Jordan Davis and the Case of Two Different Sets of Laws

jordan-davisBecause we care so much, George “Child Murderer” Zimmerman reminds us that he’s the real victim – as manipulative child abusers are wont to do. But let’s refocus our energies and remember that Zimmerman got off clean under a legislative and judicial system that would have thrown the book at him if he had a darker skin-tone.

The case of Michael Dunn and Jordan Davis repeats the case that George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin made clear a year ago: Guns have more rights in the United States judicial system than black youth do. Consider the fact that Zimmerman was set to go free no matter what the evidence showed according to the ways the Stand Your Ground laws were written in Florida and enacted in that court. Consider that members of the jury admitted as much. Consider the fact that Dunn went back to his car, retrieved a gun from his glove compartment, shot into a car nine times while his victims never got out of the car, kept shooting at it while they were driving away with Davis having been fatally shot, and then had the gall and practicality to claim “self-defense.” Despite the clarity that this was a case of pre-meditated murder, his jury could not figure this out for several straight days and still could not agree with that.

Consider that any time a law is written to restrict easy, unaccountable access to guns like those that Zimmerman and Dunn carried on them (but that neither Davis nor Martin had), those laws are deemed “unconstitutional” by the courts. But the constitutionality of the Stand Your Ground laws which deem one guilty unto death without evidence is never questioned. Those laws which openly oppose the fifth and fourteenth amendments where the government, not self-appointed vigilantes, is supposed to carry out such judgments and do so under the presumption of innocence.

Vigilante laws are, by nature, unconstitutional. Yet here we are, with some version of the Stand Your Ground laws in 31 states. Supported by our biggest lawmakers – not elected representatives, but big money lobbyists ALEC and the NRA.

In the United States, black and Native people are presumed guilty. This is how we got our lands and the free labor for our big ol’ capitalist empire. This is how we fill our prisons via the War on Drugs – undermining communities of color while making our White and Middle Class citizens feel somehow safer (but not really). Stand Your Ground laws are not the New Jim Crow. That’s what prison – and specifically for-profit prison – is for. Stand Your Grounds are the re-legitimizing and legal tolerance of lynching. They exist to keep Black people – the permanent underclass – in their placeas the permanent underclass.

They go so far as to protect white citizens in white neighborhoods from black women looking for help on their porches – as was the case with Theodore Wafer after he shot Renisha McBride who totaled her car and was looking for a phone to make some phone calls. She was shot while knocking on a door, through a screen door. Wafer was free for several days under the presumption of innocence for “self-defense” under the Castle Doctrine (a cousin to the Stand Your Ground laws). McBride’s innocence was questionable, her being a young black person.

Some would argue that Black people should be able to simply fire back and use the law to their advantage, to defend themselves from Zimmermans and Dunns and Wafers and other people they find to be dangerous. But that’s not the case as the trials and convictions of Marissa Alexander and Michael Giles evidence. Both Alexander and Giles were charged, in Florida again, under what is known as the 10-20-Life law, which gives a mandatory minimum of ten years for brandishing a gun in public (Zimmerman get that?), another ten for firing a gun (um…), and another five if someone was hit (well??). Alexander, despite being in fear of her husband, was given the first twenty for shooting a warning shot in her house (admittedly, not the safest) and Giles the full man-min for shooting at a man who knocked him out at a club melee (again, not the brightest thing to do).

According to (the admittedly horrible) SYG laws, Giles and Alexander should be scot-free, just like Zimmerman (who, remember, actually killed a kid). These two laws – Stand Your Ground and the 10-20-Life Mandatory Minimum – seem to be applied differently. One for white people. One for black.


It’s not all doom and gloom, though. The laws written by racist demagogues may not be on the side of the people, but the power of the people does belong to the people. Take to the streets. Organize. Write letters. Vote. Take action. March. Morally educate. Call offices. Overpower the forces of the American Legislative Executive Council (ALEC) and other sponsors of these SYG bills. Because these so-called Dangerous Black Kids are just kids. Glorious, smart, cute, wonderful, passionate, silly, delectable, curious, mischievous, willful, smart, serious, eager kids – like other human kids. They deserve the same chances at life. Laws and courts should be making sure they are protected. As another kid – 12-year-old Madison Kimrey of the Moral Mondays rallies in North Carolina – put it:

Stand your ground. Who needs a gun to help them stand? Standing with a gun means standing in blood surrounded by injury and lifelessness. Standing requires strength and there’s no strength that comes from killing another person. These killers were not strong in anything but prejudice and violence.

Everyone wants justice. Does justice even exist if these young men died for nothing regardless of the sentence their killers serve? I’m angry and I’m sad. But that won’t change the fact I know the names of these young men because they were taken away by hate. True justice for them will be to help stop that hate.

jasdye

When he’s not riding both his city’s public transit system and evil mayor, Jasdye teaches at a community college and writes about the intersection of equality and faith - with an occasional focus on Chicago - at the Left Cheek blog and on the Left Cheek: the Blog Facebook page. Check out more from Jasdye in his archives as well!

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Jim Bean

    To describe Zimmerman as a ‘child murderer’ after he underwent due process and was acquitted by a jury of his peers on the basis of the evidence of the case is treasonous, anti-American, requires a belief in one’s own supernatural powers and a complete lack of respect for the twelve brains on the jury. And to blame the unsubstantiated allegation on racism just further deepens and reinforces racial divides – perhaps what the author is surreptitiously striving for.

    • Alec

      Fvck you

    • More White Supremacy Apologism. Thanks, Jim Bean for not listening and always trolling. You’ve been NOT great!

    • Adam

      George Zimmerman stalked a kid in his neighborhood, provoked a confrontation when advised not to do so by authorities, and killed him with a gun. You don’t like calling him a “child murderer”? Ok, I can live with calling him a child killer.

      • I’mRightYerWrong

        Funny how you left out the part where Martin was sitting on Zimmerman beating him in the head when he got shot. Guess that would have given Zimmerman a reason for doing it and blown your whole bullshit story up, huh?

      • Adam

        No, it doesn’t. There is no good reason for Zimmerman to have shot and killed Trayvon Martin, even in a situation like that. The entire situation was caused by George Zimmerman stalking and confronting Trayvon Martin on his own, which likely would have never happened if Zimmerman hadn’t felt the false sense of security that being armed gives you.

        It’s as logical as trying to reason with a person whose username is I’mRightYerWrong.

      • Charles Vincent

        The metric for justifiable homicide under the law is that one only need to be in reasonable fear for ones life I would say that Zimmerman had reasonable fear for his life and guess what the jury did as well and they acquitted him end of story.

      • Adam

        Just because he was acquitted doesn’t mean the public has to like it. Zimmerman killed a kid in a situation that was of his own causing, so I feel the “child killer” label is appropriate and justified.

      • Charles Vincent

        You are certainly entitled to your ignorant opinion as I am entitled to ridicule you for being ignorant of facts and the law.

      • Stephen Barlow

        STOP POSTING!!!!

      • Charles Vincent

        Let me review … the answer is still no.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Stalker! Stalker! Stalker!!!!

      • Charles Vincent

        Stalker! Stalker! Stalker!!!!

      • Stephen Barlow

        Just because a vaguely worded, broadly applied law was badly represented by the State’s Attorney and his case was poorly interpreted by the white folks on the jury DOESN’T MAKE ZIMMERMAN INNOCENT.

      • Charles Vincent

        Zimmerman did not invoke the stand your ground defense, he used self defense.

      • Stephen Barlow

        AFTER he stalked his prey, threatened him, assaulted him AND was getting his ass kicked.

        If he had NOT been armed AGAINST Neighborhood Watch orders, had FOLLOWED the 911 dispatchers commands, or only followed the racially profiled ‘suspect’, he would still be beating his wife today.

      • Charles Vincent

        I need some of what ever it is you been smoking/snorting/shooting up.

      • Stephen Barlow

        So you are a doper too hunh?

      • Charles Vincent

        I might try after seeing the kind of crazy crap you have vomited onto this page as you are obviously on drugs.

      • Charles Vincent

        Again with the stalking line of fallacious rhetoric man you’re ignorant.
        link to the Florida stalking laws enjoy.
        http://www DOT aardvarc DOT org/stalking/states/flst DOT shtml

      • Adam

        Please go back under the bridge you crawled out from.

      • Charles Vincent

        ooooh stinging Ad hominem what ever shall I do…. go punch yourself in the face some more mouthbreather.

      • Adam

        I want to make one thing perfectly clear to you, Chuckie: People are not bigots because they disagree with you. I have been stating my opinion, which I am entitled to have, despite what you might think. And don’t you dare tell me that you don’t think that, because your actions on these boards speak a lot louder than words.

        In conclusion, you can take your opinion (which is all it is) and cram it.

      • Charles Vincent

        No people are bigots because they are intolerant of any view that conflicts with their own. What makes you a bigot are statements like “Please go back under the bridge you crawled out from.” when I posted a direct refutation to your assertion that Zimmerman stalked Martin.

        “In conclusion, you can take your opinion (which is all it is) and cram it.”
        No, No I think I will ridicule you some more.

      • Adam

        So, you’re basically admitting that you’re planning to harass me on this thread. Thanks for the confirmation.

      • Charles Vincent

        No I said ridicule you when you post ignorant crap, specifically in response to my posts. Hope that clears it up for you.

      • Adam

        Since you’re so fond of posting definitions of words on here, here’s one just for you:

        ha·rass

        transitive verb hə-ˈras; ˈher-əs, ˈha-rəs

        : to annoy or bother (someone) in a constant or repeated way

        Please go away.

      • Charles Vincent

        Stop responding on my posts then chief.

      • Adam

        I’m not the one calling people “mouthbreathers”, Chuckie.

      • Charles Vincent

        You started the personal attacks not I. I merely responded in kind.

      • Stephen Barlow

        LMAO!!! STOP POSTING!

      • Charles Vincent

        Nope still posting.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Stalker! Stalker! Stalker!!

      • Stephen Barlow

        STOP POSTING!

      • Charles Vincent

        No I don’t think I will.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Stalker! Stalker! Stalker!

      • Stephen Barlow

        if you haven’t guessed already, it’s his MO. next step, accusing YOU of stalking HIM. Even though he KNOWS replying does NOT violate the laws he so kindly posted earlier.

        When you get bored or feel threatened or violated, just flag all his comments and he will go away.

      • Charles Vincent

        I find this funny since you claimed i stalked you after you replied to a comment i made on another article here and now you have made 29 comments to me here is anyone is guilty stalking its you. Again you have failed pathetically.

      • Stephen Barlow

        WOW! Counting them!!! Like a girl hoping for a prom date? you’ll get more joy SITTING ON the phone than waiting by it son.

      • Charles Vincent

        I didn’t have to count them this site says how many responses I get and you were the only one that made any response it isn’t rocket science genius.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Well, pointing out that you are a troll isn’t being bigoted. it’s like pointing to a dog turd on the sidewalk and telling a friend to watch their step.

        It’s a courtesy. Just be glad you haven’t been scooped up with a plastic bag and disposed of properly.

      • Charles Vincent

        I would explain how his post was bigoted but it be lost on your all to simple mind.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Try anyway son.

      • Stephen Barlow

        You don’t need to defend yourself when your attacker is impotent.

        Which is why both Dunn and Zimmerman committed 1st Degree murder and should both get the needle.

      • Stephen Barlow

        When Zimmerman was on the phone with the dispatcher who told him to SYG, Zimmerman ‘pursued’. The fact that he did so stealthily makes the description ‘stalking’ perfectly correct.

        BTW. BEing in the same conversation with you being wrong all the time is not STALKING. not by Florida law it isn’t. LMAO

      • Charles Vincent

        Zimmerman has no legal obligation to follow a 911 dispatchers advice.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Stalker! Stalker! Stalker!!!

      • Charles Vincent

        Stop posting replies if you don’t like me rebutting them.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Stalker! Stalker! Stalker!

      • I’mRightYerWrong

        “The entire situation was caused by George Zimmerman stalking and confronting Trayvon Martin on his own, which likely would have never happened if Zimmerman hadn’t felt the false sense of security that being armed gives you.” You know what else would have caused this to never happen? Martin getting kicked out of his moms house because she couldn’t deal with his fighting and drug use. And let’s look at some of the other facts that we know. Both the girl Martin was on the phone with and the 911 call show that Zimmerman lost Martin and was returning to his truck, away from where Martin was staying. If you estimate that Zimmerman followed on foot for 100 feet towards Martins house, how did Martin end up shot only 50 feet from Zimmermans truck if he didn’t circle back to attack Zimmerman? And let’s say Zimmerman said shit to him. You’re telling me that Martin wasn’t man enough to just walk away? That he actually HAD to resort to physical violence? What did the bus driver that Martin punched and got suspended for do to provoke him? Seems to me that it’s obvious Martin was just a violent walking time bomb and this time he went off on the wrong guy.

      • Adam

        Not going to debate any of those points with you because Trayvon Martin was the victim, not the one on trial for murder. Had George Zimmerman acted differently, dare I say rationally, that night, Martin might still be alive today.

      • I’mRightYerWrong

        You can’t debate them because they’re not opinions. They’re fact. Yes, Zimmerman could have done things that would have made that night end differently. So could have Martin. In particular not sitting on Zimmerman and beating him in the head. If Martin had even been STANDING when he was shot I would agree that Zimmerman was in the wrong. But when someone is sitting on another persons chest beating them in the head I’m going to say the person getting beat has a right to use whatever the fuck they have to make the person beating on them stop.

      • Adam

        Martin’s actions at school had NO bearing on what happened that night. That is a character attack on a dead victim who cannot defend himself.

        Now, as for “sitting on another persons chest beating them in the head”, I’m not sure my actions would have been any different from Martin’s if I was being accused of a crime by an angry man chasing me. Zimmerman picked a fight, got his ass beaten, and shot a 17-year old kid trying to defend himself. Fact.

        Nothing else you say will convince me otherwise, so stop trying to argue with me.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Aren’t the FACTS IN EVIDENCE, only Zimmerman’s opinion about what happened. Only Zimmerman said the kid was on his chest and his injuries from the photos taken that very night were inconsistent with taking a beating.

        There were no witnesses who said that Martin laid in wait, ambushed or attacked Zimmerman.

        Try and be REAL when you state ‘facts’. You should apply for a news job @ Fox.

      • Stephen Barlow

        “Could have” has NEVER begun a statement of FACT.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Yeah, but he’d STILL be a threat, walking the streets, drinking soda. Munching candy. The NERVE of that Kid!

      • Stephen Barlow

        Opps.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Martin went to the store for a soda. HOW does THAT make this his own fault?

        I mean in any NONRACIST, White Supremecy world?

      • I’mRightYerWrong

        Was Martin shot because he went to the store? No. Was he shot because he was looking in houses on the way home? No. Was he shot looking in Zimmermans truck? No. Was he shot RUNNING AWAY from Zimmerman? No, He was shot sitting on Zimmerman and beating him in the head. How does that NOT make part of this his fault?
        How does race come into that? Is it only ok when the person sitting on you so you can’t get away and beating you in the head is the same race as you? You’re telling me that’s the ONLY time it’s ok to shoot them? You want to talk about racist. You’re the one being racist because it was a black person that got shot. I feel sorry for you. I really do. You obviously can’t see facts outside of skin color and that has to be a huge burden in your life. I really hope someday you can get past it and like Michael Jackson said, realize it doesn’t matter if you’re black or white.

      • Stephen Barlow

        You couldn’t rent enough brain to have a conversation with. I am SOOO sorry, but it’s YOU who make race the single issue in this. If Martin were as WHITE as you are, would he be DEAD?

        Martin wasn’t profiled by Zimmermen, Targeted by Zimmerman or Executed by Zimmerman because… he was sitting on Zimmerman’s chest DEFENDING HIMSELF FROM AN ARMED ATTACKER.

        He was a black kid and Zimmerman hit on that one single fact profiled him, targeted him and almost got his ass kicked by a CHILD trying to execute him.

        You know wasn’t asked at trial? “Mr Zimmerman? Who else did you see that night on neighborhood watch?’ “What were they doing different than the unarmed BLACK kid you shot in the chest?”

      • I’mRightYerWrong

        You have mental issues don’t you? You really think that a 6’2 17 year old who has a documented history of violence is a CHILD? I don’t care if Martin was profiled and targeted. That’s not a reason for Martin to attack him. Martin was sitting on Zimmerman beating him in the head before Zimmerman shot him. PLEASE allow me to to the same to you and see if you don’t try and stop me any way you can. All you can do is bring up that Martin was black. As if Zimmerman pointed the gun at him and said “Hey black guy, come sit on me and beat me in the head or I’ll shoot you.”

      • Stephen Barlow

        I DO!! Having an IQ beyond 99.98% of humans walking today is bitch man!!! It PAINS me to dumb down to your level on a daily basis genius.

        WELL, considering it is the ONLY factor Zimmerman’s Racism ever allowed into the equation… What else is there? Without that, Martin would have finished his soda and canfy bar and gone on minding his own business.

        Until Zimmerman made him his business.

      • I’mRightYerWrong

        It’s already been established that been established by 2 different sources that Zimmerman lost Martins trail. But let’s say Zimmerman did find him after losing him. We know there wasn’t any trauma on Martin aside from the gunshot wound. So what could Zimmerman have done to make Martin punch him, knocking him down, then sit on him and start beating him in the head? Please tell me what could make ANYONE do that. Please enlighten me genius.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Why wasn’t Zimmerman ‘man enough’ to follow orders and STAY AWAY AND LET THE POLICE HANDLE IT? That would be ‘walking way’ wouldn’t it?

      • Stephen Barlow

        So Zimmerman claims.

        Let’s put YOU in that story… you are walking from the store, candy bar in one hand, soda can in the other. An angry dude jumps you from behind…

        I’ll let you finish…

      • Jim Bean

        I wasn’t there so the only thing I can speak to is this: many communities have neighborhood watches whose purpose to a degree, is ‘stalking.’ It’s certainly not their mission to go the other way if they see something they think is suspicious before they have enough information to know whether to call it in.

      • Adam

        Following Martin, I could understand. Confronting Martin, I can’t. Not when he was advised not to do so. And it’s not like the police were an hour away. Had Zimmerman simply called the police and waited for them to arrive before instigating a confrontation, Martin might be alive today.

      • Jim Bean

        As far as I know, prior the confrontation, Martin had done nothing to justify calling the police.

      • Adam

        Just a case of “walking while black”, right? Makes it even more depressing.

      • Jim Bean

        Its unfortunate but bear in mind, its not the product of some flaw in non-blacks. Its the product of proper intellectual digestion of crime statistics which show that, if you’re painting a portrait of crime, you’ll need a lot of black on your palette. The blame goes to the leaders of the black community who have more to gain politically by espousing that blacks become perps because they are ‘victims’ of slavery than they have to gain by pushing them in the right direction.

      • Stephen Barlow

        There is more white on white crime than black on white crime.

        Your grandma taught you that old style racism in the crib hunh?

      • Jim Bean

        But there is tremendously more black on black crime than all the other possibilities combined. Very few people are bitten by rattlesnakes. Intelligent people are, nevertheless, more leery of rattlesnakes than garter snakes. (And, no, I’m not calling black people rattlesnakes. I’m going out on a limb here and trusting that you’re intelligent enough to grasp the analogy.)

      • Charles Vincent

        Trusting his intellect is a mistake Jim. just saying…

      • Stephen Barlow

        But Zimmerman is NOT black. it doesn’t apply.

        Even people as stupid as Chuckie are afraid of Rattle snakes. IF they know one when they see one.

        But intelligent people are NOT afraid of a kid walking down the street drinking soda and eating candy. Even STOOPID people agree with that!

      • Stephen Barlow

        Are you saying Zimmie googled up some STATS before calling his play?

        GET REAL!!!

      • Stephen Barlow

        So WHY was Zimmerman CALLING the cops, PACKING A GUN, and HUNTING HIS VICTIM?

        Which begs the question: “WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING A KIDDIE KILLER?”

      • Stephen Barlow

        Only being BLACK!!!

      • Stephen Barlow

        Martin wouldn’t have even been charged with vagrancy. he’d be alive and most likely knocking up some blonde chick from the burbs. Making more half breed Presidents!

      • Jim Bean

        The undisputed evidence is that Zimmerman had lost sight of Martin as he was speaking with the police on the phone. When the police told him not to follow him, Zimmerman said “OK” and began walking back towards his car. At that point Martin reappeared, approached him, and the altercation began. Police arrived at the scene exactly two minutes after the phone call ended and Zimmerman was beaten and Martin was dead. Its tremendously dangerous these days to listen to what anyone with an agenda tells you, my friend. All the evidence available in this case is readily available to anyone willing to do their own homework. Those who won’t are easy tools/fools for ill-intentioned.

      • Stephen Barlow

        WRONG!!! Neighborhood Watch is EXACTLY THAT and specifically limited to ‘watch & report’ activity.

        Any thing beyond that is WRONG.

      • Jim Bean

        I think that’s what I said – unless you’re implying that would not include walking in the direction of a suspected suspicious activity to get a better view and to make your presence known (and I certainly wouldn’t insult you by assuming that’s what you think.)

      • Stephen Barlow

        CERTAINLY NOT after having been given SPECIFIC INSTRUCTION BY LAW ENFORCEMENT TO STAND DOWN AND WAIT IN PLACE!

        As a watch Captain he should have been TEACHING that to others.

      • Stephen Barlow

        I like calling him a “BabySlayer”.

    • B E

      Let me guess, you’re one of those “RAH!! WHITE PRIDE!” guys and then claim you’re not racist at all.

      • Charles Vincent

        Actually he is of African decent he let that cat out of the bag on another thread on this site.

      • Stephen Barlow

        You mean some white witch got a little dark meat on the side back yonder in his family tree? ‘splains his race hate.

      • Charles Vincent

        I don’t know that and neother do you. I just stated that he stated he is of African decent.

    • Stephen Barlow

      Treasonous???? you don’t even know what the word means. you MUST be a Republican!!

      Was Zimmerman (or Dunn) hunting WHITE KIDS?

  • Charles Vincent

    Zimmerman was performing his duties as captain of the neighborhood watch and martin had the option to stay home after Zimmerman lost him he did not. Martin decided to return and not only confront Zimmerman he engaged in a felony assault on Zimmerman and Zimmerman shot him 1 time resulting in his death . If you dont want to get shot don’t perpetrate a felonious assault someone who may or may not be carrying a concealed firearm. Secondly the Zimmerman defense did not use the stand your ground law they used the self defense law.
    Also “More White Supremacy Apologism.” Really?
    I find this funny since Jim his on several occasions related his ethnic heritage as African could be a lie but I sort of think its funny that a toadie like you cry’s racism and yells bigot when you’re one of the biggest bigots I have seen.

    • Ignorant racist…

      • Charles Vincent

        Still misusing the term racist I see. Nice to see you’re still an ignorant pontificating prick. Moving on when are you going to actually report things that are fact? Just curious…

      • You forever be trollin’.

      • Charles Vincent

        I dont troll you I call you on your hypocrisy.

      • Trolly-olly-ooooooooohhhh!!!

      • Charles Vincent

        Brilliant your IQ is still a single digit number. You’re pathetic.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Your mama must be so proud that you have to take your shoes off to count up to yours Chuckiepoo-poo.

      • Charles Vincent

        At least I can count unlike you.

      • Stephen Barlow

        No, you stalk.

      • Charles Vincent

        Says the guy who posted 29 times to me on this thread.

      • I’mRightYerWrong

        What’s racist about that post? I think you’re racist because you hate white people.

      • Sechmeth

        The last time I read a dictionary, racism is defined to depend on a systemic lack of privilege and rights. This makes racism against white people impossible. Prejudice against white people, yes, racism against white, no. So unless white males are underpaid, get no jobs, are the poor majority, have less rights, get discouraged to get education…etc…There is no reverse racism. Prejudice is another thing.

    • B E

      Unwavering nationalist views are very dangerous. Our judicial system is VERY flawed. Murderers and rapists get off ALL the time.

      What do you say about Marissa Alexander? What she convicted lawfully? No.

      What about Renisha McBride? Did she deserve to die for knocking on the door of a white man? No, but you think so!

      Oh, and let’s not forget you’re ignoring the WHOLE article! Jordan Davis. Did he deserve to die when he NEVER LEFT THE SUV.

      And you, the racist, have the balls to say you’re not racist.

      Racist.

      • Charles Vincent

        Typical I never uttered the word racist you sir are ignorant and a toadie just like the author of this article. I called him a bigot sorry that your reading comprehension sucks bro.

        “What about Renisha McBride? Did she deserve to die for knocking on the door of a white man? No, but you think so!”

        Well I dont know about that case never heard of her perhaps its because you wasted so much time working yourself into a frenzy over George Zimmerman that it blocked out actual stories where people were shot for no actual reason. Regarding the second part of your statement your ignorance is on full throttle. You don’t know what I think about that girl or her situation because: A) you never asked; and B) you never provided any facts surrounding her case so anyone could make a conclusion either way.

        “Oh, and let’s not forget you’re ignoring the WHOLE article! Jordan Davis. Did he deserve to die when he NEVER LEFT THE SUV.”
        I wasn’t commenting on this I was clearly commenting on George Zimmerman, but since you asked I think the idiot that shot him should be tossed under the jail.

        “And you, the racist, have the balls to say you’re not racist.”

        I dont recall ever saying anything like this in my post either way. You’re being ignorant again

      • Guest

        Zimmerman was also specifically instructed by the police to remain in his vehicle and not follow Martin. He chose to ignore those instructions, which led to an altercation that he was responsible for starting, which led to an unarmed dead teenaged boy. That is on Zimmerman’s head and I hope it haunts his sleep every night of his life.

      • Charles Vincent

        The police didn’t tell zimmerman to stand down the 911 operator said you dont need to do that Zimmerman was under no obligation to follow the 911 operators instructions and he did not violate any laws in getting out of the car to verify the street signs.

      • Sunny Ray

        He didn’t listen to the operator because he has more experience right? and he is SuperNotCop right again? Neighborhood watch with a loaded gun is cop’s job, not a frustrated guy willing to be a cop job.

      • Charles Vincent

        That’s irrelevant he has no legal obligation to take the advice of the 911 dispatch operator. I never claimed he was a cop, I stated the fact that he was captain of the neighborhood watch you’re being outlandish and engaging in emotional hyperbole.

      • Sunny Ray

        Well I guess nothing is relevant if it doesn’t come from you.

      • Charles Vincent

        Look I am only putting the facts as I know them up if you have counter facts that refute them offer them up.

      • Sunny Ray

        ok
        http://sandiegofreepress DOT org/2013/01/a-cultural-comparison-gun-violence-in-the-us-and-europe-part-1/

        Enjoy

      • Charles Vincent

        Last time I check we aren’t in Europe. Secondly it is not a direct comparison as we dont record crime the same way. For instance you assert that less guns equal less gun/violent crime lets delve in to that.

        OK the national average homicide rate per 100k is 4.5
        city murders per 100,000 residents

        Camden 60.6 New Jersey

        New Orleans 57.6 Louisiana

        Flint 50.8 Michigan

        Detroit 48.2 Michigan

        Gary 37.2

        York 36.5

        St. Louis 35.3

        Newark 33.8

        Wilmington 32.1

        Ft. Myers 31.7

        Baltimore 31.3

        Jackson 29.9

        Baton Rouge 27.6

        Trenton 27.0

        Oakland 26.3

        New Haven 26.2

        Birmingham 25.3

        Pine Bluff 24.3

        Kansas City (MO) 23.4

        Dayton 23.3

        Hartford 21.6

        Philadelphia 21.2

        Atlanta 20.7

        Rocky Mount 20.6

        Cincinnati 20.5

        Stockton 19.7

        North Little Rock 19.1

        Little Rock 19.0

        Cleveland 18.6

        Kansas City (KS) 18.4

        Memphis 17.9

        Gulfport 17.6

        Washington DC 17.5

        Compton 17.4

        Richmond 17.4

        Miami 16.8

        Albany (GA) 16.6

        Canton 16.4

        Danville 16.1

        Harrisburg 16.1

        Chicago 15.9 murders per 100,000 population

      • Stephen Barlow

        Olathe, Co: Zero gun deaths in over 115 years.

      • Charles Vincent

        Yep and there is probably a gun in nearly every house in Olathe. Thanks for proving my case.

      • Charles Vincent

        No if you look at all those cities and cross reference them with the states they are in and rank them by a scale of strict to not strict gun laws you will find that the majority are in states with strict or very strict gun laws.

        Link to states with least favorable to most favorable gun laws;

        http://wwwDOTgunsandammoDOTcom/2013/03/14/ga-ranks-the-best-states-for-gun-owners-in-2013/

      • Stephen Barlow

        Ain’t it funny how those hillbilly regions with acres of unpopulated land are so deperately under attack that they need lax gun laws?

      • Charles Vincent

        I know it’s a hard concept for you to grasp but in rural areas police are far less available.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Bust Out Laughing. Factsasheknowsthem!!! ROTFLMAO!!

      • Charles Vincent

        So you’re saying that the factoid you posted is a lie?

      • Stephen Barlow

        Nope!! Just laughing at all that you know… leaking out of the holes in a thimble!!!!

        Stalker! Stalker! Stalker!

      • Charles Vincent

        Well I see you have a phony sense of outrage to keep you happy but here is something truly worth the outrage.

        http://www DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=NYzG-AOBQ6U#t=300

      • Stephen Barlow

        Try a real link please. Ask your mom to show you how.

      • Charles Vincent

        This site doesn’t allow links they delete them but nice try turd burglar.

      • Charles Vincent

        Hmm all I see is a post saying comment awaiting moderation which means it will be deleted. bet you cant find either post you made on the page.

      • Stephen Barlow

        For ONCE, you weren’t WRONG!

      • Charles Vincent

        I tried to tell you but you were to stubborn to listen.

      • Stephen Barlow

        You’re catching on!!!

      • Stephen Barlow

        And being the CAPTAIN, he should have been that much more informed of the NO WEAPONS ON DUTY policy and MUCH MORE understanding of his only responsibility, which is observe and report. Never pursue, NEVER confront and never EVER murder.

      • Charles Vincent

        Prove that the watch he was in had a no guns policy i bet you can’t.

      • Stephen Barlow

        But he WAS under the obligation to NOT MURDER an innocent KID!

        Funny how they were visible from his car AFTER he already told the 991 OP where he was. he knew EXACTLY where he was before he saw martin. he was @ his POST!

      • Stephen Barlow

        Nothing bothers a sociopath like Zimmieboy.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Let’s look at your record Charlie!…

    • Jordon Oldfather

      So stalking is legal, how do know so clearly what happened bottom line is Zimmerman is a murderer his defense was too extreme does he not have legs or arms

      • Charles Vincent

        Zimmerman did not stalk martin he followed an unknown person exhibiting behavior he considered to be suspicious in light of the fact that there had been several burglaries in his neighborhood.

        You need to understand the laws regarding stalking in Florida before you ramble on about fallacious rhetoric;

        http://www DOT aardvarc DOT org/stalking/states/flst DOT shtml

        and the laws on self defense in florida including the metric used to prove/disprove a self defense case under the law;

        http://legalinsurrection DOT com/2013/06/zimmerman-case-the-five-principles-of-the-law-of-self-defense/

      • “suspicious behavior” = “being black.” Stop defending child murderers, troll.

      • Charles Vincent

        I dont need to defend him he was acquitted by jury of his peers case closed. You lose bigot. I never said anything about being black but way to play the smoke and mirrors game.
        Here is an article detailing some of the burglaries in Zimmerman’s community; he had reasonable suspicion to follow martin.

        http://www DOT talkleft DOT com/story/2012/4/25/214812/118/crimenews/George-Zimmerman-s-Life-and-the-Neighborhood-Burglaries

      • He was acquitted by a racist law and a racist “justice” system. And by racist white supremacists like you. One good thing about you trolling here is that it helps keep you off the streets. You’re dangerous.

      • Charles Vincent

        So self defense is a racist law?
        “And by racist white supremacists like you.”
        Well I am native American specifically Cherokee and Choctaw so much for your White supremacists claim.

        “One good thing about you trolling here is that it helps keep you off the streets. You’re dangerous.”

        I post from work or my car or the store its easy when things are so mobile friendly.

      • I’mRightYerWrong

        3 down votes so far. People sure hate it when you show facts to them showing that they’re wrong.

      • Charles Vincent

        Well you can lead a horse to water but you can not make them drink..

      • I’mRightYerWrong

        In the previous months there had been 7 break ins in that neighborhood. You know what race every single suspect was? BLACK! Get black men to stop committing crimes and they’ll stop being looked at as being suspicious.

      • Hey Charles Vincent, how does it feel to be defended by the KKK here?

        Oh, never mind. You actually LIKED his comment. You both belong together, between the White Sheets.

      • Charles Vincent

        Whose in the KKK and how do you know most people here are anonymous? Should I call the wahhhmbulance for you? Do you need a tissue? And Do you have any sort of argument that doesn’t involve Ad Hominem attacks?

      • Gary Smith

        Zimmerman was specifically instructed by the police to remain in his vehicle and not follow Martin. He chose to ignore those instructions and ended up killing an unarmed teenager in a situation that Zimmerman himself caused. I hope that haunts his sleep every night of his life.

      • Charles Vincent

        The police didn’t tell Zimmerman to stand down the 911 operator said you
        dont need to do that Zimmerman was under no obligation to follow the
        911 operators instructions and he did not violate any laws in getting
        out of the car to verify the street signs.

      • Sunny Ray

        He didn’t break the law but he killed a kid…

      • Charles Vincent

        Self defense man learn the laws. Its called justifiable homicide.

      • Sunny Ray

        nothing justifies killing a kid, if you have one you know that.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Yu sound like the little kid holding his finger an inch from his sister’s tit, saying “i’m not touching you.”

        You are a really sick *uck.

      • Charles Vincent

        And you’re a butt hurt moron….

        C WUT I DID THAR?????

      • Stephen Barlow

        Zimmerman was under no obligation to pump lead into a kids chest either. He CHOSE to do all the things you are pointing out in his ‘defense’. Which tells Me he PREMEDITATEDLY MURDERED of his own volition.

      • Charles Vincent

        He had every right to defend himself after Martin assaulted him.

      • Stephen Barlow

        But he had no right to assault Martin, menace him @ gun point, stalk him like prey,have a gun on watch duty, as the watch captain he knows this and the jury should have given him the needle.

        Because really, what REASON would Martin have, other than self defense, to attack an armed man without a gun?

      • Charles Vincent

        He didn’t assault Martin or menace him you clearly lack knowledge of the law and how it works. You also clearly, either lack knowledge of the facts in the case or you’re willfully ignorant of them, and you’re willfully concocting false narratives in the Zimmerman case in an attempt to advance your myopic and incorrect narrative.

      • I’mRightYerWrong

        “Zimmerman was specifically instructed by the police to remain in his vehicle and not follow Martin.” No, he was not. He was told by a 911 operator, who is NOT part of the people department, that they didn’t need him to follow Martin. The fact that you can’t understand that simple fact is the same reason you can’t understand the verdict was correct.

      • Jordon Oldfather

        I really don’t care what the laws are. there are more important things like ethics and morals.

      • Charles Vincent

        Well then its morally wrong to physically assault person. Trayvon Martin Assaulted Zimmerman who broke no laws so why aren’t you outraged by that?
        Additionally it is morally acceptable to defend your person which is what Zimmerman was doing when he used a firearm to fend off the assault by Trayvon Martin.

        “I really don’t care what the laws are.”
        This is why you are ignorant and lose badly in debates concerning the laws.

      • Jordon Oldfather

        U lose because u r blind open ur mind ur defending someone who killed someone for no good reason other then maybe getting punched in the face. If that justifies shooting then I guess u r right but I would bet all the great philosophers would go with me.

      • Charles Vincent

        Wrong I can post one right now that did an in-depth look at the Trayvon Martin case and he disagrees with you.

        http://www DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=NuH_YuBtH40

      • Jordon Oldfather

        That guy is no great philosopher. So u really believe u get to kill people because they are punching you? Regardless of the law u think it was justified try to think for yourself.

      • Charles Vincent

        Most philosophers agree on the nonaggression principle, this principle was violated by Martin assaulting Zimmerman period. The only caveat to physical violence against another person is the pretense of self defense Zimmerman used self defense when Martin broke the nonaggression principle. Rectify that with those great philosophers bud my guess is you can’t and won’t even try because it completely dispels your whole straw-man argument.

        http://en DOT wikipedia DOT org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle
        Scroll down to the history portion.

      • Jordon Oldfather

        Ur like a Michelle Bachman so stuck on ur talking points that u failed to realize I was not talking about laws have fun with a closed mind.

      • Charles Vincent

        Since when are posting the applicable laws relevant to the case and that refute your claim talking points? if anyone is using talking points its you and comments like this “I really don’t care what the laws are.” Man you’re daft.

      • Jordon Oldfather

        Ur still hung up on the law thing. Lol

      • Charles Vincent

        We are a nation governed by laws, society is governed by laws, the Zimmerman case was decided by laws. So yes we will talk about the law and how it applies here.

      • Stephen Barlow

        If drinking soda after dark is ‘suspicious’, you must have Twilight Zoned here from hitler’s Germany.

    • Stephen Barlow

      And AFTER he performed those duties, he stalked (AGAINST ORDERS) his victim (ARMED AGAINST POLICY WITH A KILLING TOOL) and confronted/assaulted his prey and executed him.

      Only because he wasn’t STANDING HIS GROUND! He was actively HUNTING QUARRY.

      Would a man in control have just put the gun to Martin’s chest and said, “Back off *i**e*!”

      if Martin was on his chest, pounding his face, HOW did he manage to get the gun out? I mean run me through the physics of his biology in that position.

      Natural instinct makes you cover your face if you can. The truth is, Zimmerman had the gun out when he assaulted Martin. Actually, waving a gun in someone’s face is ‘menacing’ in Florida. So don’;t waste My time with another C&P excuse for understanding the law.

      Oh, I don’t remember. Did Zimmerman use his cell phone to immediately call 911 and report that he stalked and killed that suspicious black kid he called in earlier?

  • Sunny Ray

    The point is that in this country to defend yourself you need a gun, absurd. I’d need a gun to kill and to defend myself I use my fists if needed. Some would say what would I do if a gun is pointed at me, well no gun should be out there in the first place. What about the amendment? It mentions militia and not all the people. The amendment wouldn’t have any sense if it was about free guns since it was already the case back then. But now too much money is involved so the choice is quickly made between lives and money…

    • Charles Vincent

      “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
      state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
      infringed.”

      Well I see people mentioned right in the aforementioned amendment way to be either a liar or an ignorant person.

      “I’d need a gun to kill and to defend myself I use my fists if needed.”
      Well you conveniently ignore that confrontations aren’t always 1 v 1 nor are they on even terms hands are not the best tool for every situation.

      • Sunny Ray

        I said “all the people”, It’s a matter of interpretation, what I read in the amendment is that to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed so a well regulated militia can use them for the security of a free state. The fact that is says “being necessary” makes all the difference, but gun lovers just see the second part of the amendment of course.

        I’m not a soldier in some country making war so yes, my confrontations have always been 1 v 1, maybe because I don’t look for troubles… and suppose that it happens, well I call 911 and the well regulated militia will do their job and protect me, isn’t it how it is suppose to work?

        Since you like to judge people let me, the liar and the ignorant, judge you as well. Sounds like you know a lot about confrontation so I guess you have an assault riffle in your collection to be ready to make a massacre in case you feel threatened, the best tool for every situation right?

      • Charles Vincent

        Read the DC v Heller decision, it is an individual right of all people. The first portion “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state” is the prefatory clause, the second portion “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
        Is the operative clause. Heller also delineated that the individual right is not dependent on participation in a militia.

        “well I call 911 and the well regulated militia will do their job and protect me”
        First off the police are not the militia as defined by the Dick act,

        http://en DOT wikipedia DOT org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

        http://en DOT wikipedia DOT org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

        http://www DOT law DOT cornell DOT edu/uscode/text/10/311

        Also the police have no duty to protect you. Sorry but you are the only one responsible for your protection.

        http://www DOT nytimes DOT com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

        “Since you like to judge people let me, the liar and the ignorant, judge you as well. Sounds like you know a lot about confrontation so I guess you have an assault riffle in your collection to be ready to make a massacre in case you feel threatened, the best tool for every situation right?”

        I am not judging you I was refuting your argument and misrepresentation of the second amendment.

        Well I have been on the receiving end on several occasions 2, 3, and 4 v 1 and I wasn’t looking for trouble either. The looking for trouble or not is irrelevant, trouble tends to find people who aren’t looking for it all the time. I do not believe that rifle is the correct tool for every situation just like hands or a knife or a handgun would be every tool has a list of things it performs better than other tools.

      • Sunny Ray

        Charles, it’s because of the guns out there that the police don’t protect people, but they come afterwards to clean up what is left.

      • Charles Vincent

        Guns are inanimate objects, they have no will or mind of their own they are tools in the hands of people. It is people that are the problem not the tool they use.

      • Sunny Ray

        I remember those words, from the guy who’s answer against gun violence is more guns in the streets.

        Since people is a problem, don’t give them guns and make it easier for them to kill.

      • Charles Vincent

        They would just revert to killing with some other tool. You fail to grasp the issue take the guns away they kill with clubs knives swords etcetera. people have been killing each other since the dawn of time taking guns wont stop that, it will only change the chioce of tools with which they choose to do the killing.

      • Sunny Ray

        That is the most absurd reply you gave me so far, don’t compare AR and other automatic weapons with clubs or knives that’s an answer for someone who is out of argument. People kill, not guns… but people kill with guns.

        “people have been killing each other since the dawn”
        Slavery had been there since the dawn too, didn’t mean it couldn’t change, because it was wrong. And why making it easier with guns for everyone, shouldn’t be the opposite?

        Ho well, I guess some Americans like to live by laws from more than 2 centuries ago, welcome to the wild west…

      • Charles Vincent

        Whats absurd is that you call an AR an automatic weapon, when in fact it is a semi-automatic weapon.

        People kill with lots of things;

        http://www DOT fbi DOT gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

        Self-defense was very important in the English common law. Blackstone asserted that “Self-defense . . . is justly called the primary law of nature.”57 Being a law of nature, self-defense was also considered to be a “natural right.”58
        Consequently, weapons were very important because they helped preserve this right. “The subjects of England are entitled,” Blackstone stated,
        “to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense.”

      • Sunny Ray

        Sure, in the 18th century. You should try to focus on how to stop this culture of violence instead of feeding it.

      • Charles Vincent

        The right of self defense is not outdated and never will be. So you admit that its a culture of violence yet you still claim that its the guns not the people? Now I am confused which is it, is it people and society or is it guns?

        Please stop vacillating to and fro sir you resemble John Kerry when you do that.

      • Sunny Ray

        “The right of self defense is not outdated and never will be” with people like you living in the past, sure it won’t change.

        I’ll stop vacillating don’t worry, it’s no fun at all arguing with someone living in the 18th century thinking he knows everything about everything. Have fun with your guns.

      • Stephen Barlow

        You give up to easy AND you let a twerp corrupt the conversation with partial, edited ‘facts’, irrelevant sidebars and opinion.

        Stick to your guns man!

        LMAO!

      • Sunny Ray

        Haha I was tired of talking to a wall

      • Stephen Barlow

        I get that too. He is a Whack a Whackadoo. I practice My snark on it, then write for The National Inquirer. I do the captions under the UFO and alien baby pics.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Without the guns, would we be having this conversation?

        NO!

        It’s the guns.

      • Charles Vincent

        Nope we would be having a conversation about a different tool being used to kill someone in self defense.

        Knives for instance;

        http://www DOT washingtontimes DOT com/news/2009/jun/24/bid-to-expand-knife-ban-doesnt-cut-it-with-critics/?page=all

        http://news DOT bbc DOT co DOT uk/2/hi/health/4581871 DOT stm

      • Stephen Barlow

        But not the MURDER of Martin by Zimmerman. So THIS conversation would not be happening.

      • Charles Vincent

        You don’t know that and it is pure hyperbole on your part.

      • Stephen Barlow

        That’s what you smoke? Hyper bowls… make those by dropping meth on the bud?

      • Stephen Barlow

        The difference between ‘self defense’ and being a violent predator should be obvious. But I will help you understand it.

        Carrying a Death Tool for self defense is successful when any actual threat is thwarted. if showing the handle of a pistol STOPS the threat… your “Right to self defense” ENDS RIGHT THERE.

        Zimmerman was SAFE before he pursued Martin. Dunn was SAFE after he retreated and was sitting in his car getting his murder Toy from the glove box.

      • Charles Vincent

        You’re certainly aware that you are born with killing tools right?

        Zimmerman was safe until martin assaulted him then, Zimmerman used his firearm to stop the assault martin had perpetrated against him.

      • Stephen Barlow

        No! I was born with tool making tools.

        I kinda envy you Chuck, being born with masturbation tools…

      • Charles Vincent

        Certainly your aware of the FBI expanded table that lists hand and feet as weapons that have killed people so yes you were born with tools capable of killing people.

        Deaths caused bt hands fists feet per year 2007-2011
        Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)1
        869(2007)
        875(2008)
        817(2009)
        769(2010)
        728(2011)

        http://www DOT fbi DOT gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

      • Stephen Barlow

        A whole crime wave of ONE!!!!

        Thanks for proving your complete irrelevance.

      • Charles Vincent

        Thanks for proving you’re less intelligent than a single cell amoeba. Also I have seen bigger waves in a toilet and I may have flushed your sibling on accident.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Considering I am 40 steps up the evolutionary ladder than you, THANKS ya little virus.

      • Charles Vincent

        Viruses came farther up the ladder than single cell organisms.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Viruses aren’t even a single cell.

        The origins of viruses in the evolutionary history of life are unclear: some may have evolved from plasmids—pieces of DNA that can move between cells—while others may have evolved from bacteria. In evolution, viruses are an important means of horizontal gene transfer, which increases genetic diversity.[7] Viruses are considered by some to be a life form, because they carry genetic material, reproduce, and evolve through natural selection. However they lack key characteristics (such as cell structure) that are generally considered necessary to count as life. Because they possess some but not all such qualities, viruses have been described as “organisms at the edge of life”.[8]

      • Charles Vincent

        Regardless they either evolved after or at the same time which really puts us back to square one.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Did you wipe the baby oil off the keyboard before you Mommy came home?

      • Stephen Barlow

        WHERE is the proof of Martin’s assault?

        it was VERY clear @ trial that ONLY Zim had testimony supporting his selfdefense claim.

      • Charles Vincent

        Look it up it’s easy to find even for a ninnyhammer like you.

      • Stephen Barlow

        BEcause you know the FACTS kill you dead.

      • Charles Vincent

        The facts have already been posted and reported on and the jury found they were true and acquitted Zimmerman you refuse to believe them. Therefore providing them again is a fruitless venture.
        But so no one can claim I didn’t go the extra mile here you go;

        “What happened: George Zimmerman was driving in his gated neighborhood when he spotted Trayvon Martin, 17, walking on a paved path between two sets of townhouses. Zimmerman, head of the Neighborhood Watch, called the police to report a suspicious person and began following Martin, first in a car and later on foot. Zimmerman’s father said his son said Martin then threatened him, punched him in the nose and knocked him to the concrete. Zimmerman pulled a gun from a holster on his waist and shot Martin. Zimmerman claimed self-defense and was found not guilty by a jury on July 13 2013.

        The outcome: Zimmerman was acquitted on all charges on July 13, 2013. A special prosecutor had charged Zimmerman with second-degree murder. There was no Stand Your Ground hearing for immunity.

        Investigating agency: Sanford Police

        Case decision made by: Prosecutor”

      • Charles Vincent

        An example of colonial law;
        “In 1623, Virginia forbade its colonists to travel unless they were “well armed”; in 1631 it required colonists to engage in target practice on Sunday and to “bring their peeces to church.” In 1658 it required every householder to have a functioning firearm within his house and in 1673 its laws provided that a citizen who claimed he was too poor to purchase a firearm would have one purchased for him by the government, which would then require him to pay a reasonable price when able to do so. In Massachusetts, the first session of the legislature ordered that not only freemen, but also indentured servants own firearms and in 1644 it imposed a stern 6 shilling fine upon any citizen who was not armed”

      • Sunny Ray

        Wow man… you should take a breath outside, we are in 2014 today, the gold rush is over!

      • Charles Vincent

        just providing the historical perspective on the right of self defense and the complimentary right to bear arms.

      • Sunny Ray

        Good for you, hopefully one day you’ll realize that we are in the 21st century, rights and needs changed since then, and are still changing.

      • Charles Vincent

        Rights are natural and do not change even the UN lists the right to bear arms as a natural right.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Truth be told, you don’t even have a natural ‘RIGHT’ to breath OR fart. They are just things you do. Gun ownership is a ‘Right’, only because it has been defined as one. That definition being a wholly unnatural occurence.

      • Charles Vincent

        Self defense is a natural right you can see empirical evidence of this in all species in the animal kingdom and in humans.
        Keep denying it it make you look more and more stupid every time you do.

      • Sunny Ray

        Never saw an antelope shooting at a lion…

      • Charles Vincent

        there are animals the use camouflage as a defense, there are animals that use poison as a defense all animals have both predatory and prey rolls. they hunt they defend their young or themselves this is natural law. humans best defensive weapon is their brain and all the things they invent to help them defend themselves a gun is an invention that sparked from that brain.

      • Sunny Ray

        Camouflage or poison is the product of a natural evolution and adaptation. Predator and prey can’t survive without each other they are a part of a chain, or THE chain where the human is on top. Human has no predator, or himself? No, killing within the same species is not predatory nor animal but human, and definitely not natural. You are being ridiculous man, your fanaticism for guns turned your brain upside down.

      • Charles Vincent

        Humans have several natural predators you’re being ignorant when you say humans are the top of the chain and have no natural predators. Have we mitigated the danger from predators? Yes. Human ingenuity is a natural extension the same as animals that use camouflage, or poison as a natural defense our human ingenuity allowed us to create tools to facilitate our defense, a gun is one of those tools.
        Before guns the tools were swords, bows and arrows, spears etcetera all of which fulfilled a few rolls in our lives the first is defense against natural predators in the animal kingdom, and defense against other humans that would prey upon us for what ever reason. We learns how to make fire because it served a purpose, likewise we invented tools for the same reason, guns are just a better tool for the moment and will fall out of favor when we invent the next new better tool.

        Your fear of guns has made you irrational.

      • Sunny Ray

        Predation: a relationship between two species of animal in a community, in which
        one (the predator) hunts, kills, and eats the other (the prey). I challenge you to find one for human.

        You got one:”researchers believe that early humans were a prey species hunted by
        bear-size hyenas, saber-toothed cats, and many other large carnivores (national geographic). Unfortunately, for you, those animals don’t exist anymore.

        We are in 2014, once again stop living in the past, and be rational.
        Firearms were invented in the 14th century in China to conquer not for protection.

        “you’re being ignorant when you say humans are the top of the chain” you really don’t know what you are talking about, ignorant.

      • Charles Vincent

        “Predation: a relationship between two species of animal in a community, in which
        one (the predator) hunts, kills, and eats the other (the prey). I challenge you to find one for human.”

        Sharks, mountain lions, bears, moose have all been documented as killing humans sorry chief you lose. Those are just a few. Further more humans are part of the animal kingdom they most definitely have killed other humans and match every metric you list.
        To prove this I need only point to places like Uganda where groups of people actively slaughtered whole villages who had been disarmed by law by the government run by ignorant people like you.

        Furthermore the burden of proof lies on you to prove that animals don’t kill people and that people themselves don’t actively hunt and kill other humans

      • Sunny Ray

        According to researchers, sharks are only dangerous when you’re injured or
        “mistaken” for food.

        Mountain Lion (Sierra Club founded in 1892) its predator: Human and other Mt Lions (and not otherwise)

        I could go on and on, those are not natural predators, check your sources before ranting such nonsense.

      • Charles Vincent

        According to your last post predation goes both ways. you also omit the fact that when you are in nature your are in their environment and you are definitly not the top of the food chain

        “Predation: a relationship between two species of animal in a community, in which
        one (the predator) hunts, kills, and eats the other (the prey).”

        You also glossed over the other point because it also directly refutes your assertion.

        “Further more humans are part of the animal kingdom they most definitely have killed other humans and match every metric you list. To prove this I need only point to places like Uganda where groups of people actively slaughtered whole villages who had been disarmed by law by the government run by ignorant people like you.”

        Keep talking people need to see the absurdity of your argument.

      • Sunny Ray

        You’re a lost cause.

      • Charles Vincent

        Not really you are to arrogant to admit that you picked the losing side of this battle. When do bears generally attack humans? Answer when they feel threatened that’s the natural right of self defense. Nothing you say can change that and the fact that humans have a brain and use it to create tools to effect better ways to defend themselves is an extension of that natural right.

      • Sunny Ray

        Sure when they feel threatened, so it’s not a natural predator and if you don’t get it from me I suggest you go back to school and learn what natural predator means. Also, you should go see a psy because I think you have some issues concerning wilderness and civilization, bringing up the wild animal kingdom when talking about guns… you are really not thinking right. But it’s my fault, I shouldn’t have followed you in your craziness.
        Hope you live a great wild life in the animal kingdom in the 18th century.

      • Charles Vincent

        I wasn’t talking about natural predator with that example I was illustrating the natural right of self defense apologies for the confusion.

      • Charles Vincent

        Look at the 2013 CDC report it states that gun control laws have no detectable effect on violent crime.

      • Sunny Ray

        CDC 2013 report
        “Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.”
        The report could not conclude whether “passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.”
        Now who’s the liar or the ignorant?
        Give me a break sir please…

      • Charles Vincent

        My comment wasn’t on “The report could not conclude whether “passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.”
        Your attempt to obfuscate is a bad one.

      • Sunny Ray

        I’m not attempting anything, you wanted facts I gave you facts, but as you don’t like them you just ignore them. It states it is an unsolved issue, not that there’s no detectable effect. Now if you want to play with words I’ll leave you alone, I wasted enough of my time talking to a wall.

      • Charles Vincent

        You’re dismissing the fact that the laws you want also had no detectable effect either and stating I claimed that carry laws did is blatantly fallacious and obfuscatory. The only wall here is you thinking you get to pin the rights of law abiding citizens on the actions of criminals.

      • Stephen Barlow

        You have a real funny ‘command’ of the English language Chucknut. I mean words have different meanings to you than they to to the rest of us AND the guys who wrote the dictionary.

      • Sunny Ray

        unresolved – not brought to a conclusion
        undetectable – not easily seen (which is a conclusion)

        Is that what you are talking about?

      • Charles Vincent

        http://www DOT ijreview DOT com/2013/08/73619-obama-ordered-cdc-study-contradicts-white-house-anti-gun-narrative/

      • Stephen Barlow

        Get used to absurd with this guy!

      • Stephen Barlow

        You don’t know that!

        It takes considerable courage to get within arms reach of your victim and risk having your blade taken from you and then USED ON YOU.

        A gun is a cowards weapon. It’s almost as cowardly as a bomb or poison. It’s why Trayvon Martin and jordan Davis are DEAD!

        Because cowards like Dunn wouldn’t have been able to chase down a fleeing vehicle with a knife. Cowards like Zimmerman wouldn’t have pursued a kid with a can of pop with a knife for 2 blocks into an alley.

      • Charles Vincent

        Actually I do its empirically provable.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Prove it with impiracy. ~smirks~

        Empires are a whole nother ball game. I don’t even think Webster could recognize ‘EMPIRICALLY’ as a proper adjective.

      • Charles Vincent

        em·pir·i·cal [em-pir-i-kuhl]

        adjective
        1.derived from or guided by experience or experiment.
        2.depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, especially as in medicine.
        3.provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Then GET being all EMPIRICAL and shit man! PROVE your claim!

        Gotta see how this ‘medical cure’ you have, this ‘unscientific experiment’ pans out. Considering you are using NO methodology and have NO THEORY.

        I mean otherwise, it wouldn’t be EMPIRICAL now would it?

        SNICKER SMIRK!

      • Charles Vincent

        ah the toadie is back… where is the wahhh wahhh Stalker retort….

      • Stephen Barlow

        You are almost too easy.

      • Charles Vincent

        Your mom is easier with only one exception I would have to double park on her ass for 15 minutes before I could get in.

      • Stephen Barlow

        My Mom was $200 a night. Paid for Stanford and Georgetown for the 3 of us. A K/wk in the 80’s went a long way. My senior year was only $3200 and $1000 a semester for an apartment.

      • Charles Vincent

        “Paid for Stanford and Georgetown for the 3 of us.”
        She should get her money back in your case cause clearly they failed to deliver a good education to you.

      • Charles Vincent

        Your mom needs to get her money refunded because you clearly didnt get any form of real education from which ever institution you attended.

      • Darkthunder

        “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”

        And how do people kill people? Using guns. So ultimately, it’s the guns fault, AND the person wielding the gun.

      • Charles Vincent

        Funny you should ask;
        http://www DOT fbi DOT gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

        http://www DOT cdc DOT gov/MotorVehicleSafety/Impaired_Driving/impaired-drv_factsheet DOT html

        http://www DOT cdc DOT gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use DOT htm

        A gun cannot do anything with out a person wielding it, neither can knives, clubs, ropes, swords, pitch forks etcetera.

      • Darkthunder

        It was a rhetorical question (not looking for an answer).

        But since you aim to discredit my comment (you being a 2nd amendment gun nut after all), let me ask you this: What is the leading cause of death, in all homicides within the United States? A knife, a club, a rope, a sword, a pitch fork, or a gun?

        A paper cut could kill as well, but paper isn’t designed to kill someone. Guns are designed with one intent: To aim and fire at another person or creature. If they were merely decorative objects, it would be incapable of being fired.

      • Charles Vincent

        Handguns. Its pretty obvious from the list on the FBI link. but my point was apparently lost on you. My point is that its not just guns that kill which was your assertion quoted here “And how do people kill people? Using guns. So ultimately, it’s the guns fault,”.

        Swords are designed to kill but no one is outlawing them, so are knives and clubs. But you still cant escape the single fact that if a person doesn’t pick the tool up the tool can not on and of its own volition kill anyone.

      • Darkthunder

        I use knives to cut meat. Thou I do understand the type of knives you are referring to (which again, was not designed as an instrument of death).

        Clubs depends on the type referred. Golf clubs for example are designed for hitting a golf ball on a golf course.

        My point remains, Guns have one purpose: To aim at, and shoot it against another person or creature.

      • Charles Vincent

        I use guns for self defense. I use guns to hunt for food which provides for my continued existence. Before there were guns people used bow and arrow and spear clearly those were dual use tools like guns and knives. a person can kill with one finger and 6 pounds of direct force. your argument that a tool is the problem is absurd and that we should place the blame on a tool in any portion rather than the fool that commtted the crime is also absurd. when a murder is committed who sets in the defendants chair? The weapon used to commit the murder or the person that committed the murder?

      • Stephen Barlow

        Who exactly is ‘after’ you Charles? That you MUST 24/7 defend yourself to the death?

        What has you so violently paranoid?

      • Charles Vincent

        I have a fire extiguisher in my home in case of a fire does that make me paranoid also?

      • Stephen Barlow

        It does if you have a permit to strap it on and carry it into a church, or a store or a school!!!!

      • Charles Vincent

        I don’t need a permit to carry a weapon, never have needed one.

      • Sunny Ray

        That’s the problem…

      • Charles Vincent

        No that’s the solution to the problem.

      • Stephen Barlow

        The gun is not to blame. The non regulation of guns is the problem. The psychosis sold by the NRA to the limited, violence indoctrinated, people is what’s to blame.

      • Charles Vincent

        Still trying in vain to shift the blame from people to inanimate objects I see.

      • Stephen Barlow

        The NRA are people too My friend. A non profit corp, but a Romney buddy none the less.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Laughin @ Chuckie might make My liver fall out sooner than a quart of Rum a day for 40 years!!!

      • Stephen Barlow

        Since all those things are weapons, you regulate the people. Which is EXACTLY what ‘gun control’ is. Regulating and tracking the stockpiling of weapons and ammunition.

        Funny how few ‘right to lifers’ are NOT ‘Stand Your Ground’ gun nuts.

      • Charles Vincent

        Put down pipe and step away from it Stevie.

      • Stephen Barlow

        My weapon of choice is the keyboard.

      • Charles Vincent

        Well you should probably learn how to use it better because as it stands now its become the weapon responsible for your own undoing.

      • Stephen Barlow

        THANK YOU!!!! That is EXACTLY WHY the GOVERNMENT is mandated to regulate murder tools. For the common defense. Against people who would KILL outside of protecting the State from a post in a well regulated militia.

        Think this through. If purchasing mass quantities of fertilizer are regulated to the point of showing a photo ID and the seller must report the sale to the ATF… because of it’s lethal weapon potential, then common sense dictates that all ACTUALLY LETHAL WEAPONS must be regulated even more heavily.

        Which is the Constitutional MANDATE to ‘provide for the common defense’ that the NRA has so badly corrupted.

      • Charles Vincent

        No governments job is to provide justice for each individual. And when any individual violates another person or his property the government is to provide an avenue for the redress of the grievance nothing more.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Justice is a BY PRODUCT of mandating murder tools.

        YES, so you admit that Zimmerman should have SUED Martin for being black, not SHOT HIM FOR IT!!!

      • Charles Vincent

        hmm justice is a by product… yeah no any one can tell you your full of shit here.

        “YES, so you admit that Zimmerman should have SUED Martin for being black, not SHOT HIM FOR IT!!!”
        Never said any such thing. I did say that Martin deserved what he got for assaulting Zimmerman though.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Heller v DC is WRONG. I know it’s the Roberts Court decision, but it is WRONG on the law. Just as Citizens United is.

        BTW, thanks for accidentally PROVING ME right.

        you see, in order for the conditions of the “OPERATIVE CLAUSE” to function, ALL the terms of the “(LMAO) ‘PREFACTORY clause’ MUST BE MET.

        In other words, WITHOUT A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, no one can keep and bear arms.

      • Charles Vincent

        Hello my little special Olympian. 29 posts that’s impressive you must be tired after working that pea-brain of yours so hard.

        Couple questions Stevie.

        1) Please explain what a “PREFACTORY” clause is, I’ve never heard of that and neither have any other English professors I know.

        2) Please explain to me how something like 500 years of jurisprudence supports the DC v Heller decision including the man who wrote its own writing stating explicitly that it is an individual right of the people and part of the natural right of self defense?

      • Stephen Barlow

        I don’t know. It how you spelled it. It’s also why I laughed at you so hard.

        Because it doesn’t.

        is that a Scalia rant? You know, the pretzel logic one?

      • Charles Vincent

        “I don’t know. It how you spelled it. It’s also why I laughed at you so hard.”

        You might want to check that spelling and your answer I copy pasted how YOU spelled it in the post I was replying to.

        “you see, in order for the conditions of the “OPERATIVE CLAUSE” to
        function, ALL the terms of the “(LMAO) ‘PREFACTORY clause’ MUST BE MET.”

        And no valid answer for point number two either. Check…

    • Stephen Barlow

      I wonder, if Zimmer had hunted down Martin with a KNIFE instead of a gun, would he have been acquitted?

      If Dunn had gotten a blade out of his glove box, would he have been guilty on all counts?

      Except with a blade, Martin would have stood a chance! And Dunn would never have been arrested because as the SUV was leaving the ‘scene’… the best Dunn could have done is THROWN IT AT HIS TAILLIGHTS!!

      In either case, the CHILDREN most likely would have survived.

    • Stephen Barlow

      Not a ‘Full Blown’ racist AT ALL, are you? I bet you even wear your ballcap backwards and says “Yo!” You a ‘bro’ to your friends?

      Just a little reminder that when you proofread your posts, check to see what you sound like to others. ~S~

      • Stephen Barlow

        hehehe

    • Somebody is clearly trolling AS me here.

      • Charles Vincent

        How special you trolled yourself…

  • mikko m

    It seems to be a troll season…

  • I’mRightYerWrong

    “…remember that Zimmerman got off clean under a legislative and judicial system that would have thrown the book at him if he had a darker skin-tone.” 55% of the people in Florida who have successfully used Stand Your Ground as a defense are black, you fucking idiot. That means you’re MORE LIKELY to be acquitted if you’re black compared to if you’re white.

    • sez the guy who just above said that Black people should stop committing crimes if they don’t want to be targeted. Go back to Klansville, Klown.

  • Austin Brenan

    This is so stupid, George Zimmerman was innocent and just accept it. Holy shit.

  • Pipercat

    I don’t think mixing the two incidents really helps out the case against Dunn or the issues with the various laws of the State of Florida. First thing, the outcomes are totally different after each trial. Secondly, the circumstances are even more disparate. Moreover, count one is going to be retried in Dunn’s case. Dunn is, by far, a more reprehensible character. By conflating the two incidents, Zimmerman’s proponents can do two things: Jack the story and fight the Zimmerman trial all over again, beating a dead horse. (add which every kind of irony you wish here) Second, somehow conflate the two cases to somehow create a martyr out of Dunn.

    Dunn, will never see freedom again; a point which should not be lost in all of the excitement. However, count 1 must be retried and the memory of young Mr. Davis should be tarnished by irrelevant things. The shear fact that Mr. Davis and Mr. Zimmerman are being used together to prove any point actually tarnishes Mr. Davis’ memory.

    • Stephen Barlow

      The main fact remains in both cases.

      A) the unarmed BLACK kids are DEAD!

      B) BOTH pursuers were SAFE. Then they chose a course leading to murder. Dunn could have stayed in his car, Zimmerman could have obeyed he 911 dispatcher. Both CHOSE to initiate pursuit with intent to commit firearms harm to another person.

      C) Both Dunn and Zimmerman should be on death row for planning these unnecessary deaths.

      • Pipercat

        I understand, yet I feel Dunn is far more reprehensible. The case is over regarding Mr. Zimmerman. Regurgitating the settled case solves nothing, except perhaps keeping Zimmerman in the limelight. The case is still pending with Mr. 15866554954. In that case, I want a conviction for Mr. Dunn for count 1 and see no benefit of making him a martyr.

      • I don’t feel the larger patterns of the cases are over. I was highlighting what I think is a pretty through-line between the cases mentioned above – all having to do with SYG and all involving free white men and imprisoned or dead black people. If racists want to continue to argue how effin’ awesome Zimmerman is, their case is already out there and I don’t care about them or their racist opinions. I’m much more concerned about the praxis of white progressives, though, and that we not forget the deadly consequences of ignoring racist policies.

      • Charles Vincent

        Wait are you saying that the Zimmerman case used the stand your ground law as a defense?

        http://www DOT tampabay DOT com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_139

        The take away here is this
        1) Zimmerman claimed self-defense and was found not guilty by a jury on July 13, 2013.
        2)There was no Stand Your Ground hearing for immunity.

      • Pipercat

        Indeed, in fact, I agree. It just amazes me how Zim has become this cult hero. Even if you don’t mention him by name nor include him in the argument, he’ll sneak in via his proponents. That’s when you have an opportunity to pounce. Honestly Jason, I’m really, really glad this monster is off the streets and that should not go unmentioned. Even some of Zimmy’s biggest cheer leaders wont touch this animal.

      • And the more I go into this case right here, the more I’m terrified. If he had just stopped with killing Jordan, Dunn would have gotten off most likely. That’s how these laws were written, to protect dangerous racists. They’re Lynch Laws. And that’s why, I think, Zimmy’s little troll buddies are so busy here these last few days.

      • Pipercat

        Now I totally agree with that. The laws down there are truly suspect. Moreover, both cases were prosecuted by pretty much the same legal team. That alone adds about 6 extra Tums and requires answers for numerous questions; not just for Dunn’s case, but Zimmy’s too. For some icing, throw in Casey Anthony’s acquittal for that matter. Well, perhaps a new piece is in order!!! Ps. We still have the Popcorn incident to look forward to.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Then this team needs to be FIRED!!!

      • Stephen Barlow

        There is a case of self defense by a black man against a white aggressor. VEry different outcome.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Zimmie keeps himself in the press. now the whole thing has been a conspiracy by the President and…. LMAO!

        Think he’s prepping an insanity defense for the NEXT murder he’s planning?

      • Pipercat

        Is there a “feckless” defense?

      • Stephen Barlow

        LMAO!!!! I like you!

      • Pipercat

        You will find no other whose skill at facetious nincompoopery is equal to mine!!

  • condaggit2

    Remember this is all about the word Nigggggger…..or Niggggga being blasted
    out for all to hear….and you know what?? White people are offended by
    the word…and Dunn asked nicely to turn it down and those black boys
    acted violently….which is pretty normal for black thugs today.

    So how to you feel about the word nigggggger?

    • MLR

      That’s a bunch of bull. I hear white kids blasting the same music here where I live but guess what? We mind our own damn business over here and let teens be teens. You should be equally offended by death metal which originated in Florida didn’t it? Have you ever heard the lyrics? You should.

    • Stephen Barlow

      The kid ENVER even got out of the SUV. They were leaving thinking nothing of being nice neighbors and turning down the music.

      Funny how the TEN SHOTS didn’t bother Dunn’s “sensitive ears”. To tell it, his wounded/injured.defective ear is the normal one and the normal one was somehow HEIGHTENED by his injury to the other one.

      • condaggit2

        trust me Ive never seen a niggggeerr ever be nice when asking to turn down the filthy rap music……they did have a gun….

      • Stephen Barlow

        At least not the gun toting Gansta types. not when confronted by a wimpy, polite, soft spoken plumper of a white loaf like Dunn!!!

        WHY, of the 15 other places to park, did Mr Sensitive Ears pick the one RIGHT NEXT TO WHAT WAS CAUSING HIM MURDEROUS PAIN?

  • JRichards

    I would like to propose a new gun law. In homage to the names of the “Stand Your Ground” law and the “Make My Day” law, I would like to call this one the “You damned well BETTER be right!” law.

    The concept is very simple. If you shoot and kill an innocent, unarmed person, you will be found guilty of manslaughter at the absolute minimum.

    So, for example, if someone throws popcorn at you at a movie, you can’t get away with killing the guy, because murder is not an acceptable response to thrown popcorn.

    If you chase down some innocent kid, get in a fight with him, and shoot and kill him, you will be found guilty of manslaughter at a minimum unless you can prove the kid was armed with a gun.

    If your new neighbors check out their shed and you shoot and kill them because you think the shed is yours, you get convicted of a minimum of manslaughter.

    If your gang meets a rival gang on a public street to have a shootout, and you kill some innocent civilians, you get convicted of a minimum of manslaughter.

    I want to add one other thing.

    The person killed should have the presumption of innocence.

    This is actually a big change to the current system. Right now there is always a presumption of guilt for the dead person with the bullet holes in him. In my opinion that is NOT acceptable. If someone is going to appoint himself judge, jury and executioner, then HE has to be the one who PROVES that the person he killed was “guilty”. If he CANNOT prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, then he is guilty of at least manslaughter.

    This would create a major change in certain high profile cases. In the latest one where the guy didn’t like the loud music coming from a car and shot and killed an unarmed teenager, there would be a MINIMUM conviction of manslaughter UNLESS he could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the kid was armed and planned to kill him.

    The reason for shifting this burden is rather obvious. When ANYONE appoints himself as judge, jury and executioner of another person, he has usurped the prerogatives of the legal system. When he does this, then of necessity he should also have the obligations of the law, and one of those obligations is to give the person being judged the presumption of innocence.

    The REAL issue in a “self defense” or “stand your ground” case isn’t that the person being tried is innocent, but that the person who was killed was GUILTY. That is why we see so much character assassination of the victims in these trials. That person — the DEAD person — deserves “presumption of innocence”.

    If your neighbors throw a noisy party and you go and shoot several of them to death, and they are unarmed, you should get convicted of a minimum of manslaughter.

    If at any time you shoot and kill some unarmed person, you WILL have to face a trial. You don’t just get to say: “I was scared” and not even have to face a jury.

    The killer should be able to avoid the manslaughter (or more severe) charge by showing that he was in LEGITIMATE danger of losing his life, that he took normal care to avoid the dangerous situation, and that he really had no reasonable alternative to killing the other person.

    In other words, if he had a LEGITIMATE case of self defense.

    • MLR

      Sounds reasonable and elections have consequences. The legal system will not change unless We The People insist on it.

    • Stephen Barlow

      I agree. You get the max, no parole. UNLESS there is a smoking gun or a bloody knife in your vanquished foes paws.

  • MLR

    The SYG laws have to go and we need universal background checks. I support law abiding citizens carrying guns, and depending on where you live (rural areas) most likely you do need to bear arms. What I don’t support are mentally unstable, angry people carrying guns and that should worry everyone. Background checks do not infringe on the 2nd Amendment except on people that really shouldn’t have guns and I’m ok with that. I believe SYG laws have to go because the law is not applied in a fair manner (Zimmerman, Dunn, Alexander) and seems to give white people a license to kill. All they have to do is claim they saw a gun and they’re good to go.

    • Charles Vincent

      Universal background checks do not work. We have them in Colorado and guess what the most recent school shooting still happened. You also fail to recognize that all but one of the recent mass shooters passed background checks when purchasing the firearms they used. You also fail to realize that most guns used in gun crimes were procured illegally either by the user stealing them or by purchasing them from someone else that stole them.

      http://www DOT firearmsid DOT com/feature%20articles/0900guic/guns%20used%20in%20crime DOT htm

      • MLR

        Well doing nothing is worse isn’t it? Can you imagine if everyone before us had this same attitude? Nothing would of ever gotten accomplished. Besides, there is no such thing as universal right now because not all states do it. Maybe if we actually tried we could find out if it works or not. They might not stop all shootings but if they save even one life isn’t that one life worth it?

      • Charles Vincent

        We already have done something we have background checks. Law abiding citizens have compromised enough. Always with you that are afraid of guns its if we just do this one other thing and when that is done well its not enough we need this one last thing to be safe, and when that is done its yet again one more thing. What is made in compromise is never enough and will never be enough to suit you, so no we will give no more on the subject no more will we compromise on our natural rights.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Then maybe we should be checking backrounds a lot harder.

        Or maybe… we should have citizens pass the same psych evaluation that cops and snipers for the army must pass to get the job handling firearms.

        NO pass, no bang bang.

      • Charles Vincent

        Those psych evals are doing a bang up job look at the naval yard shooter.

      • Stephen Barlow

        He’s not a cop AND he was discharged for psych issues. if Bush hadn’t tankedthe economy so badly, he never would have gotten the job. But then again, if Bush hadn’t invaded an innocent nation, the guy wouldn’t have psych issues either.

      • Charles Vincent

        Bush didn’t tank the economy congress did.

        So you’re saying that naval personnel don’t do psych evals? And cops getting evals still doing a bang up job.

      • Stephen Barlow

        You DO realize that all you DOT … DOT crap is’t a live link to verify you search for garbage, don’t you?

        Try opening the page and THEN copying the page addy. Someone someday may possibly be interested …

      • Charles Vincent

        uh special Olympian boy you have to do that they don’t allow links on this site. replace the DOT with a “.” we went over this already but for shits and giggles there it is again. So stop being lazy Stevie.

  • Stephen Barlow

    The only hole in this story is that Zimmerman is NOT really white. At least not as white as Dunn. And certainly not white enough to meet white supremacist standards.