Trayvon Martin Shooting Shows Perils ...

Trayvon Martin Shooting Shows Perils of Lax U.S. Gun Laws

There are 9853 comments on the Bloomberg story from Mar 20, 2012, titled Trayvon Martin Shooting Shows Perils of Lax U.S. Gun Laws. In it, Bloomberg reports that:

The Justice Department opened an investigation this week into the killing of Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old high school student who was shot dead on Feb.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Bloomberg.

Dan

Roseville, CA

#7447 Sep 3, 2012
Tray wrote:
<quoted text> You can't find 12 people on here so just how are you going to find 12 for a jury to say guilty? Remember it only takes one for him to walk but takes 12 to serve time and then he has appeals with 12 more and 12 more. Your tax dollar going to a deep hole.
"Here" is nothing but a majority of biased individuals who would probably find merit in someone shooting another because they accidentally ran their shopping carts into each other at the supermarket....LOL!!!!
And as it is friend 'I' don't have to find 12 jurors....the defense and the prosecution will manage that.
My tax 'dollar'??? Well idiot....it's more important to make sure me or others don't get shot because some gun toting moron thinks he's protecting his life and feels compelled to shoot when he gets pushed for blocking the way to the men's bathroom during halftime at a football gamed...LOL!!! George had all SORTS of options that night not only to avoid the situation but be a man. He chose to act like a punk and it cost a life. Screw him and screw you for being stupid enough to defend the punk.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#7448 Sep 3, 2012
Tray wrote:
<quoted text> Georges injuries were too light to claim self defense? Just how many wounds did Trayvon get to justify self defense? Let's refer to the physical evidence. Oops Trayvon had no defensive wounds. Looks like George walks and a thug gets to feed the worms.
Let's say someone followed you around like a God damned creep at night and would not stop. Let's say they intervened in your path at one or more points. Let's say they never identified themselves but continued their actions in playing a threatening role.

Better to act thanm to wait and see what happens. Most reasonable people with balls will follow that path but maybe you'd go screaming into the woods screaming like a little bitch girl who knows....LOL!!!

There's many plausible and reasonable reasons as to why things went down like they did and they too can point to the fact Trayvon felt endangered.

Don't forget Einstein - it was George following Trayvon around at night like some freakish stalker with a gun.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#7449 Sep 3, 2012
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text> Fractured nose is light? Perhaps he should have waited for more damage to be inflicted before shooting? Another poster with no experience with violent e.counters.
ROFL!!!!!!!!!

I saw and read about his wounds. George probably felt his life was in danger when momma spanked his ass for getgting an F in geometry friend. That case in Texas in which that retired fireman blew away a teacher is no better.

Maybe before we issxue concealed permits for guns we should establish the carrier can actually tell a life threatening situation from a scuffle. And as it is George brought that little episode upon HIMSELF so don't forget the facts that will not be denied in court Chief.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#7450 Sep 3, 2012
eternal cynic wrote:
<quoted text>
Thatís the first factual statement youíve made. The facts donít change with new shoes, lawyers or by painting the courtroom. The evidence still would point to legal self-defense.
Wanna bet?

LOL!!!!
Dan

Roseville, CA

#7451 Sep 3, 2012
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't have any "facts", dimbulb. All you have is speculation based on what could have been one possible scenario. Plus, in order to get a guilt on 2nd degree murder, you have to prove malicious intent. Where is your "proof" of such?? There is a TON of reasonable doubt in this case on both sides of the aisle, and guess what that means, genius?? That right...Zimmemrman walks.
You dombass....there's a BOATLAOD of facts.

A 17 year old unarmed BOY is shot dead by some busybody punk of a man who felt his life was in danger and killed the kid after he followed him around like a freaking pedophile only to have it end up in a scuffle all of which could have been avoided by the shooter.

Don't pick and choose friend. The court won't.

That fireman in Texas who claimed 'sefl defense' after shooting his neighbor thought he could hide behind a 'stand your ground' ruling and he walked. He walked straight into prison. LOL!!!!

Zimmerman will probably not get life over this but he's gonna have a few gray hairs before he can walk down a public street again is my bet and it's shared by a plethora of others Ace.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#7452 Sep 3, 2012
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're another person that subscribes to the notion that a victim must wait until they are blacking out, their skull cracks open...or facing one with a knife they have to be stabbed first...or wait for the guy with the gun to shoot first.
When can a woman begin to defend against rape...when she is pinned down..?..after her panties are ripped off..?..criminal has his johnson out..?..or does she have to wait for full penetration...or deposit of his semen..?
Remember, these are the words contained in the law;
"...reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself..."
"...prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony..."
"...imminent danger of death or great bodily harm..."
Any "attack" Trayvon made upon George can be seen as self defense.

Trayvon did not have a history of beating up strangers.

Any reasonable person could and probably would have felt threatened by having some strange man follow them around leading them to feel a need to defend themselves.

The actual injuries George substained were not life threatening. There's a ton of people out there who have had real world experience and don't count on the jury being made up of delicate houseives who have only ventured out of their house because Target had a sale on toilet paper.

Ohhh....the defense is going to push self defense harder than some hobo is working his bumming skills to get enough money for a bottle of Mad Dog 20/20 but the prosecution also has a case in showing George not only got himself into this mess but probably couldn't tell the difference from a bitch slap from a shotgun blast to the face.

Zimmerman was irresponsible all around here Chief. If you want to stand behind every pussy who feels "threatened" by even blue haired old ladies at the supermarket whom are getting pushy then it's your idiotic opinion, not mine. I'd rather see cases of REAL self defense bolster the idea we should be allowed guns.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#7454 Sep 3, 2012
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're another person that subscribes to the notion that a victim must wait until they are blacking out, their skull cracks open...or facing one with a knife they have to be stabbed first...or wait for the guy with the gun to shoot first.
When can a woman begin to defend against rape...when she is pinned down..?..after her panties are ripped off..?..criminal has his johnson out..?..or does she have to wait for full penetration...or deposit of his semen..?
Remember, these are the words contained in the law;
"...reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself..."
"...prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony..."
"...imminent danger of death or great bodily harm..."
I gotta come back to this.

Let's see if a reasonable jury will see Zimmerman's case as one in which an innocent man was brutally beaten for no reason by a strange BOY and felt his life was "in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm" because that's the train we're on and I don't think you're going to like the final destination.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#7455 Sep 3, 2012
Tray wrote:
<quoted text> That's right, only facts get into the courtroom not racist bull. No "maybe, could be, might have, I didn't see but assume, but Sharpton said so, NBC said so, or once upon a time". You can't provide evidence then it's crap for the state. George walks and gets big checks from NBC, Sharpton, Lee, Jackson, and book and movie deals. Thugs must find a new line of work or feed worms.
WTF???

No racism. Factual occurances based on the actions of Zimmerman.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#7456 Sep 3, 2012
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text> Fractured nose is light? Perhaps he should have waited for more damage to be inflicted before shooting? Another poster with no experience with violent e.counters.
There was a case where there was a man working in his open garage late one day and a high school foreign exchange student from Japan was with his friends all dressed up since it was Halloween only to approach the man in the man's driveway for f-ing candy and ended up getting shot and killed by that man because the fool in the garage felt his "life was in danger".

That shooter has the same ball size as you apparently.

How did momma raise you? In the BASEMENT?

LOL!!!!
Dan

Roseville, CA

#7457 Sep 3, 2012
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
When can a woman begin to defend against rape...when she is pinned down..?..after her panties are ripped off..?..criminal has his johnson out..?..or does she have to wait for full penetration...or deposit of his semen..?
Was Trayvon trying to rape pudgy boy George?

LOL!!!

Talk about a derailment of facts.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#7458 Sep 3, 2012
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
God help the Girl Scout who shows up at your door one day to demand the money you owe her for the 3 boxes of 'Thin Mints' you ordered and gets a little pushy.

She'll be dead from you emptying your clip off your 9 MM into her abdomen and you'll find yourself in court all teary eyed you had no choice because you felt your 'life was in danger'.

LOL!!!!

Balless asses like you and Zimmerman don't have the judgement skills to own guns Skippy.

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#7459 Sep 3, 2012
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's say someone followed you around like a God damned creep at night and would not stop. Let's say they intervened in your path at one or more points. Let's say they never identified themselves but continued their actions in playing a threatening role.
Better to act thanm to wait and see what happens. Most reasonable people with balls will follow that path but maybe you'd go screaming into the woods screaming like a little bitch girl who knows....LOL!!!
There's many plausible and reasonable reasons as to why things went down like they did and they too can point to the fact Trayvon felt endangered.
Don't forget Einstein - it was George following Trayvon around at night like some freakish stalker with a gun.
You are advocating battery.

That is against the law.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#7460 Sep 3, 2012
Where Is My America wrote:
<quoted text>You are advocating battery.
That is against the law.
Hardly.

I'm advocating self defense and that's not.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#7461 Sep 3, 2012
Where Is My America wrote:
<quoted text>You are advocating battery.
That is against the law.
Going out for a jog.

While I'm gone you polish your guns, read your Guns & Ammo magazine or Soldier Of Fortune rag and keep on thinking it would be a case of self defense by shooting your neighbor's 12 year old daughter because she climbed the fense to retrieve a Frisbee.

Maybe you too will end up in the hot seat Zimmerfman is in because your judgement skills are based on those only a pussy would support.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#7462 Sep 3, 2012
...fence...

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#7463 Sep 3, 2012
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Hardly.
I'm advocating self defense and that's not.
Striking someone because they are following you is battery not self defence.

You advocate that , you said it now try and be a man and own it.
Mogatti

Ontario, CA

#7464 Sep 3, 2012
Where Is My America wrote:
<quoted text>Striking someone because they are following you is battery not self defence.
You advocate that , you said it now try and be a man and own it.
Dan is anything but a man.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#7465 Sep 3, 2012
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
ROFL!!!!!!!!!
I saw and read about his wounds. George probably felt his life was in danger when momma spanked his ass for getgting an F in geometry friend. That case in Texas in which that retired fireman blew away a teacher is no better.
Maybe before we issxue concealed permits for guns we should establish the carrier can actually tell a life threatening situation from a scuffle. And as it is George brought that little episode upon HIMSELF so don't forget the facts that will not be denied in court Chief.
Spoken by one whose exposure to violence is limited to his or her 3rd grade "scuffle". Totally clueless but very willing to decide when someone elses life was in danger and dictating how they should or should not respond.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#7466 Sep 3, 2012
Where Is My America wrote:
<quoted text>Striking someone because they are following you is battery not self defence.
You advocate that , you said it now try and be a man and own it.
We'll see once court adjourns.

You don't strike an old woman who happens to be behind you at a fruitstand.

You don't strike someone behind you at a movie theatre.

You don't slam on your brakes, jump out of the car because someone happened to be going the same route on a freeway.

But in this case a man had been harassing and following a stranger at night without doing so much as identifying himself so yeah Einstein....I can see someone thinking George possessed a menacing posture that might worthy of self defense.

Let's see how the court puts this all together because I'm willing to bet my penny collection George is going to be wearing prison orange, blue or stripes when this is done.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#7467 Sep 3, 2012
Mogatti wrote:
<quoted text>Dan is anything but a man.
If I were only 10 heading to the fourth grade thinking about skateboarding I'd be more of a man than your pudgy hero who felt it necessary to shoot an unarmed kid in the fashion he did friend.

Both my balls dropped some years ago....you might still be wondering what those SunMaid raisins dangling from between your legs are but there ya go fruitcake....LOL!!!

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.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News 'We can't be intimidated' 1 hr Cat74 127
News Charleston Gazette-Mail Spreads Lies About West... 9 hr Zoey 1
News 'It's a matter of liberty. We should be ashamed... Wed Jagermann 3
News Obama Won't Be Pushing Second Amendment Rollbac... Mon Truth and Facts 107
Facing possible ban, more Americans are buying ... Aug 30 Truth and Facts 7
News Joe The Plumber Stands By Shocking Holocaust Ch... (Jun '12) Aug 30 Swedenforever 7
News Why the U.S. is No. 1 -- in mass shootings Aug 28 Truth and Facts 7
More from around the web