Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If Trayvon had had a gun, he could have shot Zimmerman first, in self defense, on the suspicion that Zimmerman was the kind of white guy who would shoot an unarmed black kid.
Martin was being followed by a strange man at night, in the rain, by a strange armed white man.
If he had a gun, he would have legitimate concern to shoot Zimmerman.
In Southern states.
I am sure most of the pro-gun people would support that.
I support anyone arming themselves, legally.
Reagan didn't.
Generally..I don't think concealed carry is a good idea.
But if you are in the south and black?
It's probably necessary.
Not only do you have to really worry about cops..but also your fellow citizens.
Florida's SYG law says you can use force if you believe someone means you bodily harm.
Zimmerman angrily followed Martin in the dark and in the rain. That's reasonable justification to feel threatened. If Martin had a gun he could have pointed it at Zimmerman and said "stop following me". If Zimmerman didn't stop Martin could have blown his head off.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
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.
Which part backs up your claim? Be very specific.
Not a war on women by the demon-crats....OOPS!I think the defense thought women would be dumb and emotional. It's obvious Jesse Jackson thinks women are not capable jurors.
More post verdict media coverage:
The NAACP, the Rev. Jesse Jackson and other civil rights activists are calling on the U.S. Department of Justice and Attorney Gen. Eric Holder to press federal civil rights charges against George Zimmerman, the former neighborhood watchman who was acquitted by a Sanford, Fla., jury Saturday in the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.
The most fundamental of civil rights the right to life was violated the night George Zimmerman stalked and then took the life of Trayvon Martin," NAACP President Ben Jealous wrote in a letter to Holder shortly after the verdict was announced. "We ask that the Department of Justice file civil rights charges against Mr. Zimmerman for this egregious violation. Please address the travesties of the tragic death of Trayvon Martin by acting today.
This verdict represents a tragic miscarriage of justice," Barbara Arnwine, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said in a statement. "Yet, there is still the potential for justice to be served through a civil suit brought about by Trayvon Martins surviving family members, and also through civil rights charges being brought against Mr. Zimmerman by the Department of Justice."
The Justice Dept. launched a probe of the Zimmerman case earlier this year, but has yet to comment on Zimmerman's acquittal.
If we find evidence of a potential federal criminal civil rights crime, we will take appropriate action," Holder said in April during a keynote speech to Al Sharpton's National Action Network convention. "And at every step, the facts and law will guide us forward.
DOJ urged to press civil rights charges against Zimmerman
It helps to make comparisons, for instance, how do you feel about Bryant Gumbel?
Nothing Bryant Gumbel Said About David Stern Proves He's a Racist: Fan's Take - NBA - Yahoo! Sports
You keep ducking my question, Quick. First it's Mark Furman and now Bryant Gumbel? Kindly explain Zimmerman's prior actions. Why would a "racist" organize a petition drive to protest the beating of a black man by a white man? Why would a "racist" mentor two black children? You've made the charge...now back it up with something that makes sense or retract it.
If things of that nature were so clear, why would people believe an otherwise respectable police officer, Furman, was racist?
Edit: Because it's a murder trial?
People tend to make solid judgments of those involved especially of the defendant.
Funny how everyone is so upset about a Hispanic shooting a black man but nobody cares about Aaron Hernandez shooting and killing a brother in cold-blood.
Totally different situation.
How is this a totally different situation? Who told you that?
Two Hispanics, check
Two dead black people, check
So why is one more important than the other?
Trayvon Martin = NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE!
Odin Lloyd = Who the fuck is this guy?
GZ may not be MENSA material. It doesn't matter. He's an acquitted free man.
YOU are a bigger dumber fucker, Snoopie.
Fuck your puck, Ilar.
^ Snoopie is not exactly MENSA material.
Heed your president. The jury has spoken. Accept it.
I don't drink the kool aid like you.
What do you drink to wash down all the paint chips you have every day?
What does skin color have to do with anything ? Is it that you think no matter what the blacks will always side with the blacks because of skin color, and so you think that somehow this would have gave the prosecution a better chance somehow ?The prosecution did everything it could to seat six white women, and you are blaming the defense.
Well, looks like even that backfired. On the prosecution.
I still can't understand how exactly at least one black didn't get placed on the jury.
If the Dispatcher had told SG not to get a shotgun, and OG had driven his car into SG's mother, that would have raised liability issues for the police department and the city, which is why dispatchers are specifically trained not to tell people what to do in cases like this.
Do you have some factual basis for this statement, or do you just think dispatchers are "specifically trained" not to tell people what to do in cases like this?
The dispatcher who told Zimmerman "We don't need you to do that" testified under oath that they are trained not to issue orders because it opens issues of liability. Next time you get a case where something the dispatcher says might be pertinent feel free to ask the dispatcher about it yourself.
Florida's SYG law says you can use force if you believe someone means you bodily harm.
Zimmerman angrily followed Martin in the dark and in the rain. That's reasonable justification to feel threatened. If Martin had a gun he could have pointed it at Zimmerman and said "stop following me". If Zimmerman didn't stop Martin could have blown his head off.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.
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 persons 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 persons 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.
Which part backs up your claim? Be very specific.
Mind if I interject something/ Thanks in advance!
(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.
Martin was not engaged in unlawful activity when he was STALKED in a place where he had a right to be. First GZ followed him in a truck then drove past him and parked ahead of Martin partially blocking the sidewalk. That alone would produce stress in a normal person so Martin walked past the vehicle and then something happened to make him run. GZ dismounted and continued to follow Martin even giving chase for a brief timer. Martin ran past the path that led to the front door pf his apt, probably getting lost in the process since he was new to the neighborhood. inadvertantly he crossed paths with his STALKER and asked GZ what his problem was! GZ said I don't have a problem. So he and Martin were standing there looking at each other, both probably scared, So was Martin supposed to turn his back on a man he believed was stalking him and walk away? GZ had the knowledge that the police were on the way...Martin did not!
Hence GZ followed Martin multiple times and acted in a manner to provoke fear
How much have the Martins paid on the donations they received?
If it was put into a 'foundation', nothing. It is free money just like the blood money li'l Trayvon's folk got.
Yeah, travon did lose half the blood in his body after the pillsbury doughboy killed him.
If Trayvon had had a gun, he could have shot Zimmerman first, in self defense, on the suspicion that Zimmerman was the kind of white guy who would shoot an unarmed black kid.
Martin was being followed by a strange man at night, in the rain, by a strange armed white man.
If he had a gun, he would have legitimate concern to shoot Zimmerman.
Trayvon didn't know that the Hispanic Democrat following him was armed.
If he shot Zimmerman, he'd be in jail, instead of idolized by idiot libs.
Oh, by the way:
Zimmerman is acquitted.
I think we should ALL take a moment to be thankful for this shining moment of true justice.
Already have. I was amazed at the relief I, myself, felt. I can't even begin to extrapolate the relief that Zimmerman and his family felt. I hope he is already out of the country.
