Disturbing Trend...

honeybunny

Pursuit Driver
I am really disturbed by the way the media is stirring up
racial animosity over the Trayvon Martin murder in Florida.

Watching Brian Williams report on NBC news last night
you would have thought this kid was killed by the Klan,
instead of what appears to be a lone paranoid vigilante.

There is no doubt that the murder of this teenager is
a true tragedy and the killer needs to be prosecuted.

Another sad fact is that innocent black kids are shot and killed by violent inner city criminals
everyday... and their stories are mostly ignored by the media and the racial justice community.

This story seems to fit some kind of useful greivance narrative for the media,
and I am left to wonder what purpose is served by the elevation of this story.
 
honeybunny said:
I am really disturbed by the way the media is stirring up
racial animosity over the Trayvon Martin murder in Florida.

Watching Brian Williams report on NBC news last night
you would have thought this kid was killed by the Klan,
instead of what appears to be a lone paranoid vigilante.

There is no doubt that the murder of this teenager is
a true tragedy and the killer needs to be prosecuted.

Another sad fact is that innocent black kids are shot and killed by violent inner city criminals
everyday... and their stories are mostly ignored by the media and the racial justice community.

This story seems to fit some kind of useful greivance narrative for the media,
and I am left to wonder what purpose is served by the elevation of this story.

It takes the pressure off the political failures of their party. :)
 
Although very tragic, it's the old "Keep Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton" relevant procedure. You are 100% correct. More black young people are killed by their own BY FAR. It's only when there is a racial component that it makes national news.

That self appointed "Captain" needs his butt kicked up around his neck. I'll bet this bag of peanuts on my desk that if you checked, you find where he has applied at a dozen law enforcement agencies and was rejected. The 911 operator clearly told him not to confront that kid, but Nooooo. People like him make it far more difficult for the adults among us to have the freedom to carry firearms.

On the other side of the coin, these "protestors" need to cool their jets and stop the diarrhea of the mouth. Unless Florida is very different from Georgia (and I don't think so), all these shooting incidents are reviewed by the Grand Jury. Yes, even our officer involved shootings are reviewed by the Grand Jury. It's standard practice. These protestors have NO IDEA if they will find reason to indict the shooter or not. They haven't given the process sufficient time.

Let's just keep the race war alive, shall we? Hey, I thought the election of P-Bo was supposed to fix that :whistle
 
Grey Colson said:
On the other side of the coin, these "protestors" need to cool their jets and stop the diarrhea of the mouth. Unless Florida is very different from Georgia (and I don't think so), all these shooting incidents are reviewed by the Grand Jury. Yes, even our officer involved shootings are reviewed by the Grand Jury. It's standard practice. These protestors have NO IDEA if they will find reason to indict the shooter or not. They haven't given the process sufficient time.

Very true, I have already seen irresponsible journalists crying "cover up"
and "police corruption" even though the investigation is not yet complete.
 
It is very disturbing to me as well. I believe that Mr. Zimmerman will be found responsible for this death, eventually. Florida has a "stand your ground" policy that the Chief seems to be using. HOWEVER, this case is ALREADY slated to go to their grand jury the first week of April. I was in complete support of the Martin family until they chose to turn it into a three-ring circus.
 
newsjunky said:
Madea said:
It is very disturbing to me as well. I believe that Mr. Zimmerman will be found responsible for this death, eventually. Florida has a "stand your ground" policy that the Chief seems to be using. HOWEVER, this case is ALREADY slated to go to their grand jury the first week of April. I was in complete support of the Martin family until they chose to turn it into a three-ring circus.
Agree with this. Stand your ground is quite different from stalking and that is what it sounded like he was doing to me.
 
Madea said:
It is very disturbing to me as well. I believe that Mr. Zimmerman will be found responsible for this death, eventually. Florida has a "stand your ground" policy that the Chief seems to be using. HOWEVER, this case is ALREADY slated to go to their grand jury the first week of April. I was in complete support of the Martin family until they chose to turn it into a three-ring circus.

Yeah, I saw where they participated in an Occupy rally in NYC yesterday.
 
Besides Jackson and Sharpton; the news media is also responsible for keeping racism alive. Every day you can find in the news reports that support my claim.
 
unionmom said:
Someone please explain to me why Mr. Zimmerman is being described as a "white hispanic."

Well, duh. If you don't put "white" in there somewhere, you blow that whole racism charge.
 
newsjunky said:
newsjunky said:
Madea said:
It is very disturbing to me as well. I believe that Mr. Zimmerman will be found responsible for this death, eventually. Florida has a "stand your ground" policy that the Chief seems to be using. HOWEVER, this case is ALREADY slated to go to their grand jury the first week of April. I was in complete support of the Martin family until they chose to turn it into a three-ring circus.
Agree with this. Stand your ground is quite different from stalking and that is what it sounded like he was doing to me.

I don't believe Zimmerman "stood his ground". I believe he stalked. But, it's just getting crazy down there now.
 
The problem with the stand your ground law, as I understand it, is that even if you are the initial aggressor you are still protected. All he technically has to do is prove that he was, just prior to pulling the trigger, was truly in fear of great bodily harm. He then has the right to fully defend himself without retreat. There really does not appear to be any question that the guy put himself into a position that he had ZERO need to put himself into. Exactly what took place after that is what we need to find out from independent investigators. What is really sad is how much PR crap is being played from all sides now. Before the Feds have completed their investigation, before a grand jury has heard the case the city counsel has return a vote of no confidence against the police chief because the want the world to see it. "It was a hard thing to do, we didn't want to but we needed the world to see." Come on. Screw the world. Take care of your business. If you really feel he did wrong, fine. Don't do it for PR reasons.
 
There isn't any doubt in my mind that Zimmerman was acting aggressively in this situation. The stand your ground law wouldn't apply here, as I understand it. He is claiming self defense, which like stand your ground, requires the other party to be the aggressor. The guy obviously has some sort of problems, but I'm really not at all convinced that racism was one of them. The "White Hispanic" comment really chaps my butt.
 
He can be the initial aggressor and still be covered by Florida's stand your ground ... according to the way it has been explained by a number of people in the media. That needs to be addressed by Florida.
 
HERE'S WHAT I FOUND: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

The 2011 Florida Statutes


Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
View Entire Chapter
776.013?Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1)?A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a)?The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b)?The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2)?The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a)?The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b)?The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c)?The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d)?The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3)?A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4)?A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5)?As used in this section, the term:
(a)?“Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b)?“Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c)?“Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27.
 
It appears they are using this part:

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

In my personal opinion, it doesn't apply. There's no proof Zimmerman was attacked.
 
They claim there was a "violent altercation" that led to the shooting. That's where the details need to be investigated to exhaustion. And again ... Zimmerman put himself into a position he had no need to be in. There was absolutely no reason for him to confront the guy. He was even told not to follow him but even if he had wanted to continue to do that until the real authorities showed up, fine. Why get out? Community Watch is supposed to observe and report, not intervene. And sure as heck not confront with firearms. And I'm not saying that we as citizens don't have the right to protect ourselves but the other guy was just walking down the street. I don't care how "suspicious" he did or did not look or act.
 
I heard the law explained and no where in it does it say you can follow someone who has not attacked you and start an altercation with him. The police dispatcher told Zimmerman that he had no business following the kid and to stand down.
 
Back
Top