2,777 whites were killed by other whites.
2, 459 Blacks were killed by blacks.
218 blacks were killed by whites.
447 whites were killed by blacks.
Facts speak volumes don't they? This is an American Citizen problem. American citizens are killing each other at alarming rates. It is not the guns or the availability of guns. Criminals will get and have guns even if the 2nd amendment should ever be repealed.
We need to stop using black, white, or any other color that only promotes civil unrest to describe people? Easier said then done. If a white person was seen killing someone would you not say you saw a white person killing the victim? If a black person was seen killing someone would you not say you saw a black person killing the victim? At times the words spoken are not racist in nature, they simply describe the facts. What is true is true and that is false needs to be dragged into the public court of public opinion and reveled for what it is, racially motivated. Look for your self and stop being a sheep following and become a leader like the American patriot you should be.
http://crimedime.com/2012/03/21/trayvon-martins-death-and-what-it-says-about-race-privilege-and-homicide/
Stan - 12 years ago
Everyone has a right to self defense. No one can dispute that really. But when it is asserted as a defense it must be under a "reasonable" belief that it is necssary to prevent any of the crimes enumerated. It is when that belief is "unreasonable" that the issue develops. It was unreasonable given all of the statements by Zimmerman in the imediate instance. By his statements to the police the night of, and the contrasting statements in his hearing that bring into question the reasonableness of his actions that night.
He stated in his hearing he didn't know how old Martin was, guessing him to be slightly younger than himself, yet his statement that night was that he was in late teens. This issue in iteself is a RED HERRING. Age is not a determining factor of whether self defense is needed or not. He said he didn't know whether or not Martin was armed or not. BUT, he did know he was armed. Martin didn't know whether Zimmerman was armed that night or not. Martin did know that he himself was not armed though. Martin exhibited avoidance, while talking to his girlfriend on the phone. Zimmerman got out of his car and began following Martin, then later claims to have been returning to his car and ready to get in when he was attacked. Yet no police report states the relative locations of the attack and Zimmerman's car.
Martin had JUST AS MUCH right to be where he was that night as Zimmerman did. If Zimmerman was "within his right" in confronting Martin for being there, Martin was just as much "within his right" for confronting Zimmerman. If Martin started a verbal barrage on Zimmerman for following him, he was well within his right being lawfully there as any other citizen, and if Zimmerman escalated it to physical, Zimmerman was wrong. THAT IS WHERE THE REAL ISSUE IS. Zimmermans belief that Martin was not supposed to be there is in error and is not being addressed as it should be. Zimmerman took it upon himself to escalate the situation, instead of just reporting Martin, he took further actions, not because he was in fear of burglary, but because having that gun in his possession, he was fearless as to anything happening to himself that he couldn't defend. Martin was just as much allowed to be where he was, as Zimmerman. And like anyone else under the law, was not prevented from asserting the Stand Your Ground rule himself if he was approached, and or accosted. Zimmerman had no right to confront Martin; he had a right to report and report only. All of this false bravado now about Zimmerman's right to Stand his ground, falsely discounts Martin's right to stand his ground as well. There were no witnesses to the confrontation that night, and dead men tell no tales. It is this fact that needs to be taken into consideration when the law is being re-evaluated. Stand you ground can be used by "ANYONE" who is lawfully someplace. It is the aggressor who can not use Stand Your Ground. If Martin was defending himself against any actions by Zimmerman, Zimmerman loses his right to claim self defense. The reasonableness of the claim of self defense must be evaluated in every instance of its use.
If Zimmerman did not have that gun, would he have confronted Martin that night? If the answer is no, then he relied upon its possession for the courage to do so, and he is not then able to claim self defense. Had he not approached Martin with a confrontation thus ensuing, the police only minutes away would have been there in timely enough fashion to investigate Martin properly and without further incident.
De Pacas - 12 years ago
Doesn't everyone get sick to their stomach when an innocent is murdered/raped/burglarized/carjacked and the article mentions the extensive/lengthy criminal record the douche criminal has?
This is the nature of our justice system and lawyers and judges and criminals know so. They reap (rape?) the benefits of maintaining criminals on the streets rather than off the streets and locked away for good.
The only ones who lose in this equation is the law abiding citizens. We pay for the judge's and lawyer's stake dinner as well as for keeping this scum free. Why would the ones in charge want to kill this cash cow after all? Makes you wonder doesn't it?
Enough sheeple and society wolves. Everyone should be required to take the safety courses created by the NRA and then given the option of getting a CWFL.
When seconds count, police is just minutes away...
Mike - 12 years ago
It doesn't have anything to do with murder, Joe, that's an asinine comment to make. It has to do with not having to run and hide from any thug that comes along, no matter where you are. People are sick of giving miscreants and malcontents leeway in the way they treat honest folks, in fact we are done with it. You can make criminals into victims if it makes you feel better, I'll call them what they are..parasites and a waste of air. The law isn't going anywhere, no matter how much liberals would like to see it go.
Joe - 12 years ago
Putting Baxley on the panel shows Scott wants to keep it the same.
By the way, self defense has always existed in Florida. Stand Your Ground does not change self defense. It just makes it harder to prove murder. Do you support murder, Raymond?
Raymond Hale - 12 years ago
One person maybe misusing the law is no reason that the right of self defense, be taken from all
2,777 whites were killed by other whites.
2, 459 Blacks were killed by blacks.
218 blacks were killed by whites.
447 whites were killed by blacks.
Facts speak volumes don't they? This is an American Citizen problem. American citizens are killing each other at alarming rates. It is not the guns or the availability of guns. Criminals will get and have guns even if the 2nd amendment should ever be repealed.
We need to stop using black, white, or any other color that only promotes civil unrest to describe people? Easier said then done. If a white person was seen killing someone would you not say you saw a white person killing the victim? If a black person was seen killing someone would you not say you saw a black person killing the victim? At times the words spoken are not racist in nature, they simply describe the facts. What is true is true and that is false needs to be dragged into the public court of public opinion and reveled for what it is, racially motivated. Look for your self and stop being a sheep following and become a leader like the American patriot you should be.
http://crimedime.com/2012/03/21/trayvon-martins-death-and-what-it-says-about-race-privilege-and-homicide/
Everyone has a right to self defense. No one can dispute that really. But when it is asserted as a defense it must be under a "reasonable" belief that it is necssary to prevent any of the crimes enumerated. It is when that belief is "unreasonable" that the issue develops. It was unreasonable given all of the statements by Zimmerman in the imediate instance. By his statements to the police the night of, and the contrasting statements in his hearing that bring into question the reasonableness of his actions that night.
He stated in his hearing he didn't know how old Martin was, guessing him to be slightly younger than himself, yet his statement that night was that he was in late teens. This issue in iteself is a RED HERRING. Age is not a determining factor of whether self defense is needed or not. He said he didn't know whether or not Martin was armed or not. BUT, he did know he was armed. Martin didn't know whether Zimmerman was armed that night or not. Martin did know that he himself was not armed though. Martin exhibited avoidance, while talking to his girlfriend on the phone. Zimmerman got out of his car and began following Martin, then later claims to have been returning to his car and ready to get in when he was attacked. Yet no police report states the relative locations of the attack and Zimmerman's car.
Martin had JUST AS MUCH right to be where he was that night as Zimmerman did. If Zimmerman was "within his right" in confronting Martin for being there, Martin was just as much "within his right" for confronting Zimmerman. If Martin started a verbal barrage on Zimmerman for following him, he was well within his right being lawfully there as any other citizen, and if Zimmerman escalated it to physical, Zimmerman was wrong. THAT IS WHERE THE REAL ISSUE IS. Zimmermans belief that Martin was not supposed to be there is in error and is not being addressed as it should be. Zimmerman took it upon himself to escalate the situation, instead of just reporting Martin, he took further actions, not because he was in fear of burglary, but because having that gun in his possession, he was fearless as to anything happening to himself that he couldn't defend. Martin was just as much allowed to be where he was, as Zimmerman. And like anyone else under the law, was not prevented from asserting the Stand Your Ground rule himself if he was approached, and or accosted. Zimmerman had no right to confront Martin; he had a right to report and report only. All of this false bravado now about Zimmerman's right to Stand his ground, falsely discounts Martin's right to stand his ground as well. There were no witnesses to the confrontation that night, and dead men tell no tales. It is this fact that needs to be taken into consideration when the law is being re-evaluated. Stand you ground can be used by "ANYONE" who is lawfully someplace. It is the aggressor who can not use Stand Your Ground. If Martin was defending himself against any actions by Zimmerman, Zimmerman loses his right to claim self defense. The reasonableness of the claim of self defense must be evaluated in every instance of its use.
If Zimmerman did not have that gun, would he have confronted Martin that night? If the answer is no, then he relied upon its possession for the courage to do so, and he is not then able to claim self defense. Had he not approached Martin with a confrontation thus ensuing, the police only minutes away would have been there in timely enough fashion to investigate Martin properly and without further incident.
Doesn't everyone get sick to their stomach when an innocent is murdered/raped/burglarized/carjacked and the article mentions the extensive/lengthy criminal record the douche criminal has?
This is the nature of our justice system and lawyers and judges and criminals know so. They reap (rape?) the benefits of maintaining criminals on the streets rather than off the streets and locked away for good.
The only ones who lose in this equation is the law abiding citizens. We pay for the judge's and lawyer's stake dinner as well as for keeping this scum free. Why would the ones in charge want to kill this cash cow after all? Makes you wonder doesn't it?
Enough sheeple and society wolves. Everyone should be required to take the safety courses created by the NRA and then given the option of getting a CWFL.
When seconds count, police is just minutes away...
It doesn't have anything to do with murder, Joe, that's an asinine comment to make. It has to do with not having to run and hide from any thug that comes along, no matter where you are. People are sick of giving miscreants and malcontents leeway in the way they treat honest folks, in fact we are done with it. You can make criminals into victims if it makes you feel better, I'll call them what they are..parasites and a waste of air. The law isn't going anywhere, no matter how much liberals would like to see it go.
Putting Baxley on the panel shows Scott wants to keep it the same.
By the way, self defense has always existed in Florida. Stand Your Ground does not change self defense. It just makes it harder to prove murder. Do you support murder, Raymond?
One person maybe misusing the law is no reason that the right of self defense, be taken from all