Geraldo: Blame the hoodie for Trayvon Martin shooting as much as the shooter; Update: Florida law explained

posted at 11:00 am on March 23, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

As a gun-rights advocate, I constantly have to remind people that guns are a tool, not an entity with motives, and that the responsibility for its use lies with the shooter. For some reason, we have an impulse after tragedies to try to blame objects rather than people, or more likely, to blame everyone else (“society”) for the personal choices of an individual. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen it taken to the extent that Geraldo Rivera does in this morning’s Fox and Friends segment on Trayvon Martin’s death:

“I have a different take, Brian, on that,” Rivera said. “I believe that George Zimmerman, the overzealous neighborhood watch captain should be investigated to the fullest extent of the law and if he is criminally liable, he should be prosecuted. But I am urging the parents of black and Latino youngsters particularly to not let their children go out wearing hoodies. I think the hoodie is as much responsible for Trayvon Martin’s death as George Zimmerman was.”

According to Rivera, the so-called hoodie has negative connotations attached to it, which may inspire ill-advised reflexive reactions.

“When you see a kid walking down the street, particularly a dark skinned kid like my son Cruz who I constantly yelled at when he was going out wearing a damn hoodie or those pants around his ankles,” Rivera said. “Take that hood off. People look at you and what’s the instant identification? What’s the instant association? Its crime scene surveillance tapes. Every time you see someone stick up a 7-Eleven, the kid is wearing a hoodie. Every time you see a mugging on a surveillance camera or get the old lady in the alcove, it’s the kid with a hoodie. You have to recognize that this whole stylizing yourself as a gangsta — you’re going to be a gangsta wannabe? Well, people are going to perceive you as a menace. That’s what happens. It is an instant reflexive action.”

I’ve had a number of e-mails asking me to analyze the issues in the Martin/Zimmerman shooting. I’ve struggled with it, but I can assure readers that hoodies never came up in my calculations. I do get what Rivera is saying; I had this conversation with my nephew when he was a teenager, explaining that clothes are a statement of values that get communicated instantly to the people around him, especially to those who don’t know him. That doesn’t mean that baggy pants or a hoodie makes you complicit in your own death when someone shoots you for no other reason, however, and it’s a blame-the-victim impulse to make that argument.

Otherwise, this is a tough case to explain, in part because I’m much more familiar with Minnesota law than Florida law on self-defense. Under Minnesota law, Zimmerman would have been charged with some form of homicide, probably manslaughter, if the circumstances are what we have seen in the media. Minnesota law requires that the actor using lethal force in self-defense has to first be in reasonable fear of his life or of grave bodily harm, the latter of which means losing a limb, an eye, or significant maiming and not just getting one’s ass kicked. That requires some demonstration of lethality or threat of maiming before the shooting, not just a threatening motion.

Second, and equally importantly, the actor in a lethal deployment of self-defense has to not have contributed to the conflict that required it. This is where the difference between state laws might be an issue. In Minnesota, even under the Castle Doctrine law that Governor Mark Dayton vetoed, chasing down someone to shoot them would have been a clear violation of self-defense statutes and would probably result in manslaughter charges. I’m not sure how Florida’s Stand Your Ground law is written, though; it might allow someone who got threatened to chase the person who did the threatening with the intent of using deadly force. If so, that’s incredibly stupid, but it might explain why Zimmerman couldn’t get charged in this case. Stand Your Ground laws in general are supposed to allow people to defend themselves without having to demonstrate that retreat was impossible — in other words, avoiding the need to defend one’s self from the second-guessing of a district attorney later on whether the shooter had the opportunity to run and hope the potential attacker didn’t shoot, stab, or chase anyway. They aren’t supposed to allow shooters in this situation to chase down the threat and shoot, but again, I don’t know how Florida wrote its law.

My late friend Joel Rosenberg, who was also my carry-permit instructor, taught one lesson above all else: a carry permit was not a Junior G-Man badge, especially not in Minnesota. That seems to be a lesson Zimmerman didn’t learn, and Florida may need to modify its carry and self-defense statutes to make that much more clear.

Joel literally wrote the book on carry licensing in Minnesota, The Carry Book: Minnesota Edition.  Unfortunately Joel passed away before he could complete an edition that looked at the issue nationally, but even if you’re not in Minnesota, there is a ton of good advice for those who want to pursue carry licenses and handle firearms.  My particular favorite chapter of the book is titled, “Cowardice 201: A PhD Seminar in Advanced Staying Out of Trouble,” in which Joel reveals that the true secret of karate is to run faster than everyone else.  Self-defense starts with keeping out of situations where you will likely find yourself threatened.  Joel’s book is a sobering read, literally and figuratively.

Update: I forgot to mention another point about self-defense law in Minnesota. Once the threat ends, self-defense actions have to stop as well at that moment. That means that an antagonist who stops threatening lethality can’t be attacked with lethal force in self-defense.

Update II: A reader who has a carry permit in Florida e-mails a detailed response, which clarifies Florida law and shows that it’s much the same as Minnesota’s. What follows are his lengthy comments; I’m blockquoting where he quotes:

I have a Florida concealed weapon license. You said:

Minnesota law requires that the actor using lethal force in self-defense has to first be in reasonable fear of his life or of grave bodily harm, the latter of which means losing a limb, an eye, or significant maiming and not just getting one’s ass kicked. That requires some demonstration of lethality or threat of maiming before the shooting, not just a threatening motion.

The same is true in Florida.

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.

That means that you can use force (BUT NOT DEADLY FORCE) to proportionally defend against imminent use of force. So if someone cocks their fist back to punch you, you can beat them to the punch. You can’t #$%&ing shoot them because they were about to punch you.

However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) 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

So if someone is about to kill or severely main you or someone else, you can respond with deadly force. Again, the response has to be proportional to the threat.  read 776.013, as it contains a bunch of stipulations about the use of deadly force.

Finally, 776.041:

 The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Note #2… initially provokes the use of force against himself. That might apply here.

There is no situation where a confrontation you initiated, in which you were never threatened with mortal danger, can be legally ended by you using lethal force. Zimmerman should be charged with manslaughter or maybe even second degree murder under Florida law.

My late friend Joel Rosenberg, who was also my carry-permit instructor, taught one lesson above all else: a carry permit was not a Junior G-Man badge, especially not in Minnesota. That seems to be a lesson Zimmerman didn’t learn, and Florida may need to modify its carry and self-defense statutes to make that much more clear.

They do make it clear, and the brochure you get when getting a license spells it out explicitly (this is an offical State of Florida brochure). They contain case studies where lethal force is not justified. Like it talks about one case where someone chased a robber off of their property and shot them. They were charged. You can use a
gun to stop a forcible felony, not bring someone to justice after they’ve fled. There is a case where neighbors get into an argument and one neighbor swings a garden hose at the other, who replies by shooting him. Charged. You can’t use a gun if you’re not in mortal danger. The brochure clearly explains that a CWL does not make you a law enforcement officer. I got this hammered into me really hard in the course I took (which is mandated by the state).

Here’s one of the pamphlets:

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/forms/P-00090-DeadlyForce-0911.pdf

[end update II]


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 8 9 10 11 12

How about the black kid in the neighborhood who said that there was a lot of crime there, and most of it was by blacks? Does he have issues with black people, too?

How many unarmed black teenagers has that boy killed again?

libfreeordie on March 24, 2012 at 12:10 PM

As for Trayvon’s father. Here he is saying that the voice on the tape is his son’s. Considering that the police have been dishonest in this case from the beginning I do not believe their statement that Tracy Martin said it wasn’t his son screaming.

Here is Tracy Martin speaking on this question. Gee JennyMae, you sure don’t seem familiar with evidence that doesn’t fit your narrative. At least I’ve read the Sanford PD’s bogus report.

libfreeordie on March 24, 2012 at 12:02 PM

Of course you don’t believe them. You want this to be about a white man who killed a black kid because he was wearing a hoodie. You will seek out any source of information, no matter how credible, to affirm your pre-conceived conclusion.

And my name is JannyMae, genius.

Tracy Martin is the father of the deceased boy, and he smells blood in the water. He’s got all the race-baiters, including Obama, going to bat for him. Why would I give him more credibility than the police who were at the scene?

Next are you going to dispute the physical condition of Zimmerman? How do you explain that away? The police lied? Or maybe you’ll suggest that Zimmerman inflicted the wounds himself to cover up his race motivated murder?

JannyMae on March 24, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Libfree (logicfree?) is the kind of hustler who believes that any sort of racial profiling is inherently evil.

He has a great future with the TSA: “Ignore Mohammed–the shifty looking guy over there muttering verses from the Koan. Go frisk the 82-year-old guy sleeping in his wheelchair–the guy wearing the Purple Heart he earned on Omaha Beach.”

Remember Jesse’s comment, libfree/logicfree: that when Jesse hears steps behind him when he is walking through a bad neighborhood, he is relieved when he turns around and sees a white guy. You might want to complain to someone about Jesse’s racial profiling of black people.

HeatSeeker2011 on March 24, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Well sure, when the definition of “behaving suspiciously” is walking while black with a hoodie on.

libfreeordie on March 24, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Behaving suspiciously as in: “fit a recent description given out by law enforcement officers” of suspects involve in burglaries in the neighborhood.

Stop while you’re behind.

Blake on March 24, 2012 at 12:14 PM

No, but clearly you are. And you are psycho, too.

Blake on March 24, 2012 at 12:08 PM

You are clearly an ignorant a$$. I will not waste my time on you any further. I have been here for years.

silvernana on March 24, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Are you actually saying he had no right of self defense himself?

libfreeordie on March 24, 2012 at 12:06 PM

You don’t have the right to beat someone to death, just because they’re following you on a public street.

Rebar on March 24, 2012 at 12:15 PM

No, you are not allowed to police my Blackness. No, I will not dress a certain way to make you feel good or make you feel safe. No, I will not show you my papers like a newly freed slave. No, I don’t owe you an explanation for why I am where I am or why I am who I am. I don’t need your permission to be me, and I don’t intend to seek it. With that said, if hooded Black maleness causes you fear, remember that hoods caused us fear first

libfreeordie on March 24, 2012 at 2:28 AM

Nothing like a tragic death to activate the pathetic need to exploit the situation to paint yourself as a “victim” of society. The propaganda potential in the wake of the shooting is epic, right? Can’t let it go to waste.

cicerone on March 24, 2012 at 12:16 PM

You are clearly an ignorant a$$.

Don’t project, geezer.

I will not waste my time on you any further. I have been here for years.

silvernana on March 24, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Who cares how long you have been here besides you? You were harassing that guy last night and now you are harassing me. Pi$$ off.

Blake on March 24, 2012 at 12:17 PM

How many unarmed black teenagers has that boy killed again?

libfreeordie on March 24, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Nice dodge. You posted an article from Dave Weigel (LMAO!) that you claim shows that Zimmerman had issues with black people. The kid affirms that most of the crime in HIS NEIGHBORHOOD had been committed by black people. Hence, your conclusion that Zimmerman has issues with black people takes a serious hit in credibility.

But you, of course, will ignore that logical conclusion, and continue to see Zimmerman as a racist meanie, because you so “want to believe!”

No evidence in the world is going to convince you that your foregone conclusion might be flawed. You’re beyond ridiculous at this point.

JannyMae on March 24, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Next are you going to dispute the physical condition of Zimmerman? How do you explain that away? The police lied? Or maybe you’ll suggest that Zimmerman inflicted the wounds himself to cover up his race motivated murder?

JannyMae on March 24, 2012 at 12:13 PM

See my post at 12:06pm.

You don’t have the right to beat someone to death, just because they’re following you on a public street.

Rebar on March 24, 2012 at 12:15 PM

So let me get this straight. If you’re being followed in the car by a strange man, in a neighborhood you’re visiting you don’t have any right to fear that you might be in danger of harm? Exactly how much responsive force should Trayvon have used to not justify being shot in the chest and killed? One punch? Was it two defensive punches that did it? If only he had responded to Zimmerman’s attack with one punch he’d be alive? In order to frame this murder as “self-defense” you are having to twist yourself into a huge frenzy.

And I might add the very AUTHOR of the Stand Your Ground law disagrees with you and Jenna. But you have the ax of white racial resentment to grind so you’ll look at a set of events that gun advocates like Ed and Allen West have looked at and come to the opposite conclusion, that this shooting was justified. How does it feel to be to the extreme right of Allen West?

libfreeordie on March 24, 2012 at 12:20 PM

libfreeordie on March 24, 2012 at 10:12 AM

From day one of this incident you have been calling for Zimmerman to be lynched, facts be damned. I think we know who has the racist agenda around here.

NotCoach on March 24, 2012 at 12:20 PM

Nice dodge. You posted an article from Dave Weigel (LMAO!) that you claim shows that Zimmerman had issues with black people. The kid affirms that most of the crime in HIS NEIGHBORHOOD had been committed by black people. Hence, your conclusion that Zimmerman has issues with black people takes a serious hit in credibility.

Zimmerman was calling 911 on kids young enough to appear “7-9.” Sorry, that’s not the same as observing that recent thefts have been committed by black people.

libfreeordie on March 24, 2012 at 12:21 PM

Do you deny that Zimmerman followed and initially approached Martin? Unless you deny that, then what you are saying is that not only did Martin deserve to be followed and accosted by an armed stranger, but that he didn’t even have the right to defend himself. Zimmerman, by his own admission on the 911 tapes, was following Trayvon. Even after Trayvon started to run. After tracking him down a fight ensued. But the initial aggressive act is Zimmerman following and stalking Trayvon for no reason. Are you actually saying that at no point Trayvon would’ve been allowed to defend himself from Zimmerman’s aggression? At some point Trayvon may have had the upper hand. But why did the fight start in the first place? Trayvon had gone to the store to get candy and skittles and was talking on the phone to a friend, when someone approached him from behind. Then the line went dead. Are you actually saying he had no right of self defense himself?

libfreeordie on March 24, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Are you saying that if Zimmerman was simply following Martin, or if Zimmerman spoke to Martin, Martin had the right to attack Zimmerman? To beat the living crap out of him?

If that is your claim–don’t get behind me when I am going to the parking garage, champ. You will end up with a large and entirely unasked-for hole in the middle of your forehead.

I had a black guy–yes, wearing a hoodie–confront me in the (dark) parking garage a while ago. I couldn’t understand a bloody word the guy said, but he was agitated. I shrugged and kept walking. Under your theory, I should have attacked him.

You won’t like where this will end, champ.

HeatSeeker2011 on March 24, 2012 at 12:21 PM

Zimmerman was calling 911 on kids young enough to appear “7-9.” Sorry, that’s not the same as observing that recent thefts have been committed by black people.

libfreeordie on March 24, 2012 at 12:21 PM

So what? Your hit piece does not say why he called. You think 7-9 year olds don’t commit crimes? Hahaha! They commit thefts, robberies, and burglaries, too.

Blake on March 24, 2012 at 12:25 PM

If you’re being followed in the car by a strange man, in a neighborhood you’re visiting you don’t have any right to fear that you might be in danger of harm?

libfreeordie on March 24, 2012 at 12:20 PM

You don’t have the right to beat someone to death just because they’re following you on a public street. Someone following you – while in the process of calling the police – is not any immediate or any other threat to you.

Getting your head slammed into concrete is an immediate life threatening event, for which you are fully justified to use lethal force to stop.

See the difference?

Rebar on March 24, 2012 at 12:26 PM

libfreeordie on March 24, 2012 at 12:20 PM

You don’t have the right to initiate violence when confronted by someone. It still is not clear who initiated the violence, but approaching someone is not a crime. Had a conversation with a friend yesterday about this case and told him then most likely the racist thugs are going to start focusing exclusively on the incidents prior to the violent confrontation because it is starting to look like there may not be a case against Zimmerman. The problem for you racists is that what Zimmerman did prior to the violent confrontation isn’t illegal. And confronting someone is not a legitimate excuse for responding with violence either.

You aren’t interested in justice or the truth. We know what motivates you.

NotCoach on March 24, 2012 at 12:26 PM

I had a black guy–yes, wearing a hoodie–confront me in the (dark) parking garage a while ago. I couldn’t understand a bloody word the guy said, but he was agitated. I shrugged and kept walking. Under your theory, I should have attacked him.

You won’t like where this will end, champ.

HeatSeeker2011 on March 24, 2012 at 12:21 PM

You don’t know that Martin attacked Zimmerman. You only know that at some point during an altercation Martin landed a few punches on Zimmerman. Now how can we determine who began the violence:

1. One of the two people involved had been arrested for bad behavior with a police officer. Guess who?

2. One of the two people called 911 expressing that “these assholes always get away” and was running after the other.

3. One of these people felt he was following someone “up to no good” and who he thought “was on drugs.”

4. One of these people had a gun.

All of those was George Zimmerman.

5. One of these had no history of violence, run ins with the law or even an arrest record.

6. One of these was a good student, who “majored in cheerfulness” according to his teachers.

7. One of these people had iced tea and skittles.

Yeah that was Trayvon Martin.

But supposedly Trayvon intitiated violence against George Zimmerman.

libfreeordie on March 24, 2012 at 12:27 PM

NotCoach on March 24, 2012 at 12:26 PM

Sorry, but the very people who have written Stand Your Ground laws simply do not believe that is the case. Neither do most law enforcement officials who have reviewed the case in the media. In fact, the only people on the planet who think this way about Trayvon Martin are those on the extreme, extreme right. The people who refer to any black person, even the President, as a “racist thug.” Yeah, sorry, but you just have no credibility on this one.

libfreeordie on March 24, 2012 at 12:29 PM

I read that Martin was in the morgue for three days under John Doe. His parents complained that the police should have asked the neighbors if they knew him or used his phone to ID him.

However, if you kid goes to the store and does not come back, don’t you go looking for him? Drive the route he would have taken to the store? Was Martin on a route not directly from the store? After he doesn’t come home, don’t you call the police? There may be an explanation for it but it just sounds strange.

Blake on March 24, 2012 at 12:31 PM

But supposedly Trayvon intitiated violence against George Zimmerman.

libfreeordie on March 24, 2012 at 12:27 PM

That’s what the physical evidence and witness statements indicate. So, yeah. LOL

Keep digging, champ.

HeatSeeker2011 on March 24, 2012 at 12:33 PM

See my post at 12:06pm.

I saw it. It’s all conjecture and bullcrap, designed to paint the kid as the innocent victim of a brutal killer.

*yawn*

That’s okay. You cling to your preconceived conclusions. I’ve got to get on with my day. I’m satisfied that readers of this thread will see the way you displayed your own prejudices here, including prejudice against a black person who disagrees with you.

Bye.

JannyMae on March 24, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Sorry, but the very people who have written Stand Your Ground laws simply do not believe that is the case. Neither do most law enforcement officials who have reviewed the case in the media.

libfreeordie on March 24, 2012 at 12:29 PM

Please provide links for these people saying or writing that confronting someone is an illegal act or justification for violent retaliation.

In fact, the only people on the planet who think this way about Trayvon Martin are those on the extreme, extreme right. The people who refer to any black person, even the President, as a “racist thug.” Yeah, sorry, but you just have no credibility on this one.

You caught me. Every person on the planet except for us ebil conservatives understand confronting someone is an invitation to be punched.

NotCoach on March 24, 2012 at 12:34 PM

5. One of these had no history of violence, run ins with the law or even an arrest record.

How would you know? They haven’t released any juvenile records and they sealed his school record.

6. One of these was a good student, who “majored in cheerfulness” according to his teachers.

Good students don’t get suspended for 5 days.

7. One of these people had iced tea and skittles.
libfreeordie on March 24, 2012 at 12:27 PM

Well he wasn’t holding them when he was straddling Zimmerman beating the crap out of him. He also had a telephone. Why not call 911?

Blake on March 24, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Zimmerman was calling 911 on kids young enough to appear “7-9.” Sorry, that’s not the same as observing that recent thefts have been committed by black people.

libfreeordie on March 24, 2012 at 12:21 PM

No. It’s exactly the same. Falling back on the age of the suspicious person is another red herring.

Is there evidence presented on the white people that Zimmerman called about? No. Were all the people he reported as suspicious black? I doubt it, but I don’t know because Weigel doesn’t bother to give us that information. Your article is about as objective as you are. No wonder you’re citing it as “evidence.”

JannyMae on March 24, 2012 at 12:38 PM

Please provide links for these people saying or writing that confronting someone is an illegal act or justification for violent retaliation.

He doesn’t speak strawman, but in English here is the author of the Stand Your Ground law calling for Zimmerman’s arrest. Sorry.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57401619-504083/author-of-stand-your-ground-law-george-zimmerman-should-probably-be-arrested-for-killing-trayvon-martin/

libfreeordie on March 24, 2012 at 12:39 PM

One of the two people involved had been arrested for bad behavior with a police officer. Guess who?

He had one arrest for a minor crime that was dismissed. He and a gf filed complaints against each other but nothing was filed against either one. Therefore, Zimmerman has no criminal record.

I would love to see Martin’s record but because he is a juvenile, if he has one, they won’t release it. We know he wasn’t a choir boy at school but they have sealed those records, too. Why?

Blake on March 24, 2012 at 12:39 PM

libfreeordie on March 24, 2012 at 12:39 PM

So you can’t provide any legal evidence or legal quotes to support your ridiculous position that Zimmerman is legally at fault because he approached Martin. Got it.

NotCoach on March 24, 2012 at 12:41 PM

I read that Martin was in the morgue for three days under John Doe. His parents complained that the police should have asked the neighbors if they knew him or used his phone to ID him.

However, if you kid goes to the store and does not come back, don’t you go looking for him? Drive the route he would have taken to the store? Was Martin on a route not directly from the store? After he doesn’t come home, don’t you call the police? There may be an explanation for it but it just sounds strange.

Blake on March 24, 2012 at 12:31 PM

Blake, Blake, Blake. Don’t you understand that Martin was a model citizen? He was The Best Person Ever? Completely innocent? The fact that he is also the kind of person who apparently disappears for days at a time–ignore that. The fact he was suspended from school for 10 days (which is a pretty hefty suspension for a model citizen)–ignore that. The fact that eyewitness testimony and physical evidence corroborate Zimmerman–ignore that. You gotta ignore everything that doesn’t fit the narrative. /sarc

Frankly, not much fits the narrative. Libfree has been busted for lying to make his point. Libfree–if you have to lie to make your point, find a new point. Just a helpful suggestion.

HeatSeeker2011 on March 24, 2012 at 12:41 PM

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57401619-504083/author-of-stand-your-ground-law-george-zimmerman-should-probably-be-arrested-for-killing-trayvon-martin/

libfreeordie on March 24, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Oh, great, another buffoon pandering to the public. Zimmerman’s atty is right: this isn’t about the stand your ground law but straight up self defense law. The people who actually reviewed the evidence and are experts in self defense law determined that there was insufficient evidence to file charges.

Blake on March 24, 2012 at 12:43 PM

So you can’t provide any legal evidence or legal quotes to support your ridiculous position that Zimmerman is legally at fault because he approached Martin. Got it.

NotCoach on March 24, 2012 at 12:41 PM

The people who wrote the law aren’t legal experts as to its proper application? Well now I’ve heard everything.

libfreeordie on March 24, 2012 at 12:44 PM

libfreeordie on March 24, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Senator Paedon actually holds what is most likely an unconstitutional position if he thinks a person surrenders their right to self defense just because they approach someone.

NotCoach on March 24, 2012 at 12:46 PM

Sorry, but the very people who have written Stand Your Ground laws simply do not believe that is the case. Neither do most law enforcement officials who have reviewed the case in the media.

libfreeordie on March 24, 2012 at 12:29 PM

Except criminal cases don’t exist in the media; they exist on the ground. And the LEO’s on the ground in this case haven’t found cause for an arrest.

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Senator Paedon actually holds what is most likely an unconstitutional position if he thinks a person surrenders their right to self defense just because they approach someone.

NotCoach on March 24, 2012 at 12:46 PM

Based upon what precedent exactly? Since Stand Your Grounds are the most expansive self defense laws in the entire country.

libfreeordie on March 24, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Neither do most law enforcement officials who have reviewed the case in the media.

Because we all know that the media would never, ever dig up only “experts” that reinforce the preferred narrative.

Nope, they’ve never done that before!

Dack Thrombosis on March 24, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Except criminal cases don’t exist in the media; they exist on the ground. And the LEO’s on the ground in this case haven’t found cause for an arrest.

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2012 at 12:47 PM

And police misconduct at the scene has been uncovered, so the police are no longer credible.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/neighborhood-watch-shooting-trayvon-martin-probe-reveals-questionable/story?id=15907136#.T2vA4o7pAXx

libfreeordie on March 24, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Here’s a new racial outrage:

A young wheelchair-bound black kid was collecting money to bring wheelchair basketball to his school. He was robbed by a white guy.

http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/03/23/1956007/a-handicapped-boy-fundraising.html#storylink=cpy

Racist white b@$t@rd. This is proof that, just like Jesse said, blacks are under attack.

I am convinced.

Oh, wait–the kid was white, and the robber was black. My bad. Never mind. Move along. Nothing to see here.

HeatSeeker2011 on March 24, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Because we all know that the media would never, ever dig up only “experts” that reinforce the preferred narrative.

Nope, they’ve never done that before!

Dack Thrombosis on March 24, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Biased liberals like the Republican state senators who wrote Florida’s self defense laws?

libfreeordie on March 24, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Oh, wait–the kid was white, and the robber was black. My bad. Never mind. Move along. Nothing to see here.

HeatSeeker2011 on March 24, 2012 at 12:49 PM

The police know where the thief is and have refused to make an arrest? Wow its totally the same as Trayvon Martin!

libfreeordie on March 24, 2012 at 12:51 PM

The people who wrote the law aren’t legal experts as to its proper application? Well now I’ve heard everything.

libfreeordie on March 24, 2012 at 12:44 PM

No. And he didn’t right it. He just signs his name to it. It also incorporates self defense law that has been on the books for many decades.

Blake on March 24, 2012 at 12:51 PM

whoops! right = write.

Blake on March 24, 2012 at 12:51 PM

The people who wrote the law aren’t legal experts as to its proper application? Well now I’ve heard everything.

libfreeordie on March 24, 2012 at 12:44 PM

As blake posted above you, this statute probably doesn’t even apply if we consider the circumstances of the shooting. A person on their back being pummeled is not standing their ground. And the Florida statute also does not address regular human interaction, only the legally allowed response to violence. Paeden is acting the fool actually with his comments.

Unless evidence can be produced to demonstrate that Zimmerman had violent intent prior to the confrontation or that he initiated the violence he will not be convicted by any jury in this country.

NotCoach on March 24, 2012 at 12:51 PM

And police misconduct at the scene has been uncovered, so the police are no longer credible.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/neighborhood-watch-shooting-trayvon-martin-probe-reveals-questionable/story?id=15907136#.T2vA4o7pAXx

libfreeordie on March 24, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Hahaha! They’ve got the tape with Zimmerman – not Martin screaming for help. So, who cares what the cop said. They also have numerous witnesses that hear Zimmerman – not Martin yelling for help.

Blake on March 24, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Unless evidence can be produced to demonstrate that Zimmerman had violent intent prior to the confrontation or that he initiated the violence he will not be convicted by any jury in this country.

The defense has only one witness who even saw Trayvon punch Zimmerman, the state will have multiple witnesses who claim that Trayvon was screaming for help. I’m tired of posting all the links to those witnesses. One witness vs at least three in opposition? Plus Zimmerman’s belligerent 911 call, if this goes to trial there is no way the jury will acquit Zimmerman. Which is why the local PD is doing everything they can to prevent that.

libfreeordie on March 24, 2012 at 12:57 PM

A person on their back being pummeled is not standing their ground.

NotCoach on March 24, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Exactly.

ANY state’s self defense law would exonerate someone using lethal force in that situation.

Rebar on March 24, 2012 at 12:59 PM

I wish the lame arse media would publish all of the facts, but the cover-uip continues on as it assists in making the race card relevant after the 0bama Regime has reduced it to a joke.

Where is the liberal outrage over black on black crime reaching historic levels? It sure makes it seem that liberals DO NOT CARE about their beloved minority at all.

The cops didn’t arrest Zimmerman for a reason. No one knows the reason so the liberal lie machine screams ‘RACIST’. So predictable.

DannoJyd on March 24, 2012 at 12:59 PM

As blake posted above you, this statute probably doesn’t even apply if we consider the circumstances of the shooting.

NotCoach on March 24, 2012 at 12:51 PM

The statue talks about home or car invasion. However, farther down, subsection (3), they just insert: 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. http://goo.gl/s8MDA

That’s just the definition of self defense law that has been on the books forever.

Blake on March 24, 2012 at 1:02 PM

A NY state’s self defense law would exonerate someone using lethal force in that situation.

Rebar on March 24, 2012 at 12:59 PM

Tut tut. According to libfree/logicfree, ZImmerman should have petitioned the court for a restraining order to make Martin stop beating the crap out of him.

Seriously, application of the “stand your ground” law seems moot. If Martin was indeed beating the crap out of Zimmerman (as eyewitness testimony and physical evidence indicate), Zimmerman did not have to simply lie there and be a punching bag.

HeatSeeker2011 on March 24, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Everyone seems to be missing an important point. There was police involvement and evidence was collected and sent to the State’s Attorney. In this country we base criminal prosecution on evidence rather than political gravity; or we are supposed to. I expect this case will go to a Grand Jury, and that will result in a decision to prosecute Mr. Zimmerman, or not.

If the totality of the evidence convinces a Grand Jury that Zimmerman was acting outside the law and shot Martin because of his race and an unreasonable belief that somehow shooting a black kid was justified on race, the black community will feel justified in the political circus being built around the case.

But…

If the totality of the evidence convinces a Grand Jury that Zimmerman was the victim of an attack and that he shot Martin in self defense, will the black community admit that they got caught up in a political side show and that Zimmerman acted properly? If you believe that I’d like to talk to you and a bridge I have for sale.

Worst case outcome here is that politics wins and Zimmerman does not get a fair trial, but instead is sacrificed to the political Gods of our times, the result will be that more people will feel that black people can’t even be approached because if they attack you you will either have to lose to them or to the system, but winning is not possible. That will not help racial relations in the country.

MikeA on March 24, 2012 at 1:07 PM

The police know where the thief is and have refused to make an arrest? Wow its totally the same as Trayvon Martin!

libfreeordie on March 24, 2012 at 12:51 PM

The point was, you (and the left generally) could not care less about black-on-white crime.

A point that was, sadly, quite far above your head.

HeatSeeker2011 on March 24, 2012 at 1:07 PM

The defense has only one witness who even saw Trayvon punch Zimmerman,

Not sure if true, but it is Zimmerman, with the injuries from being punched.

the state will have multiple witnesses who claim that Trayvon was screaming for help.

I doubt that is true. Regardless, the 911 tape proves it was Zimmerman, not Martin, yelling.

I’m tired of posting all the links to those witnesses. One witness vs at least three in opposition?

Juries are instructed not to determine guilt by the number of wits. Just because you have more wits, doesn’t mean those wits are credible.

Plus Zimmerman’s belligerent 911 call, if this goes to trial there is no way the jury will acquit Zimmerman. Which is why the local PD is doing everything they can to prevent that.

libfreeordie on March 24, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Yawn. It is the DA who decides whether charges are filed or not.The DA reviewed the case and rejected it because there is insufficient evidence to charge him.

Blake on March 24, 2012 at 1:08 PM

A point that was, sadly, quite far above your head.

HeatSeeker2011 on March 24, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Indeed.

How about this story?

Down the memory hole.

Rebar on March 24, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Blake on March 24, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Not to mention – it was Zimmerman calling the police, demanding that they come immediately.

Hardly the actions of a vigilante or nutty lone gunman.

Rebar on March 24, 2012 at 1:14 PM

Anyone know the address where he was staying in relation to the store and where he was shot?

Blake on March 24, 2012 at 1:24 PM

How about this story?

Down the memory hole.

Rebar on March 24, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Yep.

I am surfing quite a few other sites. I am seeing an interesting reaction. It seems to be, “White people are tired of being kicked around.” I have also spoken with a few friends who are political moderates. They have the same reaction.

I don’t think this is the reaction the race hustlers (Jesse, Al, Calypso Louie, The New Black Panther Party, and Obama) expected.

I also do not think this will turn out the way the race hustlers expected.

The more I see of the reactions, the happier I am to let it play out. Zimmerman will probably go to the grand jury. The grand jury will probably indict: getting an indictment is easy. If there is an indictment, Zimmerman will probably go to trial. If the reactions I am seeing are any indication, whites may refuse to kowtow to the race hustlers.

Oh, and libfree: you are still a liar. I busted you on the other thread. As I said before, if you need to lie to make your point, get a new point.

HeatSeeker2011 on March 24, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Based upon what precedent exactly? Since Stand Your Grounds are the most expansive self defense laws in the entire country.

libfreeordie on March 24, 2012 at 12:48 PM

You are (not surprisingly) misapplying stand your ground. Stand your ground has nothing to do with lawful, nonviolent interaction between individuals. To claim that Zimmerman surrenders his right to self defense because he approached Martin is asinine, to say the least.

NotCoach on March 24, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Indeed.

How about this story?

Down the memory hole.

Rebar on March 24, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Disgusting human trash.

tom daschle concerned on March 24, 2012 at 1:41 PM

HeatSeeker2011 on March 24, 2012 at 1:25 PM

And this story, another straw.

0bama is the most racially divisive president ever, and we are reaping what he’s sown.

This country is coming apart, and it’s not going to end well.

Rebar on March 24, 2012 at 1:42 PM

In reality while many jurisdictions had this duty to retreat, the jury never bought into it. If someone is attacking you, you have the right to defend yourself.

Hell, are we MEN? Or, are we BRITISH? LOL![in the UK they expect you to barricade yourself in a room while burglars clean you out]

Blake on March 24, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Filing charges when there is legally insufficient evidence to support them is unethical. Shame on Hindraker!

Blake on March 24, 2012 at 10:49 AM

I agree, but the main reason I posted his piece was for the first 3 parts. Which confirm what many of us here said yesterday, namely that the Democrat Party is Ginning Up this tragedy to exploit it for political blame.

They could care less about the victim himself.

Del Dolemonte on March 24, 2012 at 2:01 PM

The tone of the comments here is almost unbelievable. This is not about the race card or white people getting kicked around.

George Zimmerman was advised to stay in his truck. He did not. He was advised against following Trayvon Martin. He followed him anyway.

What was Trayvon Martin suppposed to think about some older man following him, who then exits his truck to catch up to him on foot? Trayvon Martin had every right to be suspicious and afraid of George Zimmerman, who badly mishandled this situation and should have been arrested. Whatever kind of altercation took place between Martin and Zimmerman was initiated by Zimmerman.

If in fact George Zimmerman wanted to act on behalf of the neighborhood watch, why didn’t he simply initiate VERBAL contact with Martin from his truck – something along the lines of asking the youth if he needed help and if everything was okay? If George Zimmerman was uncomfortable doing that, he had no business going further by exiting the truck and approaching Martin on foot.

I don’t think this is complicated at all. George Zimmerman handled this poorly and should be arrested and charged with at least second degree murder.

The Bringer on March 24, 2012 at 2:02 PM

From

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/03/23/george_zimmerman_s_long_lonely_war_against_black_youths_doing_things.html

Wow, GZ had some serious issues with black people, from nearly the cradle to the premature grave he put one in.

libfreeordie on March 24, 2012 at 11:55 AM

LOL, citing the Leftist SLATE is bad enough, but citing Journolist mainstay Dave Weigel? Weak.

Del Dolemonte on March 24, 2012 at 2:06 PM

The Bringer on March 24, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Zimmerman had as much right to be on a public street and anyone else. Martin had no right to brutally assault someone just because they were following him. Zimmerman had every right to act in self defense when his life was in immediate danger.

Mr. Martin would be alive today if he didn’t attack someone who posed no threat to him. Mr. Zimmerman would be dead today if he didn’t act to save his own life.

Rebar on March 24, 2012 at 2:08 PM

But you have the ax of white racial resentment to grind

libfreeordie on March 24, 2012 at 12:20 PM

Simply Breathtaking.

What exactly have the members of the Democrat Party done to improve the lot in life for your race over the past 60 years?

They’re certainly not doing you any favors in this case, because all they are interested in doing is using it for their own political gain.

Del Dolemonte on March 24, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Nice dodge. You posted an article from Dave Weigel (LMAO!) that you claim shows that Zimmerman had issues with black people. The kid affirms that most of the crime in HIS NEIGHBORHOOD had been committed by black people. Hence, your conclusion that Zimmerman has issues with black people takes a serious hit in credibility.

Journolister Weigel tells me, and I believe him because it fits my Agenda, that Zimmerman was calling 911 on kids young enough to appear “7-9.” Sorry, that’s not the same as observing that recent thefts have been committed by black people.

libfreeordie on March 24, 2012 at 12:21 PM

Fixed.

Del Dolemonte on March 24, 2012 at 2:11 PM

The Bringer on March 24, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Let me state your reasoning process encapsulated in your comment:

1) Zimmerman apparently confronted Martin in an area where Martin was trespassing;

2) Zimmerman apparently did not violate any laws in confronting Martin;

3) Martin attacked Zimmerman, as corroborated by eyewitness testimony and physical evidence;

4) Zimmerman defended himself using a lawful degree of force; so

5) Zimmerman should be charged with second-degree murder.

Nice reasoning, champ.

HeatSeeker2011 on March 24, 2012 at 2:11 PM

The Bringer on March 24, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Zimmerman got out of his truck to follow Martin in order to not lose sight of him. He told the police that he had given up and returned to his truck when Martin jumped him from behind. No one is required to obey a 911 officer. I would have done the same as Zimmerman. People get tired of being burglarized and having their property ripped off. I’d be happy to have Zimmerman as a neighbor.

Blake on March 24, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Crimes have definitions. In no way is this second degree murder. Sheesh!

Blake on March 24, 2012 at 2:19 PM

The people who wrote the law aren’t legal experts as to its proper application? Well now I’ve heard everything.

libfreeordie on March 24, 2012 at 12:44 PM

The two people your link cites as the “authors” of the bill (many other sources simply call them “sponsors”) are

1. A physician.

2. A Funeral director.

Neither are “legal experts” in any sense. And they didn’t actually “write” the law, they had actually legal experts write it so they could sponsor it.

Del Dolemonte on March 24, 2012 at 2:19 PM

What exactly have the members of the Democrat Party done to improve the lot in life for your race over the past 60 years?

They’re certainly not doing you any favors in this case, because all they are interested in doing is using it for their own political gain.

Del Dolemonte on March 24, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Are you kidding me Del? The democrat plantation is the only place to be. Their war on Poverty has spent Trillions of dollars enriching the rich white leadership of the party while doing little to nothing to actually ‘help’.

Pruitt-Igoe and Cabrini Greene.

tom daschle concerned on March 24, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Well the other shoe has dropped…and it don’t look too good for the poverty pimps— Sharpton and Jackson.

There was a eyewitness.

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/state/witness-martin-attacked-zimmerman-03232012

Perhaps ..a hot headed punk gets what’s coming to him??….

Then, gawddam media then gets involved, and then in come the poverty pimps like Sharpton,…and we find out the young black punk brought it on himself ?? He was the agressor !!~

Perhaps he may have been involved in the earlier neighbor hood crimes too?

And, the media paints him as an angel?? C’mon….this is too rich !

BigSven on March 24, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Biased liberals like the Republican state senators who wrote Florida’s self defense laws?

libfreeordie on March 24, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Durrell Peaden was in fact a lifelong Democrat until he changed parties about 15 years ago.

Keep Shoveling.

Del Dolemonte on March 24, 2012 at 2:25 PM

This has already been posted here, but I want to bump it back up.

New Black Panther Party forms LYNCH MOB

I would love to see libfree justify this.

JannyMae on March 24, 2012 at 2:27 PM

BigSven on March 24, 2012 at 2:24 PM

lol, don’t waste your breath. libfreeordie will simply say that since your link is to Faux News, it’s Fake.

Funny how none of the Leftist “news sources” libfreeordie has been citing here for 2 days have even mentioned that witness. Wonder why that is?

/

Del Dolemonte on March 24, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Durrell Peaden was in fact a lifelong Democrat until he changed parties about 15 years ago.

Keep Shoveling.

Del Dolemonte on March 24, 2012 at 2:25 PM

LOL!

JannyMae on March 24, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Death threats coming in advocating killing the police chief and his entire family.

Sounds like the leftists are whipping up a lynch mob.

tom daschle concerned on March 24, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Funny how none of the Leftist “news sources” libfreeordie has been citing here for 2 days have even mentioned that witness. Wonder why that is?

/

Del Dolemonte on March 24, 2012 at 2:28 PM

I called libfree out on his lies (on another Travyon Martin thread).

Libfree denied lying and demanded an apology. He also demanded that I produce one lie he had told.

That was as simple as hitting snow when falling out of a chair lift. I promptly produced a lie. So sad–no apologies for libfree.

I.e., libfree will lie to make his point. A logical person would not lie to make a point: he or she would examine whether the point itself may be wrong.

HeatSeeker2011 on March 24, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Zimmerman had as much right to be on a public street and anyone else. Martin had no right to brutally assault someone just because they were following him. Zimmerman had every right to act in self defense when his life was in immediate danger.

Mr. Martin would be alive today if he didn’t attack someone who posed no threat to him. Mr. Zimmerman would be dead today if he didn’t act to save his own life.

Rebar on March 24, 2012 at 2:08 PM

My point remains unchanged. Zimmerman mishandled this situation. Martin had every right to be suspicious and afraid of Zimmerman. I guess you would be okay with an unidentified stranger following you in a truck and then approaching you on foot at night. I would not be okay with that because . . . I have common sense.

Who said anything about Zimmerman not having the right to be on the street? Zimmerman should have approached Martin VERBALLY from his truck, identifying himself as a neighborhood watch volunteer and asking the youth if he was in need of any help. I noted this in my original post, but you managed to contort the facts to make this into something it is not.

The Bringer on March 24, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Let me state your reasoning process encapsulated in your comment:

1) Zimmerman apparently confronted Martin in an area where Martin was trespassing;

2) Zimmerman apparently did not violate any laws in confronting Martin;

3) Martin attacked Zimmerman, as corroborated by eyewitness testimony and physical evidence;

4) Zimmerman defended himself using a lawful degree of force; so

5) Zimmerman should be charged with second-degree murder.

Nice reasoning, champ.

HeatSeeker2011 on March 24, 2012 at 2:11 PM

This is NOT what I said. You might want to re-read my post. But THANKS for the compliment on my reasoning skills.

The Bringer on March 24, 2012 at 2:39 PM

My point remains unchanged. Zimmerman mishandled this situation. Martin had every right to be suspicious and afraid of Zimmerman. I guess you would be okay with an unidentified stranger following you in a truck and then approaching you on foot at night. I would not be okay with that because . . . I have common sense.

The Bringer on March 24, 2012 at 2:36 PM

So using this example a person is justified in reacting violently?

I noted this in my original post, but you managed to contort the facts to make this into something it is not.

Uh yeah, that’s what we’re doing. How foolish of us to pretend lawful contact is not justification for violence.

NotCoach on March 24, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Oh, great, another buffoon pandering to the public. Zimmerman’s atty is right: this isn’t about the stand your ground law but straight up self defense law. The people who actually reviewed the evidence and are experts in self defense law determined that there was insufficient evidence to file charges.

Blake on March 24, 2012 at 12:43 PM

I’m starting to think Zimmerman is going to come out of this with a nice batch of libel lawsuits against a bunch of media companies. And you know what? They’ll settle out of court just like they did with JonBenet Ramsey’s parents and Richard Jewell. It’s either that or risk exposing their duplicitous tactics to a judge and, potentially, the Supreme Court.

It’s long past time that the media get kicked in the teeth for this sort of crap. They’re nothing but a lynch mob and they’ve been doing this same hit job on people for decades but they always get away with it by screaming free speech.

Dack Thrombosis on March 24, 2012 at 2:47 PM

This is NOT what I said. You might want to re-read my post.

The Bringer on March 24, 2012 at 2:39 PM

That is EXACTLY what you are saying.

You repeat part of this in your post:

Zimmerman mishandled this situation..

The Bringer on March 24, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Possibly. But what if he did? We imprison people for committing crimes, not for using judgment that may, given the outcome (which Martin apparently provoked) have led to a suboptimal outcome.

HeatSeeker2011 on March 24, 2012 at 2:48 PM

That was as simple as hitting snow when falling out of a chair lift. I promptly produced a lie. So sad–no apologies for libfree.

I.e., libfree will lie to make his point. A logical person would not lie to make a point: he or she would examine whether the point itself may be wrong.

HeatSeeker2011 on March 24, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Leftists-especially Leftist politicians-Lie as a Way of Life.

First of all, they know, or hope, that since the mainstream media is overwhelmingly Democrat like them, said Goebbels Group will never call them on it.

But more importantly, they Lie because they can’t tell the Truth about their true beliefs. If they did that, none of them would ever be elected in the first place.

However, it’s also sad to see so many on the Right here on Hot Gas having no trouble with outright Lying themselves about the Republican candidates they don’t like. I’ve called several of them out for it as well. And yet they have ignored being called out and continued to Lie. That’s pretty sad.

Del Dolemonte on March 24, 2012 at 2:49 PM

However, it’s also sad to see so many on the Right here on Hot Gas having no trouble with outright Lying themselves about the Republican candidates they don’t like.

Del Dolemonte on March 24, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Agreed perfectly.

HeatSeeker2011 on March 24, 2012 at 2:53 PM

It’s long past time that the media get kicked in the teeth for this sort of crap. They’re nothing but a lynch mob and they’ve been doing this same hit job on people for decades but they always get away with it by screaming free speech.

Dack Thrombosis on March 24, 2012 at 2:47 PM

What I first found curious about this whole story was that the incident itself happened on February 26th. That’s 4 weeks ago, but it just exploded this week?

Then I remembered. The Democrats needed at least 3 weeks to coordinate their Offensive, brief their Democrat Media on how to flog this story, and Manufacture a Scandal for political gain and also to distract from O’bama’s non-existent “record of achievement” as pResident.

Del Dolemonte on March 24, 2012 at 2:54 PM

What I first found curious about this whole story was that the incident itself happened on February 26th. That’s 4 weeks ago, but it just exploded this week?

Then I remembered. The Democrats needed at least 3 weeks to coordinate their Offensive, brief their Democrat Media on how to flog this story, and Manufacture a Scandal for political gain and also to distract from O’bama’s non-existent “record of achievement” as pResident.

Del Dolemonte on March 24, 2012 at 2:54 PM

I asked the same question somewhere earlier in the thread. I actually read about this incident at least a week before it went national on a smaller blog. Braindeadordie was talking about it here before it went national, I think. I think your diagnosis is spot on. Somehow the left thinks ginning up a potential race riot will help Barry win re-election. Where they’re getting that type of pretzel logic is beyond me. I’ve been reading about this for days now on all sorts of sites and the comment sections are interesting to say the least. If this thing erupts into violence, it’s not going to help the democrats in the least.

I did see a picture of an older Trayvon Martin and he has a gold tooth just like you’d see with a rap thug. Obviously, the media don’t think that photo would mesh well with the “he’s so innocent” theme they’re constantly pounding. I also saw another picture that is supposedly Trayvon that’s even more thuggish and disturbing, but I can’t confirm that it’s him.

Dack Thrombosis on March 24, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Trayvon Martin had every right to be suspicious and afraid of George Zimmerman

The Bringer on March 24, 2012 at 2:02 PM

I can recall, off the top of my head, eight times where I was approched in a “threating” manner, half of those by men who were obviously drugged out or drunk. Six of them asked me for money and two thought I was someone else.

By your standards, I’d have been justified in killing all of them. By the law’s standards, none threatened my life so I would not have been in the right for gunning them down.

Your standards are absurd. Martin being fully justified in trying to beat Zimmerman’s brains out on the sidewalk just because he was being followed, but Zimmerman not being justified for defending his life – is simply stupid.

Rebar on March 24, 2012 at 3:12 PM

What I first found curious about this whole story was that the incident itself happened on February 26th. That’s 4 weeks ago, but it just exploded this week?

Then I remembered. The Democrats needed at least 3 weeks to coordinate their Offensive, brief their Democrat Media on how to flog this story, and Manufacture a Scandal for political gain and also to distract from O’bama’s non-existent “record of achievement” as pResident.

Del Dolemonte on March 24, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Keep your nose to the ground. You are on the right scent !!~

This whole media hyped story is starting to stink like 3 day old fish !!

BigSven on March 24, 2012 at 3:12 PM

I asked the same question somewhere earlier in the thread..

Dack Thrombosis on March 24, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Here’s another question. Supposedly, Martin was on his cell phone, expressing his fear that somebody was following him.

Martin ended up lying on a slab in the mortuary for 3 days before somebody reported his disappearance.

If a friend or loved one called me and told me somebody was stalking him (or her), then the communication broke off, I am calling 911 then and there. I am not going to wait 3 days.

HeatSeeker2011 on March 24, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Dack Thrombosis on March 24, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Oh, I think he’s going to get screwed. They will pressure the GJ to indict and if not convicted the feds will charge him. He won’t be able to sue the media or anything they say no matter how reckless. And then there are the civil suits as if he will have a dime left. Then there will be the riots…

Blake on March 24, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Here’s another question. Supposedly, Martin was on his cell phone, expressing his fear that somebody was following him.

Martin ended up lying on a slab in the mortuary for 3 days before somebody reported his disappearance.

If a friend or loved one called me and told me somebody was stalking him (or her), then the communication broke off, I am calling 911 then and there. I am not going to wait 3 days.

HeatSeeker2011 on March 24, 2012 at 3:16 PM

That whole thing is weird including his father or who ever he was staying with not looking for him. The parents said the police should have asked the neighbors if they could identify him (!). Yet, the parents did not hear about the shooting of a kid matching their sons description and get concerned?

Blake on March 24, 2012 at 3:23 PM

Your standards are absurd. Martin being fully justified in trying to beat Zimmerman’s brains out on the sidewalk just because he was being followed, but Zimmerman not being justified for defending his life – is simply stupid.

Rebar on March 24, 2012 at 3:12 PM

I listened to a 911 call made from a resident during the fight and shooting. You could hear Trayvon Martin screaming for help in the background until George Zimmerman shot him. Trayvon Martin thought he was fighting for his life.

George Zimmerman was advised to stay in his truck precisely to avoid a misunderstanding like the one that happened. Not listening to the advice of the police and not attempting to hail the Martin verbally from the truck were “simply stupid.”

The Bringer on March 24, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Well, it has been fun.

I am going to make a run to my local gun shop. The race hustlers (Obama, Jesse, Al, Calypso Louie, The New Black Panther Party, libfree, Triple, Bringer, etc.) have convinced me that I may be wise to make some investments there.

I do not think that was their intention. LOL. However, they are libs: how often do a lib’s intentions match outcomes in the real world?

HeatSeeker2011 on March 24, 2012 at 3:33 PM

You could hear Trayvon Martin screaming for help in the background until George Zimmerman shot him. Trayvon Martin thought he was fighting for his life.

The Bringer on March 24, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Wrong – that was Zimmerman calling for help, not Martin. Martin jumped Zimmerman and was beating his head on the ground. Zimmerman called for help, then had to use lethal force to save his life.

If Martin was in fact fearful, all he needed to do was wait for the police that Zimmerman was clearly calling for on his phone.

Rebar on March 24, 2012 at 3:34 PM

I did see a picture of an older Trayvon Martin and he has a gold tooth just like you’d see with a rap thug. Obviously, the media don’t think that photo would mesh well with the “he’s so innocent” theme they’re constantly pounding. I also saw another picture that is supposedly Trayvon that’s even more thuggish and disturbing, but I can’t confirm that it’s him.

Dack Thrombosis on March 24, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Do a Google Image Search using his name. You’ll find of course the UNDATED photo the Democrat Media keeps running, you know, the one that looks like it was taken when he was 11 or 12.

You’ll also find another one, one which the Democrat Media are ignoring.

Del Dolemonte on March 24, 2012 at 3:35 PM

The Bringer on March 24, 2012 at 3:28 PM

It always seems to be the same retreat with you guys who have jumped to the unfounded conclusion that Zimmerman is guilty of a crime. You know what the problem is with that particular assessment of that 911 call? The person who made the call states that it was Zimmerman calling for help.

Like libfreeordie you will soon start doing circles in your own brain. He is now back to complaining about Zimmerman lawfully approaching Martin as somehow being a criminal act.

NotCoach on March 24, 2012 at 3:37 PM

I listened to a 911 call made from a resident during the fight and shooting. You could hear Trayvon Martin screaming for help in the background until George Zimmerman shot him. Trayvon Martin thought he was fighting for his life.

The Bringer on March 24, 2012 at 3:28 PM

The wit who saw Martin punching Zimmerman said it was Zimmerman calling for help, not Martin. The police played the 911 tape to Martin’s father who confirmed it was not his son’s voice. But you know otherwise….

Blake on March 24, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Possibly. But what if he did? We imprison people for committing crimes, not for using judgment that may, given the outcome (which Martin apparently provoked) have led to a suboptimal outcome.

HeatSeeker2011 on March 24, 2012 at 2:48 PM

You are correct that George Zimmerman should be imprisoned for murdering an unarmed 17 year-old after Zimmerman ignored police advice to stay in his truck. Zimmerman was advised as such precisely avoid the kind of misunderstanding and incident that occurred.

I did not hear Zimmerman verbally hail Martin from the truck during the 911 call, but as I keep noting, that would have been the best course of action.

I would have been VERY suspicious had I been in Trayvon Martin’s position, and it’s obvious that Martin was provoked into action by fear. Zimmerman was not a victim acting in self-defense because he provoked this incident instead of following common sense or police advice.

The Bringer on March 24, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Comment pages: 1 8 9 10 11 12