Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Why did everyone stop talking about Trayvon?

Posted 2 years ago on April 27, 2012, 1:05 a.m. EST by JusticeForTrayvon (34)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Is this case any less important now? Where did all the people wanting justice go?

177 Comments

177 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by Skippy2 (485) 2 years ago

I was not there. I dont know what the witnesses obseved. I do not have the facts necessary to render an opinion, much less judgement. AND NEITHER DO YOU!

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

We know that Trayvon was not armed and that Zimmerman shot him dead. The police apparently took Zimmerman's word for the events that had transpired and let him free with his gun to boot. As a "neighborhood watch" which is supposedly police authorized and thereby semi-official Zimmerman should have followed the police dispatcher's directive not to pursue Trayvon. Zimmerman decided to disregard the directive and confront Trayvon.

After much public outcry in which #Occupy played a progressive role a special prosecutor was finally appointed. She decided that there is enough of a case against Zimmerman for her to pursue prosecution. Had there been no outcry there would have been no prosecution and Zimmerman would still be on the loose with his pistol.

[-] 1 points by Skippy2 (485) 2 years ago

The police took the gun at the scene as evidence. Zimmerman was not a formal member of neighborhood watch. No one knows, except the witnesses, if Zimmerman confronted Trayvon or the other way around. I'm not a supporter of Zimmerman. I support facts. I just named three facts you got wrong. You are welcome to your own opinion, but not your own facts. You have proven my original statement true. Thank you.

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

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

Show me evidence, one link to an authoritative source that says Zimmerman was not a neighborhood watch volunteer.

Of course now that Zimmerman is a suspect in a murder case the cops have his gun. You imply it was taken as "evidence" the night of the shooting. Prove that. Show me one report.

Are you saying Zimmerman did not leave his vehicle?? Had he not left his vehicle with his gun but rather waited for the cops this would have boiled down to a very unimportant incident and Trayvon would not be dead.

[-] 0 points by socal63 (124) 2 years ago

1) Neighborhood Watch is supported by law enforcement and law enforcement agencies will consult with residents, but volunteers are not "authorized" by police. I know this bbecause I was a member of Neighborhood Watch.


2) According to a Orlando Sentinel report on Monday, police said a single shot was fired as Martin pounded on Zimmerman while the two were fighting, and the bullet hit Martin in the chest. According to a police report, Zimmerman said he had shot Martin and was still armed. An officer found his weapon, a black Kel-Tec PF-9 9mm semi-automatic pistol, in a holster placed on his waistband. As Zimmerman was taken for questioning, the gun was taken from him and placed in police evidence.

Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/03/28/george-zimmermans-gun-a-popular-choice-for-concealed-carry/#ixzz1w8Xol25a


3) Your lack of knowledge, understanding and effort to investigate gives you ZERO credibility.

[-] -1 points by adaldk (-11) 2 years ago

it wasnt public outcry, it was the professional race baiters, jesse jackson and al shaprton. AND obama. AND the MSM editing out the 911 call.

[-] 0 points by JusticeForTrayvon (34) 2 years ago

Why the all capital letters?

Are you saying we shouldn't have held the million hoodie march because we "didn't have all the information"? Guess what, I have one fact, that you and your buddies can't dispute: Someone was shot to death by a vigilante. Don't tell me to calm down when people are dying.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Skippy2 (485) 2 years ago

JFT , I didn't tell you to "calm down". Those words are not in my post. I did not say "didn't have all the information". Read my post again, slowly,sound out the big words , you can do it.

[-] -2 points by JusticeForTrayvon (34) 2 years ago

I know exactly what you said. You said I don't have enough information. The only information I need is the fact that someone's child is no longer alive. what more do you want?

[-] 0 points by Skippy2 (485) 2 years ago

"The only information I need is" Why Who What When That cant be answered by media reports. I dont support Zimmerman or Trayvon until the facts are out. The media blew this up to sell ad space. I dont get upset so others can profit off tragedy. As I said, I dont have the facts necssary to render an opinion, much less judgement. Without acess to original complete reports, lab tests,photos and witness testimony, neither do you.

[-] -2 points by JusticeForTrayvon (34) 2 years ago

I have a fact for you. The only one that matters. Someone was killed by a vigilante. We need to unite behind his memory and the legion of others killed every minute by white people.

[-] 2 points by socal63 (124) 2 years ago

"Killed by white people"?!?!?


Investigate the numbers.

[-] -2 points by JusticeForTrayvon (34) 2 years ago

Investigate your mom.

Yes, white people. There, I said it.

Do you see anyone else running around defending themselves with deadly force? We need to stop this massacre.

[-] 1 points by Skippy2 (485) 2 years ago

JFT....Black people kill Black people at a much higher rate than White people killing Black people. Check the cime statistics for homicide and justifiable homicide published each year by the FBI/Uniform Crime Report. "legion of others killed every minute by white people" is a reflection of your ignorance or racist propaganda.

[-] 0 points by JusticeForTrayvon (34) 2 years ago

So what?

So what if the finger pulling the trigger was dark.

Does that mean a black person caused it? Of course not.

What about the schools he grew up in? (Run by WHITES)

What about the fact that he cannot get a job? (WHITE people outsourcing the only economic opportunity he had)

What if he had to resort to crime to pay off medical debt? (Caused by WHITE insurance companies denying him his right to health care)

What about the laws passed by WHITE people making it illegal to deal crack?

So I'm the racist. Go sit there and say that, I don't care. (Despite the fact that the definition of racism prevents it from applying to minorities)

And when you're done calling names, you can bask in your nice suburban home and deny the facts of urban life.

[-] 1 points by Skippy2 (485) 2 years ago

JFT..."Despite the fact that the definition of racism prevents it from applying to miorities"? You have proved my point from my earlier post. Go to a dictionary and look up the word "Racist". Educate yourself before attempting another debate. A racist can be any human being, not just white people. By the way, I'm not calling you a Racist. Plenty of ignorant people parrot racist propagand without understanding it.

[-] -2 points by JusticeForTrayvon (34) 2 years ago

I'm just repeating what Epa1nter told me, he said black people cannot be racist by definition. Take it up with him if you don't like it, he makes the rules.

[-] 1 points by Skippy2 (485) 2 years ago

JFT...Epa1nter may make your rules, but not mine. One ignorant person repeating another ignorant persons words is not education. Read a book. If you cant read, go to the library, they have adult reading classes. You continue to validate my original post. Thanks.

[-] -1 points by JusticeForTrayvon (34) 2 years ago

No! Black people cannot be racist! They're marginalized, so they can't do anything wrong!

[-] 1 points by Skippy2 (485) 2 years ago

Farakan is racist. He admits it in most of his speeches. So, your wrong, I'm right. Na Na Na Naaa Naaaa pffftttt.(thought I would go to the store fo some Skittles, wanna go with?)

[-] 0 points by adaldk (-11) 2 years ago

so, the blacks that voted for obama because they think obama is black, were not racially motivated? of course they were.

[-] 0 points by JusticeForTrayvon (34) 2 years ago

So what? They've been marginalized for so long, they deserve to do stuff like that!

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by RealityTime (-224) 2 years ago

We know the white on black homicide is very rare and that if blacks want to know what to fear, it's each other and not white people. We know that Zimmerman isn't even white, despite early race baiting media reports. We know that poverty pimps like Al (Tawala Brawley) Sharpton and Jesse (Love Child) Jackson move on once the camera lights are turned off. We've learned that if you're willing to be wrong 1 time in a hundred, that black teen males in hoodies is a pretty good marker for crime. We've learned that liberals believe you're obligated to be a victim.

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

a US soldier walked out and killed more than a dozen afghans citizens in the night

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6638) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

That's a topic of debate. That's the official story, but according to eyewitnesses to that event, they claim a lot more than one soldier was there. As well as helicopters, etc. They claim it was an orchestrated raid.

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Guarantee one thing for you. Since truth is the first casualty in any war, it's safe to say the gummint's lying to us.

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

erk

they should have recorded records then

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (6638) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

I'm trying to remember which site I read that on recently. If I can find it, I'll post a link.

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

Whatever happened with that? That is yet another real story to disappear from the news.

What about all the other innocent civilian deaths from these wars and undeclared wars? I never understood why this made news but a bunch of others go untold. They should all be on the news.

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

I heard something

can't find anything at the moment

[-] 3 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 2 years ago

Short attention span.

[-] 3 points by American12 (1) 2 years ago

They won't get Zimmerman for 2nd degree murder. If you watch the footage from the hearing for bail. They don't have the evidence for 2nd degree murder but definatly for manslaughter.

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

I agree. They'll get him for manslaughter eventually.

[-] -2 points by sonofdy (0) 2 years ago

He is not charged with that. Even if her were, there is no evidence for that either. In fact the evidence i have seen says travyon attacked zimmerman

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

That sounds like the new defense for stalkers.

"I was stalking them.. they got mad and then I shot them."

What kind of man shoots an unarmed 17 year old kid to death for being punched? Getting hit twice is not the same as defending your life.... even if Trayvon punched him first.

You can't start a fight... start losing... and then shoot someone. When you stalk people... you're starting the fight.

Who was the person to get out of their car and approach? Zimmerman was in his car safe and sound when he called the police. He got out and approached Trayvon.

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

When you stalk people... you're starting the fight.

???

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

I probably could have phrased that better.

Don't stalk minors walking in the street with your car and a gun.

[-] 0 points by treasure (-81) 2 years ago

Good points.

[-] 2 points by toukarin (488) 2 years ago

Justice? Justice is the fact that Zimmerman is facing a trial now. Hopefully a fair and impartial one.

I was never one of those asking for anything more and will not settle for anything less.

So far I have not seen any reason to raise any concerns about the current direction of the proceedings. Which is why I choose to keep my mouth shut. As should you.

Justice is being served. Now we need to allow it to be served.

[-] -1 points by JusticeForTrayvon (34) 2 years ago

That's what you call "Justice"?

Someone was murdered. Now you're saying we can do anything to fix that?

Maybe there IS "something" we can do to the white race.

[-] 1 points by toukarin (488) 2 years ago

Innocent people are murdered everyday.... In countries like Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Pakistan by the collective US military... judging by your "white race" comment... you are completely okay with them wanting to do "something" to all Americans...

YOU are exactly the kind of person who makes it that much less likely that Trayvon will actually get justice....

Throwing in these racist comments only hurts his case.

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

Trayvon's mother did it -
The most amazingly selfless act of honor and humanity I have ever heard of
{ after the bravery of our troops, firemen and police )


On mothers' day she made a PSA asking people not to center on the crime that killed her child
but
to center on the nation's "stand your ground" laws that will kill so many more people


this law, written by the NRA and spawned by ALEC may free Zimmerman
this is not justice but it is American justice


she clearly, bravely, put forth that "this case" is NOT the issue
Trayvon is not the issue
The laws already in place in 20+ states -
built by the capitalist gun lobby must be terminated
AND
laws for the capitalists & against the people MUST PERISH

[-] 0 points by JusticeForTrayvon (34) 2 years ago

I can't believe you'd leave teachers off the list, what do you have against them? Trust me buddy, they do ten times more work than you and I put together.

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

We're still here, we still want justice, but an arrest has been made, our protests were answered (hopefully this isn't all a sham), and 12 jurors will decide the issue. When the trail begins, we'll be scrutinizing it every step of the way. I'm sure more will happen, but (understandably I think) there's a period of reduced activity while the legalities are being worked out (it's sort of hard to do anything when it seems like the system is working, and there's nothing at this point to base a grievance on until we have more information). I think we could turn our focus to the way Florida law is structured (and the stand your ground law), but in fairness, there's a lot on occupies plate at the moment (and since the acute problem has been addressed, dealing with stand your ground needs to be balanced with other priorities, so it may not receive attention for a while ... but it's hard to guess these things).

[-] 1 points by Craiggiedangit (99) 2 years ago

What good is it? We need to change the laws that let this happen in the first place. Come on, this was never about Zimmerman. We need lasting change, and we're tripping over the finish line.

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

I mean, it was good that the family of Trayvon got the peace of knowing his killer will be prosecuted, but otherwise, I agree (the Florida law is terrible & it should be repealed).

[-] 0 points by Craiggiedangit (99) 2 years ago

ppsh. What good is it? It could happen again until we fix the law. We need to demand actual change or else it could happen again. If I were his family, I still couldn't sleep, knowing someone else's child could be gunned down tomorrow.

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

I won't speak for his family, or what victims of that kind of grief go through (I really don't know), but again, I agree with your feelings on this.

[-] 2 points by Craiggiedangit (99) 2 years ago

Then we need to rally and keep this issue on the agenda. This stuff doesn't matter any less merely because the GOP controlled media decided it doesn't.

[-] 2 points by dantes443322 (148) 2 years ago

Because it is now going to trial.

[-] 2 points by engineer4 (362) 2 years ago

The case is now in the legal system. Justice comes at the trial, whatever the outcome. There is nothing more to be done other than wait. What are you proposing? It would be better to let this go it's normal course where, hopefully, all the truths come out on this so a proper verdict can be achieved, which should be everyone's goal and nothing more! To rush judgement does nothing but polarize and divide. No one outside this case truly knows the facts, so to judge is to be foolish.

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

Maybe you were not listening -
Most of us were calling for Zimmerman's ARREST
not his execution
What we wanted occurred -
he was arrested and put thru the beginning of the "normal" criminal process.

IMHO - he's guilty - but that is based on what I know -
not on all of the evidence that will be given to a jury
I hope a JUST verdict is reached


What some of us - including me - now want is
to eliminate all stand your ground laws
&
begin to dismantle ALEC (accomplished!)
&
put the NRA where it belongs

[-] 0 points by JusticeForTrayvon (34) 2 years ago

So, if Trayvon was in fact on top of Zimmerman slamming his head against the curb, as the eyewitness claimed, does the stand your ground statute even apply?

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

I am not a lawyer- but my understanding is -
1
If Zimmerman "stalked" Trayvon and Travon did ANYTHING to defend himself - including slamming his head into the curb - Zimmerman is guilty
2
If Trayvon was NOT stalked, and just attacked Zimmerman, Zim merman mya get off


If you got into an argument, and they other person slapped you, would you pull out a gun and shoot them? or would you try to run away?
STAND YOUR GROUND says you can kill someone you are afraid of - if you did not start it

[-] 0 points by JusticeForTrayvon (34) 2 years ago

Repeatedly slamming someone's head into a curb can be "self defense"?

It is becoming more and more obvious that you are not a lawyer, or else you would realize that someone slapping you does not indicate a "reasonable threat to" your life.

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

and you were there to see the head slamming ?


Florida’s how to commit legal murder manual:
1> Find you victim in public with no witnesses
2> Kill him
3> Say “I was afraid for my life”

From your friends at the NRA & ALEC
The Florida Stand Your Ground Law: 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
;…


Incident date: March 27, 2006
What happened: Michael D. Frazzini, 35, went to his mother's house to investigate claims that neighbors were harassing her, specifically 22-year-old Corey Rasmussen, who, she said, had taken her car keys. Frazzini, dressed in sweat clothes and a camouflage mask, hid in the back yard. When the Rasmussens spotted someone behind the house, Corey Rasmussen jumped the fence into a utility easement where they encountered Michael Frazzini carrying something in his hand. It was a small souvenir baseball bat. Corey could have left but did not leave. Corey's father, Todd, instructed his daughter to retrieve his .357 revolver. He saw his son and the masked man (Michael) facing off, claimed that he yelled a warning and then fired one shot into Frazzini's chest, killing him.
The outcome: Not charged – stand your ground.


Incident date: June 14, 2009
What happened: Oscar Delbono shot Shane Huse, 34, in the neck and shoulder after an argument between the neighbors, the result of a long-running dispute over Huse's two pit bull terriers. Huse's two children were in his truck nearby when Huse approached the shooter's yard. A witness to the shooting said Huse was turning to leave when he was shot and bullet entry wounds supported that account. Delbono said he thought Huse was "going for something. I feared for my life."
The outcome: No charges were filed. "It is a tragic, unfortunate set of circumstances that occurred, but given the state of the law – stand your ground - there's no criminal prosecution," wrote assistant state attorney Pete Magrino.


[-] -2 points by JusticeForTrayvon (34) 2 years ago

No. I didn't say there was any. You said that Trayvon could have slammed Zman's head repeatedly against the curb, in retaliation for being stalked by Zman, and it could theoretically be justified as self-defense.

Sounds to me like you are saying Trayvon could reasonably "Stand his ground" by attacking Zman first in response to being stalked.

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

For those who don't understand what the SYG law says:

Title XLVI JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Now where does this say that you can "shoot first" as some ignoramuses claim? SYG will not apply if Zimmerman provoked an altercation. The law is fine, it is the ability of others to think reasonably or critically that is flawed.

[-] 0 points by JusticeForTrayvon (34) 2 years ago

I'm downvoting this post! I don't like your application of reason and legal science!

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

And that is the problem with "trial by media"; too many emotions and not enough facts or thought.

[Deleted]

[Removed]

[Removed]

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

There is going to be this thing they call a trail. I am not on the jury, but some of my peers and his will be. So when it starts I will follow is some. And when it's over I will look at the evidence and see if justice was done, I won't look at TV ratings or Headline news to see what I think.

Now the Repelicans are still trying to wreck the economy, send women's rights back to the 18th century, set a course for the planet toward a disaster and you want me to waste time on something I can't do anything about?

Besides, you are a troll that just changed your name, again.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by JusticeForTrayvon (34) 2 years ago

What evidence do you have that supports the idea that I am a troll? Or are you religiously believing your hypothesis without information because it supports your predetermined conclusion?

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago
  1. You don't deny it. 2. (5) Five posts 3. I lose nothing if I am wrong. 4. You gain nothing if I am wrong. 5. No profile. 6. You are more concerned that I know you are a troll than the substance of my post. 7 You smell like a troll. 8. You live under a bridge. 9. The bridge is rated "unsafe" but you wouldn't want the government to repair it. 10. You are afraid to use your real name because your Mom might see it. 11. She dresses you funny.

Religion has absolutely nothing to do with it.

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

LOL!!!!!!!!!!! Whoopie!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I mean, damn. "If it walks like a duck . . . ."

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

Yes AND it sells insurance!

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

My God you Guy's are gonna kill me with this stuff. I have never experienced such a fine wickedly humorous morning in such a very long time. Thanks.

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

Aflac, aflac.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

brightonsage

oh - do - NOT - GET - ME - STARTED. {:-O

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

Step away from the humor box and nobody gets hurt.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

No it's mine MINE I tellsya.

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

Probably got from a foreclosure sale, didn't you?

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

It was a gift a Gift I tellsya.....yeah...yeah...that's the ticket...yeah..that's my story and I'm sticken to it.

Wow...........scared myself............sounded kind of like a politician there for a second.

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

Don't let them recruit you. That has meant the demise of many a good man.

Is there still a bounty on them? Used to be $10 for a pair of ears. Or was that coyotes?

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Varmints ...laughing....varmints....yep.....varmints.

[-] -1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

LOL!!! Afffffllllaaaaaak!!!

[-] -1 points by JusticeForTrayvon (34) 2 years ago
  1. "You don't deny it"?

First of all, the burden of proof is always on the accuser. It is definitely obvious you are not a lawyer, or else you would realize this basic fact. You can't merely claim something about someone and then use the fact that they didn't refute the claim as evidence that it was true. Perhaps this is all over your head, but at least I tried.

  1. "Five posts"

Is evidence that someone is a troll? No newcomers allowed? This absurdity does not even need refutation.

  1. "I lose nothing if I am wrong"

Okay, a long time ago I guess, people that made claims that aren't true were known as "liars". If you don't think this label would hurt your reputation, you must have been well known as one anyway.

7, 8, 9, 10, 11, along with your original claim that I am a troll, are all religious beliefs; things you believe without supporting evidence because you want them to be true. It's called a predetermined conclusion.

In addition, I find it amusing that GypsyKing complies or at one time complied with factors 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 indicating that he/she is a troll, so I guess either your logic is absurd (we already knew that), or you are just uneducated. Either way, there is help available to you.

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

Yawn......

[-] 0 points by JusticeForTrayvon (34) 2 years ago

:D

Cheers

[-] 1 points by justiceforzim (-17) 2 years ago

So....you folks put on your hoodies and marched for the kid months ago,. Howz cum uv stopped talking about being duped?

If I HAD A SON, HE WOULD LOOK LIKE BRIAN TERRY

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

I'm sure the people in Florida did not forget... but the news media moved on to the next 15 minutes. Sadly... profits always overrule real and important news.

[-] -1 points by JusticeForTrayvon (34) 2 years ago

Well, we can get their attention back. All we need to do is shift the national focus back to things that matter.

[-] 1 points by OccNoVi (415) 2 years ago

Because the matter is in the courts. Let's not risk tainting even one juror with our opinions.

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

When Zimmerman was charged, it tamped down all of the immediate public outrage. This trial will be about Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, make no mistake about that. The reason the law should never have been passed in the first place is because allows anyone to kill anyone and claim self-defense because they can claim that they felt that their life was in danger. Obviously the law enables such a great degree of subjectivity. My prediction is that Zimmerman will walk. Gun sales will continue to escalate in states that have such laws. Welcome to Dodge.

[-] 0 points by JusticeForTrayvon (34) 2 years ago

Just out of curiosity, what are your opinions on this case:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/05/okla-mom-shoots-intruder-no-charges_n_1186096.html?show_comment_id=151530173#comment_151530173

Now, this is not a provocation or a "gotcha", so please don't get mad. I am serious here. If the law did not allow the woman to stand her ground, wouldn't she have had to flee her house? Both men were attacking the front door, I believe, so in theory she could have gotten out fine into the dark of night through the back door.

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

Let me begin by saying that I'm against killing. Everything this woman had in the house could have been replaced. She's forever changed by herself and family and loved ones of the person she killed. There may well be a time when she begins to consider the "what if" of killing the intruder. She'll have to live with that, I suppose.

[-] -2 points by JusticeForTrayvon (34) 2 years ago

You didn't answer the question.... it was a serious question.

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

She should have taken her baby and left her house. That's my opinion of the case. There is no case. Law enforcement has held that she acted in self-defense. That's a serious answer.

[-] -2 points by JusticeForTrayvon (34) 2 years ago

Actually, I thought of another serious question. Is it okay to defend a pet's life with deadly force? If someone is kicking my door in, and I have the option to flee, but I can't get my pet to come with me, is it okay to use deadly force to defend my pet?

[-] -2 points by JusticeForTrayvon (34) 2 years ago

Alright, thanks, that's all I wanted to know.

[-] 1 points by amanofnoimportance (82) from Orlando, FL 2 years ago

Because it's just one leak in a gushing dam. One injustice out of millions each day.

Focusing chiefly on it instead of what may have caused this tragedy narrowed people's vision; made the big picture blurry.

It had its time. Step back and try to gain focus of the grander circumstances.

[-] 0 points by JusticeForTrayvon (34) 2 years ago

Absolutely not. Did we stop talking about Rodney King, just because it was happening other places? Heck no. People don't care about the big picture. We need individual cases like this one to get people passionately involved.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

We have a system, a protocol that should always be followed when certain events occur. In the case of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman, that protocol was not followed.

Now there are steps being taken, George Zimmerman has been charged, he has had an arraignment (bail hearing), and the system is beginning it's work.

We all would expect as fair a trial as possible for anyone charged with a crime, it is now time for us to step back and let the process work without outside influence.

Trayvon Martin did not get his 'day in court', but now George Zimmerman will, and we should all hope his day is as fair as humanly possible.

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

The loudest voices wanted Zimmerman arrested and a full investigation conducted.
Done and done.
Time to move on and let the court handle it now.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

It goes well beyond that. It also goes to the heart of "Shoot First" laws and the racist demagoguery used to get them passed.

As long as those laws are on the books, there is no moving past them. Those laws must be repealed.

[-] 3 points by JusticeForTrayvon (34) 2 years ago

What about the SYG law is racist? Does the law say certain racial groups have the right to shoot each other? I mean, seriously? Is everything you don't like racist?

[-] -1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

It was passed by inciting racial fears.

These laws are encouragement of vigilantism. And vigilantism always disproportionally targets racial minorities, who are perceived by the communities that pass these Shoot First laws as the greater threat.

It is no accident that these Shoot First laws have been passed mostly in states that have a long history of official segregation and Jim Crow. Although the laws were changed years ago and on the surface things look peachy, the undercurrent of bigotry has lingered. The fact that these Shoot First laws were passed there at a time when all crime, especially violent crime, had been going DOWN for TWO DECADES is an indication that there was no legal need for them.

Increasing hostility toward Brown people in the form of xenophobic anti-immigration demagoguery, and the increased influence of ALEC and NRA racist dog whistle propaganda made these laws seem necessary to the public.

[-] 1 points by JusticeForTrayvon (34) 2 years ago

Citation?

[-] -3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Citation?

Look at the long history and pattern of official racism in the states that passed these laws. It speaks for itself.

[-] 3 points by JusticeForTrayvon (34) 2 years ago

Didn't think so.

[-] -2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Didn't believe you could think, either, and have been proven right about that.

These laws are encouragement of vigilantism. And vigilantism always disproportionally targets racial minorities, who are perceived by the communities that pass these Shoot First laws as the greater threat.

It is no accident that these Shoot First laws have been passed mostly in states that have a long history of official segregation and Jim Crow. Although the laws were changed years ago and on the surface things look peachy, the undercurrent of bigotry has lingered. The fact that these Shoot First laws were passed there at a time when all crime, especially violent crime, had been going DOWN for TWO DECADES is an indication that there was no legal need for them.

Increasing hostility toward Brown people in the form of xenophobic anti-immigration demagoguery, and the increased influence of ALEC and NRA racist dog whistle propaganda made these laws seem necessary to the public.

[-] 2 points by JusticeForTrayvon (34) 2 years ago

Well, now you can add logical fallacy on top of personal attacks.

Please calm down and take a deep breath.

I find it a little amusing, first of all, that you say I am unable to think, and then not only reply to my post with a lengthy response but edit your original post to reflect the new information. It doesn't sound like I don't matter at all...

Secondly, upward/downward trends in crime have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not someone has the duty to retreat before shooting. Crime rates are down from what? 100,000 per 100,000? If you cannot see the logical fallacy of this, then I am deeply sorry for your family.

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (6638) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

People should always look deeper into crime statistics than merely the numbers. Demographics, for example. An aging population will reflect a downward trend in crimes most associated with youth, such as vandalism. Anyone that equates lower rates with assumptions like 'SYG laws lower the incidents of violent crime' are simplistic views at best.

[-] -1 points by JusticeForTrayvon (34) 2 years ago

Not sure if you are implying this or not, but I am not saying that SYG laws reduce crime. It is immaterial; a person's right to self defense is not based on what other people are doing.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6638) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

No, no. Not implying that at all. Although I posted it under your response, it was basically related to epa1ter's comment about crime rates going down without him quantifying it. My point, I guess, was that crime rates shouldn't necessarily be taken at face value. A lot of people may automatically think if rates go down, it's exclusively because the cops are doing a better job or because of some new law passed, but there's a lot more to it than that. An aging population for example, or an economy headed for the shitter. Know what I mean? By the way, I'm no fan of the SYG laws.

[-] -2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Putting words in my mouth does not advance your argument. Who said crime rates were down because one had a duty to retreat? That they were down, and still trending in that direction while the duty to retreat was in effect is an indication that the legalization of vigilantism was not necessary to reduce crime.

[-] 2 points by JusticeForTrayvon (34) 2 years ago

Okay, I see how you took that... let me rephrase.

The fundamental issue of whether or not a person has the duty to retreat from danger has nothing to do with the crime rate. Rights are rights, no matter what other people are doing, and responsibilities are responsibilities. And it certainly has nothing to do with trends in crime rates.

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

The fundamental issue is whether a person has an obligation to avoid, rather than initiate, deadly violence against another human being.

The issue is that the perception of the need for Shoot First laws was based, not on one, single, conceivable need, but on a stirring up of unreasoned fear and hatred by pandering politicians and corporations. The need was clearly not there given the decades long dropping crime rate, and it was not there considering that robust and reasonable self defense laws were already on the books. Demagoguery alone created the perception that there was any such need for these disgusting laws. Fear and loathing of new immigrants and of African Americans provided the perfect petrie dish for this diseased idea to grow in, combined with the bullshit cowboy mythology of gun-toting yahoos.

That these fears, hatreds and myths were manipulated by ALEC and the NRA, by business interests, and made into law by legislators, represents the lowest form of ethical corruption there is. Legislators have a duty to preserve law, including due process. They have an obligation to protect the life of its citizens, even the criminal ones. They have an obligation to promote civil society, not tear it apart by promoting inchoate racial fears and xenophobia in order to raise profits for gun manufacturers. And they have the obligation to ensure that enforcement of law is carried out by trained, authorized agents of the state - the police - not privatize it to vigilantes.

These laws are a filthy stain, an indictment of the worst aspects of American character.

[-] -1 points by JusticeForTrayvon (34) 2 years ago

Wow. I think you got a reference to every single left wing boogeyman in existence into that post. I would think you were trolling if you hadn't been around so long.

Seriously? Racist corporations got SYG laws passed?

Time for the weekly edition of "Really???" with Seth and Amy....

So, if someone is truly representing a deadly threat to you, you have an obligation to run away and potentially get shot in the back? If someone pulls a gun on you and tells you they are going to kill you, that does not represent an initiation of violence? If so, we are going to need to change the rules of engagement the police use.

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

"Self defense was never the issue? "

That's right, for the FOURTH time, it never was. Self defense was ALWAYS legal. Period.

These laws did not make self defense legal. They did not establish that right. That right was already there. These laws made deadly aggression legal. That is very different you willful obfuscation notwithstanding.

[-] 0 points by JusticeForTrayvon (34) 2 years ago

I'm glad I'm not your terrified child or spouse, wondering if the police are going to get there before the heroin addict finishes kicking the door in in the middle of the night. Good thing we can't use force against him, because we can just run out the back door in the middle of the night. There probably aren't others.

Perhaps these issues are foreign to you; perhaps you live in a gated community and could care less what poor people have to go through to survive.

Let's spin the response wheel and see what you come up with... ca-chud-da-ddad-dadadadadaaaada ddaaaaa... Personal attack! You get to spin again!

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

reply to your repetition below.

Self defense was never the issue. You always had a right to defend yourself before these laws were enacted. How often do you need to be told before it sinks in???

You wonder why the attacks? It is in response to your deliberate obtuseness.

[-] 1 points by JusticeForTrayvon (34) 2 years ago

Self defense was never the issue? Whoa, I could have sworn the SYG law gives people the right to defend themselves if they have a gun pulled on them.

Okay, I guess some people call it "self defense", but other, more educated folks such as yourself know it by its real name of "Wallabe pedophilia"

No, I don't wonder why the attacks occur, I just find them amusing. People that don't employ logic often resort to attacks to reinforce their absurd beliefs. It's the oldest trick in the book; if you can't convince someone you are right with debate, then attack their character to keep others from listening to them.

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

You are really dense, aren't you? Shoot first laws are just that: shoot first, assess the risk later. Up until now the law required you, within reason, to back off if you could. Not if you COULDN'T. If you couldn't back off, the use of deadly force was ALWAYS within the law. That requirement for trying to avoid injury or death to someone else if not necessary has been eliminated. Reason has been eliminated, supplanted by aggression as an optional first choice. That is called vigilantism. That is wild west bullshit.

It was unnecessary, it was created by stirring up racial fears and it was created to sell more guns.

Deal with it.

[-] 0 points by treasure (-81) 2 years ago

Why do you even bother. This guys obviously doesn't understand the most basic of concepts.

[-] 0 points by JusticeForTrayvon (34) 2 years ago

Mmm-hm, more personal attacks. You're getting predictable...

What is reason? You can in fact run away if someone pulls a gun on you. Heck, most of the time they probably won't even shoot you in the back, especially if it is a carjacking. And if the law prevented people from shooting in response to having a gun pulled on them, it would happen at a much higher rate if the criminals realized (which they will) that they can make people flee by using deadly force.

The other misconception you have is that self-defense is "enforcement of the law". Citizens have the same right to self defense any policeman has. If you confront a policeman with deadly force, he will likely shoot. If you allow police to shoot under one set of circumstances, how on earth can you justify not letting any other person shoot under the exact same set of circumstances? Are the police some kind of protected class?

I'd suggest a different approach from the personal attack for your reply; you've already used that one tonight. I'd go for something more along the lines of "You're not worth arguing with!" But of course, the choice is ultimately yours.

[-] -1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Reply to your falseness below:

For the FIFTH time, self defense laws already covered your scenario. If someone broke into your house, you were ALWAYS allowed to use deadly force to protect your home and family. Shoot First laws did NOT change that.

Keep distorting the issue. Keep inventing falsehoods that have no relationship to these laws. The more you do, the more you show yourself for the dissembling liar your are.

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

The laws, when followed are fine. What is wrong with protecting a person who lawfully uses force to protect themselves or their loved ones? The SYG law shouldn't apply in this case at all. If you read the law, no where does it say that you can pursue, provoke and/or encourage an altercation. Zimmerman was not acting within the letter of SYG and therefor, the "shoot first" (gross misrepresentation) law isn't even in question. Go beyond the media and do some independent study. You will be surprised at what and how the media has distorted this story.

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

The "Shoot First" (an absolutely apt characterization by any standard) laws are not meant for self-defense. Self defense laws were already on the books and were robust. These laws are about aggression, and were brought into being by an unholy alliance between ALEC business interests and the NRA. They used dog whistle racism and demagoguery to get the support of the electorate at a time when all crime was going down but xenophobia about illegal immigration (brown people) was going up.

THis kid was stalked before the tragic shooting. He was a black kid who looked "wrong" because of his color and clothing for the area he was in. Whether or not the Shoot First laws applied in this case, there tenor of those laws encourages the behavior we know about here.

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

Have you read the law line by line and understood it? If you did, you wouldn't be saying that. Here it is, line for line.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Thank you. I have read it. I stand by what I said. In the aggregate these laws encourage arrogance and diminish the value of human life.

I also stand by what I said regarding the scurrilous, demagogic and racist history of these laws and their ties to profit motives.

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

The law encourages nothing, it is faulty logic and ignorance that encourages someone to act while thinking they are covered under a law. Do not blame the law for an ignorant individual. And what profit is there in this law? I don't understand that one.

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

profits????????? gun sales - thats why the NRA wrote it & ALEC spewed it

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

So you think the NRA makes a profit off of gun sales? God damn you OWSers have more conspiracy theories than a birther.

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

In case you didn't know the NRA gets money from membership dues and gun conventions just track NRA membership with gun sales

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

This law sucks in it's implementation.

Get over it. It really does. It's shoot to kill, or go to prison.

A fucked piece of legislation if ever there was one. http://www.thegrio.com/news/marissa-alexander-angela-coreys-other-stand-your-ground-case.php

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

Again, so many people have no idea what the law says still make asinine statements.
Subsection 2 plainly states that one is not protected in using deadly force against a lawful occupant of the home under this law and using deadly violence in the case of domestic abuse is not covered under this law either. Alexander is not covered under SYG, but she should be freed because of the battered spouse defense and the fact that she did not harm the her husband. Please read and understand the law before you talk about it.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

[-] -3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

The (R)epelican'ts want to get rid of that law too. Scott is an asshole.

Be sure you send that subsection2 shit to every woman about to get the crap beat out of her.

Like I said, this law is pure 100% shit, at least in it's Florida implementation, where it's nothing but "good ol' boy" bullshit..

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

Wow, due process got two thumbs down. Pretty pathetic OWSers.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Certainly all real OWSers are concerned to see real justice done for Trayvon, but we are in the process of building an international social justice movement, a somewhat complex undertaking, and further, the issue has the potential of being as divissive as unifying.

And so, as a movement, I think we can find more productive ways to unite with the minority community for the benefit of all.

Having said that, I know that this movement has it's eyes on that case, and will be willing to act if injustice is done. Of course, I only speak for myself here, just as we all do. Yet I am fairly certain I have accurately summed up the feelings of most of us at the moment.

[-] -2 points by Craiggiedangit (99) 2 years ago

The minority community has organized tremendously over this issue. Why drop it now? Here's our chance and we're letting the door slam on it. This is hard to watch; a movement being wasted.

[-] 0 points by jbgramps (159) 2 years ago

What chance? What are you going to do? This case is sharply divided along racial lines. I think trying to tap into this level of anger is dangerous. Let the courts do their thing. The court decision on this will not end the hostility; maybe even inflame it. This is a distraction for OWS.

[-] 1 points by Craiggiedangit (99) 2 years ago

We need anger, anger at our enemies. It helps the movement, just like it helps every political movement, from the Tea Party to PETA. That's how you get people to do your bidding, get them angry at each other, angry at other races, angry at other groups. Blind and irrational anger is the way to get people's efforts working for you.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

People dont get angry unless they are really upset. And nothing changes until they are really upset. And right now there isnt even CLOSE to that amount of unrest to get anything done. The masses are going to go and endorse the same two companies to fix all the stuff they fucked up.

[-] 1 points by jbgramps (159) 2 years ago

Oh lord, don’t get me started me started on PETA. They’ve shot themselves in the foot so often with their antics most people view them as a joke. The Tea Party was a little more serious, but the people are now on to them. They’re clout has diminished greatly. But I digress.

The public interest in the Trayvon case is in a lull, but will fire back up big time during and after the trail. The interest in the case is not about two individuals. It brings a lot of sanative topics to the surface. Things like profiling, gun laws, gen rights, racism, self defense, stalking and so on. All of these are very hot button issues for the public. Frankly, no matter what the court decision there’s a probability of racial violence on one side or the other.

My point is I don’t think OWS can gain anything lending to their name to either side of the argument. I even think either side would feel we were trying to hijack their agenda if OWS became involved. Best we stay out of it

[-] 1 points by Craiggiedangit (99) 2 years ago

So you think the "million hoodie march" was a bad thing?

GK told me that only trolls are talking about Trayvon. I guess he wants Zman to get off free then. Were the organizers of the million hoodie march trolls within OWS or something?

[-] 0 points by jbgramps (159) 2 years ago

Your point is not clear to me. But, I will not argue who was right or wrong in the Trayvon incident. This is not the point of this thread. What I’m saying is it shouldn’t be an OWS objective. It would be a distraction.

Think about it, you can argue about this incident till you’re blue in the face and it won’t change anyone’s mind. People have already picked a side, and not even the court will shake their view. Individuals can and should get involved; I have. But the bottom line is OWS can’t win by choosing sides in this.

[-] 2 points by Craiggiedangit (99) 2 years ago

We still need to stand up for what is right. We need activism, to get people involved, and to entice the minority community to join our movement. The million hoodie march was a success, and I'm glad we didn't listen to people like you telling us to stay away from "distractions". The Martin case is just another way for us to get our message out. Stop trying to silence us.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6638) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

You are correct, and many have tried pointing this out in this and other Trayvon-related threads, but these guys just don't understand it. They have blinders on.

[-] -1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

I would like to use the above comment by Craiggiedangit, a long established and well known troll, to stand as an clear example of what our opponents would want us to be stupid enough to do - and that is to respond blindly to provocation, rather then turn our energies into productive channels.

[-] 1 points by Craiggiedangit (99) 2 years ago

Okay, first of all, you are employing the old tactic of making a fringe claim, and then claiming "everyone knows it", or that it is "common knowledge". If you would like to provide some evidence I am a troll, you are welcome to do so, or you can merely keep unscientifically and religiously claiming something you have not supporting evidence for is true, merely because you want it to be.

So, this omnipresent troll conspiracy you speak of, were "we" able to get the NYCGA to go along with our secret agenda when they got a million people to show up at union square in support of Trayvon?

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-764995

Is every OWS action you don't like the fault of this troll conspiracy?

Or is OWS run by trolls now?

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by TheTrollSlayer (347) from Kingsport, TN 2 years ago

Maybe because some of us are tired of people turning tragedy like this into racist issues. 93% of the murders of black men are in fact perpetrated by other blacks. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/bvvc.pdf

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

I think it's all nonsense.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Kahn (6) from Philipsburg, PA 2 years ago

Why did people stop talking about it? Maybe we're sick of the race baiting bullshit and the so called "facts" the media are pushing aren't the whole truth. Besides, why is this a race issue when Zimmerman is just as white as Obama?

[-] -1 points by JusticeForTrayvon (34) 2 years ago

Hispanics are white when I want them to be so I can use them to reinforce an argument. When I don't want them to be, they are Hispanic.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by NationalSocialist (-3) from San Francisco, CA 2 years ago

Just another Hispanic killing a black. Tomorrow it'll be a black killing a Hispanic. So what?

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

How does a racist comment by a nazi get upvoted here?

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by JoeW (109) 2 years ago

As I see it we can't really tell who committed battery first in this case causing it to escalate. I do not see Zimmerman just coming up to Trayvon pointing a gun at him, them struggling, and Trayvon being shot.

I do see Zimmerman pissing off Trayvon and getting socked, or maybe grabbing and trying to restrain him, and that setting him off. Undoubtedly there was a struggle, and undoubtedly both parties felt threatened. Zimmerman should not have shot Trayvon, but in the heat of the moment.

I think that manslaughter charges would be the most appropriate in this case.

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

I think you have it exactly right: who felt they had to stand their ground in the case of Martin and Zimmerman? Zimmerman was, by all accounts, persuing Martin; following him through the neighborhood. Did Martin turn and confront Zimmerman? Is that what initiated the scuffle? We only have the account of Zimmerman to go by. I believe it's reasonable to think that Martin stood his ground.

[-] 0 points by JusticeForTrayvon (34) 2 years ago

I know too much about Trayvon to agree that he might possibly hit someone for making him mad. I didn't know him personally, but I looked at his picture, and I could tell he was a good person... because of certain physical characteristics. I know exactly what happened.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

I appreciate where your sentiments about Trayvon are coming from, but it is impossible to judge a book by its cover.

[-] 0 points by JusticeForTrayvon (34) 2 years ago

Could you clarify that first sentence please?

Thing is, I really don't think saying someone is good is judgement. Judgement is like saying someone is a bad person from looking at them, not saying they are good.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

You're a strange fellow. I only wrote one sentence and the meaning is pretty clear.

In a nutshell, what I mean is I understand your sympathies toward Trayvon, whom you feel is a victim of a crime.

BUT, you can not claim to have the ability to look at a person's picture and form an accurate opinion of him, that is paramount to saying you have a superhuman power. I am highly skeptical. For example, if a scientific test were applied and you were to look through a number of photos of both good and bad people, I would bet my life you could not accurately pick out the good from the bad just by viewing a picture.

Now, I also think Trayvon Martin is probably a decent, normal person, but I would base my opinion on the way his mother and father carried themselves through this very tragic situation. I would presume that some of the sensibilities they displayed must have been present in Trayvon, since they raised him. Of course, that is only my opinion, and perhaps not accurate at all. It is a fact I do not really know Trayvon that well and cannot say for sure without knowing him in a much more intimate way through testimonies and other evidence to verify how accurate my opinion is. Therefore, I must be fair in my opinions and retain some objectivity.

[-] -2 points by NationalSocialist (-3) from San Francisco, CA 2 years ago

Now THAT is funny!,! You must be a genius!

[-] 0 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

They did some research

[-] 3 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

We haven't figured out who killed Martin Luther or John Fitzgerald yet, so he's at the back of the queue.

[-] -1 points by tupacsugar (-136) 2 years ago

Barney Frank:

“One of the great men that I’ve worked with Hubie for many years and I’m particularly pleased that Hubie got an honorary degree today. You know, when you get an honorary degree they give you one of these and Hubie, I think you now got a hoodie you can wear and no one will shoot at you.”

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

we have moved on now. that is old news. in reality nobody gives a damn, just want to be part of something

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Waiting for updates. It was fantastic when that POS got charged with 2nd degree murder. Now I am praying that justice will be served.

[Removed]

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

Everyone stopped talking about him because he was a hoodlum and the guy who shot him did it in self defense.

[-] -2 points by sonofdy (0) 2 years ago

Zimmerman is looking inoccent, so...

[-] 0 points by JusticeForTrayvon (34) 2 years ago

What do you mean? Use your powers of predetermined conclusions! He''s only as innocent as you want him to be!

[-] -2 points by behindthemask (-124) 2 years ago

Because Al Sharpton got a slap down for inciting a race war . . .AND hundreds of black kids have died at the hands of other black kids since Travon was killed . . .AND calling Zimmerman a"White Hispanic" wasnjust plain stupid . . . AND NBC doctored the 911 tapes and the video of Zimmermans injuries . . . And Blacks have killed several whites in retaliation .. .and we all know THAT can't be a HATE crime 'cause only whites are racist. . . . . need more?

[-] -3 points by prevere (-56) 2 years ago

Because Trayvon isn't the innocent little 14 yr old kid that Jesse,Al,Obama and the Leftist whore media tried to sell him as.

There's too much room for doubt now as to Trayvons actions. He might have been trying to kill Zimmerman and all the race bait'ers and propagandist's realize that they should probably just shut the fuck up before they are held responsible for all the violent retribution now being perpetrated on innocent white people in the name of Trayvon.

This is what Al,Jesse and the militant activist Left do,they jump to conclusions and gin up community vigilantism and animosity and racial hatred for their own personal and financial gain.

That's it in a nutshell.

[-] -1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

I'm already onto your "promote racial division troll tactic," and you just got it started. Sorry to sabotage the barrage of stuff on this issue you guys have in the works, but that's it.

YOU'RE CALLED OUT!

[-] 1 points by Craiggiedangit (99) 2 years ago

Supporting social justice equals "promoting racial division" now? When did you start sounding like Glen Beck? Look, I don't know what the heck you are talking about, but OWS has been supporting Trayvon and social justice in general ever since it started. Why are you trying to throw us off of this track?

[-] -1 points by prevere (-56) 2 years ago

You're not on to anything,you are just as fucking clueless as the rest of the "social justice" dipshit's who are trying to profit (be it promotional or financial) from this unfortunate situation. You and the your Drones are going to ride the Trayvon express as far and as long as you think it is to your advantage.

"And so, as a movement, I think we can find more productive ways to unite with the minority community for the benefit of all."

What a load of bullshit that is,you should concern yourselves with your own productivity and your own community and stop camping out and raping and vandalizing like savage Injuns and stop crapping on cop cars.

[-] -2 points by Craiggiedangit (99) 2 years ago

Yeah! Bottom line is, NO ONE in this country makes money from stirring up racial hatred, and certainly not the media!

Okay, let me rephrase that, if anyone DID make money from it, it would definitely be someone from the OTHER SIDE, not our angelic side! WE never do anything evil!

[-] 0 points by takim (23) 2 years ago

sharpton and jackson have made a career out being race hustlers.

[-] -2 points by Craiggiedangit (99) 2 years ago

Is that what calling a spade a spade has become? "Race hustling"?

Face the facts: It's never been harder in this country to even survive as a minority. The deck is stacked, admit it, Limbaugh.

[-] 1 points by takim (23) 2 years ago

sharpton is a race hustler, so is jackson. they have made money from their divisive behavior. tawana brawley ring a bell? "hymie town"? "Push"? Rainbow coalition?

[-] 0 points by Craiggiedangit (99) 2 years ago

Those were made up by the rich whites pushing their agenda of racism.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

WTF are you talking about? Did you forget to take your meds?

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Care2 from Civil Rights:

Progressive Media Outlets Pledge Coverage Of May Day Protests

http://www.care2.com/go/z/e/AGLTe/zmvm/B18Bb

May Day, otherwise known as International and Immigrant Workers’ Day, marks the first major resurgence of the Occupy Wall Street movement since massive arrests and police brutality drove most occupations indoors over the winter.

http://www.care2.com/causes/may-day-occupy-wall-street-gears-up-for-nationwide-strike.html

Although OWS has been in full effect since September, 2011, mainstream media outlets have consistently refused to cover its actions, or intentionally distorted coverage by focusing only on participants who thwart the movement’s mandate against violence and vandalism. That’s why more than 25 independent media outlets belonging to The Media Consortium are collaborating to provide coordinated, national coverage of the nationwide May Day strike and other related events.

http://www.care2.com/causes/media-blackout-during-ows-eviction.html

http://www.themediaconsortium.org/

To assist the movement in spreading its message of social and economic equality on this historic day, Media for the 99 Percent will leverage their existing platforms and reporters to provide coordinated national multimedia coverage, featuring:

http://www.mediaforthe99percent.com/

An interactive Map: Find out where actions are happening across the country and follow the independent media’s by-the-minute coverage with links to video, audio, photos, and blog reports.

Television and Live Stream Broadcast: Free Speech TV will broadcast live (and live streamed) news coverage throughout the day, featuring reports from around the U.S., as well as in-studio commentary.

http://www.fstv.org/

Curated Social Media Coverage: Using the Storify platform, Media for the 99 Percent will offer a curated narrative of breaking news via blog updates, along with photos and social media posts from reporters on the ground.

All three content tools are available for embedding by other news outlets and the public.

As a member of The Media Consortium, Care2 Causes is proud to support the efforts of Media for the 99 Percent by continuing to bring you accurate, passionate accounts of occupations across the U.S. and around the world.

Do you trust corporate media tell the story of the May Day actions? Do you trust corporate media to explain the messages of income inequality, workers’ rights, immigrant rights, and more behind these actions? If not, we encourage you to do whatever you can to support the efforts of Media For The 99 Percent.

Read, watch, and share the stories published by members of Media for the 99 Percent on your social media profiles. You can also help by making a financial donation so the coalition can pay its freelancers for their hard work during this event.

http://supportyourmedia.razoo.com/story/Media-For-The-99-Percent

Related Reading:

OWS Sustainability To Host May Day Teach-Ins

http://www.care2.com/causes/ows-sustainability-to-host-may-day-teach-ins.html

Occupy The Courts Protesters Seek To End Citizens United

http://www.care2.com/causes/occupy-the-courts-protesters-seek-to-end-citizens-united.html

May Day Belongs To The Workers And Their Songs

http://www.care2.com/causes/may-day-belongs-to-the-workers-and-their-songs-come-sing-along.html

Read more:

general strike http://www.care2.com/causes/tag/general-strike ,

may day http://www.care2.com/causes/tag/may-day ,

occupy wall street http://www.care2.com/causes/tag/occupy-wall-street ,

ows http://www.care2.com/causes/tag/ows ,

progressive media http://www.care2.com/causes/tag/progressive-media ,

the media consortium http://www.care2.com/causes/tag/the-media-consortium

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/progressive-media-outlets-pledge-coverage-of-may-day-protests.html#ixzz1tRBxEZAg

[-] -2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Wow! Great DKA, really great!!!

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

So much for MSM blackout. The light shines regardless. I love it.

[-] -2 points by prevere (-56) 2 years ago

Spoken like a true Leftist,congrats.