the Black Panther guys were on the news being interviewed and made the statements on the air. Kind of hard to fake that. They were complaining about how all the whites are killing blacks with no repercussions. Funny fact in the matter is more blacks kill blacks than whites do. Thats a national statistic. Why arent they raising hell about killing each other since its more prevalent. No mention of that.
Originally posted by Raydar: This is my first and probably last comment in this thread. (All the other stuff has been done to death, and will come out, eventually. One way or the other.)
If this thing about the panthers is true (and I'm assuming it is, since it's being widely reported) why aren't they being investigated/watched as a terrorist organization? Where is Homeland Security?
I know it is never "politic" (on PFF) to say anything that suggests any positive aspects to our current national administration--but what makes you think that these "panthers" are NOT being watched closely by Homeland Security..?
I know it is never "politic" (on PFF) to say anything that suggests any positive aspects to our current national administration--but what makes you think that these "panthers" are NOT being watched closely by Homeland Security..?
Thank you. I am unsure who can show if groups like these are or are not being watched.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 03-27-2012).]
Thank you. I am unsure who can show if groups like these are or are not being watched.
They may very well be watched, they have been in the past. I would think that they would have been arrested for putting up a bounty for capture/kidnapping, really that is what it amounts to. Maybe they can get themselves shot too!
To be fair I believe people are implying that race played a role in the investigation (or presumed lack thereof), not necessarily the actual shooting.
quote
Doni Hagan on page one (1) If one examines the facts that have been released thus far, there should be little doubt that the incident was racially motivated to a certain degree, as Zimmerman's comments prior to the incident (and his history as a "community watcher") will bear witness to. To disregard that race could play a role in the incident simply because Zimmerman is of Hispanic background (as if racial prejudice can't exist in any other form beyond "Black/White" issues) is, respectfully using your own terminology, naive.
Seems people have made up their minds, even I have leanings to what I think but it would be nice to have the ability to hear both sides instead of one, instead we are left to guess. It would be nice to have more facts and as more aspects come to light we may have a better understanding. Who knows how murky this may get now.
Someone mentioned that Zimmermans father was a judge should we assume because of that he knew what to tell the police as to not get arrested? People are claiming that Zimmerman can be heard saying "****ing Coons". Is it fair to judge either party by such things? Doesn't change the fact that a child who apparently was just taking a walk to the store was gunned down in what could have been a complete misunderstanding. Tragic.
People in Central Florida would NOT use the term "coon"... especially a Hispanic.
I've lived here in South Florida for 17 years... even for a couple of years in a city (Davie) that used to be the former HQ of the KKK (back in the 70s apparently). During the entire 17 years I lived in South Florida, I never heard a single person ever use the word Coon... that is a deep south (Alabama, Georgia) kind of term. I would be surprised if you could even do a search for Uhlanstan (who lives near there) and found any time when he used the word Coon.
There are PLENTY of other words for that, both in Yiddish, Spanish, and Miami speak... and "Coon" is not one of them.
Just sayin...
Not saying it's impossible, but it would be like me calling one of my old friends "an old chap."
quote
Originally posted by normsf:
Hello, I heard that the panthers have upped their bounty from $10.000.00 to one Million. Dont know if that is true, but where would they get that money from and can someone legally collect it.
I cant imagine what if a white group had a bounty on a black person the outcry over that. Yet as Christians, Catholics and white beauty queens cant say anything that would be politically incorrect, just bear it.
I don't know why it even makes any news, the "New Black Panthers" group consists of about 10 members, a website, and they hang out in the garage of some dude named Shabazz. They don't have money for $10,000 anything... and certainly don't have a million.
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 03-27-2012).]
This is my first and probably last comment in this thread. (All the other stuff has been done to death, and will come out, eventually. One way or the other.)
If this thing about the panthers is true (and I'm assuming it is, since it's being widely reported) why aren't they being investigated/watched as a terrorist organization? Where is Homeland Security?
Just like Eric Holder didn't investigate the Black Panther group when they were intimidating voters into voting for his guy, he won't investigate the Black Panthers for fear of upsetting his people. I would go one step further and say him and Obama see this event as a politcal goldmine. Obama "the uniter" has in reality been all about division. 99% vs. 1%, Agnostic vs. Christian, and Black vs. White. As an added bonus, he gets to use this as an example of why guns are evil, and will no doubt use it as means to try and take away US citizens right to arms themselves. He stands to profit from this more than Trayvon's mom.
I know it is never "politic" (on PFF) to say anything that suggests any positive aspects to our current national administration--but what makes you think that these "panthers" are NOT being watched closely by Homeland Security..?
Because the Black Panthers are one of the biggest supporters of the Obama administration? Why would Obama investigate his own? And 82 T/A, $10,000 is not hard to come by, especially when you have the backing of the president of the United States and big wigs like Al Sharpton.
[This message has been edited by loafer87gt (edited 03-27-2012).]
Because the Black Panthers are one of the biggest supporters of the Obama administration? Why would Obama investigate his own? And 82 T/A, $10,000 is not hard to come by, especially when you have the backing of the president of the United States and big wigs like Al Sharpton.
Hello maybe youre right, wasnt it Spike Lee who tweeted Zimmermans home address making it public. Possibly Spike Lee would himself put up the bounty money.
[This message has been edited by normsf (edited 03-27-2012).]
Because the Black Panthers are one of the biggest supporters of the Obama administration? Why would Obama investigate his own? And 82 T/A, $10,000 is not hard to come by, especially when you have the backing of the president of the United States and big wigs like Al Sharpton.
You know, it sounds all kooky, but I looked it up, and the Media is calling them the "Black Panthers", when they are actually the "New Black Panther Party", a group that is an even more racist offshoot of the already extremely racist "Nation of Islam"
quote
Wikipedia The Nation of Islam is a black supremacist[1][2][3][4] new religious movement founded in Detroit, Michigan by Wallace D. Fard Muhammad in July 1930, stating their goals to improve the spiritual, mental, social, and economic condition of African Americans in the United States.[5] The movement teaches black pride and principles of Islam, while at the same time advocating for anti-Semitism.[4][6][7][8] They teach that their founder Wallace Fard Muhammad is a Mahdi.[9]
The Original Black Panthers are only a few members, and don't have the funds to put a bounty on anyone's head. If the "New Black Panther Party" is involved you really have to wonder about the people standing around them.
quote
The New Black Panther Party (NBPP), whose formal name is the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, is a U.S.-based black political organization founded in Dallas, Texas in 1989. Despite its name, NBPP is not an official successor to the Black Panther Party.[1] Members of the original Black Panther Party have insisted that the newer party is illegitimate and have firmly declared that "there is no new Black Panther Party".[1] The Anti-Defamation League, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights consider the New Black Panthers to be a hate group.[2][3][4]
And, according to the same Wiki page,
quote
Bounty for George Zimmerman's Capture
Another controversy occurred in 2012 after the NBPP offered a $10,000 bounty for the "legal citizen's arrest" of George Zimmerman, the alleged perpetrator of the shooting of Trayvon Martin. The group also stated that it believed in "a life for a life". The bounty offer was condemned and repudiated by Martin's family and others, including the Rev. Jesse Jackson. The NBPP's organizer, Mikhail Mohammed, said that the U. S. Constitution granted the right to a citizen's arrest, but he also said that "I don't obey the white man's law, I don't follow the American law." [32]
But no, no racism at all there.
I'm just curious, do the people that are hanging out with these people know what they actually believe in? They are a mirror image of the KKK.
Brad
[This message has been edited by twofatguys (edited 03-27-2012).]
George Zimmerman, the man responsible for shooting and killing 17- year-old Trayvon Martin is in hiding and with good reason. He has moved out of his apartment to an undisclosed location and has been kicked out of Seminole State College. There is a price on Zimmerman's head and it is not the Sanford Police Department that is trying to cash in. A number of rallies took place on Thursday, protesting the killing of Trayvon Martin. The New Black Panthers were handing out flyers at a rally at Sanford City Hall with Zimmerman's picture on them. The caption read “wanted dead or alive.”
quote
In this family photograph, Trayvon Martin, is shown at age 14 when he played for the Optimists football team in Miami Gardens.
I don't know why it even makes any news, the "New Black Panthers" group consists of about 10 members, a website, and they hang out in the garage of some dude named Shabazz. They don't have money for $10,000 anything... and certainly don't have a million.
I suppose the real tragedy will be if they can't make good on their promise of a bounty for the person who kills Zimmerman?
OK, Bear with me (though I suspect it won't matter what I say.)
...
quote
But there were witnesses, 5 of them that were willing to give statements to the Police. You start this paragraph saying there were no witnesses, and finish it saying there was. How do you want to slant it?
There are NO, NONE, NADA, NADIE, NO ONE who saw the original confrontation. Show me a link to a story or quote of anyone who actually saw them first come together. This is the most important part of this event and can decide who is innocent or guilty of what. All witnesses presented themselves after this moment and not before. ...
quote
It was said on the news this morning that he called the non-emergency line, not 911. So this is not a "fact."
The call was recorded and I havent seen this reported in the news here. Again I ask for a link to show this.
2-Zimmerman was armed with a 9mm hand gun.
quote
And?
What was his need to have a gun. No other neighborhood watches that I know of have weapons. Most just call the police when they see something suspicious and wait for them to show up. It's safer that way.
3-Zimmerman left his SUV to continue his pursuit of Martin on foot. He was told to not follow Martin by the 911 operator when he admitted doing so. He can be heard running after being told not to pursue.
quote
It was a suggestion, and not an order, but that aside, according to a witness version Zimmerman was told not to follow a few moments before he was attacked by Martin. He was walking back to his SUV according to what I have read. So once again, it's not proven and not a fact.
Again, show me any article or link that shows anyone that saw Martin attack Zimmerman first or witnessed Zimmerman walking back to his SUV.
4-Martin was aware that he was being followed and told his girlfriend about it. He had been on his cellphone with her the whole time this was happening. He was using an ear bud device to talk on his cellphone. It somehow became disconnected just before the confrontation and their communication is cut off.
quote
This is another story with no proof, even ABC who claims to be the only news source with the tapes from his Girlfriend only has tapes of her talking about what happened. So, no this is not fact either.
So his girlfriend is not a reliable witness. This could be true because she was his girlfriend, but first stories are usually the truer ones.
5-911 calls started pouring in about someone crying and screaming for help until a shot is heard.
quote
You mean, witnesses? Those people that you said earlier didn't exist?
Hearing something and seeing it actually happen are two different things. Again show me which of this "witnesses" actually saw or heard the initial confrontation. The answer is easy, none. There also are witnesses that the police refused to take statements from. Why is their testimony not important? One even made several calls because they refused to take her statement. They kept telling her they would get back to her and have not done so to this day.
6-Martin is dead from gun shot to his chest. He has no identification on him.(It took police 24 hours to report his death to his father because of that)
quote
That's expected when a body not from the area has no ID. Did his Dad start calling the Police when he didn't come home that evening?
I'm not sure on the state law on this but it could be 24 hours because he was a teenager.
7-Zimmerman is seen with his hands on the back of the body. He then stood up and seemed to be grabbing his head in disbelief and shock. He did not respond when asked several times what he was doing there. Finally he tells the witnesses to call 911.
quote
I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Should he have been dancing? He just shot and killed a guy.
The body was face down on the ground with the victims arms folded under it. Zimmerman was seen seemindly holding the body down.
What is not known is where exactly did this confrontation start,
quote
My assumption is that it started when he called the police, hence the Police call.
So Zimmerman was facing Martin when he called the police?
who initiated it,
quote
Seriously? Are you just throwing a bunch of crap against a wall to see what will stick?
Yes, I am serious as one cannot claim self defense if they start the confrontation. That would be a license to kill.
what was said,
quote
Once again, there should be tapes since Zimmerman was on the phone with the Police.
He wasn't went the confrontation and shooting occured. He hung up on them before that moment so there is no record of what he said to Martin.
who threw the first punch,
quote
I can make an educated guess there, one guy has no marks from being punched, and the other needed stitches, who hit who?
Well you must have a direct connection to the coroner, as this information has not been revealed. As for needing stiches were did you get that information? Zimmerman refused medical treatment.
when did Zimmerman pull out his gun,
quote
I'm not sure of that, but according to yet another news story I watched there was a fight for the gun, and Martins hand was around the barrel, we won't know exactly until the full report is released.
I agree, this is not known at the present and is an important piece of information.
was it's safety on,
quote
I'm really not sure why you even want to know that unless you think Martin went for the gun yourself.
You mustn't be a gun owner nor a responsible one if you don't know what the answer to that question is. You don't carry a gun with the safety off unless you intend to shot right away. Your not even supposed to put your finger on the trigger unless you are ready to discharge the weapon. If the safety was off, Zimmerman was ready to shoot to kill as soon as possible.
where on his body was he wearing it,
quote
It was in it's holster.
Again this is a fact that has not been revealed. He could have approach Martin with his gun out and ready to fire.
was it visible before the confrontation or concealed, or did he already have it out?
quote
It was concealed, if it wasn't there would be a ton of stories about the crazy guy chasing a kid waving a gun around.
If the gun was properly concealed how would Martin know to go for it? He wouldn't have known that Zimmerman had a gun and if he did know this, why would he try to approach him to fight him for it?
We know where this ended and the result. We also know that it would not have happened if Zimmerman had stayed in his vehicle, kept his distance, and wasn't armed. The way he was talking to the 911 operator made it seem like he was setting up a defense for what he ultimately did.
quote
Or perhaps he was just doing the job he volunteered to do, protect his neighborhood.
So his job was to shoot alledged trespassers in the neighborhood before finding out if they lived there?
The bottom line is that no one should get a free pass for killing another. Zimmerman should be tried for what he did. Maybe then all the facts will come out and justice can be served.
quote
So you think he's getting a free pass for killing someone? Lets see, there is a price on his head, people are betting that he won't live another month, and he has to live with the guilt of having killed someone for the rest of his life. Do you think that is a free pass for defending himself?
Unless he is tried for what he did, yes, he is getting a free pass. He could hide till people forget who he is or move away to where he isn't known.
quote
I think that the only "fact" right now is that the media, and the civil rights groups are using this as an excuse to make money at the expense of an innocent mans life. (And this is true no matter who is found to be the guilty party.) And suckers everywhere are buying into it hook line and sinker.
So Zimmerman did not kill Martin and is innocent? Innocent of what?
quote
The Media has already started back peddling, because not enough people bought the line of bull they have been pushing. There has been enough evidence out that everyone in here should at least wonder if Zimmerman isn't just being railroaded so that a few people can make money. I'd be ashamed of myself if I thought like you do on this, and instantly want someone that very well could be innocent to die, very ashamed. Brad
I don't want him to die, I want him to face justice, so we can all find out what really happened and why a 17 year old boy had to die at his hands. Don't be ashamed for me, be ashamed for him and what he did. I am not ashamed for wanting justice to be served and you are assuming something else.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 03-27-2012).]
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. And a woman who wears provocative cloths is to blame if she gets raped.
The implication here is that one should just never get involved. I suppose you guys would have the same opinion about a neighbor who sees someone suspicious eyeballing your house while you're on vacation?
I'd be OK with the neighbor calling the police. Not packing a weapon, getting into a fight and shooting somebody. I guess you'd be OK with a neighbor seeing somebody eyeballing your house and then shooting somebody for eyeballing your house? And, I thought I grew up in a rough hood.
I buy the self-defense thing only IF Zimmerman was non-confrontational (which will never be proven). I'm not saying he was wrong in this shooting, but his following Martin was an unnecessary contributing factor in an avoidable situation.
A neighborhood watch is just that. You watch and report. I understand the "rules" for Zimmerman's neighborhood watch included not packing a gun. So, perhaps,the case turns from watching to "stalking with a weapon?" When I worked for the Illinois Department of Corrections, we used to take inmates down into gang infested Chicago neighborhoods (their home-turf) that I would not have gone into without Smith and Wesson on my side. There's something about a weapon that allows you to do what you'd NEVER consider doing without the weapon. It's easy to be "bad" with a weapon; anybody can pull a trigger. If somebody who was not obviously a police man was clearly following me around while talking on a cell-phone, I would not interpret it as an act of kindness, but rather an act of aggression. In the end, they both made bad decisions; one is dead and one will be looking over his shoulder for as long as he lives. I used to "man-sit" with hundreds of guys who spent a thousandth of a second making a mistake and and the most productive years of their lives paying for it.
Although the police department has taken heat, I don't know how anybody could call them racist after they performed CPR on Martin to try to bring him back. Just follow the money.
I buy the self-defense thing only IF Zimmerman was non-confrontational (which will never be proven). I'm not saying he was wrong in this shooting, but his following Martin was an unnecessary contributing factor in an avoidable situation.
That is the crux that this entire case will turn on. Now, following Martin may have been a bad idea, but I've not seen anything to suggest it was in any way illegal. What will matter is how they first interacted. Who was the aggressor? As I understand FL law, the presumption is that Zimmerman is presumed innocent and the shooting was justified unless there is evidence to the contrary. (that whole innocent until proven guilty thing)
So there will have to be evidence that Zimmerman was the aggressor or the shooting was not justified to bring charges against him. It is not up to Zimmerman to prove his innocence or that the shooting was justified.
Well if you are supposed to "watch" and the subject moves aren't you going to have to "follow" him in order to "watch" him. One of the reports I read said that he wasn't "on duty" and that might explain why he was packing. I'm sure we will get a lot more information and misinformation before this thing is over and we may never know what actually happened. Fascinating though. Not just for finding out what actually happened, but how the nation reacts.
Well if you are supposed to "watch" and the subject moves aren't you going to have to "follow" him in order to "watch" him. One of the reports I read said that he wasn't "on duty" and that might explain why he was packing. I'm sure we will get a lot more information and misinformation before this thing is over and we may never know what actually happened. Fascinating though. Not just for finding out what actually happened, but how the nation reacts.
Agreed. Although, I've never heard of a community watch that has duty shifts. It's just neighbors living in the neighborhood keeping an eye out for trouble. So if at any time Zimmerman saw something or someone suspicious, he would reasonably follow up on it. (I don't know the specifics of his neighborhood watch, though.)
Many people who have concealed carry permits carry their weapon all the time (or as often as practical). The firearm you left at home is useless.
The 5 witnesses to whatever they witnessed have not been identified or anything else for the same reason Zimmerman is in hiding. They fear repercussions from those who think this was just a murder. Wouldn’t you not want your name plastered all over the news if you were a witness?
So far all anyone knows is what we have read in the newspaper and on the TV and net. What we know for sure is that the shooter has a concealed carry permit. If you have one you generally are carrying no matter where you are or what you are doing unless you can’t because of those wonderful no gun areas we have. If the police release more info I will believe that before anything else I read. This is becoming the biggest race fiasco in recent history because of the media and conflicting reports.
He did not call 911 when he called the police he called a non-emergency number, those are still recorded. He was the neighborhood watch captain, if he was on patrol or not he had a concealed carry permit so he had every right to be carrying.
We have not heard what the 5 witnesses have said to the police as of yet, only that there were 5 witnesses and not how much that they witnessed of the confrontation. We can only speculate that they did or didn’t see the entire confrontation. They may have, they may not we don’t know now do we?
Zimmerman have injuries to himself and so far we don’t know what the dead kid has for injuries other than the gun shot that killed him so we don’t know who did what until the 5 witnesses statements are released. The DA has chosen not to file any charges yet, so he has more info than we do and if he had any that would have made this more than self-defense he would have charged him by now. I would hope.
The kid is dead, that is tragic and it would have been just as tragic if Zimmerman was dead. So far I have heard nothing about what the kid had in his possetion, nothing has been said if he had anything other than skittles and a cell phone. We do know he was on top of the man beating his head to the ground.
What would you do if someone was pounding your head to the ground repeatedly? Would you just lay there and let the kid keep pounding your head to the ground? Or would you fight back?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. And a woman who wears provocative cloths is to blame if she gets raped.
The implication here is that one should just never get involved. I suppose you guys would have the same opinion about a neighbor who sees someone suspicious eyeballing your house while you're on vacation?
Not quite sure what you are trying to say with your first bit of ....whatever, but for the second line, yes one should get involved, just not over involved.
So because Zimmerman placed himself into this predicament by following Martin he no longer has the right to self defense? That is what your saying isn't it? I disagree.
For me the question is who initiated the physical confrontation. None of us know this at this point and we may never know it but if Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation then its murder. If Martin initiated the physical confrontation then its self defense.
Self defense, yes, lethal force, NO. At least not in Missouri.
Instructor gave a different situation, yet interesting Say you come up to two guys fist fighting, and one is beating the crap out of the other. You step in to save the beaten guy and the other guy starts beating the ever living crap out of you, you can not use lethal force to protect yourself, as you were the instigator of the now new situaion at hand THAT YOU STARTED. Shoot him and you will get charged with Murder and can not use the stand your ground defense.
Now, if Zimmerman was minding his own business and Martin came up to him and started the fight, he has the right to defend with deadly force. If he got out of a vehicle and followed, or started out following him on foot, knowing this to be a potential problem from the start, he put himself in this situation, and will likely burn for it. You can not put yourself into the situation by choice in Missouri. Florida, not sure, but we will just have to see how this all plays out in the long run as we are not going to solve anything here.
Self defense, yes, lethal force, NO. At least not in Missouri.
Instructor gave a different situation, yet interesting Say you come up to two guys fist fighting, and one is beating the crap out of the other. You step in to save the beaten guy and the other guy starts beating the ever living crap out of you, you can not use lethal force to protect yourself, as you were the instigator of the now new situaion at hand THAT YOU STARTED. Shoot him and you will get charged with Murder and can not use the stand your ground defense.
Now, if Zimmerman was minding his own business and Martin came up to him and started the fight, he has the right to defend with deadly force. If he got out of a vehicle and followed, or started out following him on foot, knowing this to be a potential problem from the start, he put himself in this situation, and will likely burn for it. You can not put yourself into the situation by choice in Missouri. Florida, not sure, but we will just have to see how this all plays out in the long run as we are not going to solve anything here.
beat me to it. I guess if these guys had their way we would be to blame if something bad ever happens because we didn't just stay home, or cower in fear in the corner where it's safe.
Well, if you are going to go around looking for trouble just to shoot someone, then yes you should stay home.
Looks like Zimmerman was trying to be a vigilante, and that is not how conceal carry works.
Kevin
[This message has been edited by Lambo nut (edited 03-28-2012).]
Self defense, yes, lethal force, NO. At least not in Missouri.
Instructor gave a different situation, yet interesting Say you come up to two guys fist fighting, and one is beating the crap out of the other. You step in to save the beaten guy and the other guy starts beating the ever living crap out of you, you can not use lethal force to protect yourself, as you were the instigator of the now new situaion at hand THAT YOU STARTED. Shoot him and you will get charged with Murder and can not use the stand your ground defense.
Now, if Zimmerman was minding his own business and Martin came up to him and started the fight, he has the right to defend with deadly force. If he got out of a vehicle and followed, or started out following him on foot, knowing this to be a potential problem from the start, he put himself in this situation, and will likely burn for it. You can not put yourself into the situation by choice in Missouri. Florida, not sure, but we will just have to see how this all plays out in the long run as we are not going to solve anything here.
Kevin
Because your instructor in Missouri knows more about the self defense laws in Florida than the Florida DA does.
Appeals to authority only work if the authority you cite is really an authority on the specific topic being discussed. Your instructor isn't and the Florida DA that chose not to file charges is.
Because your instructor in Missouri knows more about the self defense laws in Florida than the Florida DA does.
Appeals to authority only work if the authority you cite is really an authority on the specific topic being discussed. Your instructor isn't and the Florida DA that chose not to file charges is.
That is why I said in "Florida, not sure, but we will just have to see how this all plays out in the long run."
As for my instructor knowing the self defense laws in Florida better then the Florida DA, I'm going out on a limb and say more then likely. For what it is worth, my instructor, Tim Oliver along with Kevin Jamison, a lawer from Kansas City wrote the paperwork up for the Missouri laws for conceal carry that had to go through the senate. This after reviewing the current laws in other states and was 13 years in the making. So yes, I will stick with he knows what the Hell he is talking about.
Thought I'd jump back in here just for a second...
All this talk about the political/community might and supposed wealth of the "New Black Panther Party" is absurd.
I mean REALLY absurd.
Since the deaths of Fred Hampton in 1969 and finally Huey P. Newton in 1989, you could probably fit all of today's Black Panthers (new OR old for that matter) in a Chrysler minivan and I can't think of anyone stupid enough to fund a few Black guys in military garb to the tune of $1K.....much less $10K or 1 MIL....not in this day and age. A lot of people who grew up in the community during that time giggled when they saw the tape of the same two guys in front of the polling place in Philly (which was in a predominately minority public housing development, BTW....I can assure you....Black folks weren't intimidated by them in the least) played over and over again while some talking head babbled on about the "vast" number of men that comprised the "New Black Panthers."
Hell, Chaka Khan used to distribute newsletters for the Black Panthers when she was 15......she's 58 now....and she'd be the 1st to tell you that movement died in the early 80's. US Congressman Bobby Rush WAS a Black Panther in the 60's and I doubt HE would even believe the hype. The plain and simple fact is "assimilation overtook revolution" a long time ago, fellas...regardless of the guys you see on Fox.
Okay, pardon the interruption........carry on.
[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 03-28-2012).]
Are you saying that the "bounty" is a bluff? If it is, do you think that everyone in the Black community who might otherwise be "motivated" will recognize it as such?
Please pardon me for being naive. Serious questions.
Self defense, yes, lethal force, NO. At least not in Missouri.
Instructor gave a different situation, yet interesting Say you come up to two guys fist fighting, and one is beating the crap out of the other. You step in to save the beaten guy and the other guy starts beating the ever living crap out of you, you can not use lethal force to protect yourself, as you were the instigator of the now new situaion at hand THAT YOU STARTED. Shoot him and you will get charged with Murder and can not use the stand your ground defense.
Kevin
That's not how I read Chapter 563 of the Missouri Revised Statutes "Defense of Justification"
Use of force in defense of persons. 563.031. 1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:
(1) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his or her use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided:
(a) He or she has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened use of unlawful force; or
(b) He or she is a law enforcement officer and as such is an aggressor pursuant to section 563.046; or
(c) The aggressor is justified under some other provision of this chapter or other provision of law;
(2) Under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the person whom he or she seeks to protect would not be justified in using such protective force;
(3) The actor was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a forcible felony.
2. A person may not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself, or herself or her unborn child, or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony;
(2) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person; or
(3) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned or leased by an individual claiming a justification of using protective force under this section.
3. A person does not have a duty to retreat from a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining. A person does not have a duty to retreat from private property that is owned or leased by such individual.
4. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.
5. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section. If a defendant asserts that his or her use of force is described under subdivision (2) of subsection 2 of this section, the burden shall then be on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the use of such force was necessary to defend against what he or she reasonably believed was the use or imminent use of unlawful force.
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.
beat me to it. I guess if these guys had their way we would be to blame if something bad ever happens because we didn't just stay home, or cower in fear in the corner where it's safe.
