Trayvon was shot down by Zimmerman, a guy doing a neighborhood watch thing. Martin was not armed with any weapons. Z followed Martin because he looked suspicious and there had been several break-ins in his gated community. Z called the cops on a non emergency line. Cops said don't follow. Z said OK. Next thing we know, Martin is on top of Z beating his ass (witness clearly saw this). Witness calls 911 and in the two minutes to the police arrival, Martin is shot dead. Z is treated for a busted up face on the scene by paramedics.
A month later, Al Sharpton, JJ and the Black Panthers are calling for Z's head, literally, yo. Martin has been outed as a not so good egg, caught with burglar's tools and what appears to be stolen women's jewelry, has been kicked out of school for drugs (found in his bag) and has a gangsta rep on twitter. Oblahblah polarizes the crowd more by saying his imaginary son would look like Trayvon, whatever the hell that means. Black leaders, former heads of the NAACP say this case is BS and that the real problem is Black on Black crime, not the rare white or in this case "Honorary white" on black crime.
And now this:
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/219385-house-dems-eye-policy-responses-to-shooting-death-of-trayvon-martinIn the wake of the slaying of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin, House Democrats are drafting legislation designed to prevent similar tragedies in the future.
The lawmakers want to adopt tougher rules for neighborhood watch programs, eliminate certain state gun laws, rein in racial profiling and require an examination of racial disparities nationwide.
The Democrats behind the legislation – all members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) – say the steps might have prevented last month's fatal encounter between Martin, 17, an unarmed African-American walking home from a convenience store in Sanford, Fla., and George Zimmerman, 28, a Latino neighborhood watch volunteer carrying a 9mm handgun.
Zimmerman, who was not arrested, says he acted in self-defense after Martin attacked him. Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law allows deadly force in some cases of self-defense.
Now, I've been following this since it happened (god bless the Drudge Report) and watching it go supernova just shocked me. But when the Democrats started playing the race card, that was the call for the attack dogs, Sharpton and JJackson to go to work. Then Spike Lee got involved. Then the BPP. Now, the brouhaha has risen to the CBC (Congressional Black Caucus).
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/04/more-dead-end-demagoguery-from-the-democrats.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+powerlineblog%2Flivefeed+%28Power+Line%29&utm_content=FaceBookMore Dead-End Demagoguery from the Democrats
The Democrats continue to try to make political hay out of the Trayvon Martin case. The Hill reports that House Democrats–all members of the Congressional Black Caucus–are proposing a package of legislative “reforms” arising out of the Martin case:
In the wake of the slaying of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin, House Democrats are drafting legislation designed to prevent similar tragedies in the future.
Actually, there are plenty of laws in every state to deter and punish murder and manslaughter, if that is, in fact, what happened in the Martin case. Such statutes are a matter of state, not federal, law. What Congressional Democrats are now doing has nothing to do with law enforcement, and everything to do with stirring up their party’s base for this year’s elections.
The resolution – sponsored by CBC Chairman Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) and Florida Democratic Reps. Corrine Brown, Alcee Hastings and Frederica Wilson, all members of the CBC – refers to Martin’s killing as a “crime,” condemns “the inconceivable fact that his killer remains free” and claims “racial bias led to the use of deadly force.”
The non-binding resolution also “condemns unfounded reliance on Stand Your Ground laws to protect actions that extend far beyond historical use of self-defense … [and] urges any State legislature considering Stand Your Ground legislation to reject such proposals.”
This is the kind of thing that gives demagoguery a bad name. Whether Martin’s killing was a “crime” remains to be seen, and will ultimately be determined by some combination of law enforcement officials, a presiding judge, and a jury. I have written that I think the evidence, as publicly known, warrants a manslaughter prosecution. But to go beyond that and declare that what happened was a “crime” is an unwarranted interference with the judicial process, as is the assertion that “racial bias led to the use of deadly force.”
The CBC resolution also condemns “stand your ground” laws like Florida’s. But there is no good reason why Congress, or any Congressional clique, should pontificate on the nuances of the law of self-defense in the 50 states.
But if you parse the provisions of Florida law that apply specifically to the Trayvon Martin case, it is hard to quarrel with them. Florida law says that a person is “justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat” if “He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.” Florida law provides further that a person who is doing nothing illegal and is in a place where he or she has a right to be “has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.” So if George Zimmerman was walking down the street and minding his own business and was attacked by Trayvon Martin, he had a right to defend himself, including the use of deadly force if he reasonably believed it was necessary to defend himself from death or great bodily harm. Likewise, of course, for Trayvon Martin.
Florida law specifically addresses the knottiest issue posed by the Martin/Zimmerman case: what happens if someone initiates a confrontation, but that confrontation escalates to a threat of deadly force against him? Can he defend himself, or has he lost any right of self-defense by virtue of having provoked the conflict in the first place? Florida law says that self-defense is not available to anyone who “Initially provokes the use of force against himself” unless he reasonably believes that he is in “imminent danger of death or great bodily harm” and has exhausted every reasonable means of escape other than to respond with deadly force, or else he has “withdraw[n] from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.”
So under Florida law, even if Zimmerman initially provoked the confrontation with Martin–note that the word “provoked” is left deliberately vague in the statute–he still can respond to Martin with deadly force if he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and had exhausted every other reasonable means of escape.
One might quarrel with these or any other statutory provisions, but they constitute a fair framework within which to resolve the Martin/Zimmerman case. The Congressional Democrats who are trying to gain politically from the case have nothing better to offer. On the contrary, their complaints are entirely demagogic:
Wilson, who represents the district where Martin lived, is working on legislation to create a national commission “to study race-based injustices, health disparities and economic disparities affecting African American men and boys,” in the words of the congresswoman.
Right. That’ll help. Note that her proposal includes no effort to study, or explain the reasons for, the vastly disproportionate number of crimes committed by African-American boys and men, the elephant that is always in the room when crime and race are discussed.
The Florida Law is there too. Read it and be well.
And don't get me wrong, I think it's terrible that TM was killed and that Z felt he had to shoot him. But I really hate the race card being played again and again and again.