Call for arrest of watch captain who shot kid

Mar 19, 2012 Full story: New York Daily News 29,885

ORLANDO, Fla. -- College students around Florida rallied Monday to demand the arrest of a white neighborhood watch captain who shot an unarmed black teen last month, though authorities may be hamstrung by a state law that allows people to defend themselves with deadly force.

Full Story
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#34302 Sep 2, 2013
Rambler wrote:
<quoted text>
They might each be wondering the same thing about you?
Good grief......if you go outside or on the highway -- seriously, you make the automatic assumption everyone is useless, unemployed bums? Then you got issues!
"Car after car of people just driving around". LOL
Yes I make that assumption. Of course I understand that there are reasons people are not working: retired, sales or other position that requires driving, kids out of school, vacation or some other paid time off, but that doesn't justify all of those people.

Now why would somebody be wondering why I was on the highway when I'm driving a tractor-trailer? I think that's pretty simple to figure out--even for you.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#34303 Sep 2, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Social Security and Medicare sure are part of the Welfare Problem and its been that way since day which FDR knew that Social Security Couldn't sustain itself and is the reason why the Social Security tax is not 1% for the employee and 1% for the Employer anymore which by Federal Law was never to exceed 1% on the Employee and 1% for the Employer and I don't Blame employers for offshoring jobs either since they are forced to maintain the Welfare Society.
I don't consider a system where people put money in and then get something out as welfare. I consider welfare as those who put nothing in but get everything out while working people pay.

Social Security (when started) was a system that very few collected on. Most people didn't live long enough to collect. It was relatively a very small deduction out of your paycheck. As time went on and people began living longer--and politicians began increasing payouts, the system became corrupt and brought us to the point where it's unsustainable. Today for most people, it's your second highest deduction out of your paycheck not to mention your employers matching contribution which is actually your money indirectly.

What I object to is that it's operated by the federal government which has no authority to provide retirement benefits. Now if a state wanted to start a retirement program, then that's fine with me. Or perhaps if the federal government gave you an opt-out option, but they don't.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#34304 Sep 2, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
Just wait until someone you love feels threatened and punches someone or shoves them and that person pulls out gun and shoots your loved one. And then the shooter gets away with it.
With SYG if you punch me I have right to kill you....Scary right.
Not at all. Our new society has to learn to control their anger. Nobody should be in a position of being punched unless they agreed to an honest fight. If somebody punches me, then I am being attacked and I have no idea what my attackers plans are.

If you don't want to get shot and die, then don't punch anybody; simple as that. But if you are one of those people who simply cannot control their anger, then like Trayvon, you will end up as worm food and it's perfectly legal.
Huh

Owatonna, MN

#34305 Sep 2, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all. Our new society has to learn to control their anger. Nobody should be in a position of being punched unless they agreed to an honest fight. If somebody punches me, then I am being attacked and I have no idea what my attackers plans are.
If you don't want to get shot and die, then don't punch anybody; simple as that. But if you are one of those people who simply cannot control their anger, then like Trayvon, you will end up as worm food and it's perfectly legal.
Ok. LIAR. I bet if someone called your wife every nasty names and said nasty crap you would respond. Problem is this. With SYG every bar fight could turn into legal murder. IT IS DANGEROUS LAW.
Rambler

Red Deer, Canada

#34306 Sep 2, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Exactly by the defintions listed Social Security and Medicare are definitely Welfare since the US Federal Government is the one providing financial aid or subsidizing individuals.
Yes, but the first definition of the word does not necessarily mean one looking out for another's welfare can only be the government. Overtime the word has indeed became associated with poverty only. It's an example of how it can be difficult to translate language and understand the writer's meaning of a word.

wel·fare
n.
1.
a. Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being.
b. Prosperity.
Rambler

Red Deer, Canada

#34307 Sep 2, 2013
* Over a period of time
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#34308 Sep 2, 2013
Tired of Silly wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you understand that many women do NOT have to work? As I said, I never wanted to be a stay-at-home-do-nothing-housew ife and I didn't want my kids, especially my daughter, to think that women are nothing more than breeding/cleaning/cooking machines......but many women choose to stay home. In some families, the woman is the breadwinner and the husband stays home. Some people are financially independent and don't have to work. Some people are retired. I personally don't care what people do as long as they're not living from money stolen from the paychecks of those of us who go to work every day.
Most married (or attached) women today do work. In fact, women surpass men in college graduates.

I don't know about your circle, but I know very few people who have the traditional family where the wife (or woman) stays home unless they are receiving public assistance. Besides the fact that the people I see all day long come in all ages, both sexes, all races and so on. There is no identifying characteristic of any of these people.

When I read statistics of our ever expanding welfare rolls, the fact that only half of the people in our country pay actual federal income tax, and then see all these people loafing around, I do draw conclusions. I can't prove my conclusions obviously, but I do draw them.
Rambler

Red Deer, Canada

#34309 Sep 2, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok. LIAR. I bet if someone called your wife every nasty names and said nasty crap you would respond. Problem is this. With SYG every bar fight could turn into legal murder. IT IS DANGEROUS LAW.
It easy to see why criminal organizations would like it.

After the target is dead, who's to know he didn't provoke a fight or draw a weapon especially when other gang members would be on hand to corroborate a fabricated story.

However I can understand the basic premise of the law......a person in their home or vehicle should have the right to Stand Their Ground to protect their property and defend the welfare of themselves or their family.

The flip side is in Canada where criminals have rights too.

*******
Alberta farmer Brian Knight successfully appeals conviction for shooting would-be thief | National Post

TEES, Alta.— A central Alberta farmer has successfully appealed his sentence for shooting at a would-be thief.

Brian Knight was convicted of criminal negligence causing bodily harm for hitting a man with light birdshot in March 2009.

The man was trying to steal an all-terrain vehicle from Knight’s property near Tees.

According to his lawyer, Knight, 41, was defending his property when he followed Harold Groening and shot him from behind with a 12-gauge shotgun containing light bird buckshot, the Calgary Herald reported.

Accounts of what happened that night say Mr. Groening took off on the ATV and was followed by Knight, who ended up hitting the ATV with his car when it swerved in front of him.

When Groening took off on foot, Knight fired a shot. When that still didn’t stop the would-be thief, Knight fired again. Groening was not seriously injured.

Last October, Knight was sentenced to 90 days in jail to be served on weekends. In April of 2010, Groening was sentenced to 30 days after pleading guilty to one count of theft under $5,000.

But the Alberta Court of Appeal has ruled that Knight’s punishment was unfit and has instead given him a suspended sentence.

He must complete 50 hours of community service and will be on probation for three months.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/06/alber...
Rambler

Red Deer, Canada

#34310 Sep 2, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Most married (or attached) women today do work. In fact, women surpass men in college graduates.
I don't know about your circle, but I know very few people who have the traditional family where the wife (or woman) stays home unless they are receiving public assistance. Besides the fact that the people I see all day long come in all ages, both sexes, all races and so on. There is no identifying characteristic of any of these people.
When I read statistics of our ever expanding welfare rolls, the fact that only half of the people in our country pay actual federal income tax, and then see all these people loafing around, I do draw conclusions. I can't prove my conclusions obviously, but I do draw them.
Ah, but you wrongly assume everyone who are not considered "employed" by statistical definition (keyword - paycheque) pay no federal income tax.

You're forgetting self-employed individuals including farmers, artists, writers. construction workers and so forth; business owners; people living on cash assets; those supported by company pension plans who aren't considered " employed" (working for someone) and still pay tax .....when you get older you will realize not everyone lives from paycheque to paycheque.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#34311 Sep 2, 2013
Huh wrote:
SYG opens the door for murder being legal. It is easy to say SYG SYG SYG after you shoot someone. Point is in many times it would be only the word of the shooter to base that stance on. I have come up with a dozen settings where I could provoke someone to attack me and then shoot them and get away with it based on SYG. It is a dangerous law. I have conceal carry myself and own many guns. And would use them in TRUE self defense. Point is Zimmerman went looking to confront Trayvon. Had he just stayed away Trayvon would be alive. WHO STARTED IT..........That is who is guilty in my eyes. Yes court said Zimmerman is innocent. To me he is guilty.
That's because you fail to look at what really happened.

Allow me to give you a scenario: you have an altercation with your neighbor. You and he part company for the night. The next day, your neighbor attacks you over something that happened the night before. Does he have that right to attack you even if you were threatening the previous night?

Trayvon ran away from Zimmerman. It was a short chase--perhaps a couple of seconds. That ended that ordeal. After Zimmerman hung up with 911, Martin attacked Zimmerman for something that happened a couple minutes before. He sought retaliation after reconsidering his actions of running away while on the phone with his pig girlfriend. He felt shamed obviously.

So what it boils down to is the fact that Zimmerman ran after Martin when he took off. That's it. However, because Zimmerman ran after Martin for that short period, you want him labeled as a murderer.

Ask yourself this; had this foot chase not have happened, but everything else remained the same, would you still think that Zimmerman murdered Martin, and if so, why? Because there has to be a particular element that made Zimmerman a murderer in your eyes. And if not the chase, what then?
hey marce

National City, CA

#34312 Sep 2, 2013
Rambler wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but the first definition of the word does not necessarily mean one looking out for another's welfare can only be the government. Overtime the word has indeed became associated with poverty only. It's an example of how it can be difficult to translate language and understand the writer's meaning of a word.
wel·fare
n.
1.
a. Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being.
b. Prosperity.
'Overtime the word has indeed became associated with poverty only.' That is incorrect.
Rambler

Red Deer, Canada

#34313 Sep 2, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all. Our new society has to learn to control their anger. Nobody should be in a position of being punched unless they agreed to an honest fight. If somebody punches me, then I am being attacked and I have no idea what my attackers plans are.
If you don't want to get shot and die, then don't punch anybody; simple as that. But if you are one of those people who simply cannot control their anger, then like Trayvon, you will end up as worm food and it's perfectly legal.
That's not quite true.

Do you understand the definition of PROVOCATION or is that something you will learn that in school next year?

The SYG law was not intended to protect you if you PROVOKE the attack by intentionally making someone angry.

Psssttt......you're supposed to be 18 years old to post on Topix.
Rambler

Red Deer, Canada

#34314 Sep 2, 2013
* learn in school

See, I never was trained as a typist and furthermore my fingers want to tap out the first word that enters my mind and look what happens!

Get a good education to broaden your horizons and you'll look back in time and want to forget when you were "xxxrayted".
Huh

Owatonna, MN

#34315 Sep 2, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
That's because you fail to look at what really happened.
Allow me to give you a scenario: you have an altercation with your neighbor. You and he part company for the night. The next day, your neighbor attacks you over something that happened the night before. Does he have that right to attack you even if you were threatening the previous night?
Trayvon ran away from Zimmerman. It was a short chase--perhaps a couple of seconds. That ended that ordeal. After Zimmerman hung up with 911, Martin attacked Zimmerman for something that happened a couple minutes before. He sought retaliation after reconsidering his actions of running away while on the phone with his pig girlfriend. He felt shamed obviously.
So what it boils down to is the fact that Zimmerman ran after Martin when he took off. That's it. However, because Zimmerman ran after Martin for that short period, you want him labeled as a murderer.
Ask yourself this; had this foot chase not have happened, but everything else remained the same, would you still think that Zimmerman murdered Martin, and if so, why? Because there has to be a particular element that made Zimmerman a murderer in your eyes. And if not the chase, what then?
Ok. How about this scenario. I walk up to your wife and call her all the nasty names in the book. I say all sorts of vile things I would do to her. You not wanting a fight just try to walk on by me but as you do you bump into me. I FEEL THRETAEND I PULL GUN AND KILL YOU...

Was I legal to do so since I stood my ground.

Or at a bar you walk by me trip a bit and spill your drink on me and fall into me....I FEEL THEATENED AND PULL GUN AND KILL YOU....Was I legal to do so???????

The answer to both by Florida SYG law is YES..........That is scary and dangerous.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#34316 Sep 2, 2013
Rambler wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not quite true.
Do you understand the definition of PROVOCATION or is that something you will learn that in school next year?
The SYG law was not intended to protect you if you PROVOKE the attack by intentionally making someone angry.
Psssttt......you're supposed to be 18 years old to post on Topix.
I would give six months paychecks to be 18 years old again. But you might not understand that until you reach my age sonny.

Let's try this again: nobody can make you angry. You can only make yourself angry. A person may try to make you angry, but entering a state of anger is your decision--not anybody else's. Being angry, sad, happy, humorous is not in control of anybody else but you unless you have an extremely weak mind.

There is nobody that can provoke me to pull out my gun unless in self-defense. There is nobody that can provoke me to hit them, spit on them, or insult their family. Nobody can puppet me into physical action. I have to make the decision to take action on my own. I can also decide not to take physical action. That's my decision and nobody has control over my body except myself.

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#34317 Sep 2, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't consider a system where people put money in and then get something out as welfare. I consider welfare as those who put nothing in but get everything out while working people pay.
Social Security (when started) was a system that very few collected on. Most people didn't live long enough to collect. It was relatively a very small deduction out of your paycheck. As time went on and people began living longer--and politicians began increasing payouts, the system became corrupt and brought us to the point where it's unsustainable. Today for most people, it's your second highest deduction out of your paycheck not to mention your employers matching contribution which is actually your money indirectly.
What I object to is that it's operated by the federal government which has no authority to provide retirement benefits. Now if a state wanted to start a retirement program, then that's fine with me. Or perhaps if the federal government gave you an opt-out option, but they don't.
The problem is people are not paying into nothing just paying another tax that the Federal Government created and labeled it as Social Security tax which is just like any other tax that goes to the General Fund of the US Treasury and the Social Security program is just another Federal Government Spending Program administered by the Federal Government Program which the Federal Government can increase or reduce welfare benefits which the Federal Government has done several times and they can also eliminate the Social Security Spending program welfare benefits at anytime which is specified in section 1104 titled Reservation of Power and I agree the Federal Government shouldn't be able to mandate people to particiapte in the Ponzi Scheme especially when the Federal Government has the right to eliminate the Social Security Program and Welfare Benefits associated with it besides when you had people who only paid $24.75 into Social Security and got back $22,888 you can see why it is considered welfare and was the case for alot of people and still is.

RESERVATION OF POWER

http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title11/1104...

Ida May Fuller

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ida_May_Fuller
Rambler

Red Deer, Canada

#34318 Sep 2, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
So what it boils down to is the fact that Zimmerman ran after Martin when he took off. That's it. However, because Zimmerman ran after Martin for that short period, you want him labeled as a murderer.
Ask yourself this; had this foot chase not have happened, but everything else remained the same, would you still think that Zimmerman murdered Martin, and if so, why? Because there has to be a particular element that made Zimmerman a murderer in your eyes. And if not the chase, what then?
It boils down to the simple fact that when prosecution witnesses testify on behalf of a defendant, the state is left with no goods to convict.

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#34319 Sep 2, 2013
Rambler wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but the first definition of the word does not necessarily mean one looking out for another's welfare can only be the government. Overtime the word has indeed became associated with poverty only. It's an example of how it can be difficult to translate language and understand the writer's meaning of a word.
wel·fare
n.
1.
a. Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being.
b. Prosperity.
you are using the same argument that Alexander Hamilton and James Madison argued what welfare meant just like what the Justification was used for the Social Security Act of 1935.

Enough Is Enough: Why General Welfare Limits Spending

By John C. Eastman

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011...
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#34320 Sep 2, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok. How about this scenario. I walk up to your wife and call her all the nasty names in the book. I say all sorts of vile things I would do to her. You not wanting a fight just try to walk on by me but as you do you bump into me. I FEEL THRETAEND I PULL GUN AND KILL YOU...
Was I legal to do so since I stood my ground.
Or at a bar you walk by me trip a bit and spill your drink on me and fall into me....I FEEL THEATENED AND PULL GUN AND KILL YOU....Was I legal to do so???????
The answer to both by Florida SYG law is YES..........That is scary and dangerous.
No, because you think SYG is a get out of jail free card. It's not.

Any and all shootings are investigated by detectives. If you claim that some drunk spilled a drink on you and you felt threatened enough to use a firearm to kill the drunk, no SYG law will protect you. Your case will be heard by a grand jury and you will likely go to prison for decades.

But since you like the bar scene so much, let me offer you another scenario:

I'm at the bar and somebody is giving me a hard time. Because I recognize that this patron is angry enough to attack me, I announce I'm leaving the establishment. In that process, the drunk stands up and stops me from leaving the bar. He throws a punch at me and I defend myself.

I level the attacker and police interview the witnesses. They find my story is true and accurate. I tried to avoid the violent situation and only threw one punch to defend myself; a punch enough to disable my attacker. The police let me go home and charge the drunk with felonious assault should I decide to press charges.

But what if the police arrived, and they found me beating the drunks head against the bar even though he was long from disabled from further attack and I was just retaliating? I would be arrested for felonious assault and possibly attempted murder.

The point is that even if Zimmerman didn't have a firearm, Martin left the point of self-defense and entered into felonious assault. Had Zimmerman not had a firearm and police found Martin holding Zimmerman down, beating him while he screamed for mercy, Martin would have been arrested for felonious assault since obviously, he long crossed the threshold of self-defense.

Before Martin was shot, he was breaking the law. There is no way anybody can claim Martin was acting in self-defense. He was in the process of felonious assault, and the person he attacked defended himself from such an assault. How does that make him a murderer?
Rambler

Red Deer, Canada

#34321 Sep 2, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
I would give six months paychecks to be 18 years old again. But you might not understand that until you reach my age sonny.
Let's try this again: nobody can make you angry. You can only make yourself angry. A person may try to make you angry, but entering a state of anger is your decision--not anybody else's. Being angry, sad, happy, humorous is not in control of anybody else but you unless you have an extremely weak mind.
There is nobody that can provoke me to pull out my gun unless in self-defense. There is nobody that can provoke me to hit them, spit on them, or insult their family. Nobody can puppet me into physical action. I have to make the decision to take action on my own. I can also decide not to take physical action. That's my decision and nobody has control over my body except myself.
LOL!!!

Sorry, you can pretend that you're "old" but it's very obvious by the lack of maturity in your words that you're playing what you think is an amusing game by pretending to be an adult.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Orlando Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 6 min Barry Choomer Soe... 1,153,150
Missing 5-year-old Florida girl likely was abdu... (Feb '09) 26 min zazz 96,619
Inspiration Lane - Don't Quit (May '09) 46 min Murph 70,593
Let's Chat (Jan '12) 2 hr Miles 17,704
CASEY: Does the State Have the Goods to Convict? (Mar '10) 2 hr mary from new yawk 490,136
Review: Global Motorwerks LLC (Aug '13) 14 hr Melanie 7
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 17 hr kal 49,174
Orlando Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Orlando People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Orlando News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Orlando

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 8:03 pm PST

Bleacher Report 8:03PM
Breaking Down Green Bay's Game Plan
Bleacher Report 8:50 PM
What the Buccaneers Can Do to Salvage Rest of 2014 Regular Season
NBC Sports 4:55 AM
Sen'Derrick Marks has 600,000 reasons to play hard tonight
Bleacher Report 5:06 AM
Fantasy Football Week 16: Complete Thursday Night Preview
Bleacher Report 6:00 AM
Jaguars vs Titans: Full NFL 'Thursday Night Football' Preview and Prediction