This isnt a white vs black issue. It has to do with people having their cars and home broken into. Zimmerman has every right to walk behind who ever he wants to. They both should have had enough RESPECT for each other to talk it out and this wouldnt be an issue.
If Floridians at large, and the Hispanic community specifically, are not coming to the aide of GZ, via peaceful protests, then GZ is basically on his own. Most folks don't want to be seen anywhere near a 'support GZ' event of any type. The NBPs are keeping a sharp eye out for any potential targets to vent their disingenuous angst against 'whitey'.
Liberals are very broadminded: they are always willing to give careful consideration to both sides of the same side.( Anonymous)
Florida Carry, Inc.
Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.
-Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes
Brown v. United States, 1921
As for the other clown, ever consider maybe he was acting/conducting himself in a manner consistent with a "hoodlum" and typical of urban hoodlum behaviors vs. just some "minding his own" sweet, innocent kid?
Keep in mind also, just as we werent there, nor were Martin's supporters. They had no better idea than anyone else how the kid was behaving as he wandered around that neighborhood.
Ask also- would some normal, oridinary guy just strolling down the street like any other draw attention to himself, enough to make a resident concerned? Probably not- so try to give Z the benefit of a doubt. I highly doubt the guy saw some random kid wandering around and decided "hey. let's harrass and shoot this guy"
Or is it far more likely the kid was in full-blown ghetto/urban strut mode, and milling around between and behind people's residences, thus drawing attention to himself...hmmmmmm..?.
Jesus H.. people, put some thought into things before gobbling up the discredited, illegitimate, Media versions. Once the supporters- and the media- have to begin editing things, and deliberately falsifying "evidence" and "witnesses" to things, one should re-consider taking their version of things seriously,no?
Z was probably paying out the yazoo-for his income levels- to live where he thought would be a nice place. When places have been getting broken into, and such, folks who reside there have every right to pay attention to, and if need be, -confront- strangers tooling around their area whom they dont recognize.
Nothing whatsoever prevented the kid from saying to Z, "hey, im just going to my relative's place- its at address X" and that probably would have been the end of it.-but he apparently didnt. The kid didnt LIVE there, he was visiting. And as such would have been a stranger to the locals. No, that doesnt make him a hood- but it certainly gives anyone residing there noticing him, to check on him and see what the situation is, if they feel a need to do so.
My wife was truely terrorized when she read about the Black Panthers threatening dead or alive, promoting violence etc.
Doesn't that make them domestic terrorists? I thought a bill was passed to be able to detain these people indefinately without cause.
We need Justice.
Also, it sounds to me like you associate a young black teenage male's behavior/dress with a hoodlum.
You are wrong, according to what was reported, he was simply dressed like a young black male.
Just like you think negatively about someone dressed like a young black man, the anti's are thinking the same about someone with a gun. They think negatively of us until shown otherwise. The EXACT SAME THING being done on here.
yet I bet many off you fault the anti's
*swyped from the evo so excuse any typos*
Last edited by the_hustleman; 04-12-2012 at 03:51 PM.
It's the same thing with a handgun. A handgun carried in a holster gets no bad looks from any decent American. However, that same handgun jammed into a pants pocket does. It's not because decent Americans are against guns; it's because one way of "dressing" the gun is associated with criminal activity, while the other is not. Same thing with the mode of dress for young black males.
Of course, just because a young black male is dressed like a thug doesn't make him a criminal, nor does it reduce his rights. However, he shouldn't be surprised that he gets viewed suspiciously when he willingly dons the uniform of urban crime. After all, if you wear a ski mask and dark glasses into a bank, you will get treated suspiciously, because you willingly chose to wear clothing that is associated with bank robbery.
Last edited by ManInBlack; 04-12-2012 at 03:59 PM.
"is assuming the kid was wrong and zimmerman is right. That's the part that has me like wow. "
Like wow, is bashing one "assumption" while making another.
Why "assume" Z just went on a racist rampage and shot a kid just because he was "black"?
As far as our "assumptions" the kid was looking/acting like a hood, how much more sense does it make to "assume" the kid was just minding his own, when someone decided to follow/assault/whatever other fantasies- him at random, or based on some "race" motive.
This Taiwanese animated news video gets it [/sarcasm]:
According to the Miami Herald, Trayvon was no angel.
And with regards to Zimmerman getting charged, this is actually a good thing. Had he not been charged at all, this incident could have legally hung over his head forever as there is no statute of limitations on murder. Theoretically, twenty-five years from now some overzealous prosecutor could have resurrected the case and have attempted to prosecute him. As it is, he will have a final decision, whatever that may be.
MSgt, USAF Ret.
Florida Carry, Inc.
Glock 23 RTF2
Mosin Nagant M91/30 (1942 Izhevsk)
Want to do something about your gun rights?
PITCH IN, QUIT B*TCHING!
Zimmerman should have been charged, period.
Had he stayed in his vehicle, he wouldn't have had this problem.
*swyped from the evo so excuse any typos*
You're acting like he got out of the car, and trayvon just jumped on him.
That's possible, but about as likely as zimmerman running up on him, shouting racial slurs with his gun in hand.
Possible, but not likely.
People have a breaking point that makes them spaz out, something has to set them off, so why is it sup hard to believe trayvon was standing HIS GROUND?
Why us the gun community trying to villainize the deceased?
Because of what zimmerman says?
The court should have been sorting that out.
*swyped from the evo so excuse any typos*
As far as I'm concerned if Zimmerman was not acting in SD he should go to prison and I'm kind of happy to see a trial so the facts will actually start coming out. If the facts do not prove beyond a reasonable doubt he is guilty I hope he is released.
"No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105
...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
- Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262
Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
- Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436
Last edited by 77zach; 04-13-2012 at 04:40 PM.
“If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat
I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.
The reactions of main stream media, and initially even FOX, and some posters remind me of the opening senerio of the movie. Damn the law, the lynch mob had enough circumstantial evidence to conclude character Jed Cooper qualified for hanging so hang him they did. We know how that one played out.
I am suprised that this discussion has carried on so long without specific references to the Florida laws of deadly force. So:
776.06 Deadly force.—
(1) The term “deadly force” means force that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm...
Notice the force does not have to actually cause death or great bodily harm, just be likely to.
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—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.
Even if Zimmerman initiated the verbal or physical altercation, if he was receiving force likely to cause death or great bodily harm he was entitled to a deadly force response.
I have received considerable training on Use of Force under the auspices of the Florida Department Of Law Enforcement that sets the standards for all Florida LEO agencies. We are trained that blows to the head constitutes deadly force and not to apply blows to the head of a suspect unless a deadly force response is warranted. Likewise if we are receiving blows to the head, or attempted blows to the head, we are justified in a deadly force response. ( We have a Use of Force Martrix that describes the different levels of force to be use against the various levels of force being encountered.)
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
The Sanford Police undoubtedly have received ample training on the subject as well as having experience the amount to damage that is done with the hands and feet of otherwise "unarmed" assailants. Based on the evidence they reported at the scene, their training would tell them that an immediate arrest was not warranted.
Whatever additional significant evidence, if any, the State has against Zimmerman remains to be seen.
Last edited by 6-shooter; 04-14-2012 at 02:52 PM. Reason: Spellin'
Not to mention the distinct possibility of the guy being at personal risk of vigilantes for the rest of his life no matter how the trial turns out. Send him to jail and the race based gangs will do their best to kill him. Acquit him and the race based criminal gangs on the outside may well do their best to "get justice" in the case.
That is a pretty high price to pay and I hope there is some substantial evidence to counter his claims of self-defense seeing as how it now looks like he is going to be subjected to those costs regardless. There are any number of persons who need to be arrested and charged with crimes ranging from inciting violence to making threats of violence as to the second list of costs that may be incurred by Zimmerman.
For the direct financial problems, it is clear to me that so-called limits on prosecution don't do much to really protect when it is needed most. I think what is needed is a statute providing for compensation of legal fees and other incurred costs of anyone who is acquitted of charges related to illegal use of force after claiming self-defense.
For each of us, a cautionary tale of how costly it can be to be involved in a self-defense shooting. Before drawing a gun or pulling the trigger, make sure that the consequences of not doing so really are worse than the very possible results of using deadly force. And before that, we need to be constantly asking ourselves if we are starting down a path that could lead to a situation we'd have rather avoided.
I'm inclined to wait for all the evidence to be presented....I don't know everything..
la. Stat. § 776.032 and the Florida Supreme Court's interpretation of the immunity statute in Dennis v. State, 51 So.3d 456 (Fla. 2010), which held that “the plain language of section 776.032 grants defendants a substantive right to assert immunity from prosecution and to avoid being subjected to a trial.” Id. at 462. Procedurally, “where a criminal defendant files a motion to dismiss on the basis of section 776.032, the trial court should decide the factual question of the applicability of the statutory immunity.” Id. at 458. This decision followed the 25-year-old precedent in People v. Guenther, 740 P.2d 971 (Colo. 1987), which held that Colorado’s similar immunity statute “authorized a trial court to dismiss a criminal prosecution at the pretrial stage and did not merely create an affirmative defense for adjudication at trial.” Dennis, 51 So.3d at 459 (citing Guenther, 740 P.2d at 976).
In Dennis, the Florida Supreme Court specifically approved of the reasoning of the earlier decision of Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeals in Peterson v. State, 983 So.2d 27 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), which “h[e]ld that when immunity under this law is properly raised by a defendant, the trial court must decide the matter by confronting and weighing only factual disputes. The court may not deny a motion simply because factual disputes exist.” Id. at 29. Moreover, if the court denies a motion to dismiss under the immunity statute, the defendant “is not precluded from submitting the matter to the jury as an affirmative defense in his criminal trial.” Id. The court found that “The wording selected by our Legislature makes clear that it intended to establish a true immunity and not merely an affirmative defense. In particular, in the preamble to the substantive legislation, the session law notes, ‘[T]he Legislature finds that it is proper for law-abiding people to protect themselves, their families, and others from intruders and attackers without fear of prosecution or civil action for acting in defense of themselves and others.’ Ch.2005-27, at 200, Laws of Fla.” Id.
Unlike a trial, the burden of proof in an immunity hearing under Fla. Stat. § 776.032 is a preponderance of evidence. “[T]he trial court must determine whether the defendant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the immunity attaches.” Peterson, 983 So.2d at 29; see also Gray v. State, 13 So.3d 114, 115 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (on motion for certification) (agreeing with Peterson); State v. Gallo, 76 So.3d 407, 409 n. 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (same) (collecting cases). At trial, however, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.
The only upside Mr. Zimmerman has to facing prosecution now is that if the charges are dismissed based on the motion for immunity, or if he is acquitted at trial, jeopardy will attach and he will be forever free from future criminal prosecution. Moreover, if he wins the motion for immunity, he will also be immune from a civil lawsuit and would be entitled to collect attorney's fees from anyone who improperly sues him in violation of the immunity statute. If Mr. Zimmerman prevails against the pending criminal charge, he will likely get paid interviews, a book deal, and will likely sue a litany of individuals who have defamed (e.g., the peacock) or threatened physical harm to him (e.g., the Black Panthers) over the last couple of months, the proceeds of which he will be able to use to pay his legal bills from the criminal case.
Wa. Rev. Code § 9A.16.110. If duplicated in Florida and other states that have "immunity from prosecution" statutes, the Washington reimbursement statute would need to be modified to also apply to criminal cases in which charges are dismissed at the pretrial immunity hearing. I would also suggest adding interest at the judgment rate, as the Washington statute has been construed to not provide interests on these awards. State v. Lee, 96 Wash.App. 336, 345, 979 P.2d 458, 463 (Wash. App. Div. 2, 1999). As Seattle Gun Rights Examiner Dave Workman noted last year when there were efforts to repeal Washington’s reimbursement statute: “The statute is not simply an avenue for compensation. It is also a deterrent to overzealous anti-self-defense prosecutors who might be compelled – if the law were repealed – to push cases against people simply to make them 'an example.' Under the current law, if a prosecutor pursues such a case and loses, not only are the taxpayers out the cost of the prosecution, they’re also out the cost of the defense.”