Trayvon Martin

[Jupiter551]

Balderdash. No one is trying to confiscate your legal weapons.

Nah, there's no anti-gun lobbyists anywhere.

That's what they thought in Australia too.

Just to clear up some possible misconceptions...guns are not illegal in Australia per se. They're controlled.

To be fair it wasn't anti-gun lobbyists that caused that ban, it was political grandstanding and public outrage following this event http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)
Automatic weapons and handguns have been banned for use by the public since as early as the 1930s.
My grandmother (I didn't know until after the fact which pissed me off, because I saw their guns as I dunno...something I associated with my family, my grandparents) handed in a .303 semi-auto rifle, a semi-auto 22 rifle, a 5 shot 10 gauge browning semi-auto shotgun and two 12 gauge double barrels. The 12 gauges would have been legal to keep, but none of the guns were licensed in the first place I guess.
It also annoys me because I grew up target shooting, mostly with bows but sometimes with those guns, and have a genuine non-violent interest. But oh well, such is life. I could go out and get a handgun or semi-auto rifle if I wished, under a sportshooting category if I joined such a club.
These are the current legal categories in Australia - note that guns are NOT banned. They're restricted.

Category A: Rimfire rifles (not semi-automatic), shotguns (not pump-action or semi-automatic), air rifles, and paintball markers. A "Genuine Reason" must be provided for a Category A firearm.
Category B: Centrefire rifles (not semi-automatic), muzzleloading firearms made after 1 January 1901. A "Genuine Need" must be demonstrated, including why a Category A firearm would not be suitable.
Category C: Semi-automatic rimfire rifles holding 10 or fewer rounds and pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding 5 or fewer rounds. Category C firearms are strongly restricted: only primary producers, occupational shooters, collectors and some clay target shooters can own functional Category C firearms.
Category D: Semi-automatic centrefire rifles, pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding more than 5 rounds. Functional Category D firearms are restricted to government agencies and a few occupational shooters. Collectors may own deactivated Category D firearms.
Category H: Handguns including air pistols and deactivated handguns. this class is available to target shooters and farmers. To be eligible for a Category H firearm a target shooter must serve a probationary period of six months using club handguns, and a minimum number of matches yearly to retain each category of handgun.
Target shooters are limited to handguns of .38 or 9mm calibre or less and magazines may hold a maximum of 10 rounds. Participants in certain "approved" pistol competitions may acquire handguns up to .45", currently Single Action Shooting and Metallic Silhouette. IPSC shooting is not "approved" for the larger calibres, for as 9mm/.38/.357 handguns meet the IPSC rules. Category H barrels must be at least 100mm (3.94") long for revolvers, and 120mm (4.72") for semi-automatic pistols unless the pistols are clearly ISSF target pistols: magazines are restricted to 10 rounds. Handguns held as part of a collection were exempted from these limits.
Category R/E: Restricted weapons: machine guns, rocket launchers, assault rifles, flame-throwers, anti-tank guns, Howitzers, artillery, etc. can be owned by collectors in some states provided that these weapons have been rendered permanently inoperable. They are subject to the same storage and licensing requirements as fully functioning firearms.

 

[Bocefish]

It's truly a shame your Grandparents had to turn those in. Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to the guy on the video... what guns that are legal to have in your Australian home, have to be stored in such a manner that basically renders them useless during an unsuspected break-in. That is, if you go by the law.

 

[Jupiter551]

It's truly a shame your Grandparents had to turn those in. Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to the guy on the video... what guns that are legal to have in your Australian home, have to be stored in such a manner that basically renders them useless during an unsuspected break-in. That is, if you go by the law.

Hmm I'm not sure I haven't kept up to date on such things. I used to sleep in a bunkbed next to that rack of guns lol, from the age of 4 or 5 every time we'd go there on holiday. Of course the bullets and cartridges would be in another room up somewhere high, but I do think that gun responsibility is something adults teach kids, not something that needs to be defined by a locked box. Perhaps the law is more concerned with people stealing registered guns, or selling them and claiming they were stolen.

Honestly if I wanted something for home defense I'd take a shotgun over a rifle or pistol anyday. And again if I were concerned I'd keep it hidden but not locked up, and maybe sawn-off. If you REALLY need to use it then gun infringements are the least of your concern.

 

[Harvrath]

We already do that. Law Enforcement can trace a firearm from Manufacturer to the person who carried that gun out the dealer's door. They just have to follow the paper-trail from Manufacturer to Wholesaler to Dealer to Purchaser.

What is actually meant by Firearms Registration is akin to the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System owned, operated and maintained by the FBI. Our current system of following the Paper Trail is adequate.

Assuming once it leaves the dealer all other transfers of the weapon leave a paper trail that works pretty well I suppose. Seems like this could be used to track down and confiscate the guns as well. But you say adequate. Not ideal. I suspect a registration system would be significantly faster. Oh well. At least it's adequate.

I feel better now knowing the police will do an adequate job investigating the circumstances behind the murder of Trayvon Martin. I only hope for an adequate level of justice. This "stand your ground" law, however, is inadequate. It must be changed. It completely throws the idea of appropriate use of force out the window as long as there are no witnesses. At the very least, Zimmerman should be arrested for manslaughter and possibly for murder in the 2nd or 3rd degree in my opinion.

We can trace a gun in a few hours with our current system versus a few minutes with a National Database. Would being able to trace a firearm in minutes bring the dead back to life? IAFIS can match prints in 30 minutes, that is adequate.

I fail to see why I should have to justify any rights, the exercise of any of my rights, why I should suffer any restriction on my rights or why Criminals should get protected by law during the commission of any unlawful act.

 

[Jupiter551]

or why Criminals should get protected by law during the commission of any unlawful act.

Well only in the sense that someone doing something illegal should be punished somewhat commensurate for the crime... I've shoplifted in the past, didn't feel like an evil person and don't think it would have been fair for the shopkeeper to kill me for it.

People committing a crime shouldn't have MORE rights than the victim, but they still have to have some rights otherwise you might as well institute summary capital punishment like Judge Dredd for everything from littering to murder.

 

[Harvrath]

or why Criminals should get protected by law during the commission of any unlawful act.

Well only in the sense that someone doing something illegal should be punished somewhat commensurate for the crime... I've shoplifted in the past, didn't feel like an evil person and don't think it would have been fair for the shopkeeper to kill me for it.

If I was on the jury, I'd acquit the shop-keeper.

 

[Jupiter551]

or why Criminals should get protected by law during the commission of any unlawful act.

Well only in the sense that someone doing something illegal should be punished somewhat commensurate for the crime... I've shoplifted in the past, didn't feel like an evil person and don't think it would have been fair for the shopkeeper to kill me for it.

If I was on the jury, I'd acquit the shop-keeper.

lol then you're a fucking sociopath.

 

[Neudiin]

The only thing that has me completely baffled is how Zimmerman wasn't even taken in for questioning. I mean how many Law and Order's have you seen where they come in put cuffs on a person, take them to the room with the brown table while the black Lt stand behind the mirror and the person is asked to tell their story 15 times from different angles while they try to see if there are holes in the story? Talk about shoddy police work.

But all will be well now, Al Sharpton and Farrakhan are on the case

 

[Jupiter551]

The only thing that has me completely baffled is how Zimmerman wasn't even taken in for questioning. I mean how many Law and Order's have you seen where they come in put cuffs on a person, take them to the room with the brown table while the black Lt stand behind the mirror and the person is asked to tell their story 15 times from different angles while they try to see if there are holes in the story? Talk about shoddy police work.

But all will be well now, Al Sharpton and Farrakhan are on the case

Anyone who's ever had experience with police will know that the zealous fervour with which they might pursue even the most minor infraction doesn't seem to translate to the actually important cases.

There's a model on this forum that was imprisoned for stealing a sandwich. Not going to reveal her, but seriously - it happens allll the time. Commit some inconsequential infraction and they will come down on you hard. Shoot a black kid and they couldn't care less til the media finds out.

 

[LadyLuna]

or why Criminals should get protected by law during the commission of any unlawful act.

Well only in the sense that someone doing something illegal should be punished somewhat commensurate for the crime... I've shoplifted in the past, didn't feel like an evil person and don't think it would have been fair for the shopkeeper to kill me for it.

If I was on the jury, I'd acquit the shop-keeper.

lol then you're a fucking sociopath.

Am I one then? I'd also acquit the shop-keeper... He has the right to protect his property, and until the merchandise within the store is sold, it is still his property. If the scene was at the victim's home while the victim was there, it wouldn't even be a question. But since it's within a store there is one?

While I agree that shooting to kill someone who is stealing something is not the way to go, as things stand, if I bash a thief over the head in the middle of the heist, I can be sued by the thief for any hospital expenses. That's fucked up right there.

 

[Jupiter551]

Am I one then? I'd also acquit the shop-keeper... He has the right to protect his property, and until the merchandise within the store is sold, it is still his property. If the scene was at the victim's home while the victim was there, it wouldn't even be a question. But since it's within a store there is one?

While I agree that shooting to kill someone who is stealing something is not the way to go, as things stand, if I bash a thief over the head in the middle of the heist, I can be sued by the thief for any hospital expenses. That's fucked up right there.

For shop-lifting? You think it's okay to shoot someone for shop-lifting?

Have you ever exceeded the speed limit? Because that's a crime potentially deadly to other people, if you crash into my car while speeding should I be able to shoot you on site?

It seems like there's an attitude that if someone is committing a crime, it's okay to commit crimes against them. No, you can't assault a thief, for one thing assault is a far more serious crime than theft, and secondly if you want the law on your side you need to realise it's not your place to hand out punishment. Unless you're Captain America you don't "bash the thief over the head", you call the police, and make a note of any details you can like descriptions, license plates, etc.

In the movies you hit someone over the head with a bottle or something and they drop unconscious and wake up 3 hours later with a headache. In real life they either don't go unconscious at all, or suffer severe concussion possibly leading to brain damage and coma. And yeah, you are responsible for that if you had any other alternative - like calling the police.

One crime doesn't justify an even more serious one. If your safety is not immediately threatened you have NO right and no grounds to assault or injure another person - thief or not.

Anyway you couldn't "acquit" him, he'd be convicted for murder, on what grounds would you acquit him? Juries don't just get to circumvent the law you know.

 

[camstory]

I completely see what you are saying but most Western societies have strict gun laws, and from my personal point of view I feel safer knowing that everyone i walk into might not be packing heat, lesser so that only the most elite police might me carrying weapons

The US has the highest amount of gun crime per capita in the developed world, and its not difficult to see why when you can pick up a piece at a Walmart

I don't know if this point has been made b/c I am responding to a page 1 post, with out reading to the end. (I'm tired, lazy, and apparently have little respect for forum etiquette right now)

I hate guns being in the hands of the non hunting public. I agree that the disproportional occurrences of homicides in the U.S. is directly related to the huge proliferation of fire arms. I also believe that the reason there are not anywhere near like numbers of ppl killed with knifes, hatchets, and claw hammers, is not just the difference in lethality of fire arms compared to these, but also b/c in the second it takes to draw back and swing/stab, there is often time to reconsider. A twitch of the finger happens to fast for any time to reconsider.

All that said, I believe that thinking gun control laws (especially the watered down type, that are the only kind that have any chance of getting passed here) put in place today could have any real impact any time soon is just not being real. It would be decades before we saw any big change, and in the mean time it would only serve to take guns from those least likely to kill with them.

This clearly head fucked killer would have been packing regardless of permit/licence. If he had been arrested for illegally carrying, and his gun been seized a week before this happened, it still would have happened, but with a gun he bought from a buddy the next day, or with one of his other 6. I have been unfortunate enough to know assholes like this guy and once they start carrying a gun, revoking their permit/licence is only going to effect how well they hide it from law enforcement, it's not going to stop them from carrying and looking for reasons to use it.

 

[Anonymous]

http://uglyamerica.wordpress.com/2012/0 ... thank-him/

I figured that fucked-up blog would have something to say about Trayvon Martin. :roll:


Nothing but hate towards Black people on that blog. When I first came across it a while ago, they were making nasty comments about Emmett Till, the 14 year old boy who was murdered for flirting with a White woman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till

 

[Mirra]

Seriously, people. Defending your family, go ahead and shoot the bastard... but a thief?!?!? IT'S FUCKING STUFF. THINGS! They don't FUCKING MATTER compared to a person's life. Most things can be replaced. Sentimental things can sometimes be recovered. When life ends it's over. Not to mention in addition to the 17 states with "Stand-your-ground" laws, there are 27 states that have strong "Castle Doctrine" laws. Two other states have weaker "Castle Doctrine" laws. That means there are 44 states where you can use a lot of force and 2 others where you have a good chance of being acquitted if you're defending your home... where the least replaceable things in your life likely reside.

As for the speeding analogy... operating a vehicle PROPERLY can turn deadly even. Maybe all people who drive should be shot. Before this policy goes into effect, I need a little faster car though so it'll be harder for them to catch me. >_>

http://uglyamerica.wordpress.com/2012/03/24/the-nigger-in-boys-clothing-trayvon-martin-facebook-photos-show-what-george-zimmerman-knew-the-reason-we-should-all-thank-him/

I figured that fucked-up blog would have something to say about Trayvon Martin. :roll:


Nothing but hate towards Black people on that blog. When I first came across it a while ago, they were making nasty comments about Emmett Till, the 14 year old boy who was murdered for flirting with a White woman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till

The level of ignorance on that blog is pretty impressive but not surprising to me. Is that a bad thing?

 

[bud9752]

"An armed person is a Citizen, an unarmed person is a Subject".
with that being said and being a supporter of the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms", what this individual Zimmerman has done was not a case that should fall under the "Stand your Ground" law as he WAS THE PURSUER of Trayvon Martin. He was the ARMED AGGRESSOR in the situation and ignored the 911 operator to not pursue/follow the individual he reported in his 911 call. I have no respect for Zimmerman instigating the confrontation that set this incident in motion. In pursuing Trayvon Martin he gave up his claim to SELF DEFENSE as he was the ARMED individual and purposely put HIMSELF in the position of "Criminal Armed Assault" and "Criminal Negligent Homicide" charges when he started the confrontation. The local Police Department FAILED MISERABLY in its initial response and investigation of this incident.


:twocents-02cents:

 

[Paulie Walnuts]

Whoa wait, we found out what happened.
Geraldo Revera broke the news... the hoodie did it.

Yes, geraldo said that he was wearing a hoodie and that the hoodie is to blame for him being mistaken for a banger, and well... you know.

All because of the hoodie. We have to outlaw hoodies immediately. For the children.

 

[KeelyAimee]

Regarding Stand Your Ground law in Florida.

People are saying it upped the number of justifiable homicides. It was supposed to do that. The problem before was that normal, law-abiding citizens were going to jail and having to spend thousands of dollars on a defense attorney after shooting someone who was trying to rob or attack them.

Before SYG a person would be charged with homicide and then have to go to court and prove there was absolutely no other choice but to shoot their attacker. And if the prosecutor could come up with some scenario about how a person could've possibly gotten away without killing his attacker, the person being tried for homicide was screwed.

When it comes down to it, cops and prosecutors don't like the law because it places the burden of proof back on the state, where it ultimately belonged in the first place.

However, in the Trayvon Martin case, there's plenty of evidence that Zimmerman didn't act in self-defense. Take his own call to the police, along with the other 911 calls and statements from the girl Martin was talking to on the phone, that show he chased down the kid, without having any authority to do so, and he started the fight. SYG has NOTHING to do with this case. The Sanford police were just lazy (or maybe racist) and didn't perform a thorough investigation. Just my .02

 

[Jupiter551]

Regarding Stand Your Ground law in Florida.

People are saying it upped the number of justifiable homicides. It was supposed to do that. The problem before was that normal, law-abiding citizens were going to jail and having to spend thousands of dollars on a defense attorney after shooting someone who was trying to rob or attack them.

Before SYG a person would be charged with homicide and then have to go to court and prove there was absolutely no other choice but to shoot their attacker. And if the prosecutor could come up with some scenario about how a person could've possibly gotten away without killing his attacker, the person being tried for homicide was screwed.

When it comes down to it, cops and prosecutors don't like the law because it places the burden of proof back on the state, where it ultimately belonged in the first place.

However, in the Trayvon Martin case, there's plenty of evidence that Zimmerman didn't act in self-defense. Take his own call to the police, along with the other 911 calls and statements from the girl Martin was talking to on the phone, that show he chased down the kid, without having any authority to do so, and he started the fight. SYG has NOTHING to do with this case. The Sanford police were just lazy (or maybe racist) and didn't perform a thorough investigation. Just my .02

Fair enough but does this highlight a continuing problem - that those deemed SYG killings aren't often investigated as thoroughly? As far as crime statistics go a 'routine' SYG justifiable homicide looks better for the police than an open murder, and involves far less work.

Let's be clear here - if Trayvon wasn't legally a child, visiting his father who lived in the area, it's doubtful we'd have ever heard of this. If he'd been an adult black man walking around lost, visiting his girlfriend or hell - just going for a walk - I think he'd just be another statistic on some crime figures board.

 

[Jupiter551]

http://uglyamerica.wordpress.com/2012/03/24/the-nigger-in-boys-clothing-trayvon-martin-facebook-photos-show-what-george-zimmerman-knew-the-reason-we-should-all-thank-him/

I figured that fucked-up blog would have something to say about Trayvon Martin. :roll:


Nothing but hate towards Black people on that blog. When I first came across it a while ago, they were making nasty comments about Emmett Till, the 14 year old boy who was murdered for flirting with a White woman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till

I had never heard of Emmett Till or his murder til your post, after reading about it, it disgusts me that people of my own grandfather's generation could have views like one of the murderers later expressed in a magazine interview - only a little over 50 years ago!

Then I kept reading about how the case progressed and how

Mississippi state field secretary for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) Medgar Evers, and Amzie Moore, head of the Bolivar County chapter, became involved, disguising themselves as cotton pickers and going into the cotton fields in search of any information that might help find Till.

I thought wow, that is an incredibly brave thing for those guys to have done in an area and time like that, clicked on the link to Medgar Evers and saw that sure enough, he was shot in the back at his home by a member of the KKK only a few years later. He was 37.

Sorry for the threadjack but my god those guys had some guts to stand up and try to make a difference, I really really admire that.

And my god it scares me that it could happen not that long ago.

 

[KeelyAimee]

Regarding Stand Your Ground law in Florida.

People are saying it upped the number of justifiable homicides. It was supposed to do that. The problem before was that normal, law-abiding citizens were going to jail and having to spend thousands of dollars on a defense attorney after shooting someone who was trying to rob or attack them.

Before SYG a person would be charged with homicide and then have to go to court and prove there was absolutely no other choice but to shoot their attacker. And if the prosecutor could come up with some scenario about how a person could've possibly gotten away without killing his attacker, the person being tried for homicide was screwed.

When it comes down to it, cops and prosecutors don't like the law because it places the burden of proof back on the state, where it ultimately belonged in the first place.

However, in the Trayvon Martin case, there's plenty of evidence that Zimmerman didn't act in self-defense. Take his own call to the police, along with the other 911 calls and statements from the girl Martin was talking to on the phone, that show he chased down the kid, without having any authority to do so, and he started the fight. SYG has NOTHING to do with this case. The Sanford police were just lazy (or maybe racist) and didn't perform a thorough investigation. Just my .02

Fair enough but does this highlight a continuing problem - that those deemed SYG killings aren't often investigated as thoroughly? As far as crime statistics go a 'routine' SYG justifiable homicide looks better for the police than an open murder, and involves far less work.

Let's be clear here - if Trayvon wasn't legally a child, visiting his father who lived in the area, it's doubtful we'd have ever heard of this. If he'd been an adult black man walking around lost, visiting his girlfriend or hell - just going for a walk - I think he'd just be another statistic on some crime figures board.

Unfortunately, that may be true. However like I said, this case shouldn't have anything to do Stand Your Ground law.

I don't know for sure if SYG killings are or are not as often investigated thoroughly, this is just in this case that I can say with certainty that it was not investigated thoroughly (even to the untrained eye, we all know that this is not an act of self-defense).

 

[Jupiter551]

Unfortunately, that may be true. However like I said, this case shouldn't have anything to do Stand Your Ground law.

I don't know for sure if SYG killings are or are not as often investigated thoroughly, this is just in this case that I can say with certainty that it was not investigated thoroughly (even to the untrained eye, we all know that this is not an act of self-defense).

Indeed, though perhaps being able to shoot someone in the street in your neighbourhood without attempting to retreat from the situation is itself a law that's kind of designed to get people kiled. If the laws were too strict before, perhaps the laws are too lenient now. It can go both ways.

 

[KeelyAimee]

Unfortunately, that may be true. However like I said, this case shouldn't have anything to do Stand Your Ground law.

I don't know for sure if SYG killings are or are not as often investigated thoroughly, this is just in this case that I can say with certainty that it was not investigated thoroughly (even to the untrained eye, we all know that this is not an act of self-defense).

Indeed, though perhaps being able to shoot someone in the street in your neighbourhood without attempting to retreat from the situation is itself a law that's kind of designed to get people kiled. If the laws were too strict before, perhaps the laws are too lenient now. It can go both ways.

I want to agree with you, but like I said before, out of a thousand cases this is the case that is being nationally publicized, because it's clearly not self-defense, it's cold blooded murder, yet it's being treated as such due to poor/shoddy police work.

However, what if a few weeks from now someone is pursued publicly and their life is threatened and they really can't retreat, and we don't have the SYG law, and they shoot and kill the person threatening their life and end up going to jail/court because a prosecutor concocted a bullshit story about them possibly being able to retreat and they in turn go to jail.

I'm not saying this law is only good, but I think when it's properly used and it does work and police work is thorough, it does what it's supposed to do. The Castle Law is good, stating that when someone is your house you have no duty to retreat, but what about when someone is pursuing you publicly, what if you're handicapped, what if you can't retreat, then you should have the right to fight for your life, and to use deadly force if necessary.

 

[Mirra]

Regarding Stand Your Ground law in Florida.

People are saying it upped the number of justifiable homicides. It was supposed to do that. The problem before was that normal, law-abiding citizens were going to jail and having to spend thousands of dollars on a defense attorney after shooting someone who was trying to rob or attack them.

Before SYG a person would be charged with homicide and then have to go to court and prove there was absolutely no other choice but to shoot their attacker. And if the prosecutor could come up with some scenario about how a person could've possibly gotten away without killing his attacker, the person being tried for homicide was screwed.

I am still wary of a law that doesn't put any/enough emphasis on looking for an opportunity to retreat before use of potentially deadly force. I've grown up around way too many hicks who I think would relish the opportunity to "stand his ground" to feel comfortable with the amount of allowance afforded by these bills.

When it comes down to it, cops and prosecutors don't like the law because it places the burden of proof back on the state, where it ultimately belonged in the first place.

However, in the Trayvon Martin case, there's plenty of evidence that Zimmerman didn't act in self-defense. Take his own call to the police, along with the other 911 calls and statements from the girl Martin was talking to on the phone, that show he chased down the kid, without having any authority to do so, and he started the fight. SYG has NOTHING to do with this case. The Sanford police were just lazy (or maybe racist) and didn't perform a thorough investigation. Just my .02

This I can agree with completely. The police messed this one up. They had ample time and resources to have determined this was not a case of SYG before March even arrived. Just last week after this case started getting new attention did new revelations apparently surface. I say apparently as I am quite sure policeman somewhere already realized what was going on but hid it because of some kind of strange empathy for Zimmerman's actions.

 

[Bocefish]

Just heard the black panthers put out a $10K reward for the citizen's arrest of Zimmerman. Yeah, monetarily motivate a bunch of civilians to go after an armed suspect that obviously thinks he has the right to shoot anybody that looks at him wrong. Brilliant!

 

[Bocefish]

Seeing as how the Sanford PD totally screwed up the investigation (if you can call it one) from the very start, maybe they can at least take Zimmerman into protective custody now until the Grand Jury convenes to hear the evidence. That would be the wise and prudent thing to do, so I doubt it will happen.

The New Black Panther Party put up a $10,000 reward for the capture of Trayvon Martin’s shooter, the Orlando Sentinel reported Saturday, following a demonstration by the group in Florida.

The party called for black men to mobilize and capture George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer who said he shot the teen as an act of self-defense. He has not been charged with a crime and has not made any public statements since the Feb. 26 incident.

A report from the AFP describes a poster from the group seeking Zimmerman “ALIVE… not dead or harmed.”

From the Sentinel story:

When asked whether he was inciting violence, (New Black Panther Party leader Mikhail) Muhammad replied defiantly saying: “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.”

The bounty announcement came moments after members of the group called for the mobilization of 5,000 black men to capture Zimmerman…

Muhammad said members of his group would search for Zimmerman themselves in Maitland and Jacksonville — where the 28-year old worked before the shooting, employees there told the Orlando Sentinel. But he declined to say when they will begin their hunt….

“If the government won’t do the job, we’ll do it,” Muhammad said, leading his group of eight party members in chants like “freedom or death” and “justice for Trayvon” while making the iconic gesture of raising their fists into the air.

Muhammad told the paper the national organization has begun fundraising for their efforts and hopes to collect $1 million by next week.

 

[SweepTheLeg]

 

[Jupiter551]

Regarding the reward for Zimmerman: I don't think vigilantism is the answer, I think it's the problem.

 

[SweepTheLeg]

Vigilantism is what caused this mess in the first place only added on to by the lack of any effort by the police department. Who should people be more upset with? Zimmerman for the act or the police for letting him get away with it?

 

[Jupiter551]

Vigilantism is what caused this mess in the first place only added on to by the lack of any effort by the police department. Who should people be more upset with? Zimmerman for the act or the police for letting him get away with it?

Both guilty, for different reasons. Unlike Zimmerman the police can still do the right thing.

 

[Anonymous]

Sounded like George said "fucking coons" when I listened on my headphones.

Looking at the photos, Trayvon was such an adorable kid too. No parent should ever have to outlive their child...and to remember your child's last words being "HELP! HELP!" :icon-cry: