Trayvon's Rule...

[jcreek]

Hahaha sounds to me like Florida just gained a whole new group of OC advocates.

 

[kerb]

I'm really interested to hear how this group of 1 million so called educated black men defines "provokes violence"

It seems like they are trying to make it so that it is acceptable to assault someone if the person provokes you first. So what does it take? Being in the wrong neighborhood wearing the wrong color (or being the wrong color)? Saying the wrong thing?

Seems these idiots haven't thought things through.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2

 

[dgifted]

soooooooo.....when one reads the part that says : * Any person carrying a firearm or in possession of a concealed weapon of any type, must openly identify this fact to anyone with whom they engage in confrontation......................................................................

Makes one wonder while they are at it, wouldn't open carry resolve that issue ?

It also takes away the reason for carrying concealed and, if showing concealed firearm, it may become "brandishing" which in most states is illegal. Who really thinks Trayvon would have backed off if Zimmerman said he had a firearm? Besides, as I recall, the reported confrontation began when Martin slugged Zimmerman in the face. Not exactly time to play "reveal" when the confrontation is initiated by the other party. According to the first "law", Trayvon could not declare self defense since he broke Z's nose without provocation. Also, the deniers seem to buy the storyline that the "cracker" was following him and refuse to consider Zimmerman was not following him but was heading back to his car when Martin confronted him. So, if they get this passed as a law, who is to say which version would be right. Zimmerman supposedly did not confront Martin and was surprised when Martin approached him, initiated the conflict and demanded to know why he was following him. So, this law would lead to "stand your ground" type issues. If somebody gets killed, all the live person would have to do is say the other person initiated the confrontation. If no witnesses, how are they going to prove him wrong. Stupid, typical libby reaction without thought for what their wished for new laws would really mean in confrontations. Oh, I forgot, only crackers can start a confrontation. If a black starts it, only when the white reacts does the confrontation begin. I wonder if the New BP party members would declare they have a firearm. After all, they tend to try to have confrontation anytime a cracker is around.

 

[dgifted]

"One million educated black men". Is this a race issue again?

To the Rev Al and Jesse and such, everything is a race issue..

 

[thedispatcher]

<1950's humor=on>can't be true; everyone know's there isn't such a thing as 1 million educated black men.<1950's humor=off> And why the race thing again. it's ok for minorities to be racist but better not be a white person and say anything about any other color. Why aren't these "1 million educated black men" concerned about all the black-on-black crime in gun free zone chicago or d.c. or n.y.c... blah

 

[tricolordad]

Just threw up in my mouth when I read this.

 

[The_Outlaw]

What a load of bull-feces.
Self-defense is self-defense, People need to just get over it!

 

[Sir Diealotz]

So...the old fart who tried to act up on me in the grocery store is going to react well when I look his shriveled old ass in the eye and say "The law requires that I warn you that I am armed"? I think this meets the legal definition of assault; threat of bodily harm and the means to do so.

Don't forget to call him a stale creepy azz Cracka LMFAO!

Im having way too much fun with this new terminology

 

[ezkl2230]

So where is the link to this "rule" being considered. Or is someone stirring the pot?

As I said, this is just getting going. https://www.facebook.com/pages/1-Million-Angry-Educated-Black-Men/369428149853243

 

[r1derbike]

Here we go again. More racially motivated excrement.

 

[ricardo900]

If the Million Black Men uses just half that energy to tackle the REAL PROBLEM, which is black on black crime! Maybe things will improve and CHANGE! There are literally thousands of unsolved Black person murders and nobody gives a shyt! I personally will Ban rap music and wearing pants without a belt. Also, if you are wearing too much Blue or Red? Gang member subjected to arrest. Enough already! Sick and fu**ing tired of this song and dance. Nothing will change!



Bernard Goetz for Mayor!!

 

[kerb]

It also takes away the reason for carrying concealed and, if showing concealed firearm, it may become "brandishing" which in most states is illegal. Who really thinks Trayvon would have backed off if Zimmerman said he had a firearm?

I think he might have. Don't think there was time though. Not that I would advocate saying anything anyway. Certainly not just for talking or even arguing. This whole affair certainly seems to make a case for open carry though. I doubt tm would have approached at all had open carry been in play.

Zimmerman supposedly did not confront Martin and was surprised when Martin approached him, initiated the conflict and demanded to know why he was following him.

As I understand it, the conflict was initiated on the first blow. Not when tm demanded to know why gz was following.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2

 

[jg1967]

Wouldn't this not apply in Zimmerman's case? He was observing Martin on the phone with Dispatch. If his story is true, and the jury did believe it. He was walking back to his truck when Martin confronted him. The initiator of the confrontation would therefore be Martin? Or am I way off?

Don't think that's the way THEY believed it happened.

 

[ezkl2230]

The more I think about that so called rule, the less sense it makes, not that it made much sense to begin with. It doesn't take much imagination to think through a scenario where this "rule" would do nothing other than make the victim a criminal. If you look out the window and see somebody breaking into your car, you would have to call 911 and let them get away because if you go out to stop them, you have initiated the confrontation.

What ever it takes to protect the freeloading criminal class I guess.

The more I think about it, in connection with Holder's remarks, the more convinced I become that the goal is to institute a reverse Jim Crow system that basically says that any time a non-black finds himself in a confrontational situation, they must give way to the black aggressor, because they will have the right to use force without a duty to retreat but the non-black will have a duty to retreat before they can even think about using force.

 

[MattiMuck]

Although par for the leftist discourse, a ridiculous suggestion (the rule), which as articulated doesn't even apply to the Zimmerman case...like most other arguments against his actions, supposed, fabricated, and actual.

Sent from my VS840 4G using USA Carry mobile app

 

[ezkl2230]

Although par for the leftist discourse, a ridiculous suggestion (the rule), which as articulated doesn't even apply to the Zimmerman case...like most other arguments against his actions, supposed, fabricated, and actual.

Sent from my VS840 4G using USA Carry mobile app

None of this actually applies to the Zimmerman case. But the average American doesn't know the difference between self defense and SYG. That is exactly what Holder, Obama, Bloomberg, and their Hollywood cronies are counting on. It gives them a pretext, and that is even better than a real reason, because the pretext gives them tremendous flexibility to manipulate the "facts" to fit their interpretation of what actually happened.

 

[tuts40]

"One million educated black men". Is this a race issue again?

And again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again... (poors another homebrew) ...and again, and again, and again, and again. Oh, and again.

 

[whodat2710]

First - this would never pass any legal test for many reasons, a lot mentioned on here already (especially the assault definition)
Second - I've said before that the powers that be knew they had no hope of ever winning the TM/GZ case. That was their intent. Stir the pot, divide the country and try to use this to take away guns. The prez said it in his first speech after the verdict.

 

[AndeyHall]

First - this would never pass any legal test for many reasons, a lot mentioned on here already (especially the assault definition)
Second - I've said before that the powers that be knew they had no hope of ever winning the TM/GZ case. That was their intent. Stir the pot, divide the country and try to use this to take away guns. The prez said it in his first speech after the verdict.

I think he might have been hoping for larger and more wide-scale riots. Would have been the perfect time to begin implementing his marital-law plan.

 

[whodat2710]

I think he might have been hoping for larger and more wide-scale riots. Would have been the perfect time to begin implementing his marital-law plan.

I'm sure the Brown-shirts were on standby