Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Trayvon - I am sorry.

Posted 2 years ago on March 22, 2012, 7:43 p.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement


It is obvious to say this tragedy was caused by racism
It is obvious to say this tragedy was caused by gun nuts
It is obvious to say this tragedy was caused by police inaction


It is not so obvious to see the real foundation of this and may other murders-

MONEY IN POLITICS

the NRA paid florida legislators ( and in 20 other states ) to pass what is essentially a license to murder - "stand your ground" laws -
signed by Jeb Bush -

AND YOU AND I LET THEM DO IT

Trayvon - I am sorry

138 Comments

138 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

Your ignorance is astounding. ALEC (do you know what that is?) is the handmaiden of NRA and other special interests and it is the founding cause of this anti-society legislation. That is the problem, and that must be brought into the spotlight so it can be regulated and hopefully eliminated.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

In 2005, the year this florida law was passed, there were 881 gun deaths,
2006 1129,
2007 1202,
2008 1168
Thank you NRA - we love your 31 bullet gun clips

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

The cases of justifiable homicide have tripled in FLA since the law was enacted in 2005 under Repugnant Gov Jeb Bush.

The law, also, known as, "Shoot First", was flawed from the very beginning and the genius legislators were warned by those smart enough (this isn't rocket science people) to realize the tragedy such a STUPID Law would make.

The litany of these tragedies is now known for any of you care enough to look. There's another post in this forum which documents some of those very well. Justifable homicide in FLA skyrocketed when this law went into effect.

Yes, I so agree, this law really is ALL about the MONEY. This is the NRA's & Gun Dealer's way of encouraging yet more arming of American Citizenry SO, yes, TAKE THE MONEY. The rich like the MONEY.

ANd, as usual, when we follow the money, we always re-learn the lesson the ENDS JUSTIFIES THE MEANS. As nature would have it, our natural tendency if left unchecked will be SHOOT First, ask questions later...,,, and hide behind our glorious new shoot first law.

For the criminal, it's three easy steps, make sure there's no witness, (so it can only be your word against the dead victim who has a speech impediment), AND shoot them from the front as many times as possible (this insures the eye witness is dead). But most importantly, don't forget, make up a nice little sad story of self defense. Say you were the one who felt threatened and your golden.

You don't have necessarily have to be met with deadly force to claim self defense either. This is very important to realize. You ONLY have to perceive the threat of imminent harm. So your alleged attacker does not have to a gun, knife bat, it can just be their fists, most people already have them, so there you are. Air-tight. (Remember no witnesses, all criminals need to remember)

Bensdad, excellent post. We really need justice here. This law needs to be repealed. quicker is better. It's time for America to wake up to great big cup of Rational Thinking. NO one can in their right mind defend this STUPID Law. And ignorance of it's implications are from here forth just unacceptable.

Anyone defending this STUPID Law would by definition have to be a GUN NUT of the highest order. I'm sure we have some right here, in this forum. They will be chiming in with their mostly ignorant ideas since researching, reading, and recognizing evident truth takes too much effort. They'd rather blather on about some narrative they have in their head with the help of the right wing nut jobs who spread lies & hate.

Fortunately for the criminal, as well, the victim does not have to have a weapon at all, no gun, no knife, it can be only their fists, it's just you felt deadly threatened by those is all. This shoot first law is a dream come true for criminals who love these justifiable killings. In America, compared with many of the other civilized countries like Canada, Britain, France, and Germany, America is a shooting gallery.



And, we have been way over the top for decades now. Enough is enough. We have many gun fanatics here as well as being the most armed country on the planet.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

The Trayvon tragedy isn't the only time such whack'a'doodle, ALEC and NRA designed gun "laws", have needlessly killed someone.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/23/trayvon-martin-other-stand-your-ground-cases-from-florida-to-north-carolina.html

[-] 2 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

The stand your ground statute in Florida gives a person the right to use deadly force if they are confronted with deadly force. How does this law cover nutjob murderers like Zimmerman? He wasn't confronted with force, so he wasn't covered by the law. What does the law have to do with it?

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

How do you know the murderer was threatened?
He said he was.
He murdered the only witness.
This defense was used in florida 65 times in the last few years -
as the "self defense" murder rate in florida tripled

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the man should have had a camera

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

there is a witness ( not zimmerman) who has said that martin was the aggressor. martin attacked zimmerman.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

And this witness's name is?
And you will post the link to the evidence?

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

hte witness is being referred to as " john" for protection.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

and you can post the source for this rumor? fact?

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

FOX ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Sorry, the page you requested was not found.

[-] -1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

Sorry, the link worked for me earlier in the day. if you cant find go to the DRUDGE page,..... the story is title " SECRET WITNESS : self defense".....the story in on the left side of the page.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

FOX & DRUDGE !!
I'm surprised Breitbart isn't reporting on this too

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

This poster is extremely partisan and essentially falls in line with the American Democratic party in everything he says, including the thought that MSNBC is really any better than Fox.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Any Rs who can actually post "Democratic" party in stead of "democrat" party deserves an answer.
After drudge used the blue dress to derail Clinton, and scaife used whitewater to drerail Clinton, and after Bush derailed NcCain about his adopted child, and after fox derailed Obama about his birth certificate -
I am VERY reluctant to see "john" as reality.

There is so much evidence pointing to a racist gun nut murderer, at this moment, I am on that side.

I will look forward to the testimony and federal reports of what happened.


1
Would you agree that, if Trayvon did NOT attack Zimmerman, that this is murder?
2
Would you agree that ( in any case ) an armed person does not have the right to kill someone who is NOT threatening with a weapon?
For example, if Mr. A is trying to enter a closed bar & starts pounding on the door and yelling. Can the bartender pull out a gun and kill him because he is scared the man might break in the door?
3
Would you agree that 31 bullet handgun magazines should be illegal?
4
Did you buy extra guns and ammo when Obama was elected because you knew he was going to take away guns?

[Deleted]

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

simple- do you want z arrested and tried?

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

If you are in your home or place of business, and the doors are locked, and someone is banging and trying to get into YOUR place, and they finally break in why should you have to retreat from your own home?

Obviously this thing with Trayvon is different because they were in public space. I don't see anything wrong with killing someone who is violently entering your home against your wishes. I can't understand why you think someone should try to retreat from their own home.

I don't remember what state it was in but that case a couple months ago with the 18 year old girl with her baby who shot the guy who broke in her door. I think she handled the situation perfectly. She called the cops while he was trying to break in while readying herself in case he got in before the cops got there. Unfortunately that was the case but she used her house as a defensive position and quickly ended what could have been a tragic situation. There was no reason for her to pick up her baby and attempt to flea, thus giving up a defensive position.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

maybe the guy breaking in is a fireman because a neighbor reported a fire in your basement
but specifically "why should" - because people are more valuable than property
a Jew of some renown - i forget his name - said turn to other cheek Someone else once said - thou shalt not kill

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

1) Yes 2) No, but if he does actually break in the door then Yes. 3) There is really no need for it but it isn't like you can also do a lot of damage with 16 in your clip. And with another 16 in your pocket you are already one bullet better than the 31 clip. I doubt outlawing the 31s will actually save any lives. 4)No, I strictly shop the sales.

I am actually not a R, I am one of those Independents who thinks both parties are awful. I vote basically on the candidate, not the party. Being from New England, I tend to vote for D's on the national level but R's for state and local government.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

2) Florida's law agrees with you - you can kill someone even if your life is not actually threatened - obviouly, I agree with most states - that you obligation in this case is to flee and NOT stand your ground 3) The Gabby Giffords shooter was only stopped when he was forced to take out his 31 bullet clip to reload. You sure you need that ability?

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

I found the FOX interview using po6059's original link then clicking on home. There is other evidence mentioned in the story such as grass-stains on Zimmerman's back...If the witness testifies under oath, it will have been self-defense. What is the other side of the story? Is there hard evidence that Zimmerman was a gun-happy yahoo?

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

He called the police dozens of times previously
"they always get away" "fucking coon"
why did he not follow police orders to not follow the child?
If you were 17 and a guy 100 pounds bigger than you started following you,
what would you do? are you sure?

From what I understand of the law, if zimmerman had been a cop,
his gun would have been taken away until the investigation was over
the whole situation stinks


I sincerely hope the full investigation gets us the FULL truth
and that it is done QUICKLY

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

It wouldn't surprise me if the FOX version was almost complete fabrication.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

The truth is the truth...so maybe we should have a neutrality law or something for stations advertising that they are news.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

If the NRA and ALEC and koch can spend millions bribing
dozens of legislators in 23 states to buy this law,
[ along with many other laws ]
do we really think think they could not come up with
$500,000 to buy a witness?

[Deleted]

[-] 4 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

I have seen for myself FOX call a Republican a Democrat when a scandal breaks and they don't want to admit it's a Republican. FOX is a political propaganda channel of the worst kind. Defending FOX does nothing for your own credibility.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Further to HitGirls' comment, please also see :

  • " OUTFOXED " : http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6737097743434902428 . A film which examines how media empires, led by Rupert Murdoch's Fox News, have been running a "race to the bottom" in television news. This film provides an in-depth look at Fox News and the dangers of ever-enlarging corporations taking control of the public's right to know.

e tenebris, lux ?

[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

did you read the story ?

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

This guy expects us to believe that a scrawny kid took down a guy nearly twice his size and was beating him practically to death? Can you say "perjury?"

[-] -1 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

I will almost guarantee you he wasn't threatened. That is not my point. The stand your ground statute does not cover his actions.

And the crime rate in Florida has been steadily going down in the last 20+ years.

[-] 3 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

The cops had how many calls from the nutcase prior to the murder and they investigated him how? Were the calls sufficient to cause suspicion? Did they every check him for a gun? Neighborhood watch works with the cops. Shouldn't they have worked with Neighborhood Watch (the HOA in the complex) to make it clear to him that he had no business acting in their behalf?

So we have a police department problem, a nutcase problem, a law problem that leads nutcases and police departments to believe that people can kill people by making up a story or a police department can avoid their responsibility for checking out suspicious people who are trying to act as vigilantes and they can avoid investigating gun deaths? Oh, and there wqsa a DA involved who should have been providing oversight along with a City Council, who turned over three Chiefs of Police in a year. No hint of a problem there?

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

Ask the NRA - they would have been happier if Trayvon had a gun.
They want everyone to have a gun.
There are almost as many guns in America as there are adults.
Dear NRA - we are getting close!

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

You are right, I expect a Mandatory Carry law any time now. After that? Two guns per capita, why not?

[-] 3 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

It did, because the cops said it did. They used it to justify not treating him as a suspect, collecting evidence and interrogating him.

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Okay, perhaps the law was written stupidly. The point is, if you are confronted by someone with a gun, the law shouldn't force you to turn your back to them.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

It wasn't written stupidly. It was written precisely as a special interest group wanted it written.

It doesn't force you. It may be part of the consequences you face as the result of your decisions.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

According to the documentary Freakonomics, the crime rate is most likely decreasing because of Roe Vs Wade.

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

Of course Trayvon DID NOT threaten.
But the florida law allows the witnesses to judge the threat. An since the only witness who will tell the truth is dead - murdered ..........


FYI- since this law was passed, the self defense murder rate
in florida has tripled

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Technically, those are self defense homicides, not necessarily murder...

And the violent crime rate in Florida was the lowest in 2010 that it had been since 1984. Did the law have anything to do with it?

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

I am not talkina about VIOLENT crime in general
I am addressing the crime adressed in this thread - murders "blamed" on self defense. Here's a perfect example-
In NY if a man is waving a knife at you from across the street - it is your legal obligation to run away from him - if you can .
In FLA if a man is waving a knife at you from across the street - it is your legal right to kill him. Because you "feel" threatened.
Do you understand the difference?

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Ridiculous, that would never hold up in court. The killer would have to lie and say the man had attacked him or was lunging at him with the knife for the SYG statute to be applicable. Which, of course, is a possibility, people lie all the time about the circumstances surrounding crimes. But if I were to kill someone unjustly and lie about it, saying they were threatening me and weren't, I could also lie and say that there was not way I could get away. People that commit crimes are going to lie about the circumstances no matter what the law says. If a person's life is genuinely threatened, should they have to turn their back and get away if it is technically "possible"?

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

A person genuinely threatened WILL make a choice among alternatives that seem available. There will be consequences of that choice, shot in their tracks or on the run, prosecution for taking illegal action. If you are going to threaten, you might as well kill the victim to improve your odds. If you are threatened, you might as well be shot trying to shoot the perp, and you improve your chances by killing the perp. Sounds like plenty of incentives to get innocent bystanders killed in a hail of bullets? Is this a good idea?

When was the last time someone was killed by a butter knife?

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

OK, that's one in a row.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (26179) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

LOL

No matter how improbable, nothing is impossible.

No offense intended, just had to chuckle about this crazy world.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Yeah, it would be funnier if we were on the outside of the fish bowl?

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (26179) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Someday perhaps - Hey?

Till then we got lots of work to do.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Heavy lifting, for sure!

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (26179) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Yep. lots of it. The load will get a bit lighter as more join in. But still plenty of work to keep everyone busy.

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

JuanFenito is remarkably lucid here. I'm surprised at his grasp of the language, as he claims to be of foreign origin. Even the subtleties of proper punctuation aren't lost on him. Your English teacher was superb, Juan. In American jurisprudence it has long been established that a citizen is innocent until proven guilty. The SYG statute would seem to upend the American model allowing citizens to act as judge, jury and executioner. Life is held at a high value here in America. I can see a number of scenarios where drunken threats could result in the use of deadly force. I really don't see an up-side to SYG.

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

People are going to do what they see fit at the time, of course, fairly regardless of what the law says. So no, a drunken threat may constitute justifiable force to the defender, but that would never survive in court as applying to the SYG statute. Have you read the wording of the statute itself? It is not worded in a way that many people seem to be taking it, including the police in Florida... Just like the health care bill, people claimed there was every ridiculous thing in the world in it, from "death panels" to prohibition on physician-owned hospitals.

It really sounds like you are saying there can be no circumstances in which homicide is justifiable, we don't ordinarily allow the police to act as the judge, jury, and executioner, but are you saying we should not allow them to respond with deadly force if confronted with it? What if they can retreat? And of course they make mistakes and kill people wrongly, and when they do they are placed under tremendous scrutiny for their actions and made to pay the consequences. This is, ultimately, what prevents misconduct in all cases, the potential risk involved.

And I don't know what you are getting at, referring to me pejoratively as a some sort of scary foreigner. I knew English quite well before I came to this country, as do many immigrants. I don't know what compels you to try and reinforce stereotypes about immigrants being unable to adapt to a new culture or learn a new language. And I ordinarily hold my personal details very close, I don't remember saying here that I was foreign born.

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

And if the only witness ( the murderer ) said the was threatened, how can a prosecutor counter the lie? Of course, here we have audio tapes that should put the murdered in jail forever. But if he wasn't so stupid to disobey the police, he might have gotten away with it - like so many other killers of unarmed victims have.

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

He could just as easily lie and say there was no way he could run. Zimmerman is, I think, nuts. The law may be written stupidly, or vaguely, but all I am saying is, if someone confronts you and aims a gun at you, the law should not force you to turn your back to them. That is ridiculous.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Maybe that's true, but of course since Zimmerman hasn't been charged with a crime at this point (by "Florida" prosecutors) you really have nothing to support your statement. Without knowing the case law, it's difficult for people to understand how this law is applied in practice. The only indication we really get is through the facts in this case, namely, Zimmerman hasn't been charged, thus it seems that the Florida law does in fact protect Zimmerman.

Moreover, let's think about the law itself. It basically states that even if you're not in your own home, even if you're not protecting a third person, and even if you have the opportunity to safely retreat from the situation, you can still use deadly force against someone whom you "think" is a threat.

Cops, as bad as they can be sometimes, are at least trained in how to identify a weapon (for instance, distinguishing a firearm from a bag of candy). But that isn't even the worse part of it. The law itself demonstrates primitiveness and savagery among the people of Florida.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

If that's the only thing we're allowed to talk about today, why did you just respond to my post about direct democracy in Switzerland (duh)? Oh and btw, I'm not sure if Zimmerman is Jewish, I don't think he is actually (it's a German name, I know this because we had a Zimmerman in my unit when I was in Iraq, who was definitely not Jewish).

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by Jumphrey (106) 2 years ago

Right. I just asked a friend of mine in Switzerland, you're full of shit, troll.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Where the fuck did I ever say a single word about the % of white people in Switzerland? Oh I know, NOWHERE (ass hole).

[-] -1 points by F350 (-259) 2 years ago

"everyone is required to have a 'machine gun' at home"

Do tell? Would you care to elaborate on that some more? I would appreciate it.

[-] 1 points by owsmuppet (-10) 2 years ago

You really didn't know? That ALL Swiss citizens are required to keep military arms in their homes? Us Swiss have the most 'free' gun laws on this planet.

In the USA only the rich were supposed to have gun's, ... only the rich have 'rights', but in Switzerland everybody is a freeman.

[-] -1 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Right. So we can be shot in the back by the mugger. Goody!

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

So you think your choices boil down to either:

a) allow innocent children to be murdered, or

b) be shot in the back by a mugger.

I'm afraid this demonstrates a profound level of ignorance.

[-] -1 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Of course those aren't the only two options. Forcing people to run away from armed attackers is a recipe for mayhem.

The law does not and should not allow people to do what Zimmerman did. The burden of proof should be on the defender to prove they were defending themselves.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Well, we don't have a "stand your ground" defense in New York state, and guess what .... no mayhem.

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

LOL

you got me

I thought you were being serious.

[-] 0 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

The local cops helped the killer hide behind it.

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

You bet they are, and they aren't arresting him for murder either. My point is that the stand your ground law does not cover Zimmerman's actions, so it has nothing at all to do with the incident.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I agree. However, I believe it has its own problems.

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Like what? If someone can prove they were threatened by someone else (having a gun pulled on them in a surveillance camera archive for example), they should have to turn their back on an attacker? Why?

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

My understanding, and I haven't seen the records, is that there are multiple cases in which the proof you posit was not required and no prosecution was initiated and if one party is dead and the other was the shooter, the evidence you describe may be hard or impossible to get. In any case, I believe a full investigation should be done. Citing this law should not prevent this.

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Okay. It is very possible the law was written stupidly, or vaguely, which is all too often the case.

Only a total lunatic (Which for the record, I think Zimmerman is) would take human life under any circumstances and not realize the tremendous liability occurring. Even if the guy is pointing a gun at you in the middle of the night in your living room, if you kill someone, there is always liability.

So in essence, lunatics will always be out killing people. Not that this is a good thing, or that the law should protect them, but I don't think the law would enable or prevent a nutjob like Zimmerman from being stupid.

The only thing I am saying is that if an attacker points a gun at you, and you are capable of stopping him, you would be insane to even look over your shoulder for an escape path, and the law shouldn't force you to. It makes no sense at all.

[-] -1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

All of these laws were written by ALEC with Koch brothers money and NRA endorsement and introduced in what, 20 states? Can't buy that it was written stupidly or accidentally or vaguely. The got what they paid for.

Zimmerman is a lunatic, to be sure but there are 34 other cases in Florida alone. He is a lunatic with a gun. Lunatics seem to have no trouble getting a gun. If they can't buy it at a loophole gun show, they can get it from every other house or somebody who burglarized every other house. If you could keep the guns under the control of responsible people it would be a different situation, but you can't and you would have every teen ager carrying a concealed weapon. How can you be comfortable with that? Then the lunatics can pick up every other back pack? Maybe the problem can be solved but I don't think I have heard it yet. Nuclear hand grenades attached to their day care nap mats? I don't think so. I am an old man, heard gunfire, seen running shooters, but I have never been robbed or shot and I don't go shopping with an RPG. It's hard enough to carry the groceries. Waiting for a force field and I don't have to justify my decision to anyone.

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Right. We can keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people, just like drugs. Works like a charm.

Are you ready to turn guns into the next black good? If we put the restrictions some people are proposing on imported goods, we will turn plastic forks into black goods also...

Government rarely does anything other than tinker with the cost and value of items. If there is high demand for something, and the government artificially increases the value, the cost merely goes up.

that is why large corporations lobby to have regulations put into effect, because regulatory compliance is many times more efficient for large companies than for small businesses.

I don't know what makes you think I would have every teenager carrying concealed. I never said anything of the sort.

Actually, I never said anything about firearms legality or availability. To say it again, all I am saying here is that if someone points a gun at you, it is ludacris for the law to make you look over your shoulder for an escape route. How can anyone be against that?

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Look you solve the problem and let me know how it works out. It is the law of survival that causes you to look over your shoulder. The law doesn't make you do anything. If you choose not to take an available exit, you will pay the consequences, whatever they turn out to be.

These can include the deaths of innocent bystanders. If the only rational way to deal with the situation is a gun, you wouldn't deny every teen ager (Trayvon was a teen ager) the appropriate tool, would you? And soon we are at day care.

I don't think I heard a solution that is any better than those that don't seem to be working so well. Did I miss it?

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Don't seem to be working well? Advocates of collective rights should be all over this one, violent crime in 2010 was at the lowest since 1984. Even if it did cost a few dozen lives, society as a whole benefited as the crime rate plummeted. <sarcasm>

I never said the only way to deal with the situation was with a gun. But if you have one, and someone threatens to kill you, why should the law make you turn your back?

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

If you have one.... and you never know when you will see a Polar Bear. Hasn't been one around here in at least 7 decades. If you have one, the perp is surely going to kill you because you have just made his story about you being the aggressor air tight. He is nervous and not a very good short, but he has 10 0r 15 rounds and he is pretty sure he can hit you with one of them. Which gives you several seconds to get the hell out. If you didn't have one, he might laugh as to begin your sprint because you aren't a threat and besides he isn't sure what he had in mind for you was that important to him. .

It is the law of survival that causes you to look over your shoulder. The law doesn't make you do anything. If you choose not to take an available exit, you will pay the consequences, whatever they turn out to be.

Ignorance is curable, but stupid is forever or until the consequences catch up to you. See you in the morgue or jail or where ever.

Still doesn't seem to be working well, to me. I haven't been shot and I guess you haven't either. And that proves...I forget what that proves.

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

I know, right? Anyone who would arm themselves is a paranoid whacko. There haven't been any violent crimes in 7 decades!

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Not perpetrated on me. I would submit that that is not just a statistical anomally since my decisions and conduct are not irrelevant. During that time I did not live in hibernation. I lived in large cities and burbs in four timezones, visited all 50 states and 23 countries.

This a personal anecdote describing how I have chosen to behave. Is it the only way for people to be have? No. Are you free to judge it as appropriate or inappropriate? Sure! Judge away. Was this blind luck? Perhaps.

I didn't kill anybody by mistake. I have been in situations where I somewhat reasonably could have. (Hearing shots, seeing several men running toward me with guns in their hands) Was I taking a greater or a lessor risk by my choice? I don't think that is so clear. There is no way I could get pregnant regardless of a personal choice. (There wasn't a "reply" option to your comment below). I will say that victims of violence are victims, sometimes they are collateral damage, tragic in any case. By my choice, I don't believe I have put them at risk. If you die a violent death, I will consider the circumstances and make some judgement about it, as you will if it happens to me. That is our right.

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Okay, by that logic, no one needs an abortion because you've never gotten pregnant. That is so ridiculous. You're saying victims of violent crime are asking for it with their actions?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by hoot (313) 2 years ago

this was not a result of police inaction, it was caused by police action, the action of taking the law into their own hands. Nor was it caused by gun nuts. It was a tragedy caused by an man who murdered an innocent kid. the stand your ground law has nothing to do with this case.

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

How can you prove that Trayvon did not threaten George? making the murder legal

[-] 1 points by hoot (313) 2 years ago

Trayvon posed no physical threat to George, he had no weapon. The stand your ground law is applicable if there is a reasonable belief of threat to ones life, and one cannot run away. The was no reasonable belief of threat to George Zimmerman in most peoples eyes and if he was threatened he could have ran(due to the lack of weapon on trayvons part), he should judged amongst a jury of peers

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

I suggest you READ the law
776.012—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force.
However, 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;
or Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

[-] 1 points by Blank102 (86) from American Canyon, CA 2 years ago

There seems to be an actual witness to this whole thing folks.

[-] 1 points by infonomics (393) 2 years ago

An anonymous witness has come forward. Google "anonymous witness trayvon martin case". The scuffle apparently occurred in the front yard of the witness's apartment.

[Removed]

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

The wording of the florida "stand your ground" law means that if you see a person across the street
throwing a rock though the window of an empty store,
you can interpret this as a violent crime,
and because you FEEL he is going to steal something - you have the legal right to kill him.

Ditto if you see a shadowy figure
across the street at the window of a house at night, and because you FEEL he is going to steal something - you have the legal right to kill him - even if it is your ex-husband.

This law was purchased by the NRA and probably written by ALEC.

[-] 2 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

I feel I'll not be going to Florida, that's for sure. WTF do they have going on down there? Shoot-out at the OK Corral? And they want tourists to come down? I don't think so!

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

My dear friend - you don't want to go to Florida because gun nuts are protected by "stand your ground law" ?
Sorry to tell you this but
the NRA & ALEC have had these laws passed in at least 10 states
* 1.1.1 Florida * 1.1.2 Illinois * 1.1.3 Kentucky * 1.1.4 Montana * 1.1.5 North Carolina * 1.1.6 Oklahoma * 1.1.7 Texas * 1.1.8 Utah * 1.1.9 Washington * 1.1.10 West Virginia


Stand your ground laws are frequently criticized and called "shoot first" laws by critics. In Florida, the law has resulted in self-defense claims tripling, with all but one of those killed unarmed. The law's critics argue that Florida's law makes it very difficult to prosecute cases against people who shoot others and then claim self-defense. The shooter can argue they felt threatened, and in most cases, the only witness who could have argued otherwise is the victim who was shot and killed. The Florida law has been used to excuse neighborhood brawls, bar fights, road rage, and even street gang violence.[31] Before passage of the law, Miami police chief John F. Timoney called the law unnecessary and dangerous in that "[w]hether it's trick-or-treaters or kids playing in the yard of someone who doesn't want them there or some drunk guy stumbling into the wrong house, you're encouraging people to possibly use deadly physical force where it shouldn't be used."


In a 2007 National District Attorneys Association symposium, numerous concerns were voiced that the law could increase crime. This included criminals using the law as a defense for their crimes, more people carrying guns, and that people would not feel safe if they felt that anyone could use deadly force in a conflict. The report also noticed that the misinterpretation of clues could result in use of deadly force when there was, in fact, no danger. The report specifically notes that racial and ethnic minorities would be at greater risk due to negative stereotypes.


Your solution - vote AGAINST anyone who takes ALEC or NRA money or support

[-] 2 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

Won't be going to any of those other places you mention, either. there's enough to deal with right here - cops and agents provocateur, etc. Someone's always looking to maim or kill someone else, seems like. And I agree with your stated position

[-] 1 points by TheMisfit (48) 2 years ago

Zimmerman's actions were not covered by the law. The "stand your ground" law protects a citizen who uses deadly force to save their life. It in no ways says that you can chase someone down, confront them and then kill them. Stop with the blaming of the NRA and the law. Zimmerman did wrong, killed someone and needs to be punished, but going around with your straw men and obviously uninformed opinions only distract from the real problem.

[-] 0 points by TheMisfit (48) 2 years ago

As more facts and witnesses come forward, the more that people who jump to wild ass conclusions, like the OP here, look ridiculous.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Blank102 (86) from American Canyon, CA 2 years ago

I'm curious as to why this has become such a cause célèbre. Violent crime is common in many parts of the nation. Why is this crime more important than others?

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I can give you MY answer-
The victim was black child the killer was white man.
The police did nothing - like they did when the nephew of a police lt. beat up a homeless man in the same town
There was no investigation
There are witnesses who were ignored
There is an audio record which should put the murderer in jail forever

BUT FOR ME -
It is the law - stand your ground - bought and paid for by the NRA & ALEC
existing in 20 states today - that legalizes murder

AND WE LET THEM DO IT
and people will continue to kill


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; [ ....]

[-] 0 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

You have got this right, bensdad.

[-] 0 points by groupthink (12) 2 years ago

Psst, here's a secret: the shooter was hispanic. Now what?

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Actually he is as much Jewish as Hispanic and your point is? He is a racist as well. Is that ethnic?

[-] -1 points by groupthink (12) 2 years ago

The media ran with "white" as part of its standard racial narrative. The "White neighborhood watch patrol guy" then became just the "neighborhood watch guy", not the "Hispanic neighborhood watch guy".

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (26179) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

What do you expect from the corporate owned run and controlled MSM propaganda machines? Impartial statement of facts?

HAHhahahaheheheehe...........................

[-] 1 points by Blank102 (86) from American Canyon, CA 2 years ago

That's what I think too.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

If the feds don't take him in, then then maybe citizens should initiate a citizen's arrest of Zimmerman for murder.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Secretariat (33) 2 years ago

""NATO is staging "Massacre of Christians in Syria by Muslims", by bringing Al Qaida and other radical Islamists to Syria, in order to initiate a war, where they can nuke Iran, give a lesson to rising China, control Middle East oil resources, and allow some people to print as much money as they wish by using petrodollars, so they can control the society and the world through their wealth and power. This will also allow capitalism to continue by breaking the Eastern and the Socialist spirituality which is growing around the world and which is the biggest threat to capitalist ruling elite. ""

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I like the quote marks-
now show us the source- drudge? fox? larouche?

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

are you sorry for the british tourists that were murdered by blacks for the being a black neighborhood? are you sorry for the white people attacked at the wisconsin state fair and beat up by hundreds of blacks? are you sorry for a white teen ( brian milligan) nearly beaten to death by black teens while walking with his black girlfriend? there's more , but too many to post

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

I am not a racist - are you ?

[-] 2 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

no, but the MSM is certainly biased as is the doj and the president

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

The mainstream media is certainly biased, in favor of the establishment, white people and wealth. How many missing black girls make it to the evening news? Try zero. But when a white girl goes missing in Aruba, stop the presses!

You ain't gonna win any battles here, kiddo.

[-] -1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

the msm has a liberal/dem bias, they jumped on this month old story because the guys name is zimmerman. they thought they had a jewish caucasion.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Please show me some evidence for which one of these a liberal.

http://www.firstamendmentstudies.org/wp/pdf/1st_media_ch6.pdf

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

You just throw the whole plate of spaghetti at the wall and hope something sticks, dontcha?

Dude, the MSM is owned by corporate conservatives. People who believe the "liberal media bias" meme are the most gullible idiots on earth.

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

the msm is owned by libs.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (26179) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I am sorry for the tourists who were murdered by criminals. But you know criminals come in all colors shapes size and gender. So I prefer not to stereo type and pay attention to my surroundings and observe who is in it and observe what they are doing. Natural curiosity. This also helps to give one an opening line when meeting someone new. Always be aware of your surroundings.

[-] -1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

when it's white on black crime its a big story but when it black on white crime, the story virtually disappears. why?

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (26179) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Who the fuck are you trying to kid? What color is the sky in your world? From what direction does the sun rise?

[-] -1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

i dont understand your response to my question.

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (26179) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

No Shit?

Why am I not surprised.

[-] -1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

stupid people are never surprised.

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (26179) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Sheesh I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

I thought your face was just BO-toxed.

[-] -2 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

no, the queen of botox is nancy pelosi

[-] 3 points by HapteMikael (162) 2 years ago

What he was trying to say, is you must live is bizarro retard world, where the sky is purple, left is right, White people are oppressed, and the big bad "liberal media" has elevated blacks above the rule of law.

Personally, I'm leaning towards semi-literate troll.

Either way, you're clearly an idiot.

[-] -1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

ows people = " the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so" what are your feelings about the black panthers putting out a wanted dead or alive poster for zimmerman?

[-] 2 points by HapteMikael (162) 2 years ago

I have none whatsoever. What are your feelings on the equally unimportant, ineffectual, ignored and irrelevant organization, "The Even Newer Black Panther Party" putting a 1 Bagillion bounty on your head?

In short, what is your point please?

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

the black panthers want an end to violence yet they put out a poster calling for zimmerman to be captured DEAD or alive. do you not see the irony? the hypocracy?

[-] 2 points by HapteMikael (162) 2 years ago

I'm sorry, have you addressed ANY of my questions? I love when people like you open their mouth, ANY half-way intelligent person can see how dumb and false your argumentation is. Keep babbling please, the adults among us enjoy your buffoonery.

[-] 1 points by HapteMikael (162) 2 years ago

And I care about the supposed Hypocrisy of the New BPP because?...

Jesus, you are an Idiot.

[-] -1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

you silly, ignorant pawn. how proud you must be ,........you're another "useful idiot" ow ows.

[-] -1 points by mugumbo (2) 2 years ago

You are a anti-gun nut.

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (26179) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

3/25/2012 - update & petition

http://kos.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=RWwJY3k9qKeoMC7MpK%2Bl3EYWZggnaccv

http://kos.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=cm227vMaKiOTOryaO70yOkYWZggnaccv

http://kos.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=7lIPiMlGMtPzBHThIBmyzEYWZggnaccv

http://kos.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=VeNRe/3SScBtw95MPkpkzUYWZggnaccv


Dan, almost 40,000 people have signed our petition to the Department of Justice calling for an independent investigation of the police department in Sanford, Florida, for its history of not prosecuting violent crimes against African-Americans. Please, click here to sign the petition now.

The continued public outrage over Trayvon Martin's killing is starting to produce results. Responding to public pressure, the Department of Justice announced it would open an investigation into Trayvon's death. The Sanford police chief has stepped down. Florida Gov. Rick Scott has appointed a special prosecutor to take over over the case from local authorities.

These are all positive steps, but given the Sanford Police Department's repeated failure to prosecute violent crimes when the victim is African-American and the alleged assailant is not, the Department of Justice needs to set up an investigation of the Sanford Police Department itself.

Please, sign our petition to the Department of Justice calling for an investigation of the Sanford Police Department. We are working with partners deliver it next week.

Keep fighting, Meteor Blades, Daily Kos

[+] -4 points by F350 (-259) 2 years ago

The only "nut" is you. You're a knee jerk,reactionary,irrational NUT!!

You're the one that's running through the village screaming at everyone to get their pitchforks and KILL,KILL,KILL.

[-] 3 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Are F350's what racists are driving now?

[-] -1 points by F350 (-259) 2 years ago

Judging from that comment you're driving something that needs to be plugged in and charged for 10 hours to drive 25 miles, Hope it doesn't explode.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Cell phones use the same kind of batteries (and yes they sometimes explode). February 11, 2009 7:47 PM

Over the past two years, federal safety officials have received 83 reports of cell phones exploding or catching fire, usually because of incompatible, faulty or counterfeit batteries or chargers. Burns to the face, neck, leg and hip are among the dozens of injury reports the agency has received.

Does that make them smart phones?

October 2009 Update: Ford Recalls Another 4.5 million Vehicles Due To Fire Risk

On October 13, 2009, Ford Motor Co. expanded its largest-ever recall by about 4.5 million vehicles equipped with a faulty cruise-control switch linked to at least 550 vehicle fires nationwide, and the destruction of many homes and other properties. Ford has now recalled more than 14 million vehicles in eight separate recalls over a 10-year period because of the problem.

Pickup Trucks

1993-2004 Ford F-150 1993-2003 Ford F-250 1993-1999 Ford F-250 gas engine 1993-2003 Ford F-350 1993-2003 Ford F-450 1993-2003 Ford F-550 1993-2002 F series Super Duty 1998-2002 Ford Ranger 2001 F-Series Super Crew 2002-2003 Lincoln Blackwood 2003-2004 Ford F-150 Lightning

[-] -1 points by F350 (-259) 2 years ago

And your point? I'm guessing you know how to copy and paste but beyond that..........????????????

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Since we don't drive F350's or use cell phones and electric cars, we must have nothing in the world to worry about? What 8-10 mpg in an F350?

The paste part is pretty tricky, I keep having trouble with that part. Wouldn't want you to have to try to believe something on my unsupported assertion.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

How far can an electric car go?

The majority of battery powered cars that are available today have a range of between 40 miles (65km) and 100 miles (160km), which is far more than most people travel on a regular basis:

http://www.owningelectriccar.com/electric-car-range.html

[-] 0 points by F350 (-259) 2 years ago

"a peacock spider struts that azz for a female with the hopes of makin' sweet, eight-legged love to her booty back body segment. Allegedly this is the first time the mating ritual of the peacock spider has ever been caught on film, which is surprising considered the renewed interest in the Spiderman franchise. The video's kind of long though"

http://www.geekologie.com/2011/04/id-hit-it-peacock-spiders-mati.php