Ask Me Help Desk - Trayvon Martin

Hello again,

So, I'm watching Sean Hannity.. He's talking about the tragedy, and he's got two guys he's interviewing. ONE guy, like me, keeps on saying the problem is the LAW - NOT the cops...

Hannity wasn't having ANY of it... He said quite clearly, "I don't want this discussion to be about guns". But, when you're talking about LARGE animals with LONG noses and BIG ears, you'd HAVE to mention the word elephant.

So, I'm thinking that the right wing wants to preserve the, "I'm gonna STAND MY GROUND, because I wanna shoot you", law.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

So, I'm thinking that the right wing wants to preserve the, "I'm gonna STAND MY GROUND, because I wanna shoot you", law.

I don't know anyone who wants an "I'm gonna STAND MY GROUND, because I wanna shoot you" law, except maybe gang-bangers. Most of those aren't right-wingers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I don't know anyone who wants an "I'm gonna STAND MY GROUND, because I wanna shoot you" law

Hello again, Steve:

I don't know, Steve. If you HAVE a means of escape, but CHOOSE not to take it, as this law allows you to do, why else WOULD you "stand your ground"?

excon

The problem IS the law AND the cops. They both need tweaking to eliminate abuse. But that's what happens when you get a special interest group to write the laws. They have to protect their gun owners whether they are irresponsible idiots or not. The NRA wants all the nuts to have the right to a gun, and shoot whomever they please.

And ex, its illegal in America for reasonable people to even look at Hannity. At least Rush is a clown, and makes no bones about it. And he is the leader of the right wing with Grover Norquist. Hannity thinks he is a journalist, and can't understand why we think he is a clown.

You need to change the batteries in your remote.

Let me know when this discussion gets serious again. I'm not sitting here writing that the left wants people unarmed and vulnerable to predators if they don't like the law .

ZZZZzzzz...

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

ZZZZzzzz...

Hello again, Steve:

Wake up and answer MY question.. I see that you've ignored it. I KNOW why.

Let me ask again, so you don't have to go look... If you HAVE a means of escape, and CHOOSE not to use it, as this law allows you to do, what reason could you possibly have, OTHER than you WANTED to shoot him, by "standing your ground"??

I'll be happy to hear what tom thinks too.. You DO know this is the CRUX of the law. I understand WHY you wouldn't want to engage me on it...

But, let me speculate a bit... Did you hear when Zimmerman said, "they always get away with it"?? With that simple statement, I believe HE personified the motive behind the law. It's to PUNISH. It's to PAY BACK. It's to get JUSTICE.

On the other site, I'm involved in a discussion about the Castle doctrine. I used the example of finding a kid in your living room with your TV in his arms. I asked whether he deserved to be SHOT. WITHOUT exception, and WITHOUT pause, and WITHOUT one iota of guilt, they ALL said YES. And, they BLAMED him for it. He was ASKING for it, they said... I've heard similar arguments made on THESE pages, no?

The "stand your ground" law, is nothing more than the Castle doctrine, in public.

excon

Ex, we've pretty much already agreed on everything. You're just fishing, and I'm not biting.

"He has no protection under my law," (former Sen. Durell Peaden)
The law allows for residents to use deadly force if they
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(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;
- Chapter 776 - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate

Based on the clear language of the law ,Zimmerman doesn't have a case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

ex, we've pretty much already agreed on everything. You're just fishing, and I'm not biting.

Hello again, Steve:

I've rebaited my hook..

Another phenomenon arising out of this case is the UPWELLING of anger and support for change on a NATIONAL basis. To WHAT do you attribute this to? Is it a referendum on the law? On blacks? On whites? On the south? On the cops? Anything??

Wake up!

excon

Here is the law as it applies to Zimmerman :
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.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

So even if Martin did jump him ,Since Zimmerman was the stalker, he was not right under the law to use force .

What UPWELLING is that besides the race baiters like Pitts? You'll have to be more specific.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

What UPWELLING is that besides the race baiters like Pitts? You'll have to be more specific.

Hello again, Steve:

If you SEE no upwelling, my directing you to it won't help.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

On the other site, I'm involved in a discussion about the Castle doctrine. I used the example of finding a kid in your living room with your TV in his arms. I asked whether he deserved to be SHOT. WITHOUT exception, and WITHOUT pause, and WITHOUT one iota of guilt, they ALL said YES. And, they BLAMED him for it. He was ASKING for it, they said... I've heard similar arguments made on THESE pages, no?

The "stand your ground" law, is nothing more than the Castle doctrine, in public.

excon

Not sure what site this is that you speak of but I'll take a shot (pun intended) at answering this. Is the kid armed? Do I fear for my life simply because he is holding my TV? If he's not armed, I'm not shooting. Castle Doctrine or not, I'm not in danger simply because he's holding my TV. Not only is it morally wrong to shoot in this case but, believe it or not, it's against the law. I can't shoot the guy only because he's in my house... I still need to be in danger.

I don't see where anyone on these pages is saying it would be OK to shoot someone just to do it.

You can expect Zimmerman got a thrill, knocking off that kid, he can speak of it with pride after all he got to use his gun

Looks like this is going to go in another direction: the sheriff stepped down, the Feds moved in, and somebody "cleaned" the recording so you can hear racist epithets. So is this going to turn into another Tawana Brawley or another James Byrd?

... or another Duke Lacross or Richard Jewell with a rush to judgement ? I gave my opinion about this case .I think I'm right. But we don't know the whole story .

Hello again,

I have a new found respect for Al Sharpton. His mother died yesterday, and he went to Florida anyway to lead a rally. He said his mother would have been ashamed of him if he didn't go.

There was some movement in the case. That would NOT have happened if heat wasn't brought, and Al Sharpton is bringing the heat..

Does that make it racial issue? Was it a racial issue from the git? I STILL say, that Zimmerman will get OFF, and it's the wording of the LAW that'll do it.

excon

Listening to Geraldo Rivera the last 2 days on radio. He's calling it the Hoodi murders and is saying that Martin was partly responsible for the murder by the way he was dressed. He's also condemning the 'million hoodi march' .
Wow .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Listening to Geraldo Rivera

Hello again, tom:

Well, it IS Geraldo.

But, I want to ask you this. Given the major, major pressure being brought on this case, why hasn't there been an arrest? I say, it's because everybody who examines the law, believes the law allows Zimmerman to do what he did.

Look. You DO understand that I hope I'm wrong. I'm not into murderer's.

excon

You think there should be an arrest because of external pressure ? Is that the way the law works ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

You think there should be an arrest because of external pressure ? Is that the way the law works ?

Hello again, tom:

I think external pressure would have the cops going over EVERY move they've made, every report they've written, and every witness they've interviewed. Having MADE that review, there's STILL no arrest.

The feds and the new prosecutor are DOING the same thing, and no charges have been filed.. What other conclusion can I come up with? What's YOUR conclusion?

excon

It's not up to me to decide if arrests and prosecution is warranted even though it is my opinion. Public pressure is doing it's role ,making sure there is a proper investigation into the incident . If you ask me that it should be handed over to an independent prosecutor ,I'd say yes . But I can't say based on what I know if he should be arrested... or if he is the only one who should be (evidence tampering ? Possibly)

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

If you SEE no upwelling, my directing you to it won't help.

excon

I see Sharpton and Pitts, that's automatic outrage.

They have been outraged a long time Speech, and rightfully so!

Hello again,

There is a BIGGER story going on here... Some of you aren't aware of it... I don't know why.

These laws are on the books in 25 states. There have been unjustified killings based on them before. I can't find it, but the one in Texas where a neighbor shot and killed two black illegal aliens breaking into a neighbors house... There wasn't a backlash about that. Maybe being illegal AND black was the double whammy. But, I digress...

There IS a backlash about Trayvon. To those of you who see this backlash, why is it happening NOW? To those of you who DON'T, I invite you to open your eyes... If you're about to say with Pitts and Sharpton involved, it's a manufactured RACIAL issue by the left wing, I'm ready for you.

excon

The knee jerkers should go to Chi town and express their outrage there .Why Chi town ? Because in the last week scores ;maybe as many as 50 ,were shot and at least 10 killed in a place where there is no stand your ground laws.
Just for some perspective .

The outraged have accomplished what is reasonable .The investigations are ongoing. Let the investigators do their work .

If the investigation is not complete ,and there are no charges that will stick until the investigation is complete ,then what is the purpose of an arrest ,except to appease the mob ?

Edit... in the Chi town violence ;the youngest victim was a 6 year old girl
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?sec...cal&id=8589015

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Think about it ...someone who isn't a cop confronts you with a gun in his hand . It's likely the kid was acting in self defense by attacking .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

The knee jerkers should go to Chi town and express their outrage there

Hello again, tom:

So, they should just go away? There's nothing going on here, folks. Just move along.

You appeared to be outraged once. What happened?

excon

Quote:

So, they should just go away? There's nothing going on here, folks. Just move along.

Putting words in my mouth again.
Look ,State Attorney Angela B. Corey has been appointed by Rick Scott to take over the case. She's a tough prosecutor who has successfully prosecuted many homicides . Zimmerman's story is unbelievable and transparent. He'll go down ,and the law he will use in his self defense does not apply to his case.

He'd do better to plead insanity because he's a nut job. He assaulted a cop ;he's clearly a paranoid ,having called 9-1-1 multiple times . His lawyer talks of significant injuries to his nose and head which should've required stitches .Yet he did not go the ER or have his injuries documented .
Again ,the big story here is the apparent shoddy police work immediately after the incident . Perhaps the "Reverend " did some good in highlighting that fact . But now there is a State prosecutor on the case ,and most likely a Federal investigation. Mission accomplished .
As far as the law ; it's not intended to protect people like Zimmerman to justify killing a child ;and it's not likely that it will .

Hello again, tom:

So, RACE has nothing to do with it, huh?

Why does Florida have a statewide ban on saggy pants? Didn't you say somewhere above that if Zimmerman had been black, and Trayvon white, there would have been a different outcome??

If you didn't, and I'm not going to look, do you BELIEVE that sentiment?? Unless, your head is in the sand, you'd HAVE to believe it. Come on. Tell me with a straight face, that a ban on saggy pants ISN'T racist to its core.

Don't you think we need an AIRING of those issues?

I don't think you you do. I believe you feel that we already DEALT with civil rights, so what's the problem...

Over to you.

excon

Quote:

Didn't you say somewhere above that if Zimmerman had been black, and Trayvon white, there would have been a different outcome??

I don't believe I did .
Do I think race was a factor ? Yes ,that is clear from his 9-1-1 call. All the more reason why he won't get away with hiding behind the Fla law .

I did not realize baggy pants were the issue. I thought it was hoodies . Being a long time wearer of hoodies myself ,I was not aware until Geraldo started yapping about it that hoodies id'd me as a back . Should I discard mine ? I get mine from Modells . They are convenient apparel to wear in the spring and fall before the real cold weather begins . Clearly I don' t think someone who wears them should be shot.

HA! You righties are good with long investigations, but a black guy who hollers self defense, after shooting a white guy, hell, any guy, would be in jail while the investigation dragged on, and on..!

Equal protection under the law my a$$!

Do you have an example ,or are you just flapping your gums . This incident is a month old . I was not looking for a prolonged investigation. I'm not looking for a lynching either.

BTW... about those baggy pants ? The law passed was for public schools and not a general ban on baggy pants. I'd go further . Students in public schools should wear uniforms .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

do you have an example ,or are you just flapping your gums . This incident is a month old . I was not looking for a prolonged investigation. I'm not looking for a lynching either.

You made my point, so I don't have to give an example, this case is a perfect example of prolonged investigations and leaving a killer free while everyone in authority wrings their hands in the face of overwhelming, and growing evidence. After a month, we are still no closer to justice, or fairness. Just growing OUTRAGE, and finger pointing.

This was not the first incidence of the cops mishandling their investigations into a crime. That's what got the previous chief replaced by the new one. That was a year ago, and here we are again with the same old shuffle and cover ups.

You are NOT looking for a lynching?? I bet the youth at the center of this outrage wasn't looking to be murdered. Whats wrong with him being in custody while the investigation goes on?

Oh that's right, we can't violate his rights now can we. He is the right color, to be presumed innocent. You righties sound so reasonable when it comes to your own. No wonder you can temper your outrage with due process. A month later!

As tom said, the baggy pants ban is for public schools, not a ban statewide for the general public. Peaden and Baxley both have said that the law was not followed, and should not be used as a defense, when Zimmerman followed Martin.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoulaLC

As tom said, the baggy pants ban is for public schools, not a ban statewide for the general public.

Hello Doula:

My point wasn't WHO, but WHAT. Banning saggy pants for ANYBODY is racist. That's just so...

excon

Quote:

What's wrong with him being in custody while the investigation goes on?

What charge ? Believe it or not ,you have to charge someone to put him under arrest .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

I don't know that and that is only a presumption . Doubt if a jury will agree.

They have the 9-1-1 call . There was no need for him to get out of the truck after that . He provoked the confrontation .

I think Zimmerman is in a whole lot of trouble .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

What charge ? Believe it or not ,you have to charge someone to put him under arrest .

Hello again, tom:

In the beginning of this thread, it was ME who was saying the law PROTECTS this guy. It was YOU who was saying there was probable cause for an arrest...

Now, that race has reared its ugly head, your sympathy's appear to have shifted. No?

excon

Quote:

Oh that's right, we can't violate his rights now can we. He is the right color, to be presumed innocent. You righties sound so reasonable when it comes to your own. No wonder you can temper your outrage with due process. A month later!

You are aware that Zimmerman is Hispanic.. don't you ? I'm on record as saying that I believe he is guilty of murder. I also don't want the case botched more than it has been by incompetence or a rush to judgement .