Fox News Readers: Trayvon Martin A ‘Little Thug Ghetto Monkey.’

[luckytxn 2,264]

This makes no sense.

Think American.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-urges-serious-investigation-florida-teen-killing-145235151.html

Obama gets personal over killing of black Florida teenager

By Jeff Mason and Daniel Trotta | Reuters – 5 hrs ago

WASHINGTON/SANFORD, Florida (Reuters) - President Barack Obama weighed into the controversial killing of a black teenager in Florida in very personal terms on Friday, comparing the boy to a son he doesn't have and calling for American "soul searching" over how the incident occurred.

Seventeen-year-old Trayvon Martin, dressed in a "hoodie" sweatshirt, was shot dead a month ago in Sanford, Florida by a 28-year-old white Hispanic neighborhood watch volunteer who said he was acting in self-defense.

"If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon," Obama said in his first comments about the shooting, acknowledging the racial element in the case.

"Obviously, this is a tragedy," Obama told reporters. "I can only imagine what these parents are going through. And when I think about this boy, I think about my own kids."

The case has rippled across the nation and prompted rallies protesting the failure of the police to arrest the shooter, George Zimmerman, and, more broadly, a pattern of racial discrimination black leaders cite in Sanford and elsewhere in the country.

Obama, the first black U.S. president, made his remarks at a White House event to announce his pick to lead the World Bank, waiting briefly after the announcement to take a reporter's question about the incident.

Martin's parents thanked the president for his words.

"The president's personal comments touched us deeply and made us wonder: If his son looked like Trayvon and wore a hoodie, would he be suspicious too?," they said in a statement.

Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law allows people to use deadly force in self-defense.

Similar laws are in effect in at least 24 states including Florida, according to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Calls are mounting to repeal them. Earlier this week, a Florida state senator said he was drafting new legislation to drastically change the law in Florida.

A South Carolina state representative said on Friday he had introduced a bill to repeal his state's law. Bakari Sellers, a black Democrat and gun owner, said he wanted to prevent an incident like the Trayvon Martin shooting happening in his state.

"I'm six-five and a black guy," he said. "I just know that it could have been me."

Obama said the "Stand Your Ground" laws should be studied.

"I think all of us have to do some soul-searching to figure out how does something like this happen. And that means that examine the laws and the context for what happened, as well as the specifics of the incident," he said.

"Every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this, and that everybody pulls together -- federal, state and local -- to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened."

RACIAL DIVIDES

Obama, the son of a white mother from Kansas and black father from Kenya, is often hesitant to reflect on race, a sensitive topic in the United States, which still grapples with a legacy of slavery, segregation and discrimination.

Early in his White House tenure, Obama inflamed another racially tinged incident after that declaring police had "acted stupidly" when arresting a well-known black documentary filmmaker, Henry Louis Gates, after an altercation at his home.

He later invited Gates and the white police officer, Sergeant James Crowley, to the White House, where the men shared a drink in what became known as Obama's "beer summit."

In Sanford, Norton Bonaparte Jr., the city's manager, acknowledged that tensions between the black community and police "go back many, many years." "The trust that existed is gone, so we have to start from ground zero," he said. Sanford's police chief and a Florida state prosecutor overseeing the case stepped aside on Thursday as criticism grew over the police handling of the investigation.

The U.S. Justice Department is also investigating. Senior officials from the department met with the Martin family in Florida on Thursday, along with their lawyer. A Justice Department spokeswoman said early in the week that they must collect evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was intent to violate civil rights laws.

A Florida college announced it had suspended Zimmerman's enrollment.

Zimmerman was working toward an associates degree in arts at Seminole State College in Sanford. He previously earned a vocational certificate in an insurance field, the school said. "Due to the highly charged and high-profile controversy involving this student, Seminole State has taken the unusual but necessary step this week to withdraw Mr. Zimmerman from enrollment," a statement dated Thursday said.

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, the frontrunner in the Republican race to be nominated to face Obama in the November 6 presidential election, added his voice to the issue as well.

"What happened to Trayvon Martin is a tragedy. There needs to be a thorough investigation that reassures the public that justice is carried out with impartiality and integrity," Romney said.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Both Obama and Romney are twits.

[Leatherneck 693]

Again you and I will disagree on taking away my Constitutional Rights being a good thing.

I agree with you here!

[Leatherneck 693]

You can't take away what you don't possess.

Since when did we not possess?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Since when did we not possess?

That is what I didn't get.

[luckytxn 2,264]

That is what I didn't get.

He was saying that he didn't think the Constitution gives us the right to possess. I say it does.

[Karee 4,190]

Where's Gary? I figured he'd be all over this.

Must be drinking a beer in Kiev.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The 2nd Amendment does protect the right of gun ownership, but the legal question for SCOTUS is whether that right is absolute. Looking at the 1st Amendment, it is obvious that our right to free speech is NOT absolute. You can't yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theater and be immune to legal consequences on the defense that you were expressing your right to free speech. The 2nd Amendment is no different. That is why each state gun laws vary greatly. NRA knows this and that is why they have never legally challenged state gun laws other than outright ban, because it is far more effective for them to argue their case against any and all gun laws in the court of public opinion than have SCOTUS b!tch slap them should the NRA challenge a law, like California requiring that you must keep a gun locked up and unloaded when having it in your vehicle. I personally think that law is over-reaching, but it is probably constitutional, because if the NRA thought they'd have a good chance at SCOTUS striking it down or any other state laws similar, they would do so in a heart beat.

These fairly new laws in certain states that give citizens more precedent to take lethal action will eventually be challenged. Either that, or wrongful death lawsuits will become the main counter to protect ordinary citizens from the danger of vigilantism.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Mister Fancypants

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

He was saying that he didn't think the Constitution gives us the right to possess. I say it does.

Sorta. I don't believe the Constitution gives you the right to carry weapons, concealed or otherwise, anywhere you want to. The history of the US, even in the Western territories, has always restricted the ability to carry firearms and their use. To enter the city limits of almost town meant you had to turn in your firearms before crossing the "deadline" lest you get "coldcocked" from behind by the local constabulary, a technique made famous by Wyatt Earp.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Sorta. I don't believe the Constitution gives you the right to carry weapons, concealed or otherwise, anywhere you want to. The history of the US, even in the Western territories, has always restricted the ability to carry firearms and their use. To enter the city limits of almost town meant you had to turn in your firearms before crossing the "deadline" lest you get "coldcocked" from behind by the local constabulary, a technique made famous by Wyatt Earp.

They have limits here in Alaska. You can't take guns onto school property, court houses, and bars.

[slim 1,525]

No. A child was murdered trying to defend himself from an armed neighborhood watch nut behaving in a threatening manner. George Zimmerman is not a gun rights hero, he's a liability. This safe, trained, and responsible gun owner is repulsed by his actions anyways. My 11 yr old is more qualified to own and carry a gun than this trashbag.

Where are you getting all these "facts" from?

I think now ole George wishes he would've taken the advice of the dispatcher -- and not followed that kid.

The dispatcher didn't tell him not to follow the kid, he said, "We don't need you to do that."

Another important thing to note is a dispatcher is not a law enforcement officer and is not on the scene. What I'm still wondering is where is the rest of the 9-1-1 call? I keep hearing snippets or edited information but I haven't heard the "challenge" or the part where they're fighting.

Has nobody else wondered why we haven't heard that part yet?

A black man can't defend himself against some crazy cracker messing with him?

Even on VJ it's OK to have a racism double standard. Wow. I'm shocked. Where's the outrage? Where are the mods?

I wonder, why didn't you say "A *** can't defend himself against some crazy cracker messing with him?" Probably because that'd get you thread banned. But yet, when you say "A black man can't defend himself against some crazy cracker messing with him?" It's OK.

And they wonder why we still have a problem with racism in America.

At a time in America when guns rights are advancing -- we don't need questionable shootings like this. Why give the gun-grabbers the bat with which to beat us over the head.

The police conducted an investigation. There were no questions.

Why is this questionable? Oh, that's right. It's because Americans are racist. *But only in certain circumstances.

Pretty dangerous!! Imagine you are just walking to your home and I decide I think you look like a would-be attacker. Having decided you are dangerous I execute you on the spot. No proof of a threat or attack yet I get away with it!

That's not what happened in this incident. If it were, I bet we'd see some charges.

It's important to note - there was an actual attack in this incident. The criminal didn't "look like an attacker" he WAS an attacker. There was a member of the community attacked by a non-member of the community.

Someone wandering through a residential community at night - in the rain - has no business being there. If they were truly "walking from the convenience store to home" then they would've been walking with a purpose. Someone meandering along with no purpose is suspicious. Neighborhood watch is designed to detect this activity since this activity is how break-ins, robberies, etc., begin.

Why is nobody asking the question of why this "model student-athlete" was walking through a residential neighborhood - IN ANOTHER CITY - late at night instead of preparing for school the next day? Are you folks suggesting that urban youth should be taking leisurely strolls through gated communities on school nights?

Good enough reason to be more restrictive on who gets to carry a concealed weapon. If you want to go through several weeks of law enforcement training, with annual refresher courses, and pass an annual psychological and physiological examination, and annually prove that you have a genuine need to carry a concealed weapon for some reason other that to put a little steel in your spine, then maybe, if the local sheriff or chief of police says it's okay to do so in his jurisdiction only.

Wow!

Are you really that scared of your fellow citizens?

What I want to know is why, in places like Chicago, there are double-digit shootings every weekend, the majority of which go unsolved by police, and the very same community of people who are supposed to be outraged and upset over it are the ones who "didn't see nothin." Yet we have an incident like this one in Florida, and all the sudden everyone knows all the "facts" of the case and there's nationwide, public outrage. Even our president released a statement about the incident. Where was he when all those folks were killed in Chicago?

Where are all these "outraged" people when it comes time to help the young people of our cities? It's amazing to me they want to "right the injustice" after something like this happens yet on a daily basis where they have the opportunity to impact the lives of themselves and those around them they play the "I don't know nothin" card. Sickening, really.

Most people would probably make responsible gun owners. The problem is the few who will not be able to handle that power responsibly. That does pose a danger to everyone else. Will it eventually turn into something resembling the 'wild west' of 100+ years ago? We seem destined to find out the answer to that question. I hope those of you who argue passionately that it is a good thing for more citizens to be 'packing' are right but I worry that what happened here will become more commonplace (and less newsworthy) in the future!

We're still blaming shootings on guns. Can we finally start blaming all the bad stuff that goes down on the people who do it?

And I'm not even talking about shootings. I'm talking about why young men have to be in other communities on a school night. I'm talking about why their parents don't have the same last name. I'm talking about why entire communities of people can't seem to make anything of themselves and be successful at life - all the while creating more people like them. Saddest part - why can't we fix it?

Why are we still concentrating on who(or what) to blame for the problem instead of fixing it? Why are we not personally responsible for our own communities?

Until that changes, I guess we'll just keep blaming peices of metal. Or drugs. Or alcohol. Lack of education. Lack of opportunity. Why don't we call it what it really is? Lack of responsibility!

Unless we know what it was that GZ said to this kid and what physical moves he made on him we will not know the true extent of GZ's guilt! It still appears that the primary mistake the kid made was 'walking while black'!

Once again, where's this tape? Where's the "evidence" of what happened? I'm shocked we haven't heard it.

Edited March 24, 2012 by slim

[slim 1,525]

Perhaps the stand your ground law needs some refinement. If you actively pursue someone, the court would have the option to file charges for either manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter.

Almost every court in the nation approaches use of force as "what a reasonable person would do in that instance." In this instance, a guy doing neighborhood watch (where's the evidence of what really happened?) was assaulted by a suspicious individual.

It's pretty reasonable, at that point, to defend yourself. Now, whether he was in fear for his life or just catching an @$$ whoopin is debatable. To me, that's the whole issue. Not whether or not he "pursued" the individual.

By the way, why do people keep bringing up the fact the the one person was black? They are both minorities correct?

Because this whole issue isn't about a justifiable deadly force incident. It's about racism. It's nearly impossible to have racism without white and black people involved.

As you can see, Zimmerman is becoming more and more Hispanic by the day. In every typical racist incident, if someone is half something or other, they're automatically the "other" (as in, the non-white). Just look at our "black" president. He's half white! Never do we hear about our white president, he's always black. Zimmerman is half Hispanic.... but I bet you he stays "white" for the remainder of this one.

Because I don't know you from Adam, and I don't trust other people with weapons. I didn't even trust my own troops with loaded weapons except in a strictly controlled environment. I had friends on the LAPD that were always losing their handguns when they were drinking. I watched LA Metro and Ventura County Sheriff off-duty officers and deputies shoot it out in the parking lot of a bar in Agoura Hills over an argument about a pool game.

Nope. Citizens and off-duty law enforcement don't need to be armed with concealed weapons just to go out of their homes.

I posted it before. If I come back to this thread tomorrow, I might dig it up again.

Why didn't you report those criminals to the authorities?

Sorta. I don't believe the Constitution gives you the right to carry weapons, concealed or otherwise, anywhere you want to. The history of the US, even in the Western territories, has always restricted the ability to carry firearms and their use. To enter the city limits of almost town meant you had to turn in your firearms before crossing the "deadline" lest you get "coldcocked" from behind by the local constabulary, a technique made famous by Wyatt Earp.

None of that applied to concealed weapons.

No law has ever stopped someone from concealing a weapon. Nor will any future law do so.

[웃 910]

Slim, is there anything wrong with me 'patrolling the hood'....Confronting/questioning/harassing a lone teenager.....When lone teenager gets upset and is willing to fight me...I put a bullet in his head and kill him because I feel threatened.

This has to at least be disorderly conduct. Maybe 30 days in jail and a $50 fine?

Edited March 24, 2012 by ☠

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Sorta. I don't believe the Constitution gives you the right to carry weapons, concealed or otherwise, anywhere you want to. The history of the US, even in the Western territories, has always restricted the ability to carry firearms and their use. To enter the city limits of almost town meant you had to turn in your firearms before crossing the "deadline" lest you get "coldcocked" from behind by the local constabulary, a technique made famous by Wyatt Earp.

You mean Wyatt Earp the murderer? Wyatt Earp became a tool of the 1%; he was supported by republican bank owners to get rid of local landowner "troublemakers". He shot at least one man in cold blood.

Anyway I wouldn't say early gun laws were constitutional. One of the first, shortly after the civil war, outlawed the purchase of any pistol that wasn't a navy or army type. These were the most expensive of the day (for instance I believe something like an 1860 army was a months wage for a union soldier; remington's were slightly cheaper) and the law's aim was to limit ownership to only the wealthy. Poor people and freed blacks were squeezed out.