Trayvon Martin Shooting Shows Perils ...

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

There are 9850 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.


Oakland, CA

#9751 Jun 27, 2013
Tray wrote:
<quoted text> He did play football didn't he? How do you know what kind of fighter he was? His own text messages state he was. The point being how do you claim he was a weak little kid based only on his size?
I don't and neither do you - ye white trash idiot!

Oakland, CA

#9752 Jun 27, 2013
Oh yeah, just your friendly neighborhood watchman gunning down any young black man that dares step foot in the neighborhood! Nothing to see here, move along!

Mexico, Mexico

#9753 Jun 27, 2013
spocko wrote:
Oh yeah, just your friendly neighborhood watchman gunning down any young black man that dares step foot in the neighborhood! Nothing to see here, move along!
If George had been more patient and kept a distance he could've caught him breaking inside a home. It was just a matter of time. By the way the "star" witness acts like shes not to fluent in English. What her main language? Ghetto gorilla chitchat or what?

Saltillo, MS

#9754 Jun 27, 2013
RuffnReddy wrote:
<quoted text>So you aren't watching along either right? Just spouting nonsense.
George has told four stories, not one of which make any sense, and he was right there in the thick of things.
George claims he was attacked and the evidence supports that. Nothing else said has physical evidence to support the claims. What does that have to do with the question I asked that you dodged? One state witness said she heard screams for help but didn't because she didn't have a gun. My question is: If she had a gun and decided to help and saw Trayvon on top of George beating him could she shoot to defend George even though she had no idea who started the confrontation? If she did shoot Trayvon believing she had no choice would she be on trial for murder? Had she been a cop and shot the person on top would she be on trial for murder for defending a citizen from an attack even if the cop had no idea who started the fight? Caution this is a trick question because these scenarios have played out before and ruled in court. I do look forward to your unbiased opinion.

Saltillo, MS

#9755 Jun 27, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't and neither do you - ye white trash idiot!
Exactly. Thanks for finally admitting you can't back your claims with any proof. Being as you keep being PROVEN over and over to be a liar, fool and very biased and ignoring facts you might want to reconsider who is the idiot.

Saltillo, MS

#9756 Jun 27, 2013
A Dania Beach man chased a hit-and-run driver who crashed into a motorcyclist on Interstate 95. The man yanked the drunken driver out of his car at a stoplight in Hollywood and wrestled him to the ground.

The Dania Beach driver, who had witnessed the crash, kept the man in a headlock until police arrived.

Florida is among many states that follows common law regarding citizen's arrest. You can detain someone, until police arrive, if you witness a felony or have reasonable belief someone committed a felony. You should tell a person if they are under arrest, but don't worry about reading them Miranda rights. By the way it is legal to follow and even ask a question.

Saltillo, MS

#9757 Jun 27, 2013

-- You can chase down someone you saw snatch a woman's purse or take down someone you see violently hurting someone.

--You can detain someone you were told committed a felony, if you have strong evidence and witnesses.

--You can stop a drunken driver from getting behind the wheel, if you have strong evidence and witnesses.

--You can legally follow a suspicious person and even ask them a question.

--Being followed or asked a question is not a crime or grounds for attacking the person following or asking the question.

Saltillo, MS

#9758 Jun 27, 2013
The killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman has garnered the most headlines, but killings during the commission of law enforcement by a citizen happens frequently.

Saltillo, MS

#9759 Jun 27, 2013
(CBS/AP) SANFORD, Fla.- The leader of a self-described black militia group says members will go to Sanford next week to attempt a citizen's arrest on George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch leader who admitted to fatally shooting unarmed black teen Trayvon Martin.

Najee Muhammad, a member of the New Black Liberation Militia, announced Thursday that members of the group plan to take the 28-year-old Zimmerman to federal authorities since local police haven't acted.

Hmmm. Anyone see a double standard here?

Saltillo, MS

#9760 Jun 27, 2013
There is no mention of citizen's arrests in Florida's criminal statutes but state courts have cited common law in establishing when such an arrest can be made. The crime has to be a felony. It has to be witnessed by the citizen making the arrest or the citizen has to have probable cause that the person being arrested is guilty of a felony. You can LEGALLY follow a suspicious person and observe them you can even ask them a question.

Saltillo, MS

#9761 Jun 27, 2013
Police vs. Citizen Arrests

It's easier for police to make an arrest and handcuff the person arrested
because the suspect knows police will use force when necessary and will
shoot back when shot at. When a citizen attempts a citizen arrest, the
first question in the mind of the person being arrested is "what authority
do you have?" And the next question is, "do you have a gun to enforce an
arrest?" Lawbreakers know citizens don't usually have permits to carry
handguns. If they intend to resist arrest, they may pull a gun or knife on
you. When making an arrest for a serious crime, the lawbreaker may be
desperate or doped up. They may try to wound or kill you to escape. If you
don't have a weapon to defend yourself you could get seriously wounded or

Lawyers and police officers will "ADVISE" you to just report the criminal
activity and never attempt a citizen arrest. Generally, this is the best
advice you'll get. However, sometimes police aren't handy, a telephone is
far away, and the criminal will escape if you don't do something right then
and there -- and you might lose many thousands of dollars in reward money!

Saltillo, MS

#9762 Jun 27, 2013
In some States a citizen is required by law to arrest anyone caught in the
act of committing a felony or immediately afterward. Citizens may be fined
or put in prison when they don't try to make an arrest. Although this is
seldom enforced, anyone witnessing a felony is supposed to make an arrest
or assist an officer or a citizen (when asked) to make an arrest. It's your
duty. Find out if there is such a law in your state, and if so, that law
is your authority to quote if anyone asks "what authority do you have?"

Title 18, Section 3059 is a Federal catch-all law that provides citizens
with authority to make arrests, by force if necessary, and by deadly force
if deadly force is required. If there is no state law that provides you
with authority to make citizen arrests, quote the federal law.

Saltillo, MS

#9763 Jun 27, 2013
United States Statutes

Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure



Saltillo, MS

#9764 Jun 27, 2013
It is common for police to use the common law "citizens arrest" when arresting a person outside their jurisdiction. Courts often issue a reward for the capture of criminals. This is often a very lucrative line of work for those wishing to collect on these rewards.

Saltillo, MS

#9765 Jun 27, 2013
spocko wrote:
Oh yeah, just your friendly neighborhood watchman gunning down any young black man that dares step foot in the neighborhood! Nothing to see here, move along!
AFTER the young black man attacked a resident of a private, gated community of which he was not a member.

Saltillo, MS

#9766 Jun 27, 2013
: The citizen took steps to keep the suspect on the
scene, follow him, identify him, or lear
n his whereabouts—any of which could
reasonably indicate that he wanted to have the officers arrest him when they
For example, in
a man named Baughn saw Imogene Green driving
erratically. Suspecting that she was drunk, Baughn followed her until she pulled into the P
driveway of her home and stopped. At that point, he decided to arrest her but “was afraid
to drag [her] out of her car and arrest her un
assisted.” So he went looking for an officer
and, when he found one, explained what he had seen. Other officers were dispatched to
Green’s home where, having found her asleep in her car, they arrested her for DUI.
Green contended the arrest was unlawful because the arresting officers had not seen
her driving the vehicle; i.e., the crime had not occurred in their presence. But the court
ruled that it didn’t matter because it was apparent that Baughn had, and that he had
delegated to the officers his authority to make the arrest. Said the court,“[T]he police
were acting as agents assisting in effectuating Baughn’s citizen’s arrest .... The entire
sequence of events beginning when Baughn decided to arrest respondent and went to get
help constitutes the arrest.”

Saltillo, MS

#9767 Jun 27, 2013
a man named Weatherford happened to be looking out
a window of his home in San Jose when he saw Johnson carrying a club and prowling
around the homes of his neighbors. While Weatherford’s wife reported the incident to the
police, Weatherford followed Johnson for a w
hile then, having returned home, told the
responding officers what he had seen. He also
told them where he had last seen Johnson.
The officers spotted him a few minutes later, arrested him, and transported him back to
Weatherford who made the arrest.
On appeal, the court ruled that Weatherford’s conduct clearly demonstrated an
implied delegation of authority to the officers. Said the court:
Weatherford’s actions in summoning police, following the suspect, pointing the
suspect’s whereabouts to police, and thereafter effecting a citizen’s arrest,
reasonably support the inference that it was his intention that the prowler be
arrested and that had he known at the outset that it was necessary for him to
effect the arrest, he would have delegated that authority to the police, as the law
allows him to do.

Saltillo, MS

#9768 Jun 27, 2013

a woman in South San Francisco saw a prowler
outside her home at about midnight and immedi
ately notified the police. A little later,
officers detained a suspect nearby and asked
the woman to look out her window to see if
he was the prowler. She positively identifi
ed him, but because she was wearing a robe
and nightgown, she requested that one of the officers make the arrest. On appeal, the
court ruled the arrest was lawful, explaining,“The fact that she did not physically
confront appellant is not significant. It is su
fficient that she directed the officer to make
the arrest and observed him doing so from her window.”
One other thing. Neither the citizen nor the officers are required to formally arrest the
suspect if, under the circumstances, a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would
have known he was under arrest. This has happened, for example, when the citizen took
the defendant “by the arm and told him he was going to call the police,”

and when the
citizen pursued the suspect and held him until officers arrived.

Saltillo, MS

#9770 Jun 28, 2013
Lifffffe Coachhhh wrote:
Do you remember the time you mother called 911 and those friendly policemen took you to "get some help " and those nice people let you stay in the nervous hospital for 14 days. And do you remember that nice man with the beard and the soft voice who smoked a pipe and told you that you could go home if you promised to take this pill every six hours....
Well it's time for your dose again Tray
No I don't. But I have spent a many an hour in a court room. I have been surprised each and every time. No matter how well you think you know the law it is always changing simply by some lawyer with a new argument and some judge or jury buying it. Our legal system has nothing to do with right or wrong but who can shovel the most crap. Your guilt or innocents depends more on how much lawyer you can buy than the law. We have so many laws no one knows even half of them. A good lawyer will search till he finds one that makes you innocent no matter what you have done. The state in this case has no case but they hope to shovel enough crap to make 6 people who have no idea of the law think they do. It won't work but it should still be a good show.

Saltillo, MS

#9771 Jun 28, 2013
Everyone on here thinks this is the first time a case like this has been in court. It's not. This exact scenario has been played out hundreds of times in courts all across this nation. Most of the time the defendant was never charged with a crime and of those who were 99 out of 100 walked. This case is pure politics nothing more. The state is guilty of witness tampering. The witnesses so far have been proven liars. If the judge was not so biased the case would already be declared a mistrial.

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 2nd Amendment still poses issues 15 hr FormerParatrooper 4
News How will President Trump shape crime and polici... (Nov '16) Tue Scott Lane 7
Safe carry Mon payme 24
News Reader Reaction Forum: Will concealed carry mak... (Jun '11) Jan 17 Hendo 45
News Secret sting operation by the GAO blows away th... Jan 12 Say What 3
News Malloy: Bump stocks should be banned in Connect... Jan 12 Say What 3
News NJ's new governor could sue feds over concealed... Jan 5 jimwildrickjr 2
More from around the web