Trayvon Martin Shooting

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

The police should have taken photographs of Zimmerman at the police station, they should release those and end this nonsense once and for all.

It will all come out eventually. It's fun though taking what we see and trying to make our own conclusions though. It's why we watch Law and Order.

I don't think there's any question that Zimmerman has some cuts and bruises. It's noted in the police report. I think where it matters is the fact that it doesn't look like he was really beaten up to a degree where he needed to use deadly force to stop the attack.

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

But what doesn't make sense is that it's claimed that Zimmerman had a right to kill Trayvon but Trayvon doesn't have a right to kill Zimmerman?

This speaks to the most frequent answer you hear from lawyers: "It depends."

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

The police should have taken photographs of Zimmerman at the police station, they should release those and end this nonsense once and for all.

The circus and zoo created around this case, from the protestors to the media and other, has made it nearly impossible for Zimmerman to get a fair trial as it is. Either people are so biased one way or another that no fair jury will be sat, or potential jurors have already heard so much "evidence" through leaks and reports (such as the one you propose) that no fair jury without substantial outside knowledge could be sat. If I were a defense counsel, I'd ask for change of venue to the further spot away from the town of Sanford as I could and still be in Florida. Even then, I'd see what I could work on to get it moved out of state somehow. This case, if Zimmerman is arrested and prosecuted, is going to have to deal with these issues right from the start.

[The Great Catpiss]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

It will all come out eventually. It's fun though taking what we see and trying to make our own conclusions though. It's why we watch Law and Order.

I don't think there's any question that Zimmerman has some cuts and bruises. It's noted in the police report. I think where it matters is the fact that it doesn't look like he was really beaten up to a degree where he needed to use deadly force to stop the attack.

IMO, any beating justifies deadly force. Any blow can kill you. You don't wait until it's too late.

Furthermore, when a gun is involved, the situation escalates. Do you wait for the person to get ahold of the gun and then stop them?

Trayvon may have reached for the gun to diffuse the situation. He could have thought to grab the gun and toss it. He could have thought to grab the gun and tell Zimmerman to back off. If I was in a fight with someone and saw they had a gun, I might reach for it too.

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

Originally Posted by The Great Catpiss

Trayvon may have reached for the gun to diffuse the situation. He could have thought to grab the gun and toss it. He could have thought to grab the gun and tell Zimmerman to back off. If I was in a fight with someone and saw they had a gun, I might reach for it too.

Totally unrelated, but my dad had a colleague once upon a time that got into an accident and had to pull over (you know the usual). It was a small fender bender, even though my dad and his colleague are/were truck drivers. Anyway, the other driver was a total asshole about it, and started getting threatening and violent. He got into my dad's colleague's face and personal space, so my dad's colleague put his hands up and on the other driver to give himself more space. When he did that, he felt the other driver had a concealed gun. The other driver got even more enraged that the driver put his hands up to give him more space, and went after my dad's colleague, who was a big man, and socked the other driver right in the kisser, knocked him out cold. When the cops got there, they asked why he decked the guy, and my dad's colleague told the cops why he did it, what he felt, etc. Sure enough, the cops searched the guy (still out cold) and found a .45 on him, loaded and ready to go.

The company still fired my dad's colleague because, as they see it, he had no right to defend himself with force and exposed them to liability - even though the police didn't cite or arrest my dad's colleague, and even sent a letter saying his use of force was justified under the circumstances.

Moral of the story I guess is my dad's company really sucks balls.

[Salty Dog]

Originally Posted by The Esteemed Gentleman

Totally unrelated, but my dad had a colleague once upon a time that got into an accident and had to pull over (you know the usual). It was a small fender bender, even though my dad and his colleague are/were truck drivers. Anyway, the other driver was a total asshole about it, and started getting threatening and violent. He got into my dad's colleague's face and personal space, so my dad's colleague put his hands up and on the other driver to give himself more space. When he did that, he felt the other driver had a concealed gun. The other driver got even more enraged that the driver put his hands up to give him more space, and went after my dad's colleague, who was a big man, and socked the other driver right in the kisser, knocked him out cold. When the cops got there, they asked why he decked the guy, and my dad's colleague told the cops why he did it, what he felt, etc. Sure enough, the cops searched the guy (still out cold) and found a .45 on him, loaded and ready to go.

The company still fired my dad's colleague because, as they see it, he had no right to defend himself with force and exposed them to liability - even though the police didn't cite or arrest my dad's colleague, and even sent a letter saying his use of force was justified under the circumstances.

Moral of the story I guess is my dad's company really sucks balls.

That's a perfect example why I find it very difficult to support a concealed weapons permits for US citizens. God forbid that enraged man didn't want to talk and instead, just went for his side arm?

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Salty Dog

That's a perfect example why I find it very difficult to support a concealed weapons permits for US citizens. God forbid that enraged man didn't want to talk and instead, just went for his side arm?

Maybe. But is your argument merely against the concealment, or against possession? I mean, would you still have an issue if the dude was wearing heat on his hip in plain view for everyone to see?

[Salty Dog]

Originally Posted by The Esteemed Gentleman

Maybe. But is your argument merely against the concealment, or against possession? I mean, would you still have an issue if the dude was wearing heat on his hip in plain view for everyone to see?

Good catch. Correction, I meant public possession. I have no problem with a citizen owning a fire arm and carrying it with them in travel (if locked in a box). Having a fire arm in plain sight (or concealed to later be possibly revealed) only causes more anxiousness amongst the people involved in the situation. The owner may become agitated and be quick to turn to his weapon and vice versa, the non-owner may become agitated and try to disarm the man for fear of their life.

The Old West had stricter gun laws than a lot of current states do (most towns in the 1880s had ordinances forbidding fire arms within city limits)whereas American pop culture and folk lore showcases gunfighting as the staple to that period, creating this largely fabricated era where supposedly every man was quick with a 6 gun if challenged by the wrong man.

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

Vermont has very few gun laws. In fact you do not need a permit to buy, own, carry, transport, or conceal a gun in Vermont. And while I'm not about to say there is absolutely -zero- gun violence in Vermont, you don't exactly hear about heinous gun crimes in Vermont very often, do you?

So my question here is why should the good people of Vermont be denied the right to carry a weapon under their law just because jackoffs in Florida and California (and elsewhere) can't control themselves?

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by The Esteemed Gentleman

Vermont has very few gun laws. In fact you do not need a permit to buy, own, carry, transport, or conceal a gun in Vermont. And while I'm not about to say there is absolutely -zero- gun violence in Vermont, you don't exactly hear about heinous gun crimes in Vermont very often, do you?

So my question here is why should the good people of Vermont be denied the right to carry a weapon under their law just because jackoffs in Florida and California (and elsewhere) can't control themselves?

Without trying to be racist...I'll just ask what Vermont's poor/inner city population might be? At least it doesn't scream "urban center." I am sure South and North Dakota have relatively low gun play rates.

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Without trying to be racist...I'll just ask what Vermont's poor/inner city population might be? At least it doesn't scream "urban center." I am sure South and North Dakota have relatively low gun play rates.

I know the city of Burlington has crime issues. I have a friend who lives and works up there for the city PD. A lot of it has to do with drugs and UVM students; a lot has to do with the fact that there are a lot of transients just moving through; it is close to the border and has lots of smuggling issues, etc. But if you're looking for poor inner cities like Harlem or parts of Brooklyn or the Bronx, then find that you will not in Vermont.

That being said: Is there something about poor inner city types that makes them disproportionately more likely to be violent than country bumpkins? Or, assuming the answer is yes, what is it about poor inner city types that makes them disproportionately more violent than country bumpkins? It's not as if people in Vermont are rolling in wealth, so I am not sure that poverty is the gateway, if you will. It must be something else.

[Salty Dog]

Originally Posted by The Esteemed Gentleman

you don't exactly hear about heinous gun crimes in Vermont very often, do you?

I blame the liberal media.

Originally Posted by The Esteemed Gentleman

So my question here is why should the good people of Vermont be denied the right to carry a weapon under their law just because jackoffs in Florida and California (and elsewhere) can't control themselves?

I agree and hence why my stance on fire arms is in a constant flux. I've always supported the 2nd Amendment and the right to possess fire arms if you want to but there has to be restrictions for civil safety.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by The Esteemed Gentleman

I know the city of Burlington has crime issues. I have a friend who lives and works up there for the city PD. A lot of it has to do with drugs and UVM students; a lot has to do with the fact that there are a lot of transients just moving through; it is close to the border and has lots of smuggling issues, etc. But if you're looking for poor inner cities like Harlem or parts of Brooklyn or the Bronx, then find that you will not in Vermont.

That being said: Is there something about poor inner city types that makes them disproportionately more likely to be violent than country bumpkins? Or, assuming the answer is yes, what is it about poor inner city types that makes them disproportionately more violent than country bumpkins? It's not as if people in Vermont are rolling in wealth, so I am not sure that poverty is the gateway, if you will. It must be something else.

They aren't "rolling in wealth" but they aren't "rolling in dirt" either. They are living and doing ok. I think money is the number one reason for the violence. It all leads to it.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

They aren't "rolling in wealth" but they aren't "rolling in dirt" either. They are living and doing ok. I think money is the number one reason for the violence. It all leads to it.

I think there have been some pretty good studies that show what the mixture of things you generally have to make some violence. Is kind of like a violence epoxy. Each thing on their own is harmless but when you start mixing them it gets sticky.

[wanna be drummer]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I think there have been some pretty good studies that show what the mixture of things you generally have to make some violence. Is kind of like a violence epoxy. Each thing on their own is harmless but when you start mixing them it gets sticky.

This. The combination of certain variables create a situation ripe for gun violence. I dont think its ever been just one factor alone

[The Great Catpiss]

I have a feeling that the outcome of this will lead to some riots.

[The Great Catpiss]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

1: This guy is an idiot. He's called police 40 or so times over the years while he's doing his neighborhood watch. Sounds stupid to me.

The 40 calls was over an 8 year period. That is only about five 911 calls per year.

I think I call 911 more than 5 times per year. Do you think that's stupid?

[The Great Catpiss]

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/211753.php

In December 2010, the son of a Sanford police officer sucker punched a homeless black man outside a bar. The white attacker strutted away from the downed man, obviously proud of his cowardly achievement. Police arrived at the scene and declined to arrest him, despite the fact the unprovoked attack was captured on video.

Over the course of the next several weeks, the community expressed outrage but few stepped up to do anything to demand justice for the homeless man, Sherman Ware. The black community was indifferent. The NAACP ignored the incident. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton were nowhere to be found.

But one man was so determined to obtain justice for Sherman, he did what few others were willing to do. He stepped up and went door-to-door in black communities handing out fliers about the incident. He posted the fliers, put them on cars in parking lots, waited outside churches to give them to parishioners. He worked tirelessly exposing this injustice.

In January, his efforts finally paid off. In part, thanks to public pressure after the video was posted on Youtube, Justin Collison, a man with a violent history, was charged with sucker punching Sherman Ware.

The man was George Zimmerman.

George Zimmerman | Demanded Police Officer Discipline | The Daily Caller

The officers whom Zimmerman targeted for accountability in the Sherman Ware incident were all cleared by the Seminole County Sheriff’s investigation, despite Zimmerman’s repeated accusations that police gave kid-glove treatment to a white officer’s son who beat a defenseless, homeless black man.

But 14 months later, at least two of the same officers investigated the shooting death of Trayvon Martin — and cleared Zimmerman — even though his voice was the loudest calling for their punishment in the Ware case.

One of those officers was Timothy Smith. According to a police incident report from the scene of the Feb. 26 shooting, Officer Smith handcuffed Zimmerman and transported him to the police station. Another was Sergeant Anthony Raimondo, who was on scene with Smith and other local officers.

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

So does that say more about Zimmerman or the Sanford Police?

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by The Great Catpiss

The 40 calls was over an 8 year period. That is only about five 911 calls per year.

I think I call 911 more than 5 times per year. Do you think that's stupid?

Yes.