Click here to go to our new forums at http://tw.forumosa.com
If you are a Forumosan Regular, when you log in for the FIRST TIME, you must RESET your password by using the Password Recovery system.

Usernames on the new forums must not contain any SPACES and must end with LETTER or a NUMBER; if yours does, you will be prompted to change your Username
Contact us at admin(at)forumosa(dot)com or @forumosa on Twitter or on our Facebook Page if you have any questions or problems logging back in

The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

IP is the place for boisterous political discussion, but please remember, the Rules still apply, especially with regards to Personal Attacks. These and other inappropriate posts will be removed without notification.

Moderator: Mick

Forum rules
IP is the place for boisterous political discussion, but please remember, the Rules still apply, especially with regards to Personal Attacks. These and other inappropriate posts will be removed without notification.

The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby jdsmith » 02 Apr 2012, 13:14

I'd rather not link the entire history of this case of to this point because I'm a busy working man, but here's a cursory introduction for those in Underarockville:

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:
In 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.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/219385-house-dems-eye-policy-responses-to-shooting-death-of-trayvon-martin
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. :roll: Then Spike Lee got involved. Then the BPP. Now, the brouhaha has risen to the CBC (Congressional Black Caucus).
More 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.”
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=FaceBook

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.

Agreed.

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. :thumbsup:

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.
Your warning level: [1]
User avatar
jdsmith
Maitreya Buddha (Mílèfó)
 
Posts: 14855
{ AUTHOR_TOPIC }
Joined: 05 Jan 2005, 10:40
Location: Always.



Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby Winston Smith » 02 Apr 2012, 13:41

Apparently in Wonderland it's perfectly reasonable to shoot someone dead for busting your lip.
Totalitarianism: a political system in which the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.
Winston Smith
Wild Chicken Bus Driver (yě jī chē sī jī)
Wild Chicken Bus Driver (yě jī chē sī jī)
 
Posts: 1930
Joined: 24 Sep 2011, 09:44
Location: Room 101



Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby jdsmith » 02 Apr 2012, 13:46

Winston Smith wrote:Apparently in Wonderland it's perfectly reasonable to shoot someone dead for busting your lip.

The Florida Stand Your Ground Law is quite clear.

Also, I don't agree with your assessment of Z's injuries.
Your warning level: [1]
User avatar
jdsmith
Maitreya Buddha (Mílèfó)
 
Posts: 14855
{ AUTHOR_TOPIC }
Joined: 05 Jan 2005, 10:40
Location: Always.



Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby finley » 02 Apr 2012, 13:46

Sad all round. Bottom line is, if your national laws allow mouth-breathers and wannabe paramilitary types to buy lethal weapons on the open market, people will get shot more often than you'd expect. And if your parents call you "Trayvon", you're likely to be one of those people who gets shot.
"Global warming is happening and we KNOW that man is 100 percent responsible!!!"
- Fred Smith
User avatar
finley
Entering Second Childhood (èrdù tóngnián qī)
Entering Second Childhood (èrdù tóngnián qī)
 
Posts: 7145
Joined: 20 Jan 2011, 23:34



Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby jdsmith » 02 Apr 2012, 13:52

finley wrote:Sad all round. Bottom line is, if your national laws allow mouth-breathers and wannabe paramilitary types to buy lethal weapons on the open market, people will get shot more often than you'd expect. And if your parents call you "Trayvon", you're likely to be one of those people who gets shot.

that's very Freakonomics of you to say. :thumbsup:

And yes, sad all around
Your warning level: [1]
User avatar
jdsmith
Maitreya Buddha (Mílèfó)
 
Posts: 14855
{ AUTHOR_TOPIC }
Joined: 05 Jan 2005, 10:40
Location: Always.



Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby Tigerman » 02 Apr 2012, 14:08

Winston Smith wrote:Apparently in Wonderland it's perfectly reasonable to shoot someone dead for busting your lip.


Or, we could wait until the facts are disclosed before we pass judgment.
As it is, we seem to regard it as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has taken one side or the other. We regard it (in other words) as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has contrived to reach the object of his reasoning. We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end.

From: All Things Considered - The Error of Impartiality
Tigerman
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 17775
Joined: 17 Sep 2002, 12:09



Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby jdsmith » 02 Apr 2012, 14:15

Tigerman wrote:
Winston Smith wrote:Apparently in Wonderland it's perfectly reasonable to shoot someone dead for busting your lip.


Or, we could wait until the facts are disclosed before we pass judgment.
That has been the problem with this case since day one.
Your warning level: [1]
User avatar
jdsmith
Maitreya Buddha (Mílèfó)
 
Posts: 14855
{ AUTHOR_TOPIC }
Joined: 05 Jan 2005, 10:40
Location: Always.



Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby Chris » 02 Apr 2012, 14:19

Zimmerman, who weighs twice as much as the unarmed Martin, committed murder and needs to be prosecuted. And all evidence points to it being a racially motivated killing.
User avatar
Chris
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 16069
Joined: 08 Jun 2004, 15:51
Location: Taipei



Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby Tigerman » 02 Apr 2012, 14:22

Chris wrote:Zimmerman, who weighs twice as much as the unarmed Martin, committed murder and needs to be prosecuted. And all evidence points to it being a racially motivated killing.


Have you seen all of the evidence, Chris?
As it is, we seem to regard it as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has taken one side or the other. We regard it (in other words) as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has contrived to reach the object of his reasoning. We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end.

From: All Things Considered - The Error of Impartiality
Tigerman
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 17775
Joined: 17 Sep 2002, 12:09



Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby jdsmith » 02 Apr 2012, 14:22

Chris wrote:Zimmerman, who weighs twice as much as the unarmed Martin, committed murder and needs to be prosecuted. And all evidence points to it being a racially motivated killing.

I really think you need a link or two Chris. :thumbsup:

I don't believe Z's size has anything to do with it. An eye witness saw Martin sitting on Z's chest beating his face in before he was shot.

So this is Hispanic on Black race killing, you think? :ohreally:
Your warning level: [1]
User avatar
jdsmith
Maitreya Buddha (Mílèfó)
 
Posts: 14855
{ AUTHOR_TOPIC }
Joined: 05 Jan 2005, 10:40
Location: Always.



FRIENDLY REMINDER
   Please remember that Forumosa is not responsible for the content that appears on the other side of links that Forumosans post on our forums. As a discussion website, we encourage open and frank debate. We have learned that the most effective way to address questionable claims or accusations on Forumosa is by engaging in a sincere and constructive conversation. To make this website work, we must all feel safe in expressing our opinions, this also means backing up any claims with hard facts, including links to other websites.
   Please also remember that one should not believe everything one reads on the Internet, particularly from websites whose content cannot be easily verified or substantiated. Use your common sense and do not hesitate to ask for proof.
Next




Return to International Politics



Who is online

Forumosans browsing this forum: No Forumosans and 1 guest