Trayvon Martin. what?! nobody wants to discuss this?

So you're saying that the law, when correctly interpreted, allows unarmed individuals to be shot dead by citizens after being told to stand down by law enforcement. I really don't think that is the case. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

There are so many things wrong with that sentence it's hard to know where to start...

1) "Correctly interpreted" by who? You? By the authors of the bill? By God? By Nancy Grace? By the millions of Internet wanna be activists who sign petitions? There is no such thing as "correct interpretation" in law, there is only "interpretation by precedent" of a jury or a court after the fact. The lawmakers have all come out publicly and said that the intent of their law wasn't meant to protect this action. Intent when it's passed is irrelevant, it's what the letter of the law says that's important.

2) Unarmed meaning unthreatening in your book? I had a guy grab my rifle and try to wrest it from me when I came around a corner in a house. He grappled it to the side where I couldn't use it and grabbed my neck with his other hand. I had absolutely no compunction about shooting him with my pistol three times in the stomach after I drew it. Unarmed is irrelevant to threat level...it's incredibly easy to main or kill without weapons...

3) Being told that it was unnecessary to follow him has absolutely nothing to do with the law. The law only cares about what happened during the confrontation. In fact, if the police had directly ordered him NOT to follow him and NOT to physically touch him, the law would still protect him if he felt an imminent threat to his life, regardless of how the incident started. Again, this may not be the intent of the original lawmakers, but it's the letter of the law as written.

The only facts are that the kid is dead and the person who killed him says that he was in fear for his life. He's presumed innocent until proven guilty, and there are no facts that can possibly prove that he didn't FEEL in danger for his life. Everything will be circumstantial if this farce even manages to come to trial, but until it does, and until a verdict is rendered, the law stands on its wording and on previous precedent only as "interpretation".


P.S.-COG, I can't believe you of all people are arguing this...how many countless threads have you started RIGHT HERE about how pissed off you are that the wording of the NDAA allows so many things that the "intent" of the law should never allow? You should know how this "correctly interpreted" shit works dude...

Never mind, Wakeup. Your reputation is intact.

Of course my reputation is intact, why would anything I said here change that? Does my reputation (as perceived by you) have anything to do with what I just said?

My latest response is not to say this law covers this situation. It is to demonstrate the ignorance some of the posters have here. It is not an "old"law like someone posted and it does not allow someone to shoot an unarmed person as a couple of others have posted. If you read the link it will tell you the roots of the law.

...it does not allow someone to shoot an unarmed person... Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Wrong...

How is it wrong, pray tell, Oh wakeup?

Because an attacker does not have to be armed to kill you.

Because an attacker does not have to be armed to kill you. Originally Posted by texasjohn1965

Yep. Even more to the point as stated in my post above. Whether or not a person is armed is irrelevant to whether or not someone feels in danger of their life. Picture the classic movie scenario. I'm on the ground, you're choking me and I'm about to die, but my gun that I dropped is just within my reach and I grab it and shoot you...

The statute in Florida never mentions weapons at all.

SANFORD, Fla. (WOFL FOX 35) - Investigators with the Sanford Police Department are still trying to figure out exactly what happened during an altercation which resulted in a fatal shooting in the Twin Lakes area. The shooting happened just after 7 p.m. Sunday evening on Twin Trees Lane. A man who witnessed part of the altercation contacted authorities.
"The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911," said the witness, who asked to be identified only by his first name, John.
John said he locked his patio door, ran upstairs and heard at least one gun shot.
"And then, when I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point."


Read more: http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news...#ixzz1pzAQgNcw

Exactly right, grifter. The mainstream media is pathetic in how they crucified George zimmerman. It would be poetic justice if some of these reporters were killed by those they coddle and glorify.

We don't need that kind of poetic justice. Simple justice will handle the situation quite nicely. Once it is applied.

Now is a great time to be a criminal, especially if you're not white. If you get caught, you won't get much of a punishment, and you have the media to glorify you and make excuses for you, and demonize those who speak out, or act out, against crime.

Why hasn't any of this been reported by the major news outlets?

Why hasn't any of this been reported by the major news outlets? Originally Posted by Jackie S

The story itself, or the details that vindicate zimmerman? The story itself is everywhere. The details....... Well, you can't expect major news outlets to do that.

The part that would collaborate Zimmerman's self defense claim.

But even at that, he has to get past the part where the 9-11 operator advised him not to pursue the issue.

The Grand Jury will sort all of this out.