see the case differently.

Yours or my race doesn’t matter here. It doesn’t answer the question.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Your the one that mentioned race 1st, you continue to bring us back to race, and your still bringing it up.

You say race shouldn't be an issue then why do you keep makin it an issue.?

Do you have some link or evidence to support your contention regarding how different races percieve this case?

Our race might support your contention. You seem to think the armed adult (non black) was defending himself, I think the unarmed innocent teenager (black) was defending himself.

Does that mean you are white and I am black?

[-] 0 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

So you don’t believe race has become a big part of this case? Here’s the top three hits on a google search.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-04-05/trayvon-martin-police-race/54003536/1 http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/racial-divisions-define-opinions-on-the-trayvon-martin-shooting/ http://thegrio.com/2012/04/11/how-the-trayvon-martin-case-has-divided-america/

I’m not making judgments beyond my personal opinion. I’m just interested in why it’s so racial charged. It also makes me wonder if the races of Zimmerman and Martin were reversed would this have been such a big news story.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

NYC is a mix of many people, from every state, and from all overthe world. It is the places in America who are all the same that we start having problems with tolerance and inclusion man.

Better to learn how to live with many types of different people than to grow up with no differences.

You wind up afraid of everyone who is different.

The Murder of Trayvon was by Zimms own words because "black people had burglarized recent" and cause "those people always get away". And then there was the "coon" slur.

Would it surprise you if the neighborhood watch decided to stop all black teenagers?

[-] -1 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

I stand by my statement that NYC isn’t a microcosm of the rest of the US. There was TV news story a few week back about how the attitudes and beliefs of most large cities are different from rural and smaller town. If I remember correctly it said once you get a hundred miles or so outside large cities people view social issues differently; meaning generally more conservative.

Folks in NYC, Chicago, Atlanta and so on can do whatever they want. It’s a free country. But people outside the cities are resentful the big city ideas are being forced on them. Personally I prefer to live where the city fathers don’t do stop-and-search, where I can buy any large soft drink, where I can smoke wherever I want (I don’t smoke) and I can carry a gun for protection.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I didn't say "race is not a big part of the case" I'm saying in our conversation YOU have brought up race.

I see it pretty clear cut. Illegal stalking, irresponsible adult gun owner, scared kid defending himself, scared adult murdering unarmedkid.

In so far as the racially charged atmosphere maybe it has something to do with the reasoning the armed adult offered for illegally stalking the innocent teenager.

A lot of people of color feel targeted because they aren't white. Have you ever heard of that? Have you ever heard of stop n frisk.?

[-] -1 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

Sorry, following a suspicious character because there had been crimes in the area is not stalking. It does not fit Florida’s legal definition of stalking. The “stalking” term is simply wrong on this case.

As far as stop-and-frisk goes. Yes. I think it is illegal. I think it fits a news story on one of the major news channels a few days ago saying New York is the least free state. I wouldn’t live there.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Sounds like you know everything about the city. You wanna tell me how we all think in our urban areas

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Maybe you should not believe everything you see on the tv about the big city (or anything). Have you been to the big city?

People are different inside and outside of cities. I prefer living amongst many different people and not sheltering amongst one kind, cowering in fear, clinging to my guns and religion. And ranting about the big city after the oo tube spews and skews reality.

What do you need protection from outside the big city?

[-] 0 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

Even though I was born and raised on a farm. I attended college in a major city and lived in San Francisco, Dallas and Houston. My career involved a lot of travel to large cities, including NYC several times. I’m not a country bumpkin.

My observations is that attitudes and beliefs are different in urban areas. Actually very different. I guess it depends on your personal beliefs on whether that’s good or bad.

So, you continue to enjoy NYC and I’ll continue to enjoy where I live where coyotes and feral hogs a problem and a gun is useful just to shoot rattle snakes; and we’ll both be happy. I’m done here,

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I would live no where but NYC.

When you stalk people and decide they are suspicious because of their skin color like the armed adult Zim did, then you have to acknowledge he has introduced race.

[-] 0 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

Sorry, I wasn’t my intent to slander NYC. I was agreeing with you on stop-and-search. NYC isn’t my kind of town. But it’s OK with me if you enjoy it. NYC isn’t a microcosm of the US. If fact I’d say it’s kinda out of step with what the rest of the country thinks. I do not want to live by NYC standards.

So you know for a fact Martin was followed because he was black? I don’t know if that’s true or not, and neither do you. As I said in an earlier post, I think you’ve already made up your mind and won’t consider any other opinions.

[+] -5 points by Spring13 (-58) 1 year ago

Trayvon didn't even attack him while he was being followed, he attacked Zimmerman when he went back to his car.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26682) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

So Zimmerman with the late appearing wounds ( days late ) would have one believe.

He said head was repeatedly slammed against the side walk? And all there is to show for that ( belatedly days after ) is a minor cut? Yeah - sure.

Try slamming a Mellon on the sidewalk repeatedly.

[-] 0 points by Spring13 (-58) 1 year ago

The back of his head was cut up streaming blood. Slamming someone's head into the ground isn't going to make it explode like a Mellon.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (26682) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

aAHHhahahaha - yeah - funny - provide those pictures - all I ever saw on the day - from his police station visit - after the incident/murder and visit to the hospital - where they did not even put a band-aid on him or scan to check for possible brain damage - all I ever saw was a minor cut that he could have made himself while shaving his head. aAHHhahahaha

[-] -1 points by Spring13 (-58) 1 year ago

How did you not see the pictures form the back of his head, look it up and you will see it. You don't have to have just the front of you're face smashed int the curb.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26682) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Either way - front or back - the damage on Z was very very very minor - and I saw that damage on the video of him at the station on the day of the incident/murder. He had worse injuries show-up several days later ( couple of weeks later? ) - that looked more like a friendly tune-up to help sell his story.

Why are you so all fired up about defending the asshole?

Are you afraid you will not have an opportunity to do likewise if the trial goes bad for Z?

BTW - just as damaging for the killer - where was all of his blood that should have soaked his clothes if he was so badly beaten ( head wounds even small ones bleed a lot ) - his clothes looked fresh - not even stains from being on the ground in a struggle. Huh - strange.

[-] 0 points by Spring13 (-58) 1 year ago

I want to defend him because people get to emotional when it comes to issues like this. I disagree with his choice to continually follow Trayvpn. They can tend to let emotion not rationality make their decisions. He also had a broken nose.

[-] 1 points by mideast (506) 1 year ago

By MATT GUTMAN (@mattgutmanABC) SANFORD, Fla. April 2, 2012

Enhanced video footage of George Zimmerman about 30 minutes after he shot Florida teenager Trayvon Martin shows little evidence of a broken nose, the president of the Florida College of Emergency Physicians said today.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (26682) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Broken by the friendly and late ( late as in more then a couple of days late ) helpful officers to support his story? Because no such injuries were reported by the hospital.

[-] 2 points by Spring13 (-58) 1 year ago

The report did indicate a "closed fracture" on his nose.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26682) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

A closed fracture is one that has healed. A fracture is an open fracture or just fracture unspecified till asked whether open or closed at the time Open or closed = fresh and unhealed or old and healed )

[-] 2 points by Spring13 (-58) 1 year ago

A closed fracture is a broken bone that does not penetrate the skin. This is an important distinction because when a broken bone penetrates the skin there is a need for more immediate treatment.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (26682) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

No that would be a non exposed fracture. An exposed fracture is where the skin over the fracture has been split open uncovering the bone or penetrated by a broken bone. Exposed fracture.

[-] 1 points by Nader (74) 1 year ago

Spring is correct. His nose was broken, the break simply did not penetrate the skin.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/closed+fracture

I don't know what is so hard to believe about two guys getting in a fight and one ending up with a broken nose.

[-] 0 points by Spring13 (-58) 1 year ago

People tend to let their emotions cloud their judgment on issues like this. If something they disagree with is used to kill somebody and becomes a huge story then a racist and violent person like George Zimmerman is obviously guilty and the police definatly helped him look beat up because he killed a black kid.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26682) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Hey BTW - ever have your nose broken or break someone else's nose or see someone who got their nose broken? If you have - how long did you or they look like a raccoon ( how many days ) - with either yellow green or red or purple or a combination of such bruises? The swelling was pretty immediate - Hey? Did you or the person you saw look like Rocky - with the eyes swelled shut? ( cut me mick cut me )

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26682) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

The hospital report of that night did not state any broken nose. He went from there to the station for further questioning - his clothes looking neat and clean = no blood and no stains from the alleged struggle on the ground. No band-aid present at all for his severe ( not ) wounds.

[-] 0 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

The degree of injury doesn’t matter. Zimmerman was under attack, on the ground with someone larger than him slamming his head on the ground. Did you expect him to ask Trayvon how bad are you going to hurt me? I need to know before I decide to protect myself. Come on, you can’t really believe that.

Zimmerman had no idea what Travon intentions were. He didn’t know if Trayvon intended to do to him, or if Trayvon had a weapon. Zimmerman did what he had to do protect himself.

And, yeah, I am concerned that if I’m ever attacked and defend myself I might get arrested. That’s part of why this case is watched so close. People are afraid they can no longer defend themselves. Think about it, when self defense becomes illegal we are all doomed.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26682) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

So - where exactly do you live? Gated community by chance? Who are you planning to stalk and kill because they threatened you ( went to the store for a drink and some candy ) ?

[-] -1 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

Why the sarcasm? No, I don’t live in a gated community. I walk to the store all the time. Just two blocks from a super market. I also walk the hike and bike trail every day. I’m not worried about being attacked. But If I were I would everything I could to stop the attack, just like Zimmerman.

Also, this case doesn’t fit the legal definition of stalking in Florida. He was following a suspicious person because of crimes in the neighborhood. It’s a reasonable thing to do.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26682) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

BTW - Zimmerman pushed a confrontation after he was told that the police were on the way.

PUSHED A CONFRONTATION

When Trayvon defended himself from some nut job that was stalking him - the nut job coming out on the losing end of the confrontation ( only he can attest as really happened ) - he killed Trayvon.

You are so worried about losing the right to defend yourself - Trayvon lost his right.

Does your comment mean to say that if you push a confrontation and start getting your ass handed to you that you want to be able to kill that other guy? Will you also make up a story to support your murdering another guy?

[-] -1 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

We could discuss this all night and accomplish nothing. So, this will be my last post on the matter.

The exact words of the police dispatcher was in response to Zimmerman’s question.

Zimmerman: Do you want me to follow him? Dispatcher: No, we don’t need you to do that.

There was no explicit order for Zimmerman to stop monitoring the guy. Martin was the aggressor, and got his ass handed to him. It’s really that simple.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

so if I punch you, you have t he right to kill me?

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (26682) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Nope - you have a sad understanding of the situation - and - as you said - it comes from you wanting to be able to do the same as Zimmerman one day. Stalk force a confrontation and kill. Simple.


[-] 1 points by Narley (176) 2 hours ago

Why the sarcasm? No, I don’t live in a gated community. I walk to the store all the time. Just two blocks from a super market. I also walk the hike and bike trail every day. I’m not worried about being attacked. But If I were I would everything I could to stop the attack, just like Zimmerman.

Also, this case doesn’t fit the legal definition of stalking in Florida. He was following a suspicious person because of crimes in the neighborhood. It’s a reasonable thing to do. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink


See? Zimmerman forced a confrontation - one that was unnecessary as the police were on the way - then He killed the guy he forced the confrontation with. And you want to be able to do the same - be the judge jury and executioner.

As Zimmerman said prior to hanging up the phone with the dispatcher - "They Always Get Away"

George made up his mind that Trayvon was a guilty criminal - with no reason to suspect that he had done anything wrong - he did not wait for the police - as "HE" was gonna get this guy - and he did - he killed him.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (26682) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

He called the police was notified that they were on the way - his excuse ended there.

Again because you seem unconcerned about the discrepancies in Zimmermans story:

BTW - just as damaging for the killer - where was all of his blood that should have soaked his clothes if he was so badly beaten ( head wounds even small ones bleed a lot ) - his clothes looked fresh - not even stains from being on the ground in a struggle. Huh - strange.

[-] 1 points by mideast (506) 1 year ago

me
Wacky wayne and other opponents of the expanded use of background checks to prevent firearms getting into the hands of felons and others who shouldn’t be allowed access to deadly weapons frequently make the argument that a criminal isn’t going to try to purchase a weapon legally, and that he or she will simply go to some inner-city street corner to buy an illegal gun.

In fact, background checks do work to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Between November 1998, and February 2013,


FBI statistics prove more than one million attempts to purchase weapons were denied as a result of federally-mandated background checks.


More than 58 percent of these denials were due to the applicant being convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year or a misdemeanor punishable by more than two years.
Another 10 percent were due to the applicant being convicted of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence Conviction.
Almost 10 percent were fugitives from justice. Many were arrested when they came back to pick up their gun!

Yet, it is estimated that 40 percent of all gun sales are transacted without any background check at all because of loopholes such as the gun show rule, in which a private gun owner can sell a gun to another private person at a gun show without any check at all.

There’s no need to look for the apocryphal street corner —
just head for the nearest gun show.
We need universal background checks now.

Robert Checchio

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5853) 1 year ago

Amazing how this particular incident is being used against Stand Your Ground laws. A strange man who had in no way been threatened had consciously chosen to pursue Trayvon in a way that caused Trayvon concern for his personal safety and to Stand His Ground yet it is the armed assailant who is portrayed as being supported by that law. Apparently, some people aren't recognized as having a right to stand their ground.

[-] 1 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

Stand-your-ground has no bearing on this case. Zimmerman was on the ground, under physical attack, and had no way of retreating. Stand-your-ground only means you do not has to retreat when threatened.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

ALEC wrote the stand your ground law


If you know anyt hing about this, stand your ground started as a right to protect yorself in your own home. Now, if zimmerman - the ONLY living eye witness says that he felt threatened, and he can convince judge or jury of that, syg will set him free.


READ THE LAW

[-] 0 points by WSmith (1972) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

The gun is the physical manifestation of diseased and insidious RW "individualist," anti-government imprinting. The poison pill -- the inanimate Manchurian Candidate -- of and for divide and conquer victimization and authoritarian submission.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by highlander10 (-16) 1 year ago

Who?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by WSmith (1972) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Jail the murderous POS punk, Ban Guns, and severely penalize offending (careless, negligent) motorists. A car is a WMD! Vehicular homicide is murder, too. A rolling stop is assault with a deadly weapon!!

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

We are on the same team but calling for a complete gun ban would garners the kind of opposition that we had during prohibition & the ongoing drug wars, The car-gun comparison but my plan is based on a pragmatic approach centered on the fact that banning sales & manufacture does very little to the OWNED 300,000,000 guns. I think this is reasonable:


THOSE WHO CAN – DO
THOSE WHO CAN’T - RANT

YOU CAN DO:

1►
learn as much as you can about the numbers that prove what the solutions are

2►
demand a plan:

http://www.youtube.com/user/maigcoalition
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Za8SOVuGHs&list=UUu4Q7iE0z1Jw7yUjs56dvXA&index=1

alex jones – without his straight jacket!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XZvMwcluEg&feature=endscreen&NR=1

multi-millionaire gun manufacturer wayne lapierre who works for koch brothers & gets paid over $1,000,000 / year
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dar6K2STVVQ

3►
WRITE CONGRESS:

find your congresspeople

house:
http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
senate:
http://www.senate.gov/reference/common/faq/How_to_contact_senators.htm
VP Joe Biden, Gun Panel, 1600 Pennsylvania Av, Washington DC 20006


╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬


Dear ............................:

[ _ Y.O.U.R...I.N.T.R.O...H.E.R.E_ ]

While some people may want to confiscate guns, I don’t.
Here is a much more feasible, practical, logical approach.
It will not solve all gun problems, but it will
reduce the number of guns
and will
reduce the number of dangerous people who have access to guns
and isn't THAT our real goal?

My proposal - for a NATIONAL gun law for all guns & owners:
My four points are SIMPLY based on seeing a logical parallel between
cars & guns.

Please consider advocating these four steps below to help America
with our 11,000+ gun disasters:


1►
all gun owners must be licensed & tested with all guns they own and pass a written test.
all gun magazines will be limited to 10 shots, Owners will be heavily fined

If you own a motor cycle, a dump truck, and a car - you are tested in each.
Require a written gun test - to guarantee the owner's understanding of gun laws thus
being forced to know the law - via the test – also means the police know who you are - and you may be less likely to commit a crime or be careless storing your guns.

2►
every year, you must prove that you have gun liability insurance &
be background checked and prove that your gun is properly locked when not used.

Insurance should be at least as high as car insurance
[ I would like at least $1,000,000 ]
You must prove your car insurance.
Require an annual back ground check ( with fee ) to verify your suitability to own guns.
Every gun must be locked in a gun case or have a trigger lock.

3►
as the owner of a gun, you are legally responsible for what is done with it.

You are required to report if your gun is missing within 48 hours,
The owner will be much less likely to leave a gun accessible to a family member or thief.

4►
every gun must be registered and tested & a sample fired bullet stored by the police

Knowing that your gun & its bullets are so easily traced will make you think before using it.

additionally -

Gun fees [ licenses fees & registration fees & fines ] should be
high enough to create a very substantial gun buy-back program

Penalties must be very high in money & jail time -
especially after the first offense

No citizens ( except dealers & collectors ) need more than a small number of guns

Gun registration fees should be higher for more guns & for bigger guns.

The nra will fight against this –
but will be balanced by the insurance companies fighting for it

But the nra may be in favor of this when the nra emplyees –
the gun companies - understand that gun owners
can get paid to turn in their old gun and will be able to buy a new gun -
with an INTEGRATED lock .

If we legalize drugs, we will clear out jail cells to fill with gun law breakers
and free up police "time" for real crime investigation

We WILL get higher compliance and lower opposition if we use high fees & buyback.

Take a position of reducing guns, like assault weapons such as
semi-automatic rifles & pistols
rather than punishing a gun nut who spent $10,000 on an armory.

LBJ proposed a gun plan similar to the above 4 point plan

***


Some real 2011 / 2012 gun statistics:

VERY IMPORTANT:
The 1994 gun "ban" did NOT ban assault weapons.
It banned the MANUFACTURE of assault weapons.

Americans own almost half of all civilian owned guns in the world.
Per 100,000: America: 88,880 guns owned ; 2.97 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: England.…: 6,200 guns owned ; 0.07 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: Austrailia: 15,000 guns owned ; 0.14 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: Canada…: 30,800 guns owned ; 0.51 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: France….: 31,000 guns owned ; 0.06 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: Japan……..: 1,000 guns owned ; 0.08 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: Israel……..: 7,300 guns owned ; 0.90 homicides Per 100,000


http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/period-ending-march-2012/rft-annual-trend-and-demographic-tables-2011-12.xls
The above link is to England police statistics - see table D19

Is the nra & its trolls claiming that we will fail, where England & Australia succeeded in reducing gun deaths substantially by legislation?
Did England ban violence in movies? Did it legalize drugs?


Statistics clearly prove that the number of guns adds to the risk of homicides.

More complex is the effect of gun laws and restrictions.

When Australia had a massacre in 1996 when 35 people were killed, gun laws were substantially strengthened and a major buy-back was instituted.
There has not been an incident in Australia since then.
Of course, they did not have the benefit of the nra.

In 2011, there were 11,000+ gun homicides in America
In 2011, there were 35 gun deaths in England

For 2011, the average Murder Rate in Death Penalty States was 4.7,
while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.1

For 2011, the murder rates were highest in red state regions:
Per 100,000: South 5.5 Midwest 4.5 West 4.2 Northeast 3.9

Scalia - yes that Scalia - has stated the AR15s are NOT “protected” by Article 2 and that government can regulate them
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that there are "undoubtedly" limits to a person's right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, but that future court cases will have to decide where to draw the line. That link could be between you and an bushmaster.
During an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," Scalia was asked whether lawmakers have the right to ban high-capacity gun magazines without violating a person's constitutional right to bear arms. "We'll see," Scalia said, suggesting that future court cases will determine what limitations on modern-day weapons are permissible.
"Some limitations undoubtedly are permissible because there were some that were acknowledged at the time" the Constitution was written, Scalia said. He cited a practice from that era known as "frighting," where people "carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people. That was, I believe, a misdemeanor."
"So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed," Scalia said. "What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time."
The conservative justice notably authored the Supreme Court's 2008 opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, which ruled that the Second Amendment protects a person's right to bear arms. The court ruled that "the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."
Scalia pointed out that that the Second Amendment "obviously" doesn't apply to weapons that can't be hand-carried, and modern-day weapons like "hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes" weren't factored in at the time of the writing of the Constitution.
"My starting point and probably my ending point will be what limitations are within the understood limitations that the society had at the time," he said. "They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne. So we'll see what those limitations are as applied to modern weapons."

[-] 0 points by WSmith (1972) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Yes! What you said!

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Cars start with keys, not tests. Thousands of people drive-if not millions-illegally, never having taken any kind of test. Guns are the same thing. People steal guns all the time, or use guns that don't belong to them. People bent on illegal behavior will do it whether they've been "tested" or not.

And cars being driven by those legally driving them or illegally driving them kill 3 times the number of people that guns do every year.

According to the FBI's own data, more people died in 2011 from being hit with "personal weapons-hands, feet etc" than from shotguns and rifles COMBINED. And more people died as a result of blunt objects like hammers and clubs than EITHER shotguns or rifles. None of those (feet, hands, hammers, clubs) weapons require a written or operating test to use either.

Let's ban them as well.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Some people complain that comparing USA with 11,000 gun deaths to England with 35 gun deaths is not appropriate because England is nothing like USA, so here is a same country comparison:


Tougher laws & gun buyback on target
_January 15, 2013 Andrew Leigh

Since the 1997 gun buyback, your chance of being a victim of gun violence has more than halved.

To understand the policy success of the National Firearms Agreement, it's important to recognise precisely what happened. Alongside the gun buyback, what had been a patchwork of state and territory regulations was strengthened and harmonised. Self-loading rifles, self-loading shotguns and pump-action shotguns were banned. Firearm owners were required to obtain licences and register their weapons.

While the changes were backed by the then Labor opposition, political credit must go to then prime minister John Howard and National Party leader Tim Fischer for standing up to the hardliners in their own parties. They paid a short-term electoral price but history will judge them well.

In the 1990s some argued that the gun buyback would make no difference to the firearms homicide and suicide rates. Yet careful studies have shown otherwise. In the decade before Port Arthur, Australia had an average of one mass shooting (involving five or more deaths) every year. Since then, we have not had a single mass shooting. The odds of this being a coincidence are less than one in 100.

The gun buyback also had some unexpected payoffs. While at the Australian National University, in work with my former academic colleague Christine Neill, I looked at the effect of the Australian gun buyback on firearm suicide and homicide rates. Shocking as mass shootings are, they represent a tiny fraction of all gun deaths. If there's a gun in your home, the person most likely to kill you with it is yourself, followed by your spouse.

Neill and I found that the firearm suicide and homicide rates more than halved after the Australian gun buyback. Although the gun death rate was falling before 1997, it accelerated downwards after the buyback. Looking across states, we also found that jurisdictions where more guns were bought back experienced a greater reduction in firearms homicide and suicide.

We estimate that the Australian gun buyback continues to save about 200 lives per year. That means thousands of people are walking the streets today who would not be alive without the National Firearms Agreement. Other work, including that by public health researchers Simon Chapman, Philip Alpers, Kingsley Agho and Michael Jones, reaches a similar conclusion.

For the United States, where Alpers will present research on the Australian experience at the Summit on Reducing Gun Violence in America this week, reform is tougher. According to the General Social Survey, 32 per cent of US households own a gun, and a patchwork of city and state laws means that restrictions in one jurisdiction are often undercut by people travelling interstate to buy a weapon.

Historically, the US National Rifle Association was a moderate body, akin to some Australian shooting groups. It supported the first federal gun laws in the 1930s, and backed a ban on cheap ''Saturday night specials'' in the 1960s. Since the 1977 ''Cincinnati Revolt'', when hardliners took over, the NRA has opposed all restrictions on firearms ownership, including bans on assault rifles and armour-piercing bullets (''cop killers'').
Members of Congress rate the NRA the most powerful lobbying organisation in the nation.

The challenge for American legislators today is to stand up to these powerful extremists, and follow the example of Australia's leaders in 1996. With 86 Americans dying each day because of gun accidents, suicides or homicides, perhaps our experience can persuade sensible US legislators that there is a better way. As in Australia, the onus is on the conservative side of politics.

For Australia, the challenges in firearms policy are more modest, but still real. All states and territories should heed the call from the Minister for Justice, Jason Clare, to implement a national firearms register. This will help to keep track of weapons when they are sold or their owners move interstate. And it will help to ensure that Australian firearms do not fall into the wrong hands.

Andrew Leigh is the federal member for Fraser, and a former professor of economics at the Australian National University.

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

"Some people complain that comparing USA with 11,000 gun deaths to England with 35 gun deaths is not appropriate because England is nothing like USA, so here is a same country comparison"

Um....a "same country comparison" means you have to compare the same country to itself. You cannot compare the USA to another country that doesn't have the same population, the same demographics, the same cultures, the same mentality.

In what way do you see Australia and the USA as "the same"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

There are many studies listed under "Contention over effects of the Laws" that say there is no conclusive proof that the gun buy back program on it's own had any effect on the overall number of murders/suicides.

Leigh's work was done using modeled statistical estimates, not actual facts and data records.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

ignorance is bliss
the camparison is Australia before new gun laws to Australia after new gun laws

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Great for Australia. But you cannot then attempt to correlate "Australia before and after" with "America before and after" because you are doing the EXACT same thing that "people complain about" which is comparing TWO different countries and the number of deaths in each one, to each other.

If all you wanted to do was discuss Australia, then fine. What does it have to do with the US?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

also you cant compare them because the speak a different language and the eat a lot of lamb

[-] 0 points by Nader (74) 1 year ago

Totally agree with the premise of the cartoon.

I have no idea what it has to do with Trayvon though. Very few people know what actually happened that night. One of them is dead. All this support for and speculation about both Zimmerman and Martin is a massive waste of breath and time because no one really knows what happened.

The whole stand your ground thing may even prove to have nothing to do with it because if the story really played out the way Zimmerman described it he had every right to shoot Trayvon, stand your ground or not. Again, we have no idea what happened though.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

If reasonable gun control was in place, this probably would not have happened.
I think defense WILL "invoke" stand your ground as defense.
I hope the trial is over soon
Trayvon's parents have been phenominal demanding justice - not v e ngence

[-] 0 points by justiceforzim (-17) 1 year ago

Stand your ground has nothing to do with it, other than to whip up the leftist gun grabbers. It was self defense. Zimmerman or his attorneys NEVER INVOKED SYG,

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Denounce this racist cop.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/04/police-sergeant-fired-over-trayvon-martin-shooting-targets/

We need YOUR voice to join in denouncing this racist behavior.

Are you with us.?

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Remember the hundreds of thousands of civilians that have died in these wars.

You root for a president killing civilians with drones and arms child soldiers in foreign regimes.

Think about it.

We should remember Trayvon. And we should also remember our government kills way more civilians with violent weapons than the civilian population.

Where do you think gun culture gets a lot of it's umph? The military and the wars. The most popular video games are based on the recent wars. Call of Duty and all those games. Children shooting each other in their basements dreaming of having guns.

I wish all the "ban guns" people would speak up about banning drone strikes and ending wars and demilitarizing the police. As well as make suggestions of providing opportunity to steer people away from resorting to a life that utilizes gun violence. This means implementing reforms for economic equality.

I wish all the "pro guns" people saying "constitution" would speak up about the assaults on freedom of speech, the brutality against protesters, spying on Americans, and acting within the constitution in acts of war. Or maybe mention the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This means implementing reforms for economic equality.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

you are a disgrace
you do exactly what faux does - you translate what I say and spin it to suit yourself
Quote me - if you dare - "killing civilians and arming child soldiers"
FYI - I have marched in MANY anti war demonstrations and have been arrested for it

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

You are a hypocrite. You speak against weapons as you support someone killing civilians with violent weapons.

If you vote for someone who votes to keep this country at war, You are pro-war.

That is all there is to it. Accept the responsibility behind your vote.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Which one requires a 15 year old to be able to handle it?

Gimme a break. Any dumb teenager can pass a drivers test. Its meaningless. Its just another means of control.

32,000 deaths via autos last year. Clearly the "test" sucks.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

11,000 gun deaths in USA
35 gun deaths in England
yes, wayne - I know England bans violent video games & violence in movies & full psychoanalysis for gun owners

[-] 0 points by Spring13 (-58) 1 year ago

But how high are England's violent crime rates like stabbings, beatings and robberies..

[-] -2 points by highlander10 (-16) 1 year ago

Trevon - one of perhaps 9500 black people killed since feb 26,2012; and one of perhaps over a million black people born in that same time.

[-] -2 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Murder is now legal in California aaand Florida........

[-] -3 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Stand your ground will not apply in this instance. Its being used as the defense, it doesnt mean its going to hold up.

Stand your ground is not a pass to stalk people and act as the judge, jury and executioner.

Murder, however, has been legal in the entire country, for a very long time, if you have enough money, as history has proven.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Justified homicide, any sort, is still homicide.

Castle doctrine laws, stand your ground laws, ect. are legal justifications for murder.

I think the stand your ground law does apply here and I think George Zimmerman will get away with murder.........

[-] -3 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Stand your ground doesnt apply. Its just part of the media nonsense. Otherwise it would be called "Chase them down".

If Zimmerman gets away with it, it will be because of his ability to raise money for this because of all the media hoopla from teh right.

Meanwhile, someone like Gary, whom I knew, got 10 shots in him and no one hears a damn thing about it.

Ending the war on drugs would go a long way towards ending many other societal problems we are facing.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/undercover-drug-sting-leaves-suspect-dead-hillsborough-deputy-hurt/1269761

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

What do drugs have to do with self defense and legal murder?

[-] -2 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

The war on drugs, and the resulting social implications, have a lot to do with things like this case, and legal murder, and the people's reactions on each side.

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Drugs=self-defense?

Drugs is a completly different beast from the violence fetish that this country has.

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

No one said drugs = self defense. I was speaking on a larger scale.

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

You could argue that violence causes drug use and not vice versa.

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Both could be argued. And both are true. And both have major impacts in poor communities.

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

And wealthy communities. Drugs and violence don't discriminate.

[+] -4 points by TheBlackSun (-32) 1 year ago

Why are you cheering a thug?

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

How do you know he was a thug? Just making an assumption? Anyone who gets in trouble is a thug? Your boy Bush had a record way worse than this guy, and you probably slobbered all over him regardless of actions for damn near a decade.

Ps- Reagan's best acting years came after he left the silver screen.

[-] -2 points by TheBlackSun (-32) 1 year ago

I have no loyalty to Bush. OrReagan. I'm asking a simple question. Can you answer it? Or are you too brainwashed to deal in reality?

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Im not cheering anything. Why is he a thug?

[+] -6 points by highlander (-163) 1 year ago

Trayvon who? Oh yes. Another handy dandy compliant spokesperson for the agenda.
Not that your view is particularly bad, but I do not believe it will make much difference in the outcome. 2010 statistics show 606 accidental shooting deaths. The US General Accounting Office estimates that 8% of these incidents can be prevented by child proof safety locks and 23% can be prevented by loading indicators. It seems to have, once again, very little to do with administrative tests and usage tests. Just one more way to curtail freedom. The statistics were from the website of the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

stand your ground