Interesting facts (truth)coming out about Trayvon

[shirlene29]

^^^ my point exactly

 

[redsamurai]

Please cite the law or court ruling that states "standards completely change when you're armed".

it's in the permit laws, if you "intentionally" provoke a confronatation while armed you're finished. Of course this is going to be the debate whether Zimmerman did that or not. So far it sounds like that's exactly what he did when he got out of his car despite the dispatcher telling him not to. You have a concealed permit plunk? If you do i suggest studying it some cause it should be there in your Ark. permit that deliberately provoking a confrontation is a flagrant 2 subject to automatic ejection. But why "read"...just go to a bar this weekend and start a fight, you don't even have to pull or brandish the weapon...just let the cops know when they come that you're armed. If they verify that you started the fight see what happens. Ur grandchildren will be denied gun ownership.

 

[redsamurai]

.

The dispatcher telling him we don't need you to do that is in no way shape or form an order.

At the time of the event the dispatcher may not and could not have "ordered" him to stand down..but it shows that the police were aware of the situation and that his involved was explicitly stated as not being necessary. At this point he has to prove that Trayvon's actions constituted some sort of immediate danger for him to follow and confront Trayvon like he was a police officer...something neighborhood watchmen CANNOT DO!! Zimmerman will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was just thumbing around and this wild hoodied enraged teenage ngr just came out of nowhere and started threatening him. You think that's gonna work?



GZ was acting like a concerned citizen, trayvon doubled back and started shit and he got smoked.

Well that's what GZ claims but his claims are dubious at best. Given where he said he was at the end of the 911 call and where the altercation took place...which was now far away from his vehicle which he was pretty much told to sit in and wait for the cops, it's a sketchy claim. The facts point to GZ getting out of his car and running after trayvon. There was a foot chase at some point and it sounds like the kid was running from GZ, now why would a young black youth run from some sloppy bald aging gonzales lookin m'fer? He showed him his piece that's why...and if that somehow comes out it's done.




And for what it's worth, considering Florida is gated community after gated community the kid had to have some idea about neighborhood watch groups.


i have no issue with neighborhood watch....but you're supposed to stay in your car, you are not allowed to tail people on foot like ur crocket and tubbs.

...

 

[mrplunkey]

it's in the permit laws, if you "intentionally" provoke a confronatation while armed you're finished. Of course this is going to be the debate whether Zimmerman did that or not. So far it sounds like that's exactly what he did when he got out of his car despite the dispatcher telling him not to. You have a concealed permit plunk? If you do i suggest studying it some cause it should be there in your Ark. permit that deliberately provoking a confrontation is a flagrant 2 subject to automatic ejection. But why "read"...just go to a bar this weekend and start a fight, you don't even have to pull or brandish the weapon...just let the cops know when they come that you're armed. If they verify that you started the fight see what happens. Ur grandchildren will be denied gun ownership.

Why so much ranting?

Please cite the law or court ruling that states "standards completely change when you're armed". I want to see you post a single credible source.

 

[PICK3]

I want to see you post a single credible source.

Don't due it RS.

Think of your legacy!!!

 

[redsamurai]

it's in the permits....look it up. The one i saw was AZ, pretty sure OH is the same way. You cannot deliberately provoke a fight while armed, even if the gun never gets shown. It's right there in the permit writing. The adobe file from the AZ permit wouldn't let me copy and paste for some reason or i would have linked it. So yes you are held to higher standards in an altercation than if you were unarmed. I remember this from a case here in my hometown about five to ten years ago where a dude started a bar fight and ended up having a wrestling match over the gun....he will never have a concealed permit ever again. Now if he had started that fight while not in possesion of a permit it's still possible he could have applied for a permit later on barring any felony convictions for the fight. But while armed, different standards and that's the deal when you get a liscense to carry. If you can't accept the added responsability no weapon for you...and that's the way it ought to be.

 

[redsamurai]

If zimmerman can prove definitively he retreated, even if he provoked the fight...then i beleive the courts have said your right to self defense is refreshed. But only if he retreated. That remains to be seen. From the beginning it sounded like he got out of his car and chased trayvon...that doesn't sound like retreat. But if he was just shadowing him and Trayvon took offense and came after him, then the shooting will likely be justified.

 

[machine23]

This was all a set up by big brother telling media what to say so they can try to take away our second amendment right....

Exactly! Like Rahm Emanuel one said, " you never want a serious crises to go to waste" they are so going to attack the second ammendment. Just like they were going to try and do with "fast and furious"..,

 

[machine23]

I haven't skimmed through this whole thread yet, but here's a little article that helps furthers that notion (written by a black dude, no less)-


A MINORITY VIEW
MEDIA DISHONESTY AND RACE HUSTLERS

by WALTER WILLIAMS

When NBC’s “Today” show played the audio of George Zimmerman’s call to a Sanford, Fla., police dispatcher about Trayvon Martin, the editors made him appear to be a racist who says: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.” What Zimmerman actually said was: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining, and he’s just walking around, looking about.” The 911 officer responded by asking, “OK, and this guy – is he black, white or Hispanic?” Zimmerman replied, “He looks black.” NBC says it’s investigating the doctoring of the audio, but there’s nothing to investigate; its objective was to inflame passions.

In his Associated Press article titled “Old photos may be deceptive in Fla. shooting case,” Matt Sedensky pointed out that the photos carried by the major media were several years old and showed Zimmerman looking fat and mean and Martin looking like a sweet young kid.

Jesse Jackson told the Los Angeles Times that “blacks are under attack” and that “targeting, arresting, convicting blacks and ultimately killing us is big business,” adding that Martin is “a martyr.” President Barack Obama chimed in by saying, “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”

Let’s look at some non-news cases. On March 14 in Tulsa, Okla., a white couple suffered a home invasion by Tyrone Woodfork, a 20-year-old black man. Ninety-year-old Bob Strait suffered a broken jaw and broken ribs in the attack. His 85-year-old wife, Nancy, was sexually assaulted and battered to death, ending their 65-year marriage.

On March 4, two black Kansas City, Mo., youths doused a 13-year-old boy in gasoline and set him on fire, telling him, “You get what you deserve, white boy.” Last summer, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel ordered an emergency shutdown of the beaches in Chicago because mobs of blacks were terrorizing white families.

Several years ago, in Knoxville, Tenn., a young white couple was kidnapped by four blacks. The girl was forced to witness her boyfriend’s rape, torture and subsequent murder before she was raped, tortured and murdered. Before disposing of her body, the three men and one woman poured bleach or some other cleaning agent down her throat in an effort to destroy DNA evidence. A jury found the four guilty, and they were sentenced, but because of the judge’s drug use, a retrial is being considered.

None of those black-on-white atrocities made anywhere near the news the Trayvon Martin case made, and it’s deliberate. Editors for the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times and the Chicago Tribune admitted to deliberately censoring information about black crime for political reasons, in an effort to “guard against subjecting an entire group of people to suspicion.”

One doesn’t have to be a liberal, conservative, Democrat or Republican to see the danger posed by America’s race hustlers, who are stacking up piles of combustible racial kindling and ready for a racial arsonist to set it ablaze. Recruiters for white hate groups must love President Obama’s demagoguery in saying that a son of his would look like Trayvon but not saying that Melissa Coon’s 13-year-old son, who was set on fire, could have looked like a son of his. After all, the president is just as much white as he is black.

Even if the president and his liberal allies in the media and assorted civil rights hustlers don’t care much about blacks murdering whites, what about blacks murdering blacks? During a mid-March weekend in Chicago, 49 people were shot, 10 fatally, including a 6-year-old black girl, making for more than 100 murders this year. Philadelphia isn’t far behind, with murder clipping along at one a day since the beginning of 2012. Have we heard Obama make a statement about this carnage or that most homicide victims are black and that their murderers are black? No, and we won’t, because black-on-black crime, like black-on-white crime, does not fit the liberal narrative of the continuing problem of white racism.


Walter E. Williams, Ph.D., is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. He holds a Doctor of Humane Letters from Virginia Union University and Grove City College, Doctor of Laws from Washington and Jefferson College and Doctor Honoris Causa en Ciencias Sociales from Universidad Francisco Marroquin, in Guatemala, where he is also Professor Honorario.
_______________________________________________________________________________

I suppose though, because he's an olda brotha, his opinion don't matter much.

Never underestimate the power of the young and the stupid in droves to sway public opinion.

This guy knows what's he's talking about. Everyone forgot about NBC editing the tape.. And so much more. Obama the department of justice can care 2 shits about that kid. They are just not going to let a crises go to waste.

 

[mrplunkey]

it's in the permits....look it up. The one i saw was AZ, pretty sure OH is the same way. You cannot deliberately provoke a fight while armed, even if the gun never gets shown. It's right there in the permit writing. The adobe file from the AZ permit wouldn't let me copy and paste for some reason or i would have linked it. So yes you are held to higher standards in an altercation than if you were unarmed. I remember this from a case here in my hometown about five to ten years ago where a dude started a bar fight and ended up having a wrestling match over the gun....he will never have a concealed permit ever again. Now if he had started that fight while not in possesion of a permit it's still possible he could have applied for a permit later on barring any felony convictions for the fight. But while armed, different standards and that's the deal when you get a liscense to carry. If you can't accept the added responsability no weapon for you...and that's the way it ought to be.

You mean to say you found something on the internet and can't post a procedure to find the same content? The link to the PDF couldn't be copied out of your browser URL window?

Just take a screenshot of the text and post it on tinypic along with a citation. I want to see a law that states "standards completely change when you're armed".