Don't think this is how the "stand your ground law" works

[Guest 6.8 AR]

It's entirely possible that riots are coming; there certainly seem to be forces that are working on making that a reality. There can be a lot of coddling and accommodating and sweet talking to avoid the potential for a riot, but that does not address the root causes driving society in the directions of riot. Ultimately, if pressed, there will be a confrontation between the forces of law & order and the forces of the mob and of chaos.

In general, bowing to the demands of the mob does not make the mob disperse. It makes the mob demand more, until, one day, there is nothing more that can be given to the mob.

It is possible that, sometimes, the only way to remove the pressure for a riot is to have one, and then have the rioters and society deal with the aftermath thereof. I'm reminded of the armed Korean shopkeepers on the roofs of their stores in Los Angeles.

I imagine there is high police art that can defuse a potential riot through proper street-level intelligence and the timely arrest and detention of fomentors, activists and ringleaders. And yet, this does not seem to have occurred. Perhaps it is being planned for quietly and all elements are already in place waiting for the right circumstance.

Is it not possible that the "community activist" squatting in the White House and his corrupt Attorney General are hoping that their followers will turn to the street? That they are actively fomenting and subtly encouraging such an outcome? A phone call from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and Revrum Sharpton and grievance-whore Jesse Jackson would stand down and go home. That has not occurred, and therefore it is condoned behavior.

The current state of affairs in some sense is a continuation of the Occupy movement from earlier in the year. There is fake-outrage being generated in the Martin versus Zimmerman case; if not that case, then another case would be the triggering excuse. It is all part of a bigger plan. The activists learned a lot in the initial Occupy practice mobilization, and yet our various state and local police forces learned a lot as well. There was a lot of fumbling around looking for the right type of police response, but once a successful formula was executed in a couple of cities, then other state and local police in other locales adopted the techniques to local needs and were also successful. How many Occupy encampments are still active at this time?

We need Statesmen in society in circumstances such as these, and I will not hold my breath and expect a Stateman to emerge. I, rather, expect the demagogues, and the opportunists, and the race-baiters, and the slimy politicians, and the "community activists" -- perhaps led by the Community Activist in Chief - to encourage the whole situation to devolve until there are people beaten and cars overturned, or people stabbed and police cars burned, or people shot to death and city blocks burned.

I'm still holding out for the Grand Jury's decision in the Martin v. Zimmerman case, and I will abide by it. I doubt that the aggrieved will be satisfied in this case nor in general. Get ready for a long, hot summer. It's all part of the plan.

And then again, I might be full of ####. But I doubt it. Have a nice day.

Those are very strong possibilities that I have been concerned about for some time. And there is nothing

tinfoil about it.

[Mark@Sea]

You couldn't pay me enough to live in a city right now.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

We need Statesmen in society in circumstances such as these, and I will not hold my breath and expect a Stateman to emerge. I, rather, expect the demagogues, and the opportunists, and the race-baiters, and the slimy politicians, and the "community activists" -- perhaps led by the Community Activist in Chief - to encourage the whole situation to devolve until there are people beaten and cars overturned, or people stabbed and police cars burned, or people shot to death and city blocks burned.

A good point, Dan.

If the D leadership is intentionally working for full-blown riots then IMO it would be serious miscalculation. Unless D's plan to cancel elections or cheat on an unprecedented scale, the outcome depends on D turnout + R turnout + whatever side the independents choose. Regardless how good the D turnout, D's can't win without the independents. Unless R turnout happens to be crazy low. Which could happen but may not be likely.

My crystal ball blew a fuse, but am guessing that full-blown black riots would drive the independents R and defeat the D's. Full blown white riots would chase independents to the D's, but dunno if that would be easy to incite. Am guessing there are about equal percentages of racists across the board but it just seems a difficult task to scrape up enough white racists all in one place to pull off a sizable white riot or pogram. The USA has had its share of white riots but the last ones happened a long time ago. Maybe it could be done but it seems difficult.

The most political benefit for D's in the upcoming election is if they can whip up enough hysteria to assure 100 percent turnout from the base while avoiding serious riots and avoid scaring the carp out of the independents.

That seems a difficult trick. Maybe like burning down only the bedroom without burning down the whole house. I don't think either the D or R leadership is smart enough to control it that precisely.

And if the leadership THINKS it is smart enough to precisely control such a thing, it would be a sign that they are even more out-to-lunch than I'd ever considered. And I consider both the D and R leadership pretty dang out-to-lunch!

Edited March 31, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[QuietDan]

The most political benefit for D's in the upcoming election is if they can whip up enough hysteria to assure 100 percent turnout from the base while avoiding serious riots and avoid scaring the carp out of the independents.

That seems a difficult trick. Maybe like burning down only the bedroom without burning down the whole house. I don't think either the D or R leadership is smart enough to control it that precisely.

Perhaps. However, in their arrogance, they would think they can control the mob. They are wrong. That's why they are called mobs.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Perhaps. However, in their arrogance, they would think they can control the mob. They are wrong. That's why they are called mobs.

It certainly isn't impossible that the leadership could be that foolish. Hope not.

[Mark@Sea]

Tinfoil time - what if the riots are staged the day of the election?

[Mark@Sea]

Or even better, the day before

[MattCary]

[QuietDan]

Al Sharpton: Civil disobedience will escalate if Zimmerman remains free

If George Zimmerman is not arrested in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin soon, the Rev. Al Sharpton will call for an escalation in peaceful civil disobedience and economic sanctions.

Sharpton would not say the efforts would be taken against the city of Sanford specifically, but he has been critical of the police department's handling of the case.

Saturday's scheduled 11 a.m. march from Crooms Academy of Information Technology to the Sanford Police Department headquarters was organized by National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Coordinators said people will be bused in from other states to participate.

The civil rights activist and syndicated television show host said he will elaborate on this plan Saturday.

"I will speak about how the National Action Network will move to the next level if Zimmerman isn't arrested," Sharpton said, who founded the organization. He added that it was the Martin family and lawyers who first asked him to get involved and nationalize this story.

The Rev. Jesse Jacksonis also expected to participate in the event.

The case has ignited ire and debate across the nation, galvanizing thousands of Trayvon supporters to the streets and social media, donning hoodies and toting Skittles.

Sanford police this week released a video of a handcuffed George Zimmerman apparently showing no visible signs of physical injury after he claimed that he shot the 17-year-old Miami teenager in self-defense.

Zimmerman's family have come to his defense on national news networks, releasing details about his version of what happened the night of Feb. 26 when police found the teen face down in wet grass.

Sharpton said the recent revelations only underscores the need for an immediate arrest and trial. "Whether he [Zimmerman] had a swollen or broken nose, neither one means he had to take a 9mm and kill someone," he said. "It's not about saying Zimmerman is innocent or guilty, this is about whether there was probable cause to arrest him."

He criticized the way authorities have released information about the case and said they are setting a harmful precedent, he said.

Sanford city officials announced several road closures in anticipation of the march including 13^th street, from U.S. Highway 17-92 to Lake Avenue; as well as, Persimmon Street from McCracken Road to 13^th.

The demonstration is expected to end at 2 p.m., organizers said.

arehernandez@tribune.com or 407-420-5471 or @OSTrayvonMartin

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-30/news/os-george-zimmerman-trayvon-al-sharpton-20120330_1_civil-disobedience-national-action-network-national-association

[DaveTN]

It seems that something in your background has tended to make this issue personal for you, for whatever reason. . . .

There is nothing personal about this or anything in my background that would cause me to want to see this go to trial any more than any other homicide.

Is there something in your back ground that would make you think its okay to kill a kid that was defending himself?

You took he time to type out an intelligent response. I’ve tried not to respond to the pin head’s that can’t put more than a couple of sentences together that are simply name calling or launching personal attacks because someone doesn’t buy their version of events. Is this where this discussion is going?

I’m appalled at the number of people here that think this is okay. And I’m amazed at the number of people that are remaining silent. Maybe this thread has just run its course and no one wants to discuss it anymore….

[QuietDan]

There is nothing personal about this or anything in my background that would cause me to want to see this go to trial any more than any other homicide.

Is there something in your back ground that would make you think its okay to kill a kid that was defending himself?

You took he time to type out an intelligent response. I’ve tried not to respond to the pin head’s that can’t put more than a couple of sentences together that are simply name calling or launching personal attacks because someone doesn’t buy their version of events. Is this where this discussion is going?

I’m appalled at the number of people here that think this is okay. And I’m amazed at the number of people that are remaining silent. Maybe this thread has just run its course and no one wants to discuss it anymore….

Thank you for your response. I am waiting for Grand Jury action, True Bill or No Bill. If the Grand Jury No Bills the case, as far as I'm concerned, that's the end of it, regardless of mob action or threats.

If the Grand Jury signs a True Bill, then there will be a Trial, and the totality of the True Facts will come out. If and when a trial begins, no one knows the sum of the True Facts until the trial is over and the Jury delivers a Verdict. The term, from the Latin veredictum, literally means "to say the truth." The Truth in the case then becomes whatever the Jury says is the Truth, and that Truth does not exist until the Jury decides.

In the meantime, everyone who "knows for sure" ANY of the pertinent details of what happened is WRONG and many of them have an axe to grind or an agenda of some sort.

Edited March 31, 2012 by QuietDan

[DaveTN]

Thank you for your response. I am waiting for Grand Jury action, True Bill or No Bill. If the Grand Jury No Bills the case, as far as I'm concerned, that's the end of it, regardless of mob action or threats.

If the Grand Jury signs a True Bill, then there will be a Trial, and the totality of the True Facts will come out. If and when a trial begins, no one knows the sum of the True Facts until the trial is over and the Jury delivers a Verdict. The term, from the Latin veredictum, literally means "to say the truth." The Truth in the case then becomes whatever the Jury says is the Truth, and that Truth does not exist until the Jury decides.

In the meantime, everyone who "knows for sure" ANY of the pertinent details of what happened is WRONG and many of them have an axe to grind or an agenda of some sort.

That’s all I have said is that I want to see a trial. I don’t have any ax to grind with anyone involved in this case, I don’t have a problem with shooting criminals, I carry a gun and I think everyone has the right to do so (although the state disagrees with me on that).

I have said the facts in this case that are not in dispute justify a trial. Some here won’t even acknowledge the facts that we know.

Let’s throw another Latin term out there; Prima Facie. “At first look†or “on its faceâ€. That is how I would present the case to the Grand Jury. The case needs to be answered in a trial.

1. Trayvon Martin was in a place he had a lawful right to be.

2. There is no evidence he had committed or was involved in any illegal activity prior to his encounter with Zimmerman.

3. His peaceful journey was interrupted by someone that had no legal authority to stop or detain him.

4. As a result of that interruption he is dead.

Now of course that doesn’t mean an automatic conviction. Zimmerman has a right to argue that at some point his role changed from perp to victim. Only two people know when and if that occurred; one is dead. A jury of Zimmerman’s peers should make that decision after having all the evidence presented to them by professionals; not the media.

We don’t know the details of what happened at the point when Zimmerman claims he became the victim. Did he grab Trayvon? Did he hit him? Did Treyvon hear the racial slur? What else did he say to Trayvon? Was Trayvon scared and fearing for his safety? Would a reasonable person believe Zimmerman was in fear of death or great bodily harm? What does the autopsy report show? What will a jury conclude from watching the video of Zimmerman’s interview? Why did the investigators ask the SA to charge Zimmerman, and why did they not act?

I heard the audio of the 911 call. I also heard it enhanced to clearly hear the racial slur. Will the jury get to hear it? Who knows? But it is important for a couple of reasons. Did Trayvon hear it, and if so what impact did it have on him? I remember one of the forum members saying that he was walking through a parking lot someone yelled “Hey you old white MF†(or something like that). Does that justify the use of deadly force? No, but it would be critical to show both his and the perps state of mind if something had happened. It’s also important because if the state fails to take this guy to trial or he is acquitted; it opens the door for the Feds top step in on a civil rights case. Do I agree with double jeopardy? No I don’t, and that is what that is. But most folks were okay with it when California acquitted the cops in the Rodney King beating and the Feds stepped in and sent them to jail on civil rights violations.

I also find it hard to believe that this young man could hold Zimmerman’s head and beat it into the ground without Zimmerman being able to break his hold. I’m 57 years old, over weight and out of shape, but I don’t think from what I have seen of the pictures of Trayvon I could not have broken his hold and got him off me. I guess if my hands were busy trying to get a gun instead of fighting back he may have been able to. Zimmerman’s what 28? And appears to be bigger than Trayvon. Does that not raise a question with anyone else?

Am I trying the case here? Certainly I am; we all are. That’s what we do. This is an internet forum and we arm chair quarterback everything that is posted. I don’t see anything wrong with that as long as it remains civil. I can assure everyone that I have no dog in this fight or some hidden agenda. It’s a hot case right now, and it’s an interesting thread.

Edited March 31, 2012 by DaveTN

[TMF]

I’ve tried not to respond to the pin head’s that can’t put more than a couple of sentences together that are simply name calling or launching personal attacks because someone doesn’t buy their version of events. Is this where this discussion is going?

I’m appalled at the number of people here that think this is okay. And I’m amazed at the number of people that are remaining silent. Maybe this thread has just run its course and no one wants to discuss it anymore….

Yes and yes.

[bronco302]

“Stand your ground†was Florida’s buzz word for not having to retreat. Tennessee doesn’t need to pass stand your ground legislation because we don’t have a duty to retreat.

No duty to retreat means that when Treyvon was walking down the street and was accosted by a stranger, he didn’t have to run or try to get away (although he did, according to Zimmerman); he could retaliate and try to protect himself. Unfortunately for Treyvon the perp had a gun. No one knows for sure how or why they got in a fight, but they did. Some want us to believe that because the perp approached Treyvon, Treyvon attacked him and brutally beat him, causing Treyvon to now become the aggressor, which justified Zimmerman killing him. That is the self-defense claim.

Common sense tells me that is non-sense. Zimmerman got out of his vehicle after being told by the dispatcher that he did not need to follow Treyvon. That is not correct unless you are saying the Stanford Police changed their own 911 tape. You can hear Zimmerman say he's (Treyvon) running at 2:07, at 2:09 you hear Zimmerman's door open to leave the truck and you can hear the sounds change and his breathing change, at 2:23 the operator ask "are you following him", at 2:25 Zimmerman says "Ya", at 2:26 operator says"we don't need you to do that", at 2:28 Zimmerman says "OK" after that we don't know if he stopped and started back to his truck or went on. The only thing we do know is what Zimmerman said. Is it true ,we don't know but he is Innocent until proven guilty. You can hear him make a racial slur in disgust as he exits the truck. No actually you can't, if you listen with headphones up loud you will him breathing, then hear a disgusted burst of air my teenage girls used to do when I ask them to do their chores. At 1:36 you hear Not the F word, Not Coon, no word at all and then "These A/Holes always get away. Please point to the source of your tape so I may listen as well. Did Trevino hear it? Well since it was not said I would guess not. I don’t know. But now Trevino is approached by a guy that has been following him in a truck, got out, and Trevino may have heard the racial slur and got scared. I don’t know. That may have caused him to fight for his life.Come on Dave this is pure PFA (Pulled From Air) Zimmerman claims Trevino knocked him down and was beating his head into the pavement; so he pulled his gun out and killed him.Zimmerman’s friend (who is all over the press talking about what Zimmerman told him happened, but saying he can’t really say anything) is alluding to the fact that the gun may have went off accidental.

So the question becomes, can you be the aggressor in what the victim may have perceived was going to turn into an attack, an unprovoked attack on someone walking down the street, and when they protect themselves you kill them? I say no, you can try all you want to claim self-defense when you have killed someone in a situation you started; but give a jury any reason to throw out the self-defense and you are gone to prison. I would say no also, but you have no evidence Zimmerman was the aggressor. If you think that checking on something odd at your neighbors home makes you an aggressor then I am glad you are not my neighbor. If you were my neighbor and I saw something odd I would call the County in my case. I would try to check on you or what's going on hopefully without endangering myself, but then I was raised a bit old fashioned. Oh and I will be armed

I want to see a trial. We don’t get to see all the evidence and neither does the press. Treyvon’s autopsy results are sealed. Was he hit in the face? Was he grabbed by the arm when Zimmerman approached him? Did his hands show any indications of the terrible beating Zimmerman claimed? Were his hands covered in Zimmerman’s blood from beating his head into the pavement? We don’t know.

At this point a trial is necessary but if Zimmerman is found not guilty that is it, and what we actually know now leaves a shadow of doubt. But aren't cases like this where there is on statute of limitation left available for prosecution if some break in the case comes years down the road. If people truly believe he is guilty they may cut their own Throat.

As for your self righteous indignation for those who haven't joined in yet, save it. I mind my own business until I know what is going on then I decide. I have kept up with this, I have read the media's made up stuff, twisted stuff, and saw the things they have left out because it didn't fit what they want it to say. The big thing for me is how did a fight even start with the billion or so eye witnesses standing around them, oh wait none of us were there. Now I will go back to watching and listening as my Father once told me I should do in order to learn.

Joe W.

Edited March 31, 2012 by bronco302

[K191145]

The only thing I have decided to believe in this case is that Zimmerman went beyond his boundries as a private citizen to follow then confront Martin which led to the "incident". What happened during the incident is pure speculation. I admit I let my emotions get the better of me at first but lesson learned not to believe anything the media reports, they are no more trustworthy than the tabloids. The media just keeps throwing fuel on the fire to the point where i'm concerned there's going to be a significant increase in black on white violence, especially when you have racist idiots like Sharpton advocating civil disobedience which I believe he really wants riots. You would think the black population would be happier and more content with America with a black President but race relations have taken a huge turn for the worse, not just this case but everytime a white person critisizes Obozo he/she is automatically a cracker racist. Now with the speculative crap the media reports, and actual racists like Sharpton, Spike Lee, and the Black Panthers encouraging violence I feel that soon, if your white, you need to be extra vigilant and more suspicious of young black males wondering if they have a vindictive, beat a cracker attitude.

[mikegideon]

Am I the only one that understands why Zimmerman may have wanted to get a look at the guy? He has been called an aggressor a million times in this thread. When i think aggressor, I think physical attack. There's nothing wrong with neighborhood watch.

So... you're watching the neighborhood, a suspicious character shows up, and you call the cops. They show up 30 minutes later, but the suspicious character has vanished. Your description is a black guy in a hoodie. This happens repeatedly, with the property loss that goes along with it.

I don't support racist actions, and I certainly don't support murder. I DO understand why Zimmerman may have wanted to get face-to-face with the guy without it being racially motivated. I have been sucker punched before, and realize that it takes a couple of seconds to regain your bearings if it's done right. You can keep somebody in that state if you keep punching.

Not saying he is, but Zimmerman could be totally innocent. Since the prosecutor is sitting on all the evidence, I don't think we'll know until the trial. The medical on both guys is key. I'm betting that doesn't get leaked.

[JeffsSig]

My "neighborhood" to me is part of my home.

To many sit back and do nothing. To many will not get involved and make their neighborhood a safe place.

I am not saying who was right or wrong here as that matter is not mine to decide. And frankly I do not care.

I just know what I would do if I was involved.

[mikegideon]

A few years back, my neighborhood of over 15 years got real thuggy. I have a bullet hole in my back kitchen wall. I could go on about all the stuff that happened. Believe it or not, I think the housing crash may have fixed it for the most part. Didn't change the racial profile at all. The thugginess just went away.

During the height of the thugginess, I flagged down a Metro cop and asked him why, all of a sudden, were people stealing sh#t off my front porch. His response was, "they have us tied up working traffic". My response, "there's no revenue in fighting crime". His response, "You're probably right. We don't like it". FWIW, it wasn't a white cop.

[Mark@Sea]

1. Trayvon Martin was in a place he had a lawful right to be.

2. There is no evidence he had committed or was involved in any illegal activity prior to his encounter with Zimmerman.

3. His peaceful journey was interrupted by someone that had no legal authority to stop or detain him.

4. As a result of that interruption he is dead.

One glaring assumption, and one crucial step omitted.

The assumption is that asking someone what they are doing is tantamount to assault

The omission is what happened between 3 and 4. All physical evidence, witness statements and police reports are consistent with step 3.5 being Martin physically assaulting Zimmerman.

With this as an example, I could go down to the credit union and make a withdrawal, and get shot dead for it. We'll just assume I have an account there, and omit the part where I'm using a gun instead of a withdrawal slip.

Hey, this is a fun game. Anybody else want to play?

Edited March 31, 2012 by Mark@Sea

[Guest 6.8 AR]

There is nothing personal about this or anything in my background that would cause me to want to see this go to trial any more than any other homicide.

Is there something in your back ground that would make you think its okay to kill a kid that was defending himself?

You took he time to type out an intelligent response. I’ve tried not to respond to the pin head’s that can’t put more than a couple of sentences together that are simply name calling or launching personal attacks because someone doesn’t buy their version of events. Is this where this discussion is going?

I’m appalled at the number of people here that think this is okay. And I’m amazed at the number of people that are remaining silent. Maybe this thread has just run its course and no one wants to discuss it anymore….

So now there has to be some qualifier in our background to form ideas and have opinions. You sound a bit

Ivory Towerish at this point.

You keep using words like " any other homicide" and "snuffed out" and other inflammatory words that

make you unqualified, more so, than Gomer Pyle and Barney Fife, that you amaze me, DaveTN. You

sound like you insist you know about this so well that Sanford PD and the DA's office should just

consult you and get this thing rubber stamped all the way to Hell.

I'll bet you their information is better than yours and they have the intelligence to make a sound decision

way down there in Florida. Your background notwithstanding.

I said a while back in this souree, something to the effect that I believe the DA made the determination,

based on the evidence, if one's been made, that there was no reason for an indictment for murder, or the

like, because he reasoned it to be self-defense.

I may even be wrong, and guess what? You may be wrong, also.

Pinhead!

So get off your high horse and quit making something out of what may very well be nothing.

Your opinions are valuable, DaveTN, but distortions and innuendo are the media's job.

Innocent until proven guilty.

There is a good reason for that principle. It may have something to do with despotism, tyranny and otherwise

overzealous nuts and maybe even a cop or two. Don't become one. Let those folks in Florida lynch 'em if

they are going to. They might have already dropped it, by looking at the evidence and listening to testimony.

I don't know.

From one pinhead to another. Sorry, I couldn't fit it into one line this time.

Edited March 31, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[DaveTN]

Looks like we may not have to wait for a Grand Jury hearing to know if there will be a trial or not.

JACKSONVILLE -- The prosecutor at the center of the national firestorm over whether the man who killed Trayvon Martin should be charged in his death says she’s not likely to need a grand jury to make the decision for her. More probable, she said, is that she’ll be the one to decide.

“I always lean towards moving forward without needing the grand jury in a case like this,†Angela Corey, the state attorney assigned to the case by Gov. Rick Scott, told The Herald/Times. “I foresee us being able to make a decision, and move on it on our own.â€

http://www.miamihera...-spotlight.html

[mikegideon]

Looks like we may not have to wait for a Grand Jury hearing to know if there will be a trial or not.

I think she made similar comments a couple of days ago. I wish she would get on with it if she's gonna do it. It may be intersting to some that she hasn't already done it. After all, it should be obvious, right?

[DaveTN]

I think she made similar comments a couple of days ago. I wish she would get on with it if she's gonna do it. It may be intersting to some that she hasn't already done it. After all, it should be obvious, right?

Yes, from what is being posted here by experts on Florida law, she wouldn’t have anything to charge him with and that would be a quick decision.

If those experts are wrong, she needs to file charges and get on with the trial before the wait causes more problems in the community.

[mikegideon]

Yes, from what is being posted here by experts on Florida law, she wouldn’t have anything to charge him with and that would be a quick decision.

If those experts are wrong, she needs to file charges and get on with the trial before the wait causes more problems in the community.

They're keeping all the good evidence to themselves. I know one thing. I'll never question the use of the word "reasonable" in Tennessee law again. At this point, I hope it goes to trial. The trials in the media and the on internet just aren't working, no matter how many experts have popped up.

[DaveTN]

They're keeping all the good evidence to themselves. I know one thing. I'll never question the use of the word "reasonable" in Tennessee law again. At this point, I hope it goes to trial. The trials in the media and the on internet just aren't working, no matter how many experts have popped up.

I’ve never claimed to be an expert on law, because I don’t think there is such a thing.

The Attorney General of the United States is supposed to be the best we have to offer. And look at who we have and who we have had in the past. Apparently the people that are qualified and would be good at it don’t want that job any more than those that are qualified and would make a good President want that job.

But I do know an injustice when I see it.