Posted on 03/21/2012 2:28:36 PM PDT by Smogger
The tragic story of Trayvon Martin's death in Sanford, Florida has ignited a great deal of passion and concern regarding the circumstances of his death and the defense applied by the attacker, George Zimmerman. The fact that Trayvon Martin unnecessarily lost his life is troubling and an investigation into the surrounding circumstances is certainly warranted.
First of all I'd like to extend my condolences to the Martin family.
I have been in the funeral services profession for over 40 years; I've walked with families through many tragic circumstances and I know how difficult it is.
--snip--
As the prime sponsor of this legislation in the Florida House, I'd like to clarify that this law does not seem to be applicable to the tragedy that happened in Sanford. There is nothing in the castle doctrine as found in Florida statutes that authenticates or provides for the opportunity to pursue and confront individuals, it simply protects those who would be potential victims by allowing for force to be used in self-defense.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
The gun grabbers have been out in force since this thing hit...
it sounds bad for this dude
you can’t follow someone and THEN shoot him
It’s a terrible thing, but I don’t see how it’s any more heinous than the black thugs who set the younger white kid on fire with gasoline.
I’ve seen the Trayvon Martin shooting everywhere, but the “hate crime” only here. Why is it any less important? I’m just posing a rhetorical question.
Zzzz...
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to “win” an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of “reasoning” has the following form:
Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
It’s not any more or less heinous. I don’t believe in “hate crime” statues though. Either the thing is a crime or it isn’t. Juries shouldn’t trying to guess the state of mind of the perpetrator.
I was listening to the recordings of the 911 calls, and I have to say that this Mr. Zimmerman would not want me on the jury. If everything happened as they say it did, he is in a world of hurt right now. What I worry about is this becoming another Rodney King slash Kaylee Anthony news media 24 slash seven event. This is not the time to be distracted from the economy and elections by a bread and circuses hate crime trial.
Massive rush to judge Zimmerman going on here — Zimmerman’s side of the story is being viewed as irrelevant, here at FR no less. Before the facts are all in, the lynch mob is assuming that Zimmerman followed Martin, yelled a racial slur, and killed him in cold blood. But what if Martin attacked him merely for following him in a public place, beating him while he was on his back, and Zimmerman killed him to stop the beating?
Your post makes good sense, but the left-wingers are not satisfied.
Sgt. Bale: same/same.
I’m not defending Zimmerman anymore than I defended the sergeant before he was named. I was suggesting we wait for the facts following an investigation and of course, a trial.
My point is—why is it any less outrageous to set someone on fire for being white than to shoot him because he’s black?
If you accept the MSM content analysis, one is much worse than the other because it’s all we read anymore, while the kid nearly burned to death is yesterday’s news.
I think it’s institutionalized racism. And the press is fanning the flames here, while they did not with the burning. If it bleeds it leads, right? My contempt for the press increases every day.
This is why we have Grand Juries. Sooner or later the facts will come out. Hopefully.
WFTV had an audio expert listen to the call, who said the word was “punks,” according to the report. Whatever Zimmerman said I think is irrelevant, though.
The legal definition of assault is an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.
If Zimmerman chased/stalked Trayvon Martin, causing Martin to feel a threat of bodily harm, then Zimmerman at that point was guilty of assault, and it was Martin that had the right to defend himself.
He was walking home when a wanna be cop (and he tried to be a cop twice) confronted him because he was WALKING WHILE BLACK.
Yes, it was an upscale community, but the community wasn't 100% white. The teen was looking at the homes because he wanted to dream about living in a place like that.
the MURDERER should spend the rest of his life in prison playing wife with 'BUBBA'.
Perhaps, but the press would claim that they are just following a story with a lot of interest. Remember it's the same claim they use when the fall all over themselves to cover the story of a pretty white girl who goes missing while ignoring, dozens of black girls, white men, etc etc who disappear every day.
Ah, I see you were on the scene.
Tell me, why hasn’t Zimmerman been arrested?
You don’t know if his skin color had anything to do with it.
(Depending on Florida statutes)
Following somebody in a non-menacing manner in a public place is not “chasing or staking.” And, if Martin initiated the physical contact, by punching him or otherwise, Zimmerman had no duty to let Martin beat him while he was still on the ground.
Following somebody in a non-menacing manner in a public place is not “chasing or stalking.” And, if Martin initiated the physical contact, by punching him or otherwise, Zimmerman had no duty to let Martin beat him while he was still on the ground.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.