• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

Sign in to follow this  

Obama: 'If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon'

Recommended Posts

shockz    7,814
thread-crap-wont_die.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ylcard    142

Fact - Zimmerman placed himself in danger by confronting the kid

Fact - Trayvon was unarmed

Fact - You do not have the right to use your gun against an unarmed person, especially when you have caused the confrontation.

If Zimmerman approached the kid, the kid actually had the right to feel threatened and protect himself.

1. So did Trayvon.

2. Irrelevant, I could kill you in 12 different ways without any weapon in hand.

3. It's not as actually that simple, sometimes you have the right to use guns against an unarmed person. And you're mixing your interpretation of the events with this fact, the confrontation could have been initiated by Trayvon. Following someone doesn't constitute a confrontation, it also doesn't make you the aggressor in a potential confrontation, Trayvon could have walked away.

4. So did Zimmerman, unless the police, Zimmerman and the media are lying - he was beaten by Trayvon, regardless of "who started it", you have the right to defend yourself. And I'm NOT saying that you have the right to KILL your assailant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    16,881

And I'm NOT saying that you have the right to KILL your assailant

But with a younger, taller HS football player on top of you pounding away on your head, a very vulnerable target even for fists , that may be your only viable option.

Also; in our state mandated (and approved) concealed carry classes they stress not shooting to wound, shoot to kill, plus in that inferior position the only reliable targets you may have are the head, chest and abdomen - all lethal targets with todays hydra-shok style self-defense ammunition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Memphis    1,213

Fact - Zimmerman was armed.

Fact - Zimmerman ignored orders from 911 and rules/regulations of NHW to not engage.

Fact - Zimmerman placed himself in danger by confronting the kid

Fact - Trayvon was unarmed

Fact - You do not have the right to use your gun against an unarmed person, especially when you have caused the confrontation.

Fact - Zimmerman followed the kid

If Zimmerman approached the kid, the kid actually had the right to feel threatened and protect himself. Zimmerman is the cause of every action that happened that night. Manslaughter will be the minimum charge.

Race doesn't matter. How one was dressed doesn't matter. It was all due to the actions Zimmerman decided to perform that lead to this outcome. He was in the wrong in every way.

That is categorically untrue. Stand your ground laws does not require your attacker to be armed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ylcard    142

It's all circumstantial, if someone would be on top of me, beating me senseless, then I wouldn't have much choice, it's either do nothing or hurt him to the maximum extent I'm capable of at that moment, by any means at my disposal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LaP    2,358
Bingo, though I fear they will prosecute solely to keep the race politics people and NBPP off the streets - regardless of the facts.

And what's the probleme with that ?

Since when did USA go from a "right to fair trial" to "right to no trial at all" country ?

I think the only time someone who killed another human being should not be prosecuted is when the case is really really clear. Doesn't look like one of those case so far to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    16,881

It's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shakey    1,127

That is categorically untrue. Stand your ground laws does not require your attacker to be armed.

Read the page I posted a few pages back. It states that in self defense, you can't just shoot a guy if he is unarmed and has no weapon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shakey    1,127

1. So did Trayvon. ( no he didnt. going to the store to get skittles is not placing yourself in a dangerous situation... unless you happen to live near Zimmerman.)

2. Irrelevant, I could kill you in 12 different ways without any weapon in hand. ( No it's not. your thoughts of a matter don't take away from what the laws say.)

3. It's not as actually that simple, sometimes you have the right to use guns against an unarmed person. And you're mixing your interpretation of the events with this fact, the confrontation could have been initiated by Trayvon. Following someone doesn't constitute a confrontation, it also doesn't make you the aggressor in a potential confrontation, Trayvon could have walked away. ( no, again, you need to understand the law and that your "thoughts" don't make something so )

4. So did Zimmerman, unless the police, Zimmerman and the media are lying - he was beaten by Trayvon, regardless of "who started it", you have the right to defend yourself. And I'm NOT saying that you have the right to KILL your assailant. (Actually, it does matter who started it. Learn the law , and stop going off of "what you think".)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    16,881

Since when did USA go from a "right to fair trial" to "right to no trial at all" country ?

1791, when the Bill of Rights was enacted. That included the 2nd Amendment - the right to bear arms and defend yourself as described by the Founders including Jefferson, Adams and Washington.

Text -

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

With "militia" being interpreted as the citizenry as a whole. Regulations such as federal age, weapons type and criminal / psychiatric exclusions on purchases are in place, as are state laws that don't conflict with the federal govt. regs. Otherwise, anyone over 21 and not excluded can buy a firearm and use it for legal purposes, including self defense.

This has been expanded on by the vast majority of state laws & constitutions, and affirmed by the US Supreme Court as recently as the last 2 years.

I think the only time someone who killed another human being should not be prosecuted is when the case is really really clear.

Unfortunately real life is not clear, and as noted elsewhere an unarmed attacker can be very lethal - especially to the small, the infirm, the female and to the one when they are outnumbered. Firearms are the equalizer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Memphis    1,213

Read the page I posted a few pages back. It states that in self defense, you can't just shoot a guy if he is unarmed and has no weapon.

Self defense does not require the attacker to be armed....You are mincing words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shakey    1,127

Self defense does not require the attacker to be armed....You are mincing words.

Self defense isn't self defense when you start the situation, go in with a gun, and use agianst someone who is unarmed. Learn the law. Would be nice if people would actually go by what the law says, instead of just what they think it should be. Self defense isn't me having a gun and starting a fight, then shooting the guy who is kicking my ass. That is manslaughter at the least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amarok    132

You know ... The people complaining about Zimmerman saying that Trayvon was black to the 911 dispatcher are so out of touch with reality. That is one of the very first things that police ask you when you call to report a crime. I've called the police 3 times in my life, once when I saw a guy going house to house and looking in windows, once when I was mugged, and once when I saw someone attacking someone else. In all three cases the police have asked me if the perpetrator was white, black, hispanic, etc. It's a fair question, the police have to have some idea who they're looking for.

As far as "These ******** always get away." - That's not proof of racism, because you don't know who "These ********" are. Most likely what he meant is suspicious people/suspected criminals, because that's been *MY* feeling, regardless of race, when I've called the police and by the time they got there the person was gone and they didn't find them.

Self defense isn't self defense when you start the situation, go in with a gun, and use agianst someone who is unarmed. Learn the law. Would be nice if people would actually go by what the law says, instead of just what they think it should be. Self defense isn't me having a gun and starting a fight, then shooting the guy who is kicking my ass. That is manslaughter at the least.

Or you could wait for real details to come out and see if that's actually the case or not. He (and supposedly witnesses) say that he didn't start the fight, other people say he did, so how about before we condemn a person we wait and see? If you're right and Zimmerman DID start the fight, lose, and then shot the kid, then yeah he's a scumbag, but I can't just assume that's the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shakey    1,127

Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself?

A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:

  • Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
  • Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.

Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, manslaughter, or worse.

Example of the kind of attack that will not justify defending yourself with deadly force: Two neighbors got into a fight, and one of them tried to hit the other by swinging a garden hose. The neighbor who was being attacked with the hose shot the other in the chest. The court upheld his conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm, because an attack with a garden hose is not the kind of violent assault that justifies responding with deadly force.

http://licgweb.doacs...lf_defense.html

Again, people, stop going off of what you think, and use what the law actually states!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shakey    1,127

You know ... The people complaining about Zimmerman saying that Trayvon was black to the 911 dispatcher are so out of touch with reality. That is one of the very first things that police ask you when you call to report a crime. I've called the police 3 times in my life, once when I saw a guy going house to house and looking in windows, once when I was mugged, and once when I saw someone attacking someone else. In all three cases the police have asked me if the perpetrator was white, black, hispanic, etc. It's a fair question, the police have to have some idea who they're looking for.

As far as "These ******** always get away." - That's not proof of racism, because you don't know who "These ********" are. Most likely what he meant is suspicious people/suspected criminals, because that's been *MY* feeling, regardless of race, when I've called the police and by the time they got there the person was gone and they didn't find them.

Or you could wait for real details to come out and see if that's actually the case or not. He (and supposedly witnesses) say that he didn't start the fight, other people say he did, so how about before we condemn a person we wait and see? If you're right and Zimmerman DID start the fight, lose, and then shot the kid, then yeah he's a scumbag, but I can't just assume that's the case.

OR I could go by the law, instead of what I THINK, and say, "Yeah, what he did was illegal."

Seriously people, I know this community can't be this ****ing thick......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ylcard    142

Wow, keep shoving that "what I think" and "law", that helps a lot.

Quite ironic considering it's what you think, if it was actually "the law" he would be arrested for murder/manslaughter, unless you have a theory as to why he wasn't ? I'm sure that's also in one of your "laws".

Also ironic is that the "law" actually permits people to kill others in Florida.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shakey    1,127

Wow, keep shoving that "what I think" and "law", that helps a lot.

Quite ironic considering it's what you think, if it was actually "the law" he would be arrested for murder/manslaughter, unless you have a theory as to why he wasn't ? I'm sure that's also in one of your "laws".

Also ironic is that the "law" actually permits people to kill others in Florida.

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html

Again, educate yourself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mudslag    10,758

Yet, Zimmerman's "racial slur" is enough to brand him as a racist, I see.

potential racist in the eyes of the law

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skin    299

Wrong, it's not the court of public opinion that sends people to jail.

I think you miss the point of juries then. THEY are the public... and they get on the court cases and poof jail time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ylcard    142

potential racist in the eyes of the law

What is this nonsense ? "Potential racist" ?

I'll admit that I don't know any Laws nor do I know where to educate myself in regards to these laws, but this sounds so made up that I'm willing to bet my life that there's no such thing as a "potential racist" in ANY legal term or law.

Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:

  • Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
  • Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.

Ball's in your court, shakey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skin    299
Self defense isn't self defense when you start the situation, go in with a gun, and use agianst someone who is unarmed. Learn the law. Would be nice if people would actually go by what the law says, instead of just what they think it should be. Self defense isn't me having a gun and starting a fight, then shooting the guy who is kicking my ass. That is manslaughter at the least.

you are really playing with words and trying to justify your meaning.

While it is true that you cannot run up to someone and start a physical fight then shoot them with the concealed weapon you happen to have, if you go into a conversation with someone, or ask why they are walking in the dark behind some houses, and you are also carrying a concealed weapon, and it escalates into a fight with the physical attack being started by the other party... you CAN shoot them and it is self-defense.

So, you are wrong about actual interpretation of the law, no matter how you want to dice it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mudslag    10,758

What is this nonsense ? "Potential racist" ?

I'll admit that I don't know any Laws nor do I know where to educate myself in regards to these laws, but this sounds so made up that I'm willing to bet my life that there's no such thing as a "potential racist" in ANY legal term or law.

Ball's in your court, shakey.

http://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1065870-obama-if-i-had-a-son-hed-look-like-trayvon/page__st__225__p__594767230#entry594767230

Basically if he is found to have used a racial slur, the way in which he can be charged changes. He could be charged with a hate crime and sense it resulted in a death, higher charges then say manslaughter could be filed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ylcard    142

http://www.neowin.ne...#entry594767230

Basically if he is found to have used a racial slur, the way in which he can be charged changes. He could be charged with a hate crime and sense it resulted in a death, higher charges then say manslaughter could be filed.

Well the prosecutors will obviously push for that, but my point still stands, there's no such thing as "potential racist" in the eyes of the law.

If he's a "potential racist" then Trayvon is a "potential criminal", which doesn't make any difference, but still - it just shows how irrelevant that issue is, even though they ARE going to play it in the court.

Edit:

I misunderstood you.

I thought you were talking about charged in court but now I'm thinking you're talking about the actual charge by the police, as in for what he's arrested.

Haven't heard about that, though, we'll see. I'm thinking they won't, because the killing itself was not motivated by racism, it was the result of a confrontation, it would be a whole different matter if he was to shoot and kill him with no confrontation between them.

Also, common sense tells me that they should first "prove" that he's actually a racist, like previous incidents in which he acted so, so far I haven't read anything that suggests he was racist, EXCEPT for that "slur", which IMO is not an indication at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amarok    132

OR I could go by the law, instead of what I THINK, and say, "Yeah, what he did was illegal."

Seriously people, I know this community can't be this ****ing thick......

In your example the neighbor is swinging a rubber hose, which is an unwieldy weapon and not overly dangerous unless unless it had a metal nozzle on it. Now if that same neighbor were to wrap that same hose around the throat of the other neighbor then yes he would be justified in using deadly force. If Trayvon WAS holding Zimmerman down and bashing his head into the ground then he WOULD be justified in using deadly force. You're the one being thick here, because you're not thinking about context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mudslag    10,758

Well the prosecutors will obviously push for that, but my point still stands, there's no such thing as "potential racist" in the eyes of the law.

If he's a "potential racist" then Trayvon is a "potential criminal", which doesn't make any difference, but still - it just shows how irrelevant that issue is, even though they ARE going to play it in the court.

Edit:

I misunderstood you.

I thought you were talking about charged in court but now I'm thinking you're talking about the actual charge by the police, as in for what he's arrested.

Haven't heard about that, though, we'll see. I'm thinking they won't, because the killing itself was not motivated by racism, it was the result of a confrontation, it would be a whole different matter if he was to shoot and kill him with no confrontation between them.

Also, common sense tells me that they should first "prove" that he's actually a racist, like previous incidents in which he acted so, so far I haven't read anything that suggests he was racist, EXCEPT for that "slur", which IMO is not an indication at all.

The questionable "f'ing coons" if proven that's what he said, changes how he could be prosecuted. Potentially making it a hate crime which changes the dynamics of how he could be charged. If found true, then the prosecutor could argue that the motivation to chase him down was deemed racist as the end results was the death of a teen of another race.

Im not sure if you understand or dont think it should be this way but every lawyer and prosecutor in the media has basically agreed that what was said could have a major impact on the over all case and how he could be charged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.